Talk:Sarakatsani

Quality of this page

Again, I deleted the phrase "in which residual Vlach language words and syntax can still be traced" because it does not make any sense. The definition of Greek language is sufficient for anyone interested in the lingustic details of the language.

I deleted the phrase "to some extend mixed with Aromanian words" because it has no meaning. It only implies that the Sarakatsani might have been speeking Aromanian at some point of time which is not the case. Besides, what language in the world is not mixed with words from other languages. Is Aromanian a pure language which does not include words from other languages? The Sarakatsani dialect is an idiom of Greek language which icludes words from many languages of their surrouding people. Turkish words, albanian words, even words from western european languages can be found as well as Aromanian words. Is this supposed to mean something? I dont think so.

This page is pretty much all wrong. I will try to explain

1. "The Sarakatsani are a group of Greek (and Greek-speaking) transhumant shepherds" correct

2. "mainly located in the Pindos Mountains" it should be "mainly located in the Pindos mountains and in particular, the Agrafa mountains which is the southern part of Pindos untill the beginning of the 1900s.

3. "The Sarakatsani traditionally spent the summer months in the Rhodope Mountains, in what is today Bulgaria" this may be said only about the so called "anatolites"(easterners) or "polites"(comes from the word Poli meaning Constantinople). This part of Sarakatsani used to spend their summers in either the Rhodope Mountains or the mountains of Falakro in Serres and Drama perfecrures of Greece and either returned to the coast of western (today Greek)Thrace and eastern(today Turkish)Thace or went west to the coast of the Black Sea.

4. "The migration would start on the eve of Saint George's Day in April and the return migration would start on Saint Demetrius' Day, October 26th" sounds too poetic to be true. First of all Saint George's Day does not have a standard date in Greek calendar. It is true though that they used to leave for(and return from) the mountains depending on the weather around these dates

5. "After 1947, certain groups of Sarakatsani were not allowed to leave Bulgaria and enter Greece" True, but only refers to these Sarakatsani that have stayed in Bulgaria. I must empasize the fact that most of the Sarakatsani are in Greece

6. "They were subsequently settled in Bulgaria and they became partly Bulgarized. In Bulgaria these Sarakatsani are known as Karakachans" true

7. "while in Romania they are called Saracaciani" may be true but as far as i know there are absolutely no Sarakatsani in Romania

These are some comments for the first paragraph. This first paragraph does not include any comments about the Sarakatsani who live in Greek Thrace and Eastern Macedonia, Greece(very much related to these Sarakatsani In Bulgaria), Central Macedonia, Greece and FYROM(the so called "Kasandrinoi" because they used to spend their summers in Halkidiki(Kassandra)), in Thessaly, Ipeiros, Sterea Ellada, Peloponnese and so on. It seems to me that you are implying that Sarakatsani only live in Bulgaria.

To be continued...

On the contrary I would say that the first paragraph is too greek-focused, as if the karakatchani only live in Greece but a part of them were somehow by chance stuck in Bulgaria recently (and indeed that they inhabit other parts of the Balkans is not mentioned at all)! As a Bulgarian my impression about the karakatchani has been quite different. The sentence "The Sarakatsani are a group of Greek shepherds" sounds quite a lot like greek propaganda to me. They are greek-speaking (with their own archaic dialect, in fact) but this does not imply greek ethnicity for the last centuries. The karakatchani in Bulgaria do NOT consider themselves greeks (no, not bulgarians either, and I dont see how this could be a result of governmental policy). Maybe the present-day "greekness" of the karakatchani in Pindos could be a result of purposeful assimilation by the state of Greece where they were stuck after it closed its borders? As you see this argument can work both ways based on the mutual mistrust of our peoples. More crossreading and NPOV needed! For now, please, replace the "greek (and greek-speaking)" with "greek-speaking" only. Koliokolio 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the above stating that the karakatsani were not "greek" to begin with - since the greek tribes were often divided by city states and region. They may have been of the greek tribes. My family are from the karakatsanoi of greece and they moved to central greece from Thessaly and foot of Pindos to avoid the Turks.
Their lifestyle is correctly protrayed to have been divided between mountains and plains. Even though uneducated due to lifestyle - they spoke Greek (no other language as far as I know) and avoided the Turks by moving about in the highlands. Some settled in Peloponese and changed their names. So, perhaps they should refer to Greek sarakatsani and Bulgarian sarakatsani separately if that's a problem. Applesnpeaches (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This page needs a lot of work. Most of the content seems to have been copied from various Web sources uncritically. I have removed the most flagrant copyright violations / plagiarism, but a lot of the remaining substance seems to be paraphrases. What's more, many of the quoted sources appear not to have been read by the writers of this article, but quoted second-hand without attribution (especially from the two articles mentioned in External links). Several of the quoted sources are from travel writers, not scholars, and do not seem particularly reliable. Let's work on it and improve it! --Macrakis 04:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The initiator of this article is [Deucalionite] whose text I rectified several times. I found him a bit too biased and too pro-Greek. Nevertheles he did not mind when I inserted the passage in which I mention the three contradictory hypotesis as to the origins of the Sarakatsani (Dorians? Vlachs? Yuruks?). He wiped off quite a good external link [Vlach, Yuruk, Sarakatsani confluences in the Balkans] because he thought of it as 'Romanian propaganda'. I did not reinstate it for the sake of not wanting to seem biased myself too. There're plenty of books published on the Sarakatsani both in Greece (alas, all out of print) and elsewhere such as that of Maurogiannēs Dionysēs - Hoi Sarakatsanoi tēs Thrakēs, tēs Kentrekēs kai Anatolikēs Makedonias : epitopia koinōniologikē ereuna apo Evro heos Thessalonikē, Athēna : Ekdoseis "Dōdōnē", 1998. The latest book is Richard Clogg's 'Minorities of Greece' (Hurst, London 2002) where there is an article about Sarakatsani. See also a recent conference which debated on them and which took place in France in 2003 at [Conference]--Apostolos Margaritis

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If you think the vlachophiles.net link is useful, let's get it back in. It is not bias to represent multiple points of view, it is the core value of Wikipedia, NPOV. It would be interesting to summarize the information from the Clogg book and the conference, also, which are surely better sources than any of the ones used so far. --Macrakis 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, we can add these links and summaries but then as you very well know there is always the question of the lenghth of a Wikipedia article. This topic is a difficult one and how can you be brief and accurate in the same time? The question of the Sarakatsani is a puzzle in its own way, a hard nut to crack. They seem to have 'multiple' origins. Is this really possible? Or maybe the Sarakatsani were different things at different stages of their history. This brings us back to the thorny issue of the identity of the tribes, nations etc. and to what is an ethnicity? To add insult to injury I just found out that an Italian professor, Antonio Baldacci who visited the area inhabited by the Sarakatsani (including the putative place of their origin, the village of Sakaharetsi -today renamed 'Perdikaki'- in the province of Baltos or Valtos around the market town of Vonitza) thought they were remnants of the left behind Spanish mercenaries who for half a century or more, annexed this province (via the Kingdom of Naples). This sounds a bit fantasist to say the least. Again, too many leads and no clear answers. Apostolos Margaritis 10:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to make the article unnecessarily long. I think we don't need to lengthen it much if we both edit the existing material judiciously and add new material. --Macrakis 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the article in what regards the Romanian and Aromanian view on Sarakatsan identity. My opinion is the previous versions dismissed a Vlach origin completely without showing the reasons behind Romanian allegations, the so loosely called "Romanian propaganda". In which regards the Greek language usage (I added "nomadic") people I agreed with the caution message, it all remains an open subject. Vlach facts (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The quality of this page is bad if you dont consider Capidan studies on saracacianii. At least, to mention it. See the link below, o/w is greek propaganda. http://documente.bcucluj.ro/web/bibdigit/periodice/dacoromania/1924-1926.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.129.11 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC) See another link in which you can read of 100 words of latin origin, common between aromanians and saracacianii, mainly about shepard activity.Please the article. He uses words from Hoegg book. Why should saracacianii borrow words about their main job from aromanian or else? http://dspace.bcucluj.ro/handle/123456789/4979

Merge proposal

Sarakatsani and Karakachans are two variants of the same word, referring to the same concept. The spelling 'Sarakatsani' tends to be used in Greek contexts, and 'Karakachans' in Bulgarian settings, but as the articles both say, they are the same people. They are listed in a standard dictionary of Greek (Babiniotis) as variants (σαρακατσάνος and καρακατσάνος), probably coming from the Turkish karakaçan < kirkaçan 'who flee to uncultivated land'. So I vote:

• Merge --Macrakis 04:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right in theory but beware, there is scholarly work on the Bulgarian Karakachans too see list of books It could be that the two groups really diverged so much that cannot anymore be viewed as one or put under one umbrella.--Apostolos Margaritis

Understood. But having a single page on a subject does not imply that there aren't different aspects of the subject, or that the subject matter is uniform. To the extent that the Bulgarian Karakachans are distinct, that should certainly be discussed in the merged article. On the other hand, we should be careful about politically-motivated arbitrary distinctions. For example, "Greek coffee" is the same thing as "Turkish coffee", and Arvanites speak an Albanian dialect/language. --Macrakis 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I get your point. Why then not merge the two entries providing as you say that the nuances and diffeences between Kara- and Sarakatsans will be discussed in the new, unified article? Apostolos Margaritis 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger Complete

Now I know someone is going to have a fit with what I did. Yet, as a disclaimer, I did not perform this merger just because I felt like stirring up the pot of controversy. However, a person out of nowhere will nonetheless probably proclaim that "the Karakachans are ethnically different from the Sarakatsani." Perhaps one might be so bold as to state that I am cruelly insensitive toward the feelings of the Bulgarians, the Romanians, etc. "How dare you do this to my people Deucalionite" or something along those lines. Something to look forward to.

Seriously now, both articles about the Sarakatsani and the Karakachans have been stuck in a state of limbo for a long time. No one seemed interested in solving the so-called "merger dispute". So, in order to help everyone move on with their lives, I thought it would be more efficient to have the history of the Sarakatsani be presented on one page. Besides, the Karakachans article pretty much had the same information one could find on the Sarakatsani article.

As far as I am concerned, the only main difference between the Sarakatsani and the Karakachans is merely etymological. Sarakatsani is a Greek term and Karakachans is a Turkish/Bulgarian nomenclature that represents the same people. I mean should we put a separate article for each foreign linguistic nomenclature that a single ethnic group possesses? I don't see a Saracaciani page entailing how the Romanians perceive the Sarakatsani. Why is that though? Well, because no matter what you call the Sarakatsani, you are ultimately talking about the same group of people (be they transhumant sheperds or not).

Sarakatsani strikes me as a fairly typical greek reading of a foreign (probably turkish) word. Greeks often have difficulties with the sound "tch" pronouncing it as "ts" instead. Koliokolio 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Karakachans and the Sarakatsani are one in the same people. Granted a portion of the Sarakatsani populace was "Bulgarianized" and could have very well developed a different ethnic identity by upholding their Bulgarian nomenclature of "Karakachans." Yet, what if they did not? What if the Karakachans still retain to this day their identity without necessarily deeming themselves as ethnically Bulgarian (even if they are Bulgarian citizens).

If Bulgarian scholarship wants to provide information pertaining specifically to the Karakachans, then that information should be placed within a subsection of the overall Sarakatsani article. The same thing should be said for Romanian scholarship, German scholarship, Chinese scholarship or whatever scholarship anyone is willing enough to provide.

If anyone feels that this merger is wrong, then go ahead and create two "different" articles possessing (more or less) the same information. Redundancy is unnecessary and could lead to needless confusion among readers. Of course, I do not expect anyone to agree with me or to assume that my reasons for performing the merger were sound and honest. In the end, someone is going to have to put an end to this "merger dispute" stuck in limbo. Over and out. - Deucalionite 5/2/06 12:12 P.M. EST

I changed some parts of the article since they seemed too NPOV and clearly a part of simple vlach/romanian propaganda ( I recognized some of the arguments from the page vlachophile.com ). Anyway, I am a member of two greek Sarakatsani unions, and I can say for sure that we are 100% non- Vlachs. I am not sure if the other theories ( Turkish tribes) should be stated as an ewually plausible theory.

Thank you for your contributions. Just so you know, the Vlachs were latinized Greeks and some Romanian propagandists took it upon themselves to consider the Vlachs in Greece as "Romanians" only based on language. As I have said a million times before, language does not define ethnicity. The Vlachs, just like the Sarakatsani, have ethnic Greek origins and have contributed enormously to the development of the modern Greek nation-state (even though they were already a part of the Greek "genos" and "ethnos" for a very long time). Of course, don't expect everyone to see things this way. Again, thank you for your contributions and take care. Over and out. Deucalionite 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about Deucalionite? Vlachs=Greek? i am an Aromanian living in Romania and i wonder why did my grandfathers (as in both of them) always talk about Greeks in vulgar terms ,even using "Greek" as a derogatory term in certain expressions, IF Vlachs are "latinised Greeks"? i even know of an old folk song about a boy whose father gets killed by Greeks and his mother tells him to "never forgive them". Ofcourse i'm saying this since you seem to completely disconsider the linguistc evidence of their Latin origin.

Regarding the article... why is the "Sarakatsani are not Vlachs" thing repeated over and over till it begins to sound as patethic propaganda? What is the purpose of this elaborated thesis to contradict the Vlach Origins theory of the Sarakatsani if the freaking Vlach Origins theory isn't even presented in the article?

"Doric"?

Re the addition and re-addition of the claim that the Sarakatsani speak a "Doric" dialect ([1]): this claim is indeed highly surprising, since it is communis opinio that all modern Greek dialects except Tsakonian derive from Attic Koiné. I'd like to see an exact quote in context for this claim. Maybe what the source said was that they speak a "northwestern" dialect of Modern Greek? That would not be the same as "Northwestern Greek" in the context of the ancient dialects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put this link to inform the reader about what a northwest dialect is. Since it's mentioned in the text I think we should put this. Of course it doesn't mean that their modern dialect is a pure doric one, but it stresses some kind of relationship between the ancient and the modern northwest dialect. - Sthenel 12:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not sure you understood my point. Ancient "northwestern Greek" is a form of Doric, true. Modern northwestern dialects (such as Epirote or Roumeliote Greek) have nothing to do with Doric. There's no continuity between them. They are descendants of Koiné just like all other modern dialects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "northwest" for the modern dialects is just a geographic term. For example I have read articles in the past about Roumeliote dialects, in which Roumeliotika have preserved some elements of older dialects in the region. This is something that happens in every region, that's why the local dialects differ enough from the modern Dimotiki language. - Sthenel 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of them may have conserved isolated admixtures of local dialectal words, possibly. But the overall phonological system of them, like of all other modern dialects, is solidly Attic. That's consensus in the literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sarakatsanic dialect has a lot of archaic components. Maybe it is not a completely Doric dialect but it has for sure, components that indict to pre-Dorian or pre-Aeolic dialects. Some verbs used (such as "namo" "νάμω" = give, which in all modern Greek dialects is "nemo" "νέμω") have archaic forms and also some endings in the verbs. Words as "tata" "τατά", = father can only be found in Illiad!! Chrusts 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Greek and/or Greek-speaking

I think that this introductory phrase violates the right of self-identification of Sarakatsani in Greece, who are the main Sarakatsani group of Balkans. Stating that they (all the Sarakatsani) are Greeks or Greek-speaking, automatically, we dispute the origin of a people (Sarakatsani of Greece) who always spoke Greek and they didn't use any other language along with the Greek. So, I think that we should write something else in the introduction breaking them into two subgroups: a) the Sarakatsani of Greece who identify as Greeks (Greek-speaking of Greek origin) and b) the Sarakatsani of Bulgaria and any other country who maybe don't identify them as Greeks, in order to avoid generalization. Just an idea. - Sthenel 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sthenel: All of us, the Sarakatsani, whether in our homeland (Greece) or elsewhere are Greek (both by ancestry, language or any other "metric" of Greekness) and identify as Greek. Including the Sarakatsani of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian government though, since the cold war has been trying to categorise the Sarakatsani as a separate identity.

Our kin (συνάφι) frοm Bulgaria are invited and attend our yearly gatherings (ανταμώματα) in Greece which are the greatest celebration of Greekness that can be and are often attended by Greek Presidents as well. Why would we be inviting people who would have turned their back on their Greek identity? Why would these people come all the way from Bulgaria to attend either?

Likewise, Σαρακατσάνοι from Greece go in Bulgaria to attend similar festivities. Would they consider themselves so dear to people denying their Greekness? No, they would want nothing to do with them.

Is how the Bulgarian census holder interprets (i.e. twists) their reply in the census, evidence that my kin in Bulgaria do not identify as Greeks?

Can anyone, at last, come up with something about us that is un-greek?

Nevertheless, I will not ruin my Easter over this. Wikipedia can wait. In fact I will try avoiding this page for the next month or so. We, the Sarakatsani, have all the time in the world to prove that we are not elephants.

Ήμαρτον Παναγία μου...

Regards, Contributor175 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. You misunderstood what I said. The phrase "Greek or Greek-speaking" (it means that they are Greeks or non-Greeks who speak greek) disputes the greekness of all the Sarakatsani, and this because of the bulgarian census. Btw groups of people who are bilingual and historically identify as

Greeks, are clearly of not greek origin according to the self-identified "bosses" of wikipedia (e.g. Arvanites are Albanians because they speak an albanian dialect, Vlachs have not greek origin because they speak aromanian) but in this case, Sarakatsani who always spoke only greek are Greek-speaking, not Greeks. So, if you speak Greek and Arvanitika you originate from Albanians while if you speak only Sarakatsanika Greek you are a Greek-speaking of unknown origin. - Sthenel 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources and NPOV

May I suggest you find solid third-party sources for:

"However, according to a theory, the Sarakatsani were not always nomads but only turned to harsh nomadic mountain life to escape Ottoman rule."

The current sources are not very good, and are certainly not third-party. (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Though it is plausible that the Sarakatsani were "not always nomads", the part about "escaping Ottoman rule" sounds unlikely.

It would also be helpful to find third-party sources for other assertions made in the article. For example, who are the modern "Western European scholars" who "endorse" the theory that the "Sarakatsani are lineal descendants of the Dorian tribes". That sounds like typical 19th-century romantic nationalism. The alternative theories also need to be reported in a more WP:NPOV way.

It's also surprising that the article doesn't mention the best-known ethnographer of the Sarakatsani in English, John Campbell (Honour, family, and patronage; a study of institutions and moral values in a Greek mountain community, Oxford, 1964). --Macrakis 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Karakachani means for donkey in Turkish. And also it uses for disrtrict Karakoçan (karakochan)

Karakoçan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3210 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Possible conection with Albanians???

Is there any possible relation between Sarakatsans (and generally many parts of Greece, especially Peloponesian, or "Stereoelladites") and Albanians?? I am greek and sarakatsanos myself. I have never heard of ANY theory connecting us to the Albanians. But taking in account the "fustanella" wich was used both by Sarakatsans and other south Greeks AND Albanians, and the almost common music with Albanians (polyphonic AND "klarina") can somebody write about that topic if he/she has some further knowledge?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.43.28 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I read that the foustanella is indeed traditionally from Epirus. There is also an ancient statue found of an ancient Epirot wearing what is strikingly similar to a foustanella skirt.
Also, I have read that the Epirotes were frequently confused with Albanians throughout history.
perhaps the authors didn't know the difference between the two.
Also, don't forget that many sarakatsanoi lived in Epirus, which is really not very far from Central Greece.
During the Turkish occupation, the boarders between Albania and Epirus may have been useless since the Turks had taken over Albania aswell. So perhaps a cross influence had occurred.
Applesnpeaches (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sarakatsiani are aromanians

They were speaking aromanian a few time ago and now they have many aromanian words. This fact is well-known ad it's clear that they have aromania origins , not greek origin. Most probably they are part of the farshirot aromanians. Some Sarakaciani still speak aromanian language in Bulgaria. They are the same with the sarakatsiani in greece. I have no doubt they are aromanians not greeks, so please remove this article from greece wikipeoject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaradianis (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Got any decent sources to substantiate these claims? Even if the Sarakatsani were to have spoken a variant of Aromanian, such a phenomenon would hardly hamper their ability to self-identify as ethnic Greeks. Language does not define ethnicity my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am 75% sarakatsan and 25% Aromani and speak both languages fluently as well as a few others fluently. There is no connection in any way with Aromani and Sarakatsan. While the Aromani side speak and have allways spoken Greek as their second language going back to my great granfathers., The Sarakatsani have only ever spoken an ancient dialect of Greek with no loan words from Aromani or slavic or Turkish or Albanian. People here are making too many assumptions. My Grandfather , who was born in 1880s would say to me " Imis imasti dio voles Ellin" "We are two times Greek" more coming soon--Giannis777 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you find any connection between Sarakatsani and Aromanians? Two different worlds, different origins, different believes, different language, different 86.121.129.11 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)customs and finally different tribes. Have you ever heared of sarakatsanochoria? But I am sure that you have heared of Vlachochoria "villages of Vlachs"?Chrusts 16:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Necromantic Customs

Why did you delete my phrase? I think you know about the necromantic customs after a slaughter of a lamb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They are aromanians... but after many years of grec propaganda they himself think about him that are grecs; and in romania and aromanian language to, saracaceani meens poor people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.47.9 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Karakachans in Bulgaria are not greeks

It's simple. In Bulgaria there are greeks and karakachans and they never mix each other. But right now the karakachans become greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.87.38 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an arguement. In Greece before WWII they didnt mixed with other Greeks too.Alexikoua (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Zenne (man dancer with woman cloths) same as nomadic yoruk Turks and Karakachanis

Zenne who is a man dancer with woman cloths in weddings. Zennes exist in the weddings and festivals seramonies. It is same as nomadic yoruk Turks and also nomadic Karakachanis.[2] user:3210

Zenne has nothing to do with Sarakatsani. There is no such custom of men dressed as women in Sarakatsani tradition, be it on weddings or otherwise. Could you provide reference to your doubtful claim? 79.103.234.72 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Intro wording issues

I've had concerns about the wording of the intro for a while. Here's my point summarised below.

I believe that the sentence "Greek transhumant shepherds inhabiting Greece and neighbouring countries" is tendentious and seems to contradict the rest of the article. First of all, it labels the group as Greek (with a link to Greeks, i.e. the ethnicity) without mentioning any of the other theories in the 'History and origin' section or at least making it clear that the origins of the Sarakatsani are not well known and their ethnic origin is not universally agreed upon. That is, that the Sarakatsani are ethnic Greeks is largely a Greek POV, in contrast to the theory that they are Hellenized Thracians, which is common in Bulgaria and constitutes a mostly Bulgarian POV. Here are some English-language sources that either clearly state this ambiguity or purposefully avoid the Greek ethnic label and prefer a linguistic identification of the group:

• Tziovas, p. 127: "Their origins, the subject of much debate, are lost in time...", while also acknowledging that "their language is pure Greek", which is undisputable (Greek author)
• Pimpireva, p. 1: "The origins of the Karakachans have been the subject of broad and permanent interest. Due to the lack of historical sources, there are various hypotheses whose number is significant, contrary to that of the arguments substantiating them" and "Quite a few scholars have been looking for their roots elsewhere, calling their Greek origins into question." (Bulgarian author)
• Clogg, p. 165: "Greek-speaking transhumant shepherds"
• Eicher, p. 62: "The origins of the Sarakatsani are unknown"
• MacDermott, p.19: "the descendants of hellenized ... Thracians ... form the small communities of semi-nomadic Karakachani" (this author does have an association with Bulgaria)
• Bugajski, p. 236: "Sarakatsani or Karakachani, Greek-speaking pastoral people"

My suggestion is that we follow what seems to be the established formula and define the Sarakatsani as "a group of Greek-speaking transhumant shepherds". I don't really have a problem with the 'History and origin' section, although it could use some more references. Also, that would mean that we change 'Rest of Greeks' to just 'Greeks' in the 'Related ethnic groups' section of the infobox, so as to imply relation, not necessarily belonging. We could add Vlachs to that section as well, as the groups certainly have a lot in common even though they are probably not genetically related. We should also do away with POV phrases like "The Sarakatsani themselves have always stressed their Greek identity and deny having any relationship with the Vlachs".

Thoughts? — Toдor Boжinov — 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the "established formula", by whom is it "established", and where can I find it? I do not think "Greek transhumant sheperds" is tendentious. What is tendentious is focusing on the "Greekness" question, lede, and infobox, when the article has much more pressing problems (lack of citations, for one). Same goes for drawing a distinction between "Greek" and "Greek-speaking", as if there are groups that speak Greek as a native, ancestral, language but are not of Greek origin. As far as I know, there is no such group. The opening statement also reflects the contents of the "History and Origins" quite accurately, which you yourself say you have no problem with. True, the origins of the Sarakatsani are not completely known, but the overwhelming majority of theories on their origin concern various "Greek" scenarios as can be seen in the "History and Origins" section (Hoeg, Gergakas, Kavadias, Hatzimihali, Campbell, Hammond), with "non-Greek" origin theories mainly being promoted in neighboring countries for the usual Balkan reasons (as can in fact be seen by the sources you have provided). As for the Vlachs, there already is a whole paragraph on their relations with the Sarakatsani, and that is sufficient. Since they are unlikely to be ancestrally related, there is no need for that go in the infobox. I also find fixating on the lede unhelpful, as the article needs a lot of work in general, and the appropriate procedure is to first get the article in decent shape, then work the lede. Fixating on the lede and infobox while the article is in its current state is suspect. I agree that "Rest of Greeks" in the infobox is a little tendentious, but that's about it. Btw I sincerely hope that your interest in this article is genuine and not in "retaliation" for my recent involvement in Pomaks. If it is genuine, I would expect an interest in improving the main body of the article rather than fixating on their "ethnic origins", and the lede and infobox, on which we typically work last. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "groups that speak Greek as a native language but are not of Greek origin...as far as I know, there is no such thing". I suppose it depends on what you mean by "of Greek origin", but how about the descendents of Albanian-speakers (Arvanites) of Attica, Boeotia, etc.? What about the descendents of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? What about the modern Greek Jews?

Of course, the notion of "Greek origin" is problematic. Many people have become Greek over the centuries. (cf. Stoianovich, Traian (1960). "The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant". The Journal of Economic History (Cambridge University Press) 20 (2): 234–313.) --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

--Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Arvanites and Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (and Aromanians of Greece too for that matter) adopted Greek quite recently, due to Hellenization policies and modernization in general. Even so, they still speak their original languages. The Sarakatsani by contrast, have never spoken any language other than Greek. This is what I mean. If the Sarakatsani were of non-Greek "origin", like those other groups, there should be at least some trace of that origin in their language or culture. Yet that is not the case. Even the Aromanian loanwords they use are recent borrowings. Ethnic identities are highly fluid, and like you said people can "become" Greek (and similarly cease to "be" Greek as is the case with the Pontian Greek Muslims in Turkey). As far as the Sarakatsani go, they are clearly Greek in culture, language and identification, with seemingly few foreign influences, so to say that they are a "Greek tranhumant sheperds" isn't such a stretch (or big deal). And anyway, fixating on "ethnic origins" (to the extent that that even means anything) when the article is in the shape it is in, is not the right approach.Athenean (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean. May I also add that the phrase: "The Sarakatsani themselves have always stressed their Greek identity and deny having any relationship with the Vlachs" is not a POV at all! If you bother to read the statute of the Pan-Hellenic Federation of Sarakatsani (Πανελλήνια Ομοσπονδία Συλλόγων Σαρακατσαναίων)[3] you will see very clear that not only they stress their Greek identity but they claim their culture to be a direct descendant of the ancient Greek(!) : " Purpose of the Pan-Hellenic federation is to a) coordinate every club of Sarakatsani of Greece in order to preserve and transmit our folk culture and tradition, as the continuation of the ancient Greek civilization......g) to defend and promote the culture and the rights of Hellenism." I think it speaks for itself!Seleukosa (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with "Greek-speaking", is that while it is not incorrect in and of itself, it leaves out the fact that it is not just the language of the Sarakatsani that is Greek, but also their customs, traditions, clothing, art, and identity, i.e. their entire culture. And like I said earlier, the article has far more serious and pressing issues than the lede and infobox. Athenean (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for the opinions, though I'd certainly like to hear the opinion of non-Greek editors. I think the references I've listed below more or less prove that "Greek-speaking" is the common way to refer to the Sarakatsani. The sources were found using a quick Google Books search and while I did my best to find quality sources which describe these people as Greek in the strictly ethnic sense, I don't think I encountered any.

I don't understand the accusations that I'm focusing on the lead and ignoring other issues with the article: as far as I'm concerned, I can focus on whichever aspects I see dissatisfactory. The lead, as the summary of the article, is supposed to be accurate and non-controversial. I do not have the time and expertise to rewrite the article, and it's not like any of you have worked on it anytime soon either, so I fail to see why I'm being accused of anything. Also, it is entirely my decision which aspects of the article interest me and which do not: we are volunteers here and we can improve this encyclopedia in whichever way we like.

Now I'd like to focus on some of your comments. Athenean, you dismiss my qualification of the "Greek-speaking" formula as established without providing any references which use the "Greek" (ethnically) wording. And yet, you are quick to summarize the theories of Greek researchers as an "overwhelming majority", while the rest are "mainly" promoted in neighbouring countries for propaganda reasons. How did you come to the conclusion as to which is overwhelming and which is alternative and propagandistic? I've shown above that at least one Greek scholar agrees that the origins of the Sarakatsani are unknown, and this seems to be a common opinion.

Seleukosa, it goes without saying that the quote you have cited is just a point of view and does not refer to all Sarakatsani. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it goes without saying that if they speak Greek, are culturally Greek, identify as Greek, that they are Greek, period. Most importantly, they identify as Greeks both ethnically and nationally, so of course they are "Greek". Anyone who identifies as Greek is Greek. Second, "Greek-speaking and culturally Greek transhumant sheperds..." is convoluted, clunky, and a sounds very much like a sophism. Third, I do not see why their unknown ethnic origins must be mentioned in the lede, especially when the lede is so short. That to me seems somewhat tendentious. Fourth, Pimpireva does not appear to be reliable source (no bibliography for one, and what is imir.org?), and the theories about Illyrians, Thracians, and "Turkish invaders" are clearly fringe (particularly the latter - there is nothing "Turkic" about them). Since we know so little about the Illyrians and Thracians, any claims that this or that ethnic group descend from them need to be taken very carefully and sourced to the highest quality sources. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources as they say, not some PDF with no bibliography. Neither does McDermott, a source on Bulgarian folk customs, appear to be very knowledgeable on the Sarakatsani, the vast majority of whom live in Greece. As far as their origins, it would be better to rely on sources that specialize on the Sarakatsani themselves (of which there are plenty), rather than "Bulgarian folk customs". From what I can see in the article, all the sources provided theorize on various "Greek" origin scenarios (Hoeg, Gergakas, Kavadias, Hatzimihali, Campbell, Hammond), hence the "overwhelming". However, I do not insist on mentioning this in the lede. Fifth, as far as how the Sarakatsani view themselves, yes, the point of view of the Sarakatsani Federation is an appropriate source. Btw, please follow BRD and do not edit-war. If you're genuinely interested in what others think, then reach a consensus first, and don't just ram through your changes even though people disagree with you. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The bibliography that Athenean has given you (Hoeg, Gergakas, Kavadias, Hatzimihali, Campbell, Hammond) is the dominant bibliography in the subject. You can easily see that, even in one of the sources you have given, which you have wrongly credited to ::* Tziovas, p. 127: It is actually an article written by Diana Wardle were she clearly says : “some of the principal resources for the life and customs of the Sarakatsani and their costumes are Carsten Hoeg Les Sarakatsans :une tribe nomade Grecque; Angeliki Hatzimichali, Sarakatsanoi [Sarakatsans], 2 vols. (Athens 1957); ...J.K Campbel Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community,(oxford 1964); GB Kavvadias, Σαρακατσάνοι Μια Ελληνική Ποιμενική κοινωνία; Vasilios G Tsaousis etc”. It is no simply “theories of Greek researchers” as you wrongly said but the dominant theories of the best researchers in the field highly respected internationally.
Campbel has done field work with Sarakatsani and Hatzimihali has spent a lifetime with them. Cambel in his book even pays tribute to Hatzimihali.
J.K Campbel Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community, preface vi:” Mme Chatzimichalis has published the first volume of a work which will represent, when it is completed, the fullest possible account of Sarakatsan folklore and material culture. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my debt to her work which goes far beyond the few references noted in this book”
Cambel also addresses in his book the matter of ethnic origin of Sarakatsani. He even talk about the debate about their origin.J.K Campbel Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community page 3 till page 6: “In recent decades the problem of the origin of the Sarakatsan communities has provoked a considerable amount of writing. Interest was aroused more particular after the publication in 1925 a brilliant linguistic study of the Sarakatsan dialect by the Danish scolar, Carsten Hoeg. In the opening chapters of his work Hoeg gives some ethnographic details of the communities he visited and presents a theory that these shepherds are the descendants of primitive pastoral tribes , which he believes must always have existed in this part of Greece from pre-classical times. This view was naturally well received by Greek folklorist and historians . For equally obvious reasons it was strongly disputed bu a number of Romanian writers and publicist, of whom Theodor Capidan is the best known. Before 1939 -45 war these writers, continuing in a long tradition of Romanian propaganda, were eager to stress the relation the relation between Romanian and Koutsovlachs. But Capidan and his followers also claim that the Sarakatsani, far from being the descendants of ancient Greek tribesmen, were not Greek at all but Romanian Koutsovlach who in comparatively recent time had become Hellenized......In these debates the Greeks and their supporters present the more convincing argument......As is proper for a social anthropologist not concerned with the problem of origins, my own more limited conclusion is that in their social values and institutions, the Sarakatsani as they exist today provide no evidence of a past history that was ever anything but Greek.”
Isn't crystal clear?
I am surprised that after you searched Google books you were not able to find anyone specifically saying that Sarakatsani are Greek (ethnically). I took a look and I immediately found one! And that only after a very limited search!
Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook By David Levinson page 41 :” Sarakatsani are Greek-speaking people in northwestern Greece and southern Bulgaria. They number less than 100 thousand , are ethnically Greek, speak Greek, and are Greek orthodox.” (and this is written by David Levinson, Phd cultural anthropologist and former vice president of human relations area files of Yale University.)
As Athenean has told you and as you can see from the above analysys the authorites on the field have clearly stated the Greek origin of Sarakatsasani.Seleukosa (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course it is the matter what they think for themselves. You chose to ignore the statute of the National federation of Sarakatsani organisations which is of course not a view of one people but what 44 organisation (which form the Federation)of Sarakatsani are claiming. (Graphic of course but it is their view!). But there is also one source to back it up
The forgotten minorities of Eastern Europe: the history and today of selected ethnic five groups in five countries By Arno Tanner page 204-205 :” The so called Saracatsani speak Greek. They have traditionally been real nomads who do not have a village of origin. Sometimes in the scientific literature the Sarakatsani are also refered as Vlachs. However anthropologists point out that mixed marriages between the Sarakatsani and the Koutso-Vlachs are extremely rare....The origin of the Vlachs are a subject of political dispute. The Greek speaking Sarakatsani consider themselves to be the most ancient Greeks, and the Vlachs of Greece call themself latinized Greeks.”
(From what I have read from all the reliable sources, the only debate seems to be their historical origin and not ethnic. The term Greek speaking is used usually in order to stress the differences with Vlachs.
And if there is truly a debate about ethnic origin I relay on the authority of Campbel :”the Sarakatsani as they exist today provide no evidence of a past history that was ever anything but Greek.”
There is really nothing to say about fringe theories like “Hellenized Thracian or Moesians, or Turks or Illyrians”. Why not “Hellenized Pelasgians Phrygians, or Martians”. As Athenean said extra ordinary claims needs extra ordinary evidence. Were are they? Even more important who are the academics who have claimed such theories??Seleukosa (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In brief:

• for an article of such length, the lead must be longer. Even much shorter articles are supposed to have a lead that is at least three times longer than this. And I believe the origins thing belongs there.
• Second, as you well know, many Arvanites, Vlachs and Bulgarians "speak Greek, are culturally Greek, identify as Greek" and yet their ethnic origin lies elsewhere. I'm not disputing the ethnic identification of the majority of these people (that's why I find the federation quote not as relevant), but rather the attempts to cover up the fact that their ethnic origin is unknown.
• Pimpireva is most certainly reliable as a professional ethnologist and author. Here's her biography. IMIR is a publishing house and the PDF is a summary of a book.
• Sources are credited to the book author who is associated with the title, not the section title. Thus, I have not "wrongly credited" Tziovas. So please assume good faith that I know what I'm doing, I don't think you have any reasons not to.
• It seems you didn't read the quote you are citing: "in their social values and institutions, the Sarakatsani as they exist today provide no evidence of a past history that was ever anything but Greek". I acknowledge that Campbell finds no evidence of a non-Greek history (while being unable to ascertain their origins), yet this is not a statement that supports a Greek ethnic identification.
• I acknowledge the David Levinson source and quote, though, per Athenean's argument, it has as much value as the MacDermott source. His book is not directly focused on the Sarakatsani either. I'm not saying it's not valuable and shouldn't be in, but MacDermott cannot be dismissed based on this argument either.
• I do not believe my claims are extraordinary, seeing as I provided a significant number of reliable sources that support the unknown origin statement.

Once again, I appreciate your input, but I'd like to have foreign editors involved in this discussion, so I've posted an WP:RfC below. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 09:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sure the lead could be longer, but when it so short, doubling its length with stuff about the origins seems tendentious.
• As for the Arvanites and Vlachs, yes, they speak Greek nowadays, but many still speak their original language, and retain non-Greek cultural traits. Comparing them to the Sarakatsani is meaningless. The Sarakatsani have never spoken any language other than Greek, nor do they possess non-Greek cultural traits. Also, Arvanites and Vlachs do not identify ethnically as Greeks, only nationally, while the Sarakatsani have never identified as anything other than Greek, both ethnically and nationally.
• As far ethnic origins, there are plenty of sources out there, there is absolutely no need to rely on obscure, unreliable Balkan sources. There is nothing to suggest that Pimpireva is a reliable source other than your say so.
• Are you actually disputing the fact that the Sarakatsani identify as Greek? Are we serious here? I have actually nothing to say to that.
• I again must state that a source on Bulgarian folk customs is not ideal for discussing the origins of the Sarakatsani.
• Theories about Illyrians, Thracians, and "Turkish invaders" are extraordinary, and are moreover unsubstantiated, with only one unreliable Bulgarian source. Placing them in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Of course the lead can be longer. But we can t start putting any information or fringe theories. There is room for that in the origin part of the article.
• Arvanites or Vlachs were bilingual populations. (I am not aware for any Bulgarians self identify as Greeks??). Sarakatsani are completely different .
• I am not qualified to judge Pimpireva academic statue. She is probably well respected and a perfectly good scholar. But the source you are giving is an unsigned PDF from a site. Are we sure that this exactly what she wrote? But also if you read it you will see that Pimpireva (if she wrote it) does not support those theories! She is only mention that there are theories (Hellenized Thracians, or Moesians, Turks etc) At the end of the paragraph she writes ;”Since there are no sources of information about the Karakachans, not only their origins but also any presumptions about their past before the beginning of the 20th century are purely hypothetical. “(That statement includes the ancient Greek scenario. However the ancient Greek scenario is the only one that has been supported by the “brilliant linguistic study of the Sarakatsan dialect by the Danish scolar, Carsten Hoeg” according to Campbel.
  But Pimpireva also writes how Sarakatsani of Bulgaria identify themselves :“Typically, the Karakachans identify at three levels: identifying as Karakachans, they explain that they are Greeks because Greek is their mother tongue - at that, they consider themselves "the purest of Greeks"; finally, they add that they are "Bulgarian" Karakachans because they live in Bulgaria where their children, they themselves and, in quite a few cases, their ancestors were born.”
  I think the text speak for itself.
• Of course I assume good faith from your side!! I apologize if it appeared otherwise!
• In my opinion, I have clearly demonstrate what are the principal resources for the Subject.(Hoeg, Gergakas, Kavadias, Hatzimihali, Campbell, Hammond) I didn't quote any of the Greeks although they are considered internationally as authorities on the subject. I choose Campbel because he is well respected and he clearly write about the debate about their ethnic origin (which have started by Romanian nationalist) He clearly states though:”In these debates the Greeks and their supporters present the more convincing argument”. Campbel is also very, very, clear "in their social values and institutions, the Sarakatsani as they exist today provide no evidence of a past history that was ever anything but Greek". Anyone can understand that this means “Greek”. And of course Campbel and probably many others doesn't now about their origin. But that is about their historical origin and not about their ethnicity.
• I never said that you claimed anything extraordinary. I said that claims about Hellenized (Illyrians, Thracians etc) are extraordinary claims and need extraordinary evidence.
• As you can see Pimpireva doesnt support those theories either. More over who are the academics who have claimed such theories?? And here Athenian is on spot :”Placing them in the lede is WP:UNDUE. “However if there are proper sources we can add them in the article. But I am afraid that these are fringe theories originated from political seasons and not from any academic interest.Seleukosa (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro RfC

Disagreement about the content and formulation of the lead section, per Talk:Sarakatsani#Intro wording issues. — Toдor Boжinov — 07:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable when a specific community is X speaking, is of X culture and identifies itself as part of the X nation then we have the "X community". This becomes more conveincing since the bibliography is overwhelming on the issue, so we have

• 57 hits only by searching the "Greek Sarakatsani" in gbooks [[4]]
• 21 hits about the Greek Sarakatsani in gschollar [[5]]. (79 in total)

On the contrary sources that mention "Greek-speaking Sarakatsani" are limited [[6]][[7]] (27 in total).

As I've checked on the above bibliography the vast majority of mainstream specialist sources confirms the 'Greek' version. On the other hand it should be mentioned that their origin has became a subject of debate as part of the usual Balkanic national strategies.Alexikoua (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead, which I have not read yet, should be a summary of the article as a whole, it is not the place to introduce new material or make points that are not already made in the body of the article. This should be the basis on which this dispute is resolved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Claims about alternative origin of the Sarakatsani

Both Athenean and Alexikoua have seen fit to remove a Bulgarian source about a possible Vlach or Slav origin of the Sarakatsani, claiming that is not a scholarly source. Now apart from the fact that there is no rule in Wikipedia that only academic sources may be used, this is an report by an agency one of whose tasks is the research of ethnic issues, so it can certainly regarded as a scholarly source. As for the statement that a more serious source is needed for such a claim, this makes little sense. There is obviously such a claim and there is no need of a special academic source (though this source can certainly qualify as academic) just for proving that an alternative theory exists. The need to include alternative theories is an important Wikipedia policy, so the removal of this information on such flimsy pretexts is rather disruptive. Kostja (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What is disruptive is your edit-warring. The source is self-published and does not meet the requirements for WP:RS. A government agency on minorities? We all know what that means in the Balkans. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

When citing Wikipedia policy, take care to actually read the relevant pages. Self published sources most certainly do not refer to government publications (see for example, the synonyms). According to your logic, even census results would not be admissible as sources. Kostja (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Slavic "theory" is clearly fringe and you know it. Only Bulgarian scholars support it. There is not a trace of Slavic culture among the Sarakatsani. And what kind of source is it that doesn't even mention the possibility that they might, just might, actually be of Greek origin? Athenean (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

With their unclear origin, it's a bit dubious to talk about mainstream opinion of the Sarakatsani origin. Kostja (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the mainstream bibliography presented it's clear that this community belongs to a specific national backgroud.Alexikoua (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after some thought, I suppose it would be ok if the disputed statement were suitably qualified, i.e. something like "According to a Bulgarian government agency...". 15:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling the disputed source a "study" is a little too tendentious to my liking. "Study" implies some sort of scholarly depth, of which this source possesses none. Barely two sentences on the Sarakatsani, and no bibliography. It's more of a pamphlet than a study, so let's just go with the more neutral "publication". Athenean (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting the Sarakatsani and Vlachs article

Deleting the simple reasons that lead the Aromanian side to consider the Sarakatsani as their own breaks the logic of the webpage. One cannot have a paragraph were one should expose the Romanian hypothesis filled with only Greek input. To anyone unfamiliar with the hypothesis, please search the internet for images, songs and stories of Vlach and Sarakatsani, and you will get Romanian propaganda like. So it seems "pure ancient Greek Hellens" like Sarakatsani look, dress, live, sing just like the Vlachs and unlike the other p.a.G.H.s out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlach facts (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is your additions are entirely unsourced, which is a violation of WP:OR. If you want to add something, you have to make sure it is properly sourced. We can't just add something because we "know" it to be "true". Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia" in the sense that anyone can edit, but not in the sense that anyone can write whatever they want. There already is a section on Sarakatsanoi and Vlachs, no one is deleting it, but we can't just whatever we like. You want to claim that there are "striking" similarities between Vlachs and Sarakatsanoi? Sources, please. You want to add that there is a lot of intermarriage between the two groups? Again, sources are needed. Also, no one is going to search the internet for images, songs and stories of Vlachs and Sarakatsani, that's not how we do things around here. Athenean (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Karakachan dog

There is also the issue of the Karakachan dog. The dog in question is related to most Balkan shepherd dog breeds, which are basically all molossi, but it is considered some sort of a national breed in Bulgaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenianepirote (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained reverting

Users Alexikoua and Kostja reverted my recent edits without any reasonable explanation. What I did: 1) I added sources using the Template:Cite book, 2) I corrected some citations using the Template:Harvnb, 3) I reworded the introduction to be more precise (in my opinion) without changing the overall meaning, 4) I corrected the terrible layout of the article, which looks like a notebook, replacing all these small paragraphs (one or two sentences each) with normal sized and cohesive paragraphs without changing the overall content as well, 5) I corrected several mistakes (syntax, repeats etc). The explanation of these two editors were "rv explained adjustments" and "not an improvement" respectively. In Wikipedia:Reverting#When to revert you can read:

• "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after careful consideration" (I doubt if any of them compared the two versions)
• "A reversion can eliminate "good stuff", discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert is a useful guideline. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider making a partial revert by modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit." (too lazy to do it?).

I don't know what's an improvement for them, but this start-class article needs improvement. Since nobody owns the article, it's a start-class article and IP users are free to edit, reverting anything isn't the right way. So, discuss it! 87.203.74.226 (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Many adjustments are still unexplained, like the removal of categories or the wikisource link. In fact Aravantinos' theory deserves a place in the article, but I can't see any additional improvement in this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the removal of categories (ethnic groups in Greece and the Balkans), the Sarakatsani do not consist a separate ethnic group since they're Greeks, thus part of the ethnic group called "Greeks". Consequently they're not a separate ethnic group in Greece or the Balkans. They are in the [Category:Greek people] which in turn is placed in the [Category:Ethnic groups in the Balkans]. The only acceptable category is the [Category:Ethnic groups in Bulgaria], since there isn't a category for the Greeks in Bulgaria. I don't know what's the wikisource you mentioned, but the Aravantinos' aspect is already in the article for a long time, with bad referencing, repeating "in his work 1", "in his work 2" with redundant publishing information. See my edit [8], I fixed the citation and added his two works in bibliography, uniting the already existing content without any change in the meaning. A proper citation and bibliographical addition do improve the article! --87.203.74.226 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag??

There is no flag used by Sarakatsani. This is a total lie. As a member of Sarakatsani of the administrative council of Sarakatsani Society, I flatly contradict this. Flambouras is a Family sympbol, a coat of arms used by families or groups of families in fiestas and nothing more. The whole thing looks like foreign propaganda trying to create a "Sarakatsani nation". Also, there are no resources proving that conjecture. 62.169.201.60 (talk)

Doc thesis about Sarakatsani

An English doc thesis from Columbia University at: https://allthingsvlach.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/bogdan-thesis-final.pdf

Some researchers concluded that Sarakatsani are from Vlach family but assimilated to the Greek language. There are many opinions. All must be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.187.138 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a doc thesis from Columbia University (the Ivy League university in New York), but a masters thesis from the completely unrelated University of Northern Columbia in Canada, which treats the subject of Sarakatsans superficially and with very unconvincing arguments.Athenianepirote (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarakatsani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416054328/http://www.nccedi.government.bg/save_pdf.php?id=247 to http://www.nccedi.government.bg/save_pdf.php?id=247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Connection between Yörüks and Sarakatsani claims in Yoruks wiki

There are some dubious claims at to whether there is connection between Yörüks and Sarakatsani. The problem is, it implies that Arnold van Gennep's hypothesis is a likely scenario while intentionally omitting the more widely accepted theories as mentioned under History in Sarakatsani. It seems like a propaganda attempt used by some history revisionists websites.

If this isn't dubious as I think, then should it be included as well in Sarakatsani? If not, should Yörüks and Sarakatsani be edited as to clarify which are the most prevalent theories regarding their origin? (I am not an avid wikipedia editor, so please feel free to edit the articles) 79.103.234.72 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The specific section of the Yoruk article needs a serious cleanup. By the way I can't see a inline thats claims a connection between them.Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with how wikipedia works, so don't know what you mean exactly by "inline". By the way, if you decide to edit that article please check: "An earlier offshoot of the Yörüks, the Kailar or Kayılar Turks, were amongst the first settlements in Europe." as well. Does it mean what I think it means? If so this article has been the target of a very funny troll.79.103.234.72 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

turkish

Demiclo2 Could you please provide an exerpt from the source that backs the statements made in your recent edits saying that The Sarakatsani are recognized to be non Greek, and possibly Turkish? This seems like a very broad statement to be made without attribution in wikipedias voice. Perhaps that is the opinion of one person, but is that the generally recognized truth?ResultingConstant (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Doric origin?

This point is not serious and speculative, there is no serious linguistic source which proof this. All the added source are travel books ore roman, based on philhellenism source from the 18.century, which we can not take as serious source for linguistic argue. And if the sarakatsani are by doric original, so the Aromuns and Albanians must have same origin, because the sarkatsani, aromun and albanian have absolutely same culture, just speak different languages.--31.10.129.226 (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarakatsani in Bulgaria

@Jingiby: "The Sarakatsani in Bulgaria self-identify as Greeks, considering themselves the "purest of Greeks." They also call themselves Bulgarian Karakachans, since they live in Bulgaria, where their ancestors, in a few cases, were also born." Information from the article that proved by source. BILL1 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have provide source based on a study in Bulgaria carried out bt the Open Society Foundation which has stated: Частично асимилираната, но все още относително изолирана и кръвнородствено сплотена каракачанска общност в България днес се колебе в стремежите си към гръцка, отделна каракачанска или българска идентичност . In English: The partially assimilated, but still relatively isolated and blood-related Karakachan community in Bulgaria today is hesitant in its aspirations for a Greek, separate Karakachan or Bulgarian identity. Jingiby (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

PS. That means obviously part of them declared themselves by the census as Bulgarians, another part as Greeks, but others as Sarakachani, i.e. neither Greeks, nor Bulgarians.Jingiby (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: ok, is good source. However, you have make a mistake to the article: you wrote "identity". There isn't "Sarakatsani identity". The identity of Sarakatsani people is Greek, but the consciousness of Sarakatsani people can be Bulgarian or Greek. Beacause Sarakatsani identity (neither Greek nor Bulgarian), doesn't exist, I doubt about this point of source that prove Sarakatsani consciousness (neither Greek nor Bulgarian) to Sarakatsani people of Bulgaria. So, I think that we have to point out this doupt. I will suggest changes and to Greeks in Bulgaria article, too. BILL1 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Every man is free to choose his personal identity: national, ethnic, cultural, religious, community, political, sexual etc. You must provide reliable source before that. Jingiby (talk)

@Jingiby: I believe this too. However, I reffer to the family's roots. You have the right to deny your origin, but you cannot change it. On the same way, you can deny your parents (very sad) but you cannot change them. BILL1 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Origins are not identities. By the way I probably remember your story. You might have another user-name before. Jingiby (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I have only one account. BILL1 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)