Talk:Souliotes/Archive 4

Suli according to George Finlay

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

By George Finlay

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

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

Sorry for copy-pasting. This time, I'll write the reference from G. Finlay directly into the wiki page. Guildenrich 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tendencious Greek nacionalism

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

The lead you try to change, has been agreed by both Albanian (such as Balkanian) and Greek contributors. The arguments seem to be really 'empty'. I ask you to continue to discuss maters on a civilized way, without mentioning fictious scenarios.Alexikoua (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the previous blind rv. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New Lead?

There are over 15 sources who say differently. As for M.V. Sakellariou. Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization. the title of the book is very NPOV (just like his other work Macedonia, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization)‎ moreover he says they were (Greeks+greeks), while for Ruches you know mine and others opinion [1]. The lead was discussed many times [2] [3] [4] and you Alexi yourself agreed : Ok, we have it. Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC). No need to open again useless debates. Rv to previous consensual version Aigest (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The origin section in this discussion page has reached a concensus some months now. I proposed an adjustment on the lead since we have additional specific source about the ethnic composition.

Suppose you are kidding me about Sakellariou. The book is published by by Ekdotike Athenon, the most distinguished publishing house in Greece [[5]], on historic issues,awarded by several Greek and International Institutes (Paris Inst. etc., Academy of Athens). Off course if someone says '4,000 years of Greek culture and civilization' it doesn't mean that this specific region was only and pure Greek but on the contrary it was also part of several other civilizations and cultures.

Aigest: You claim that a totalitarian Albanian work of 1961 (Cabej's in Origin of Albanians), that claims Doric-Albanian linguistic link is NPOV, while at the same time you question an internationally recognized publishing house that does not support a pure Albanian version of Souliote's ethnicity. Suppose that this is the definition of an POV editor.Alexikoua (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated above, apart the POV title of the book itself, it states that they were Greeks and Hellenized Albanians so practically they were all Greeks (Greeks+Greeks) to be used as a reference for mixing is pure speculation. Their ethnicity and integration was thoroughly discussed and agreed above. No need for such debate anymore. Aigest (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The former lead said "ethnically Albanians that were assimilated in the Greek nation". This means they were initially Albanian and they became 'hellenized' (Greek). So, you question the past lead too, but without bringing sources and arguments.

The new lead which I proposed in origins section is "ethnically mixed Albanian- Greek that were assimilated in the Greek nation". Quiet reasonable since we have additional sources here (3 now but there are some more).

I wonder how you base a pure Albanian origin version, only saying that part of a past discussion concluded that. There have been a number of several additional books added in the meantime. New material can make us reconsider initial thoughts and readjust the appropriate sections.

I suggest you to be more careful on characterizing works and publishers awarded by distinguished institutions. And most important, we are not talking about research done during Stalinist regimes in which you insist on Origin of Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It look like you still don't get it. First the issue has been discussed before and a consensus has been reached, that means that you should try to get a consensus here before making changes to that part. Secondly the sources don't say what you claim, leaving aside discussed Ruches both say the same thing they were practically Greeks+Greeks (what do they mean with hellenized Albanians, surely not Albanians). As for your suppossed NPOV Sakeriollu he was based on Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos a supporter of Megali idea "The Megale Idea continued to be an intellectual as well as a political concept. The work of the historian Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos shows how ideas underlay politics." Link [6] for which slavs were the national enemies of Greeks because they attacked Byzantium [7] or the creator of the irredentist ideology, [8] Furthermore the book of Miller which says the precise thing based on Paparrigopoulos is of begining of XX century don't try to put it as new source. And adding further these supposed new sources were presented on June here [9] while Miller here [10] discussed and no consensus was reached on them. Why do you put them forward as new ones? Aigest (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Souliotes#Origin_section, it was discussed before. Paparigopoulos was a distinguished professor in Greece in mid 19th century. Your example is really weak since:

• 'In 1843 Paparrigopoulos refuted a German paper claiming that the present Greek population was descended from Slavs and Albanians'. Suppose this is something that present academic community somewhat agrees with Paparigopoulos.
• [[11]] Opposing Fallmerayer (who is today questioned) does mean he is nationalist and pov? You seem realy to have comfused things.
• [[12]]. Continuity with antiquity. Why should it mean irredentist and pov?
• About Miller I remind you that the reason he was excluded was that:

"William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927 contains no bibliography, thus does not fulfill WP:RS."

All the sudden on page 508 [[13]] the book contains bibliography, and it is a lot, so it fullfils wp:rs. So the source is no new but it was misunderstood (accidentally?) by some users in the past, and off course it deserves to be part of the article again.

To sum up, we have a research of the 19th century which is widely adopted and expanded on present bibliography and off course this is the definition of npov. Even when Paparigopoulos was 'nationalist' his view is accepte by present bibliography, and by publishers awarded by international institutions.

Moreover Greek+hellenized Albanians doesnt make Greeks+Greeks, this is simple logic that it means people of both Albanian+Greek origin.

So the counter-arguments are really not convincing. Especially when the same editor pretends that a stalinist regime cencored 1961 work is wp:rs, in Origin of Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 18 sources, I repeat 18 sources that verify souliotes as purely Albanian, and more importantly Cham Albanian. Even greek historians such as Gerolymatos, Biris and Babinotis never contest the ethnic origin of Souliotes. The national greek tv channel ET3 had a documentary about Souliotes narrated by Mamalakis which is availabe online all over the place, where it's clearly stated that soulitoes were Albanian and spoke no greek whatsoever. This should be an automatic non-issue, yet tendentious nationalistic greek editors keep adding their little quirks, by putting up inventions such as souliotes were mixed or whatever. This has to stop immediately.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua, do not EVER touch my comments anymore! You have gone wayyyyyyyyyyyy to far with this!--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua, the understanding of ethnicity in general and in the Balkans in particular has evolved quite a bit in the last 25 years, let alone since the 19th century! No serious historian today would write history based on Paparrigopoulos (or Gibbon or Fallmerayer or Frazer) except for the history of ideas. --macrakis (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Macrakis, the fact is that this claim (mixed origins) is adopted and expanded by at least 3 modern sources. Moreover, you forgot that especially Sakelariou book, is awarded by a number of distiguished institutions (Greek&international), which makes it clearly wp:rs. So, pleaze read all the arguments carefully, if you have something else that clearly proves a purely Albanian origin, you are welcomed, but Balkans was always a place of multinational communities.Alexikoua (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the source Alexikoua brought. It is published by a reputable publisher. The Albanian editors' main argument against seems to be their dislike of the title, which is really not a valid argument against it. --Athenean (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference from the book of Sakelariou simply states Paparrigopoulos opinion. As for that we have also Finlay opinion, being british it was supposedly more NPOV than Paparrigopoulos(which his nationalistic views make him less credible than Finlay) moreover Finlay was a first eye witness he did met Souliotes and participated in the Greek revolution and although seen as philellenic [14] his testimony was very clear on Chams. Aigest (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The diferrence is that Finlay is ignored by modern historic community. Moreover, Paparigopoulos was a Souliot witness too: both in Epirus and Greece of that time (most distniguished Souliote leaders in 1850s were officers of the Greek army that time, while they participated in the revolt of 1854 in Epirus against the muslim pro-Ottoman authorities (Turkish and Albanians).Alexikoua (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Things make sense in 1821 they were Albanians, a generation later in 1850 they begin to integrate or being assimilated, just like in the version of consensus above. As for Finlay his view [15] different from Paparrigopoulos [16] which was followed by Greek historians till 80 [17], now it depends on new generation of Greek historians which model to follow [18]. Again the consensual version makes more sense Aigest (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest: the main Souliote leaders of the 1854 uprising were exactly the same as the ones in 1821-1830, see Kitsos Tzavelas, Notis Botsaris (the leaders of the two major clans after Markos' death)... We are talking about the same persons. Most important, nothing proves that they've changed ethnicity during this period. Morover the racial purity of the Souliotes has never proved, and a mixed version makes things reasonble (bilingual folksongs etc) Alexikoua (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Paparrigopoulos and those based on him and Sakellariou are not reliable sources. Gimme a break, there are more than 15 sources that prove they were just Albanians, who were later assimilated. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New lead 02

@Alex: maybe or maybe not. First we don't know how he calls Tzavelas Botsaris or other leaders and also maby they were considered a hellenized Albanians 30 years after the revolution and their heroic deeds for the Greece independence. What remains is the fact that before and during revolution of 1821 they were called simply Albanians and thirty years later hellenized Albanians and this fits perfectly well the consensus of the paragraph :Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike ethnically Albanian community, that became integrated into the Greek nation. Aigest (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I did not see the new lead! I think it is fallacious to state Albanian-Greek and assimilated into the Greek nation. Both of them state the same thing. This seems to be a copy-edit problem. Why state the same thing twice? —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because you(User:Alexikoua) as a Greek nationalist want to promote your nationalist Greek beliefs(as an Albanian nationalist would do the same in a similar issue). That' s the whole point. I don't know how this works, but since there is no "consensus", the new lead proposed by Alexikoua is invalid, isn't it? --Kreshnik25 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, I found it [19]. So, the proposal of User:Alexikoua must be discussed before "implemented". I will revert it, according to the cycle. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(Ignore trolling) Aigest: ethnic assimilation is a procedure that lasts several generations, and maybe centuries. How you understand the concept that the same community, with the same clan leaders and in majority the same members underwent a brief assimilation procedure just in 24 years (1830-1854)? Kitsos Tzavelas was an Albanian in 1829 but became Greek in 1854? (same with Notis Botsaris, Nikolaos Zervas, Athanasios Koutsonikas, Lambros Zikos).

It could be only through brainwashing or Confabulation. Concepts that I've seen only in science fiction movies like Total Recall.Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian-Greek - assimilated into the Greek nation repeats the same thing twice. Removing one of them does not change the stated argument, and keeps a clear NPOV with which all editors will be satisfied. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me here Alexikoua, if I'm wrong, but your question is pure WP:OR. I don't know the rules very well, but your question fits 100% WP:OR. "That can't be it, because I say so.-Alexikoua". yep yep yep, WP:OR.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"The SULIOT dance of death. Rather than capitulate to notorious Balkan warlord Ali Pasha, the ALBANIAN SULIOTS chose suicide. They danced in concentric circles; at the end of each revolution one jumped, until all fallen to their deaths."-by Andre Gerolymatos. I am sure our greek editors know this historian very well. Nationalistic POV sources have no place in this article when there are more than a dozen sources that clearly state Souliotes were Albanian.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to put away the ethnically something... it's a bit complicated. I agree to add Flemming's definition instead.Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because it doesn't say "greek"???No way!--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't talked to you (I_P. as well), my proposal concerns real contributors here.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the answer for the extreme nationalist Alexikoua about the assimilation of Souliotes. "When the Albanians excelled in activities highly regarded by the Greeks, the latter had no difficulty accepting them as part of their own nation. The most obvious example of example of gradual integration of ALBANIANS into the national consciousness of the Greeks are the Ydraioi and the SOULIOTES." The Eve of the Greek Revival: British Travellers' Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-Century Greece by Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, p. 112. http://books.google.com/books?id=RrYOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA112&dq=albanian+souliotes#v=onepage&q=albanian%20souliotes&f=false --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See? you agree with me they were assimilated centuries before 1821.Alexikoua (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again you seem to not understand English. I says nothing about them being assimilated centuries ago. It says then when it suited the greeks to call them greek, such as during the start of the anti-ottoman revolution when the Souliotes started fighting against the ottoman administration, then they did so. But even then it's clear that they were pure Cham Albanians and not a mix of Albanians and Greeks.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing for Aigest and AnnaF. (ignore trolling): The Flemming version, which is an 'rs' work I believe, seems to be ok. What do u believe?Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The only trolling that needs to be ignored here is yours. The only version that Aigest and Anna agree to, as well as me, is the version that was in place when the article was protected before you popped up with your ultranationalist sources.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The initial lead is rejected even by flemming, we (I'm talking about wiki's contributors) must be carefull about pure national versions.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

2 hours ago, you strongly supported "mixed Albanians-Greeks", and now that you can't implement that, you just want their ethnicity removed. Well, 15 sources prove that they were Albanians.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion above (on both sides) assumes the "Greek" and "Albanian" ethnicity are well-defined, mutually exclusive, and timeless categories, and closely related to the modern nation-states. None of these things is true in general about ethnic groups, and is certainly not true about Greeks and Albanians in the 18th-19th centuries. You all need to read a bit in modern historical and anthropological literature (preferably by uninvolved third parties), for example Anastasia Karakasidou's "Essential Differences: National Homogeneity and Cultural Representation in Four Recent Works on Greek Macedonia" (Current Anthropology 41:3 (June 2000) doi:10.1086/300146 full text for subscribers). The Fleming work—which everyone seems to be OK with—is also clear that ethnic identities were fluid and overlapping at this period and were manipulated by all the actors involved. --macrakis (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's right boys and girls, let's all read 'anthropological' works where political ideologies have no bearing on issues of ethnic identity (save Marxism).

Well, structuralist as well as postmodernist views show that language is one of the main, if not the main factor on identity and nationality. As language contains also the culture of the people who used the language. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If language is such a prevalent cultural force defining identity/nationality, then why aren't we all kissing the Union Jack, eating fish'n'chips and worshipping portraits of Margaret Thatcher? Let's all pretend that language adoption doesn't exist.

I agree with Macrakis, Flemming is quite clear about origins and stuff [[20]] 'were of Albanian origin but usually were grouped seperatelly'. About the assimilation: it seems that they were part of the Greek nation (hellenized) in the Greek War of Independence, since Flemming says they were Greek-speaking during the wars with Ali p. 99 (ca. 1800)-as per linguistic fact stated by Annafabiano. ([[21]] another book about the already assimilated communities of Albanian origins+mentions Souliotes as intermixed with Greeks)

The past lead is wrong since the Souliotes remained a distinct community as part of the Greek nation (with their diaspora), and not just assimilated into it.

So we have Albanian origin and helenization. But this proccess started obviously before 1821. So, why not adopt Flemming? (the question concerns wiki contributors).Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Still. This article has a basic semantic error: The subject is AB, assimilated into B. When it could only state the subject is A assimilated into B. That was already a compromise - why make a double statement. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it didn't say of Albanian origin, but ethnic(ally) Albanian. The sentence as it was virtually said that it was always Albanian until it became integrated (lost its distinct community status-ceased to exist) in Greek nation. I suggest to change ethnically, to origin, as per Flemming.Alexikoua (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But, when they were identified as Souliotes they were still Albanian. The moment they got integrated into Greek nation they seized to be Souliotes and Albanian at the same time. —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. The moment they became part of the Greek nation (or when they spoke Greek as primary language according to Flemming, sometime before the wars with Ali) they continued to live as a distinct community. Even when they left their homeland, they had a strong diaspora and they didn't lost their identity as Souliotes: most of their leaders became distinguished military officers in the Greek army during the 19th century. The revolt of 1854 incited mainly by Souliot officers of the Greek army is an example that they still were considered Souliotes (had still the vision to unite their homeland with Greece). We have also Zervas' and Botsaris' family members as distinguished personalities in Greek society in 20th century too.

That's why Flemming is saying 'of Albanian origin' and not ethnic Albanians since they seized to exist as distinct community.Alexikoua (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex how can somebody be of Albanian origin and not be ethnic Albanian? That's sounds like a manipulative statement by using semantics and rhetoric to push your view. Souliotes and all Arvanites in Greece for the most part (meaning the general population) spoke no greek whatsoever at the time of the revolution and before it. They are clearly identified by all british travelers of the time as Christian Albanians, such as Lord Byron and his friend Hobbhouse. There are 15 sources which identify them as Cham Albanian, and the lead now looks silly since it says they were mixed and then it says they belonged to the branch of Cham Albanians. And oh yeah, you could side step us all you want, wikipedia is not your personal property and we will edit here and discuss here as much as we want wether your like it or not.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

'show that language is one of the main, if not the main factor on identity and nationality' this reads more like 18-19th century herderian german bullshit than 'postmodernism'(!!!!)87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

18 citations???87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

87.. there are 15 sources that prove they JUST Albanians, and Greek users try to change that by adding 3 sources from which 2 are Greek and another is based on Greek sources, to show they were mixed. They weren' t mixed, like it or not. It' s not about "racial purity" it' s about the FACTS. And the FACTS tell us they were JUST Albanians. There is NO consensus! --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

this is getting silly though...1 ref is enough87.202.4.77 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@Alex, I still think that the consensual version was very OK and NPOV. What are the known facts is that, 1 Souliotes were no originary people of that area, in the contrary their migration there together with their cattle, by other parts has been mentioned. 2. They came from some part of South Albania (their cham dialect it's an indicative argument)3 in Their wars against Ali Pasha and in the greek revolution period they were classified (first eye witness + books written) as simple Albanians. 4 Later they are referred as mixed or hellenized Albanians. So the original version Albanians which later become integrated (which really happened, they came from Albania, later they were integrated) makes more sense moreover the consensual version does not imply the time of their assimilation, (which of course happened someday) leaving aside that controversial matter. It depends on what you will refer to. If you were to speak for Souliotes from their beginning to their end of regional identity. This is the correct phrase. Aigest (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

George Finlay

What happened to the citation of George Finlay, a philhellene by the way?

A point of style

In normal editorial practice, as opposed to flamer practice, it is customary to cite each factoid with just the 1 reference. Not 15. This is contrary to basic style principles, clutters up the edit box, and creates the opposite effect to that it is trying to achieve. Just so you know. Moreschi (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing it Moreshi. But this lead is NOT a consensus, and it DID NOT become a consensus. 3 sources(2 Greek and 1 based on Greek ones) saying they were mixed, and 15 saying they were just Albanians who became later hellenized. Apart from being many edit-warring in turns the Greek users have no reasonable claims. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an anthropological approach should be adopted on the lead. The fluid identities as Macrakis stated were a fact. Off course the past lead was a misuse of a number of sources, making a weird wp:or result. For example Flemming explains with every detail the situation about this community, far from mentioning ethnic purity scenarios.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you discard 15 sources that prove they were just Albanians, and you are based on 3 from which 2 are Greek sources, to say they were "mixed Albanian-Greeks"? That is not reasonable. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you reasonable view about the number of the sources. Yet are they all RS and actually worthy sources? I mean, quality is over quantity adn the truth may be somewhere between all the sources we have. But I do not share your view about Greek sources. I mean, they may be Greek but still reliable, why is that not possible?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually User:Michael IX the White: there was a misuse of most of these 15 sources: Flemming for example nowhere says that they were pure Albanian: they were of Albanian origin and already Greek speaking the time of Ali Pasha (p.99).Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a WP policy, in disputed issues, to use non-biased sources WP:DR. A Greek author, though generally could be reliable, in issues like these can be considered biased. Consider if Albanian authors where to be referenced. International reliable sources are most effective. And as far as I can see most of them show that Souliotes were primarily Albanian. However, maybe it could be mentioned that this fact is blurry. And that there are authors who claim the Greek ethnicity of Souliotes. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I see one point that seems to be close to Annafabiano's approach:

• (primarily) Albanian origin.

And according to Flemming:

• hellenization (as per linguistic criterion), while they still existed as a distinct community.Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First things first: How about removing this sentence that became assimilated into the Greek nation. And leaving ethnically mixed Albanian-Greek as a consensus for the moment. Then, further on the text, (later) we could explain the many sources and claims. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree: Sure, this part offers no real information there. We will see how (or if) we can fit this on a seperate section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree:You have no sources anymore to support that. Revert by yourself Alexikoua to the old lead.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That confuses it even more. They were Albanians that were assimilated into the Greek nation. There is no controvercy about that. All reliable sources say that. Don' t promote something for which you have only 1 non-Greek source. And even that is based on Greek sources. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No Michael, we can't use the Greek or Albanian sources about these articles. They simply can' t be reliable on these matters. They will either be nationalist, or extreme leftist. On minor matters, like the birthplace or the year of a person's birth, it's ok to use them but not when it comes to ethnicity. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, you seem to be misquoting Fleming here is her book. And this is what she says: He had no particular interest in the Souliotes as Christians, and in fact it can be argued that he ought, culturally, to have facored them as being, like himself, of Albanian rather than Greek, Vlach, or Turkish descent. page 143. You can check for your selves. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? It says' Albanian descent (origin). On page 99 we have a somewhat more detailed description of them (Albanian origin+Greek speaking)Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The page that you refered to 99. is a footnote within the book. He is citing another author called Perraivos. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying before that it is based on a Greek author.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A footnote off course does not mean it is of minor importance, it is part of the same book (an explanation). Also, if he says below: 'for more details see Perraivos' this does not mean that Flemming has a diferrent opinion with this description (she just says that she finds him reliable on that topic). National identities were fluid by the way, so the ethnic one-sided versions seem to be far from reality.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't deflect. That means she used him as a source. Anything else is your personal opinion. Now you don't have even 1 source to support your opinion. Revert to the old lead by yourself and if you find reliable sources, let's discuss it again. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As I was not part of the previous consensus, I might not be the best "authority" on neutrality in this article. I am an Albanian, but do not care if Souliotes were or were not Greek-Albanian. However, it is obvious that saying ethnic mixture of Greek-Albanins seems pushing POV for Kreshnik and other Albanian editors. On the other hand removing it and leaving only that became assimilated into the Greek nation seems to be the same thing. If they were assimilated than they were Greek-Albanian. But since that was the previous consensus, why not let it that way? —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. All sources say the assimilated into the Greek nation. I'm Albanian and I do recognize that. Back to old lead. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've sliced up the lede a bit. May I point out that the ordinary reader of this encyclopedia will care most about what they were famous for (kicking Ottoman butt), and not whether they were Albanian, Greek, Albanian-Greek, or whatever. The most that can be uncontroversially obtained from source material is that they original spoke a dialect of a branch of Albanian and wound up speaking Greek, and since this is perfectly encyclopedic and adequate, I suggest we leave it at that. As Makacris has helpfully pointed out above, any precise attempt to pin down "ethnic group" is not going to get us anywhere, due to a very fluid situation at the time, the difficulty of defining ethnicity, and inevitable anachronism involved. Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I Agree with Anna's suggestion. "Mixed ethnic Greek-Albanian community" seems to be good, per Moreschi as well.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Anna just said to revert to the old lead where it said "Albanians assimilated to Greek nation". So you agree with that?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, could you leave it to "us"(Albanians and Greeks) to discuss it?Please revert yourself.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely must be joking. This corner of the encyclopedia is not a battleground for you people to fight in. That's actually policy. The more people with no axe to grind the better. Nobody would care, mind you, were it not for the tendency to produce horrifically messed-up pages with horrors like 15 inline cites in a row! Please. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version seems to be pretty neutral. I'm for this version Agree —Anna Comnena (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually no. Going over the source material there seems a much stronger argument for going with "ethnic Albanians, later hellenized". Given the fact that they unquestionably started off speaking an Albanian-derived dialect and only later acquired Greek language and customs, I'd say that any "mixed ethnic origin" implication would actually be wrong.

• But, given that I think this whole discussion is unnecessary and that our readers won't notice the lack of it - whereas they certainly will notice 15 cites in a row fouling up the page - I'd rather not include any such phrase at all. Moreschi (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with present lead too.Alexikoua (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They were of Cham Albania origin, and that should be stated, even with 15 sources if that helps clarifying it. I will add that, when I get the chance. I don't you think you will have any problem.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also Agree with the lead in its present form. Congratulations to Moreschi for sorting out this mess. It seems we have a consensus forming. Kreshnik, unless you present clearly reasoned arguments, your behavior risks becoming tendentious. --Athenean (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with that at all, but 1 source only please, preferably the most reliable and relevant out of the original gang of 15. That will be fine so long as it doesn't spark off another bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Kreshnik, please bear in mind the distinction between "were of Cham Albanian origin" - which I don't necessarily mind, although perhaps think we could do without - and "were ethnically albanian" - which is clearly going to be very controversial and isn't accurate anyway. Everyone else too, actually. Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, IF edit war starts know that I will not be responsible, there are 15 sources, I will add 1-2, and if they start reverting you deal with it. Athenean, no I will not be tendetious IF one you guys revert me because there were 15 sources stating they were of Cham Albanian origin, so IF you revert, YOU will be the one who will be "tendetious", ok? Moreschi, I will add "initially" or a similar term, don't worry. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake, we've reached at last a consensus. Does it have to be ruined? Excuse me Kreshnik? You talk about edit-war? We've had a perfect civilised discussion and achieved consensus. But you seem to like edit wars. Everyone please have a look at this: [22],[23] (diff % translation of what you said in a war "council" "Keshill")--Michael X the White (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Next time ask me about the translation. Keshill means "advice". Google translate ain't that good in translating Albanian. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is true, there is a difference between këshillë (advice) and këshill (council) and I am sure Kreshnik wanted to say advice not council. However, I do not think it is a good idea to 'persecute' him for all this. He is a new editor and should be encouraged to contribute. And Moreschi, removing were of Cham Albanian origin would be pushing POV. —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

a writer i forget who wrote somewhat epigrammatically that the suliots..."came as albanians lived as suliots and 'died' as greeks"...theres no need to forget or...refuse to accept...their alb 'birth' and gk 'death' but i think some focus should be put on their life87.202.4.77 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In Greece, the Vlachs are not Vlachs, they're "Vlach-speaking Greeks"; the Arvanites are "the Greek-Arvanites". I wonder, what is a Greek then? Guildenrich 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

do you think im going to discuss greek nationbuilding right here on this talk page...? try to be insulting somewehre else...87.202.60.49 (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Do not say "agree" to nothing without understanding. Those 2 have wanted to remove that Suliotes were Chams. Understand? Do not do again this error."--Michael X the White (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Turkey

I don't think this article is relate to Turkey, so I want to remove the wikiproject turkey box if you all agree. It has some relation to the Otoman empire but not to Turkey.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

i agree..otherwise we could add project russia too...87.202.4.77 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing it then. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Turk-albanians or Muslim Albanians?

Just another thing: If the term "Turk-albanians" is used in the Wikipedia to designate the Muslim Albanians, why then we don't call the Arvanites "Greek-Albanians"? Because they resent being called so? Actually, Muslim Albanians too, resent being called "Turk-Albanians". You can't call someone for ex. "Italo-Irish" or "Italo-Bavarian" just because he's Catholic. I propose deletting every "Turk-albanian" term appearing in the Wikipedia. Especially in the "Greek History" pages. Guildenrich (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

its easy turkalbanian can be replaced with muslim albanian except for primary sources where tourkalbanos can be rendered as 'turkalbanian (=muslim albanian)'..87.202.60.49 (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors consensus vs historical facts

@Alex, I still think that the consensual version was very OK and NPOV. What are the known facts is that, 1 Souliotes were no originary people of that area, in the contrary their migration there together with their cattle, by other parts has been mentioned. 2. They came from some part of South Albania (their cham dialect it's an indicative argument)3 in Their wars against Ali Pasha and in the greek revolution period they were classified (first eye witness + books written) as simple Albanians. 4 Later they are referred as mixed or hellenized Albanians. So the original version Albanians which later become integrated (which really happened, they came from Albania, later they were integrated) makes more sense moreover the consensual version does not imply the time of their assimilation, (which of course happened someday) leaving aside that controversial matter. It depends on what you will refer to. If you were to speak for Souliotes from their beginning to their end of regional identity. This is the correct phrase. Aigest (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now it came they were assimilated in 1789? Hahaha although according to your argumentation the father of Greek Nationalism Paparrigopoulos say they were mixed some 70 years later (1854)? We can have also a consensus that they were hellenized marsians but that is not the point. You guys are clearly OR-ing here Aigest (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ a b Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. Laurie Kain Hart. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. (article consists of 25 pages). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association "To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branchof the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian."
2. ^ Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
3. ^ Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
4. ^ a b Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north
5. ^ a b c d Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991
6. ^ Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0691001944, ISBN 9780691001944 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
7. ^ Gerolymatos, p. 141. "The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants."
8. ^ Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith"
9. ^ Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs. Greece: The Modern Sequel : from 1831 to the Present Edition: 2 Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2004 ISBN 185065462X, 9781850654629 p. 184 describes Souliotes as "Orthodox and partly hellenized Albanian tribes".
10. ^ Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality Edition: 2, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 0521439612, 9780521439619 p. 65
11. ^ NGL Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Published by Clarendon P., 1967, p. 31 "The Liaps held the area from Valona to Delvine and inland to Tepelene; the tsams from Delvine to Souli and inland to Ioannina and Pogoniani"
12. ^ Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, The Eve of the Greek Revival: British Travellers' Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-century Greece, Published by Taylor & Francis, 1990, ISBN 0415034825, 9780415034821
13. ^ William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, Published by Routledge, 1966, ISBN 0714619744, 9780714619743
14. ^ Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", pp. 118-119, 141 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963).
15. ^ Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142.

Aigest (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What is really weird on this situation is that the same users the claim that Greek-Albanian sources are defacto biased here, even if they are awarded by distinguished institutions, accept Albanian sources of the 60s (censored by a regime wich has been called 'European equivalent of North Korea' even by pro-Albanian authors) in Origin of Albanians.

Aigest: Please stop the blind reverts, and respect the concsensus:

• No superfluous sources.
• Anthropological approach (Fleeming, yes the lead is in accordance with Flemming, one of the most significant works about Souliotes&Ali Pasha, I'm sorry you misquote her).
• Fluid identities.Alexikoua (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, your point 3 is total wrong according to Flemming (p. 99, also says "they were classified seperately"). Agree with Moreshi, the bombardment of sources, (most of them are unreliable like 'Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division' no need to be placed here...) does only comfuse things and lead to wp:or conclusions.Alexikoua (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misused Paparigopoulos, he said they were of mixed origin, not they were mixed during the time of his research. Moreover you say they came from Albania, but the sources point both sw Albania (Laberia) and the plains of Thesprotia.Alexikoua (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are clear, the rest are just a personal opinion. They were at first of Albanian origin, and they became intergrated in the Greek nation. All sources agree on that. There is no issue. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And you cannot claim consensus if only one editor (me) agreed. Aigest and Kreshnik and other Albanian editors should also be heard. I might not be fully informed on the issue. But you seem to be abusing that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I really can't see an issue. Albanian origin + integration in the Greek nation. What's the problem? Sources agree about it.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you want another similar Fleming opinion in the same book? Here one The Albanian speaking Orthodox Souliotes resisted domination of all sorts, Orthodox and Muslim, Albanian and Greek speaking and their alliance shifted depending on who offered them the greatest chance of ongoing freedom p. 66 [24]. So much for the reference which is now on the lead on which the assimilation process before Ali is based. Aigest (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@Alex SW Albania is Albania, I don't see what difference it makes moreover I was directly referring to their southern Tosk dialect. Secondly if Paparrigopulos says that (You seem to have misused Paparigopoulos, he said they were of mixed origin, not they were mixed during the time of his research. ..Alexikoua (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)) than it is totally wrong since all publications agree they were Albanian tribes migrated there. Maybe someone else is misquoting him (Sakerioliu?) Moreover at your edit and reference [25] it is not saying origin but what they were at the moment "Most researches, whether Greeks or not, accept that the establishment of shepard groups in the region of Souli begun from middle 16th century. The first people came from southern Albania and the plains of Thesprotia. According to Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, Souliotes where 'a mix of Greeks and hellenized Albanians' ..." POINT ONE clearly Albanian origin POINT TWO At the time of Paparrigopoulos they were considered mixed. Why do you misuse your own sources Alex? Aigest (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another testimony ..From Finlay and Leake. It is strangely common thing to find persons talking of the Sulotes as if they had been true Greeks;they were Albanians pure and simple and had nothing to do with Greek nation beyond communication with the Greek Church... [26] The Albanian Suliotes ... [27] or the Albanian suliotes who decided to join the Greeks [28] That Greece Might Still Be Free: The Philhellenes in the War of Independence Author William St Clair Publisher Open Book Publishers, 2008 ISBN 1906924007, 9781906924003 again and again first eye witnesses, historians, publications etc confirm the same thing on Souliotes in Greek revolution 1821. The fact that they were at some point assimilated is true, but the fact that they up to 1850 publications by testimonials and historians are still described as Albanians is very crucial and none can deny it. Leake, Finlay, Lord Byron etc all these English travellers phillelenes, first eye witness and participant on the events say the same thing repeatedly again and again. Simply ignoring them and moreover OR controversial references (just like Felming quatation) is clearly a falsification and POV pushing. Aigest (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not excactly, before the 'integration', a language swift occured sometime time before Ali's wars, +they were grouped seperately, facts that are clearly stated in Flemming.

Anyway, I fully agree with Moreshi's initiative. Moreover, I doubt if someone rejects Flemming as an 'rs' (he was misused according to the past lead). Please try to respect concensus and not adopt Kreshnik25's threads to initiate edit-war. (He admitted it was the reason he showed up in wiki).

Aigest,are you sure about Flemming on p. 66 (why I believe it's Bearlein's view)? Let me help you in page 60 also says they were Greek-speaking (although regarded of Albanian origin). Bearlein's in p. 66 conclusion has nothing to do with Flemming who states twice they were Greek-speaking that time.Alexikoua (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest you didnt read the conversation about the bombardment of sources. We reached an concensus, so please respect the facts.Alexikoua (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Barley reference is used above author's opinion see yourself when Barley is mentioned semicolons used for Barley with the ref page number. Later comes the author opinion. In the page 60 also Despite the use of Greek Ali was regarded first and foremost as an Albanian. His use of greek didn't in any way make him Greek...Similarly the people of Souli, who both spoke Greek and practised a form of Orthodox Christianity, were not seen as Greeks but as Albanians. [29] again the understanding of the reference is clear. Both Ali and Souliotes were Albanians who could speak Greek and although Souliotes were orthodox and not muslims like Ali they were still considered Albanians. (The use of Albanian language by Ali and Souliotes as been taken for granted) Aigest (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua who's "We"? Moreschi said that the Albanian origin can be readded but just one-two sources must be used, so it doesn't get overflooded. And I agree that the origin must be added again. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The bombardment come as a result of this dispute. Where there are tons of sources who claim one thing, there it comes the OR claiming the opposite based sometime on the misuse and wrong interpretation of sources. Moreover it was you who brough t forward more "new" ones:) Aigest (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest: I said that a third part, User:Moreshi, was willing to help, and made an proposal for the lead [[30]], which has the agreement of the majority of the editors. A fact that you repeatedly not respect. Would you be kind and read first Flemming (p. 60 and 99).

Also you are vandalising the -Greek War of Independence- section [[31]], [[32]], by removing sourced material from Roudometof. Suppose you dont like that the Ali Pasha-Souliotes agreement was terminated the time the War of Independence broke out, but you still have to give an explanation on this... Alexikoua (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest: you agree with me, you said it on p. 60 'who both spoke Greek (the time of Ali) and practised a form of Orthodox Christianity'. I wonder what's the real problem here. It's on Flemming p. 66 and 99. So this means you agree with the lead.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Souliotes originally spoke their own sub-branch of Cham Albanian dialect and eventually became bilingual in Albanian and Greek. After their assimilation, sometime before the conflicts with Ali Pasha (1789)[1], a language shift to Greek occurred, while Souliotic became an extinct dialect.[2][3][4][5]

The problem is that you deny they were Albanian speaking of that time. This come from your misinterpretation of Fleming citations. The term assimilation before war on Ali Pasha clearly reflects this. Do you know the meaning of assimilation? Moreover the reference state clearly they were considered as Albanians, the same as Ali Pasha. You forget other reference which says they were Albanian speaking in page 66, made by the same author in the same book?! Generally at that time they are pointed out as Albanians (why should they be considered as Albanians according to Fleming? Could you answer that?). Apart clear reference to them as Albanian speaking The Albanian speaking Orthodox Souliotes resisted domination of all sorts, Orthodox and Muslim, Albanian and Greek speaking and their alliance shifted depending on who offered them the greatest chance of ongoing freedom p. 66 [33]. (bilingual I would say) Flemings bottom line is that they were considered Albanians were not seen as Greeks but as Albanians. p. 60 [34]. How they were considered Albanians after their assimilation?! Again the understanding of the Fleming's reference is clear.. No how is this reflected in the article?! Moreover from many first eye witnessed sources 1821 and beyond Souliotica was considered as Albanian dialect (more specifically as Cham). Clearly they were still speaking that time a cham dialect otherewise how could the witness tell?!. Your sentence of assimilation in 1789 clearly is way wrong. The fact remain they continued to speak Cham dialect even in 1821 (refs are clear) while your version does not imply that on the contrary it means that after their assimilation in 1789...their dialect became extinct, based on a source which clearly states 1 they were Albanian speaking 2 they were considered as Albanians 3 moreover the same source does not speak of assimilation in the period you claim Aigest (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem really comfused in your conclusions, making wierd cherry picking conclusions in compination with wp:synth. So,

• You insist on not seeing that Flemming says twice that they were (priparily) Greek speaking (I wonder why).
• However, you agree when she says that they were of Albanian origin... (I agree too)

Off course I'm not the one to judge if an author is partly right (?). Flemming as every 'rs' material should be considered entirely 'rs', and not just intentionally ignoring specific parts to extract pov conclusions.

Your arguments are really weak and contradicting, like that on Cabej's arguments in Origin of Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you denny?

• 1 Fleming claim they were "Albanian speaking Orthodox Souliotes" clearly after Baerley reference text which is cited within quotes and later it came Baerley refs (work page number) and after all that Flemings opinion? [35]
• 2 Fleming claim Souliotes were not seen as Greeks but as Albanians [36]

I don't want a "pure" version lead. The sources are clear and the problem was solved before, they were of Albanian origin and were later assimilated. The time it happens none knows. The fact they were seen as Albanians in that period (Fleming Finlay, Byron, Leak etc) and also the mentioning of their Tosk dialect (Finlay, Leak etc) means they still could spoke Albanian during Greek revolution of 1821. So both language and ethnic affiliation was clear for the authors. I am not pushing for that kind of version anyway. The old lead, Albanian later integrated (without specific date ) answers this question generally, otherwise I would have pushed for Albanian identity on 1821 and you Alexi on Greek identity on 1821. The first consensus was more accurate and NPOV. Aigest (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is excactly what you try with a series of wp:synth"

• Flemming says they were grouped seperately (p.99), not seen (by whom?) but were. A pure national version isn't appropriate. I didn't deny Albanian origin but this pure national version is just madness.
• About #1 you answered on #2, but you tried to hide it: (what kind of childish play is that?) in p. 60 says: 'spoke (primarily) Greek'. Conclusion about Bearlein's work belongs off course to Bearlein, plz do not comfuse other works with Flemming's clear views on the issue (p. 99, p. 60). Alexikoua (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, people. Do you really expect to pin down to within anything closer than 20 years when we can perhaps start regarding them as Hellenized with a faint degree of accuracy? Such a process of linguistic and cultural change takes generations, it isn't something that happens overnight. You can fight over this till you're blue in the face, it won't get you anywhere. In the meantime I will sit back, count the reverts, and swoop in with 3RR blocks and revert paroles when the dust has settled. You have been warned. Moreschi (talk)

Can I copy that as a quote :P? --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, be my guest. Your request at my talkpage has been dealt with, btw. Moreschi (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is this kind of OR accuracy I am talking about. While the previous version was more general in (Albanain origin later integrated) the new one is after their assimilation sometime before 1789...the language became extinct 1 Fleming speaks nothing of assimilation, 2 She clearly says they were seen as Albanians not Greeks (how in hell is that after their supposed assimilation?) 3 She clearly states that were Albanian speaking 4 Souliotes were reported as speaking Tosk Albanian during 1821 by many sources (just look above) 6 They were regarded as Albanians during Revolution of 1821. 7 As an indicie the same Marco Botsari wrote an Albanian-Greek dictionary in 1805. So clearly there could speak Albanian by that period and the language was not extinct. Actual version is pure OR as none of the scholars says that, not even Fleming. And that remains a fact. Aigest (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. 1 Flemming is clear about the linguistic shift, 2 she says they were grouped seperately, 3. Twice he states Greek speaking (do not comfuse other authors like Bearnstein) 4. 6. Trying again to reach wp:synth using numerous sources. 7. Writing a Greek-Albanian dictionary doesn't mean I'm primarily Albanian speaking (what kind of argument is this?)Alexikoua (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are neglecting all the evidence with a not-standing WP:SYNTH argument. 1) The sentence is about assimilation, Fleming says nothing on that 2) Fleming says they were seen as Albanians (you could not answer that possibly) 3) You wrongly interpret Fleming words as Barley ones Fleming claim they were "Albanian speaking Orthodox Souliotes" clearly after Baerley reference text which is cited within quotes and later it came Baerley refs (work page number) and after all that Flemings opinion? I am forced to copy all the note here so everybody can judge

Fleming p. 66 note 36) link [37] Fleming words in Bold, Baerlein in Italics.

36) This point however can be overstated. Baerlein for example writes: "Now, since we find a Greek people largely talking Albanian and thorough Albanians writings in Greek, it is obvious that the languages which were used in the daily life of the two sandjaks (sic) gave little indication of the people's political sentiments. Yet there have not been publicists who were rashly based their arguments on the habitual language. How far astray this leads one we shall see when contemplating the heroic Souliotes, who in Albanian shouted their defiance of the threatening Greek letters sent by Ali Pasha" (Baerlein 1968, 22). The Albanian-speaking Orthodox Suliotes resisted domination of all sorts, Orthodox and Muslim, Albanian and greek speaking, and their alliance shifted depending on who offered them the greatest chance of ongoing freedom.

Do you see that Fleming clearly express her opinion, while Bearlein opinion is above her? Aigest (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• If someone would believe your version (making an footnote explanation on Baerlein's work, Flemming's personal opinion), he soon will realise that something is really wrong on that because he states it twice (p. 60, 99) that they (primarily) spoke another language.
• Your pov version is obvious in the way that you partly understand a sentence like this: 'who both spoke Greek and practiced a form of Greek Orthodox Christianity, were seen (by whom?) not as Greeks but as Albanians (but apart from their Albanian origin they were grouped seperatelly in Ali time: p. 62).
• Again I say this isn't a national purity scenario, the topic concerns fluid identities.Alexikoua (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh god Alexi just stick to the simple questions will you?

• Is it true Fleming opinion is expressed on note 36 above?
• Is it true Fleming states The history of the Orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such overlap. p. 59 [38]
• Is it true Fleming says that as for 1821 When Ali in the last years of his life found himself opposed by the soultan's troops, he managed to bring to life an anti-Ottoman coalition, gaining the Souliotes support in part through an appeal to shared Albanian origin. p 59 [39]
• Is it true regarding their identification as a group linked to the territory Fleming states The souliotes who are of Albanian origin, but usually are grouped separately, also had ancestors who served as exemplars for the community of Souli. The rebel leaders Tzavellas and Botsaris, known, through folk ballads telling of the Souliot war with Ali, provided a model of resistance and a unifying image for Souliot villages. The Souliotes, whose rocky mountain strongholds were of virtually no economic importance, provide an excellent example of the way in which group identity in Ali's regions was linked to land. The Souliotes' sense of communal identity inherited in the land on which they lived. p. 62 [40]
• Is it true Fleming states that Fleming claim Souliotes were not seen as Greeks but as Albanians p. 60 [41]

Aigest (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ali Pasha

Ali was known for his being an Ottoman Pasha, for his brigand activity he was one of may thousands of his time. Why the need to put it here if he was known for his ottoman rule? Moreover Souliotes themselves were brigands, ransoming and pillaging nearby villages. What is the point of Ali background while we are talking about Souliotes and moreover their background is not mentioned? Aigest (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree: even if he was a brigand in his pre-Pasha life, it would be appropriate to avoid this word there.Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous. If Kapodistrias or Hitler was a brigand before ruled Greece or Germany do you seen any possibility to avoid mentioning that in their relevant articles? The argument that he was before become Pasha is just ridiculous. I cannot believe what I am reading! --Factuarius (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok let me put this simple. Did Souliotes, pillaged and ransomed nearby villages? Were they brigands? Were armatoli and kleft local bandits? Aigest (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok let me put this simple. What has to do what you tell with Ali being a brigand? --Factuarius (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because

• First Ali is known in history for his being an Ottoman Pasha. If it was for his previous activity he would have been one of the many tens of thousands of anonymous Albanian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian etc etc brigands who ravaged the Balkan area for centuries.
• Second this article is on Souliotes, if one needs more info on Ali Pasha there is a link with his name
• Thirdly if we were to mention Ali background it will be difficult to argue why Souliotes background is not mentioned. The had the same background as Ali, Klephts and Armatoli don't you think? Or do you think they lived out of thin air in a rugged terrain. Just like many highlanders they have done the same, pillaging for staying alive Aigest (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first two arguments are nonsense as I have already answered you (see above). The third sounds like: either you omit the bandit background of Ali or I say that Souliotes were also bandits. Well the answer is no. Bring refs and put it. The Ali's background stays. --Factuarius (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fleming quotations

Oh god Alexi just stick to the simple questions will you?

• Is it true Fleming opinion is expressed on note p. 66 note 36) link Fleming words in Bold, Baerlein in Italics.

36) This point however can be overstated. Baerlein for example writes: "Now, since we find a Greek people largely talking Albanian and thorough Albanians writings in Greek, it is obvious that the languages which were used in the daily life of the two sandjaks (sic) gave little indication of the people's political sentiments. Yet there have not been publicists who were rashly based their arguments on the habitual language. How far astray this leads one we shall see when contemplating the heroic Souliotes, who in Albanian shouted their defiance of the threatening Greek letters sent by Ali Pasha" (Baerlein 1968, 22). The Albanian-speaking Orthodox Suliotes resisted domination of all sorts, Orthodox and Muslim, Albanian and greek speaking, and their alliance shifted depending on who offered them the greatest chance of ongoing freedom. link [42]?

• Is it true Fleming states The history of the Orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such overlap. p. 59 [43]
• Is it true Fleming says that as for 1821 When Ali in the last years of his life found himself opposed by the soultan's troops, he managed to bring to life an anti-Ottoman coalition, gaining the Souliotes support in part through an appeal to shared Albanian origin. p 59 [44]
• Is it true regarding their identification as a group linked to the territory Fleming states The souliotes who are of Albanian origin, but usually are grouped separately, also had ancestors who served as exemplars for the community of Souli. The rebel leaders Tzavellas and Botsaris, known, through folk ballads telling of the Souliot war with Ali, provided a model of resistance and a unifying image for Souliot villages. The Souliotes, whose rocky mountain strongholds were of virtually no economic importance, provide an excellent example of the way in which group identity in Ali's regions was linked to land. The Souliotes' sense of communal identity inherited in the land on which they lived. p. 62 [45]
• Is it true Fleming states that Fleming claim Souliotes were not seen as Greeks but as Albanians p. 60 [46]

Aigest (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again the madness with Bearlein's footnotes, is it that tough to read Flemmings direct views on p. 60&99?
• The history of the Orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such overlap sure I agree. Were did you find there they were always Albanians? Overlap doesn't mean national purity.
• ...of Albanian origin but grouped separately... Agree you said it.

What's your real problem on that? You just gave the answers yourself:

• grouped seperately
• primarily Greek speaking in Ali time (twice stated by Flemming, nothing to do with footnote conclusion of Bearlein's work)
• Read please more carefully this quote you mentioned:

When Ali in the last years of his life found himself opposed by the soultan's troops, he managed to bring to life an anti-Ottoman coalition, gaining the Souliotes support in part through an appeal to shared Albanian origin.

What has Ali's appeal of shared origins to do with historical facts? Was Ali a historian or a political persnality of that time? If I was Ali I would make the same appeal, even if they were Shuahili, that's what diplomacy called and Ali was very good on that.Alexikoua (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't ignore the fact that we had fluid identities, and the most important assimilation procces doesn't take 20 years (1830 to 1854?)... this proccess lasts several generations... even centuries.Alexikoua (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

None spoke of national purity, please don't put words in my mouth.

• First it is interesting that you note that "madness of footnotes" but your own reference of page 99 here [47] is itself a footnote more exactly note 18 in page 99?! Why double standards? Moreover my direct question was is it true it was Fleming claim not Baerlein?
• Second is it true Fleming states The history of the Orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such overlap. p. 59 [48] no answer although she clearly calls them Orthodox Albanians.
• Is it true Fleming states that Fleming claim Souliotes were not seen as Greeks but as Albanians p. 60 [49] no answer to that again. So not only Fleming above calls them Albanians, they were seen as such in that period.
• Regional identity linked directly with community has been noticed before none doubt it here [50] the proposal and your own discussion.

From what it can be derived from Fleming we see that

• They were of Albanian origin p.62
• At time of Ali Pasha they were considered Albanians (she herself is directed to them in this way Orthodox Albanians see above)p.59
• They had regional identity related strictly to the territory of their villages p.62
• Bilingual (Greek +Albanian moreover Marco Botsaris' vocabulary is a clear sign of it) p.60,66,99
• They were found of independence from any outsider regardless of the religion or language p. 66
• The Albanian origin had some fashion on them p.59
• Fleming does not speak of Souliots assimilation, less more exact dates, this is your own conclusion which is OR naturally

The below paragraph proposed by BW before on 13:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

moreover but not less important

• There were other 15 sources which you simply ignored which practically maintain the above position

Aigest (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is even more pov than the previous one. Nothing about fluid identities, marking them as seperate group, just saying they were always Albanian until they seized to exist as community. A wp:synth concert that aims to a national purity scenario.

I wonder why we still talk about a concensus lead.Alexikoua (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you were the first one breaking the previous consensus, while the existing one is based on OR assumptions. As for the moment we can all agree on topics

• Souliot origin
• Souliot regional identity

while the time of their assimilation is very disputed this is left vague in the lead. More NPOV could not be. Aigest (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mode of transcription

Names like Foto Xhavella, Dhimo Drako, Tush Zerva, Kuconika, Gogë Danglli, Janaq Seho, Fotomara, Xhavara, Vejko, Pano, Zigur Dhiamadhi, Jorgo Buzbo, sound too Albanian. See for ex. the Albanian Interior Ministry's List of Voters, on the Internet. The Greek alphabet is unsuitable to most foreign names; good old George W. Bush suddenly becomes Tzortz Mpous! Cabot Lodge was referred to in the past by the Greek press as Kampot Lontz. Also, in Albanian, Kiafa & Kughi (Qafa & Kungji) have a meaning. Turkish-ottoman names must be spelled according to Turkish orthography. For example, Suleyman Tsapari is Suleyman Çapari. Haci bey, not Hadji bey... etc. Guildenrich 22:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Depends, if you are pro-Albanian everything seems Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, why don't we call him Hatzi Mpei? Guildenrich (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, this is the English Wikipedia. This means we use the form in which a particular name is best known in English. In historical context, that does very often mean an alternative transliteration than the one in current use by the respective language. Constantine ✍ 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua from my part I am pro-Russian and I want to change Tsakalov's name into Tsakaloff. He was evidently of Russian origin as the name indicates. (BTW your name is Alexikoua or Alexikova?)--Factuarius (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And I like to move Jeniffer Aniston to Anastasakis, because this was her initial family name.Alexikoua (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again. The Anastasakis name is of mixed origin: the Greek "Anastasi" (resurrection) and the English "kiss", thus technical breathing. You must stop Hellenizing everything you see around like the father Portokaloglou in the known movie. --Factuarius (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please bring back the concensus lead and stop playing. Else I will report you both!Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Report me? It was not me who change it. It was Aigest. I try to create a new consensus over their origin. If you don't like how is now, rv it to the old consensus, but the old one became ruined because of Aigest's edit so doesn't exist anymore. --Factuarius (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)