Jump to content

Talk:Souliotes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

History Of The Greek Revolution by George Finlay. Volume I. 1861

George Finlay’s History of the Greek Revolution. Vol. I. 1861. [[1]]

. In two volumes. Volume I. William Blackwood and Sons; Edinburgh and London; 1861.

Chapter II. The Albanians

The Suliots the most remarkable tribe of orthodox Albanians (p. 51); Their rise and social condition (p. 53); Repeatedly attacked by Ali Pasha, etc. (p. 55).

N. B. Bolds are mine. Guildenrich 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Alexikoya, this is the last time you touch my stuff. If you do it again, I'm going to report you! Guildenrich (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Capodistria: the founder of Greek independence‎- page 33

  • Christopher Montague Woodhouse, Oxford University Press, 1973

"Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had lived an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries.."

--Factuarius (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

this tugowar doesnt help...different authors highlighted different aspects of the suliots..they were clearly of albanian origin and christian they were the local mafia irrespective of religion and language later threw their lot with hellenism..etc the sooner everyone accepts the different aspects of their career the sooner a decent intro can be put in place...i dont see whats wrong with accepting that the suliots were of albanian origin anyway87.202.33.38 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Suliots?

Suliots ? what is this , it should have been a redirect to this.Megistias (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is just Guildenrich's today's new article. Failing to push his POV here decided to write his own article. Now nobody will dare to touch it. Nice. --Factuarius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is not helping 87.202.33.38 is your contribution in the discussion. Until now nobody had called Souliotes "local mafia". Such a "decent intro" would just ruin the article. As for their "clearly albanian origin" well, since you are so sure why not write a book about it? Maybe Oxford University Press would be interested in correcting the Christopher Woodhouse's errors, so to regain its academic reliability. --Factuarius (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point you are all being disruptive

And I mean it. The lot of you just managed to mess up a perfectly good lede again to fight over something that nobody other than yourselves actually cares about, using lousy 19th-century primary and secondary sources to "prove" what are essentially unverifiable conclusions. Stop squabbling over petty shit. Do you think anyone who reads this article will care? Try to look at this from the perspective of someone who is not a juvenile nationalist by persuasion. Any more and I will start handing out bans. Moreschi (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for anyone who creates any more WP:POVFORKs. There is actually a policy against that, and per WP:ARBMAC I can and will enforce it. Moreschi (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you just rv the last version can you be more specific on what you mean sane and where the previous version was insane to your opinion? --Factuarius (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It just didn't make sense. Bilingual stock? That's a linguistic reference in a sentence that is, however stupidly, trying to discuss their racial origin. Plus, in the first sentence the article asserts their origin, and then lower down points out that it is "disputed". And "clearly Greek"? WTF did that from? Yes, clearly this is up for debate, but all the modern (not 19th century) sources we have seen point to a community of Albanian-speakers (and they were originally Albanian-speaking, this can't be ducked) who become Hellenized over the years. What their precise racial origin was we'll never know, insofar as such terms have any relevance or meaning - very little. Moreschi (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


  • "clearly Greek. WTF did that from?" I putted the ref in the txt and I mention it also here: is from the C.M. Woodhouse's book of Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192111965 p.33. And there are more saying exactly the same.
  • "Lousy 19th-century sources" No as for this particular book is of 1973.
  • "linguistic reference in relate to racial origin" Since it's impossible to make genetic studies to be sure about their origin and the sources are conflicted about, the only way to approach their origin is by their language. Most of the sources agreed they were bilingual so the most possible origin was mixed Greek-Albanian. This is Balkans nearly all are mixed.
  • To me the only neutral way to end permanently the issue is to mention both three sourced opinions about their origin, Albanian, Greek and mixed, together with their sources and get over with it.
  • You are admin and you can enforce your opinion about, but to my opinion that will end the issue only temporarily, not to mention that is not elegant to omit neutral sources even if they are conflicted with others. --Factuarius (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • While I thoroughly agree that genetics is irrelevant here, your point about language unfortunately doesn't work: by your line of argument, all our sources agree that they originally spoke a sub-dialect of Albanian, ergo they must have been Albanian in origin. That they later became bilingual is of course undisputed. Note that I am not arguing that they must have been of Albanian origin simply because they originally spoke Albanian, but that is what follows from your line of argument.
    • What, exactly, does Woodhouse say? And what time is he referring to? If he is talking about a relatively late period in their history his referring to them as Greek means nothing more than the cultural and linguistic shift to Greece was completed by that stage. If he was talking about a point in time when our other available sources still attribute to the Soulioties Albanian language and culture - at least in part - then we have something worth discussing. Moreschi (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi this is exactly the point: The sources doesn't agree on what they spoke and what their origin was. C.M. Woodhouse in p.33 says about them that "the refugees consisted mainly of Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had lived an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries". William Miller in his 1966 book The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927‎- Σελίδα 23 says "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians.." and other sources says that they were of Albanian origin. That's the issue and that's why the only solution is to mention both three opinions. How we can omit the other two? --Factuarius (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, fine, now we are getting somewhere. In which case we can do a rewrite in accord with WP:UNDUE, along the lines of their precise racial origin is unknown, but was very likely at least partially Albanian. Woodhouse should get a mention but it should also be mentioned that his opinion is very much in the minority.
  • I have still not seen a single source that contradicts the view, however, that they originally spoke a dialect of Albanian and then wound up bilingual. Moreschi (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If they were Greek for a two centuries, back in 1821 how they could spoke Albanian? As for Woodhouse's opinion being a minority I can bring more sources about their Greek origin, many Greek and some non-Greek. Woodhouse's book is just the more prestigious due to his titles and his editor. Also there are many documents of their numerous letters to Ali pasha, all of them are in Greeks although they supposedly being Albanians or bilingual spoken to an Albanian-Turk ruler. Even the Ali's letters to them were all in Greeks. Both could use at least Turk language since both knew it also and that was the official language in the Ottoman Empire. --Factuarius (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes, changes, changes

I’m going to change the names of the villages to Kiafa, Navariko and Samoniva, as Christoforos Perraivos wrote them in his book, published in Athens (1857). Αιγοβοσκοί τινες εκ των πέριξ χωρίων ανέβαινον βόσκοντες τα κτήνη των εις τα βουνά, όπου σήμερον υπάρχουσι το Σούλλιον, η Κιάφα, ο Ναβαρίκος, και η Σαμωνίβα... (ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ, συγγ. παρά ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΥ ΠΕΡΡΑΙΒΟΥ. 1857. p. 2) Guildenrich 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. Stop spamming the talkpage with random quotations from old literature. Moreschi (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As you know, in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better! -- Guildenrich (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"The older, the better"

As for Guildenrich's motto and since "in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better": "The Souliots, the other Greek fugitives of the continent, together with the Chimariots..." Guillaume De Vaudoncourt, Memoirs. 1816 p.417. Since that's the older ref until now, and according to your motto, do we have a deal about their origin "Guildenrich"? --Factuarius (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We can go on and on with this discussion. I think it's better to outline in a paragraph their disputed origin as:
1. Cham Albanians;
2. Greeks; and
3. Hellenized; giving respective sources.
"I was here first" or the Right of the First Occupant, in Balkan Nationalism is more of a disease, than a political statement.--Guildenrich (talk)17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean

Albanians
Greeks
And mixed Albanian-Greek

Since these are the three known positions according to the presenting in the article and the talk pages refs. The Albanian and Hellenized Albanian is the same and there are at least two refs about their mixed origin that we cannot omit. If so I am making the changing in the article giving both three views about their origin with their related refs.

As for the disease of the "Right of the First Occupant", I believe your comment is irrelevant with the current discussion because what we discuss here is about the possible significance of the old sources not who was the older occupant. You are who claiming that Souliotes were at first of Albanian origin, not Greeks. Also you are who told that "in history the older source the better source". Now that I gave an older source about their origin you are answering the irrelevant: "I was here first" or the Right of the First Occupant, in Balkan Nationalism is more of a disease" What I only trying here is to follow you and respond to your standards in order to have a good discussion and end the matter.--Factuarius (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"The older the better" is a ridiculous criterion for evaluating sources. By that criterion, we should throw out all modern scholarship and rely on the Vedas, the Hebrew Bible, and Herodotus in preference to modern historians. All sources, old or new, primary or secondary, must be evaluated critically and read intelligently in the context of their times. --macrakis (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I agree with both of you. I prefer a modern study from Oxford University Press like Woodhouse's; but serious and neutral eye witnesses like Guillaume De Vaudoncourt who lived for years in the area has a value. Also the Albanian literature of the 19th Century, (thus well before the emerge of the Albanian nationalism) is by default NPOV, is reflecting the Albanian people's position about Souliotes' origin and thus, also worth a look. --Factuarius (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1857

"ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ" is dated 1857.Megistias (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Stating the obvious! Cool! --Guildenrich 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

About the refs in being of Albanian origin presenting in the article

  • 1. The crescent and the eagle: Ottoman rule, Islam and the Albanians, 1874-1913 By George Walter Gawrych as a ref: Although an article's ref. about Souliotes being of Albanian origin, in fact the ref's text says exactly the opposite mentioning an Albanian novel written in the 19th century by the Ahmed Midhat (an Albanian) about “the love between a Muslim Albanian man (Rustem Bey) and a Greek woman (Eftimi)” from Souli. The source is in fact a remarkable finding about a 19th century's Albanian source openly admitting Souliotes Greek-ness, falsely presented saying the opposite about Souliotes's origin.
  • 2. Albanian literature: a short history by Robert Elsie as a ref: The page mentioning (17 or 171) is not present in the Google Books (in fact unlike what is mentioning in the ref the book has no preview at all) and the GoogleBook word search tool on that book doesn't giving any paragraph in where the word “Souliotes” or “Souliots” is present.
  • To my opinion more (than one) and more reliable refs in being of Albanian origin are needed in the article in order to present the Albanian origin view of Souliotes more convincing. --Factuarius (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to make my objections. The "Eftimi" chick... are you f*ucking kidding me? The source says only that Eftimi (Euthymia?) was a Greek woman from Suli. Nowhere it says that the Souliotes were Greeks. I think you should consider revising the whole papargaph, on their Greek, Greek and Hellenized-Albanians, and the mix of Greeks and Greek Albanians. Better luck next time. Guildenrich 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Cannot understand what you say, since Eftimi was a Greek woman from Souli according to the text, then that's a 19th century's Albanian source about Souliotes being Greek not Albanian, as was falsely presented before. How you can use such a story as a ref for Souliotes being of Albanian origin? The very point of the story, the heart of the novel, its essential element was exactly the oddity of a love between an Albanian outside Souli and a Greek from Souli. Can you clear your thoughts and upgrade your civility? The current paragraph isn't about "Greek, Greek and Hellenized-Albanians, and mix of Greeks and Greek Albanians", is about 1)Greek, 2)mixed Greek and Hellenized Albanian and 3)Albanian (I changed the IP's edit). Which is what the currently presented references say for their origin, have you any objections about? --Factuarius (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Factuarius, it is clear you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here if you are trying to infer from a "Greek woman from Souli" (which is reliable how anyway?) that "all the Souliotes were Greek". That's just ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't noticed that post before. This was not mine ref, it was here before, but as a ref indicating Souliotes being of Albanian origin, so its not me who scraping the bottom of the barrel. I only pointed out that if this old Albanian ref suggest something, that's the opponent of what was originally used to (see above). I do believe that if it is ridiculous as a ref of Souliotes being of Greek origin it was double ridiculous as a ref of being of Albanian since the text said clearly that the Souliot girl was Greek not Albanian, that's all. --Factuarius (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't ave a consensus lede here. Guildenrich 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Because? --Factuarius (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't have a consensus, at least one (Me) doesn't agree. You should better revert the article to "09:55, 8 October 2009". Or else I will.Guildenrich 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Origin section is for sure needed since things are complicated on the topic. It's better to improve this section than to make massive reverts to a past, less detailed version.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Guildenrich can you start talk? I asked you twice why you don't agree and you answered nothing ("no consensus", "no consensus" without stating why). My opinion is that since their origin cannot be given in a few words due to the conflicting refs, it cannot be in the lede. Must have a section for that, wherein all three views with their related refs will be mentioned and logically we cannot split it in two (a part in the lede and a part in the origin section). Be a little more constructive by reasoning your position about and improve the origin section instead of just reverting. --Factuarius (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also you putted back the Robert Elsie's ref in were the Souliotes are not mentioned at all and George Walter's ref in which the author says exactly the opposite. --Factuarius (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<bashes head against a brick wall>

guys, this is just not acceptable. We had consensus previously to mention that they originally spoke an albanian dialect and later became hellenized, and leave it at that. Now we have an enormously tendentious and argumentative "origins" section that flagrantly ignores the language fact (which no one has seriously disputed). Come on. This may be petty but it matters. You don't just get to cherry-pick like this, and rely on archaic sources. Moreschi (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic point is that we DO NOT NEED this ridiculous section. The precise ethnic origin of the Souliotes is unlikely ever to be definitively settled, but the basic point is that NOBODY EFFING CARES apart from you bunch of nationalist flamers. This is not a matter for NOTABLE controversy outside whatever google groups you guys hang out in. Hence we don't need an entire argumentative section on it, synthesized out of a bunch of crap.
Seriously, children, please grow up. This is an encyclopedia devoted to encyclopedicity. Have a long, careful think about what that means. Sorry for shouting, but FFS, stop pissing around over this irrelevant shit. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
But you told the last time "Ok, fine, now we are getting somewhere. In which case we can do a rewrite in accord with WP:UNDUE, along the lines of their precise racial origin is unknown, but was very likely at least partially Albanian. Woodhouse should get a mention but it should also be mentioned that his opinion is very much in the minority." --Factuarius (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And you took that and completely and utterly distorted it, proving in the process you are completely unfit to be editing such a topic under any pretence of neutrality. Back to the last sane version until you manage to come up with something vaguely in accordance with policy. For that matter, I'm still unclear as to how you are going to manage to source the notability of this controversy. Is this controversial among academics? No, just among nationalist blogs. Wikipedia is supposed to be at the academic level, not the blog level. Moreschi (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What you propose to do with the those 8 refs saying being Albanians, Greek and mixed? --Factuarius (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Discard most of them as archaic junk that you have scraped out of the bottom of some barrel somewhere. Point out that, as far as substantial references are concerned, no one seems to have researched this closely or be particularly certain, so we'd be better off sticking to facts (originally Albanophone, later Greek-speaking). You people badly need to get out of the mentality that dictates accuracy by number of references. Good faith, not pseudo-scholarlyness, is the key. Quality of references matters more than quantity. Moreschi (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
(several edit conflicts) I agree with Moreschi. If you want to write about a dispute, you need proof that the dispute exists. I see no indication of this. I am not even sure that there are contradictions in the obsolete (19th century) sources: It wouldn't be a contradiction to say that the Souliotes were Albanian by origin but are among the most authentic ethnic Greeks now. It's all a matter of self-identification and how they are seen by their neighbours, which may well have shifted. Hans Adler 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thank the lord. Another voice of sanity. On a page like this, they don't arrive very often. Moreschi (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Other pages like this aren't related to the most beautiful spot in the world (the Acherontas valley). ;-) I have been watching this article for ages because of that connection. Hans Adler 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand your point, but one of the ref you putted back says nothing at all about Souliotes, another says the opposite and I cannot see why Vickers's is academic but Woodhouse is not. The language you are mentioning is in reality an indication of their origin, so either with your view, what we are really talking is about their origin. Why we must omit refs (even modern) speaking directly about their origin? --Factuarius (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you really think that the language a group speaks is a necessary indicator of their ethnic origin then there's something badly wrong. When we speak of language we are not necessarily speaking of ethnicity: the two are related but not mutually inclusive, and history provides plenty of examples a people speaking a language alien to their background. Moreschi (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Plus: well, yes, it's obvious that up to a point it's perfectly valid to call them "Greek": they doubtless self-identified as Hellenes and were identified as such by their neighbours after a certain time. Unfortunately for you boys, some kind of Albanian origin seems very hard to deny and this origin remained part of their culture for quite a while as well. Thus this makes applying a precise label to their ethnicity a very knotty problem, so we had best skip over it and stick with linguistic fact, give that there is absolutely no notable controversy here at all. Moreschi (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What you say is right and sound but not the rule, believe me I am not totally ignorant in Balkans history and must trust me: for the period we discuss it was totally impossible to start as a Greek population but who spoke Albanian. The mixed origin is a good argument that is a good explanation, that's why must include it, but together with the other two. To me that's the only NPOV presentation of the issue and let the reader decide (if he gives a penny as you told). --Factuarius (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned users editing

Just to note here that 96.225.107.10 and related IPs are evidently banned user Deucalionite (talk · contribs) again. Any edits from that source will be immediately reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you semi-protect (again) the article to end with the IP edits since they are not participating in the discussion, and since what we are trying is to achieve a final consensus in the issue? --Factuarius (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind semi-protection, but I can't do that myself right now, as I'm currently not supposed to be taking admin actions on Greece-related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<bashes wall against a brick head>

Consensus, anyone? Somebody please check one or two stocking-puppets involved in the discussion. Don't want to mention any names. Guildenrich 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Agree, it seems that too many new usernames created at the end of august decided that their only interest was to edit the Epirus-related articles. And too many old (in)famous accounts carrying multiple blocks in their backs are mysteriously still missing; some of those "new" accounts are already banned as stocking, some not. As for me I don't have A SINGLE edit without sigh it by my user name IN MY ENTIRE WP life, which is THE ONLY USER NAME I EVER HAD. I say: not even one edit. Hard to believe? why "Guildenrich"?. Now go and ask for a check. Do it now, else you are accusing people without believing your own words just to discredit them. --Factuarius (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
About consensus: Let me explain what is happening here to give you the answer. In this article you are free to give as much refs you want saying that Souliotes spoke Albanian but you are not free to give any ref about their actual origin. You can include a ref about a 19th century's Albanian novel as a confirmation of their Albanian origin and the ref will stay here for months, but when is found that the ref says actually the opposite the ref have to be deleted as old. You cannot give any modern ref about Souliotes' origin (i.e.from Oxford University Press), because the object of the books are not Souliotes' origin. You can say that the rulers of the area were Albanians but you cannot say that they wrote poems saying that Souliotes were not. And you can then ask if we now have a consensus. Got it? Accordingly, the current situation in the article is the following: All six refs about their non-Albanian origin are by now deleted (two old and four modern) and the article has the only ref saying they spoke Albanian, supported by another possibly saying not a word about Souliotes. So about the consensus, the answer is sure, why not, as I understand it everyone here has to pick his decision: either he agrees that the Souliotes spoke Albanian, or he is out. Who am I to continue bashing the wall when less brick-headed Greek nationalists than me like Miller, Woodhouse, Hatzidimitriou, Lydekker, Vaudoncourt, Fauriel (and who knows how many others) failed so evidently to recognize their mistake? --Factuarius (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is this Wikipedia, The FREE encyclopedia, or Wikipedia, the Factuarius encyclopedia? I think I'm going to report you somewhere, for ungentlemanly behaviour. Guildenrich (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Moreschi

Will you please have a look at the history page? Someone is doctoring it. Thanks in advance. Guildenrich (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Warlike community or Albanian community?

The article starts with saying that the Souliotes are a "warlike community". Now what is exactly a "warlike community"? A community that likes wars? I never heard of such communities. Perhaps someone wants to explain a little better or open a new article to explain what the warlike communities are?

Can we mention what nation this community belonged to? Or is it too controversial to say that they were Albanian? A community that fights back against the aggressor might be warlike but that doesn't mean we should say that they were a "warlike community".

I suggest that we remove "warlike community" and substitute with "Arvanite community".user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I think you may have made a big mistake by making this edit, you are all to familiar with the objections to that wording. Concerning the proposal "Arvanite community", I'm not sure. They were Arvanite only according to certain definitions, the name "Arvanite" is often taken to refer only to the Arvanites of central and southern Greece and these definitions exclude the Suliotes.

I don't like the word "community" either. I propose something along the lines of "the Suliotes were a group of clans from the village of Souli and the surrounding area who became famous...".--Ptolion (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I like your wording better too. --Athenean (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds better to me too. Bring the battle to Suli now, :-). sulmues
Made the change as suggested by Ptolion, and agreed by Athenean.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Athenean, why are you reverting me if you say above that you like the wording?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ali Pasha a brigand?

On the top, we're saying: "Ali Pasha, an Albanian brigand". If the English user gets curious about this character and he makes the mistake to click on Ali Pasha he is going to find that not only was he not a brigand, but he was the ruler of the Pashalik of Janina (its pasha). As a result the word needs to be removed. Either we say nothing about him, because the reader can go ahead and see who he was or we say that he was the ruler of the vilayet which included Souli. Even Adolf Hitler is referred to as a politician and leader of a parti, why should a Pasha be brigand? I need the community comments in order to make the change. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Brigand" is obviously in reference to his relations with the central government, I'm not sure it's the most appropriate word though. I agree with you, change it.--Ptolion (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Athenean reverted through his usual edit warring without first writing in the talk page.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If you clicked on the two sources given, they both say "brigand". We go by what the sources say, not what you like. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually he was famous as such, the massacres of Hormovo, Lekli, Himara, Souli, Preveza, Moscopole was the work of a brigand leader. The 'ruler' or 'Pasha' term is too generic. Imagine for example calling A. Hitler simply 'ruler' or 'Fuehrer' of Germany, instead of 'dictator', 'tottalitarian ruler' or 'war criminal'.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, the word "brigand" on its own means very little. Even the two sources cited don't use that word on its own to refer to him but merely use it to qualify the word leader or warlord. It also needs to be considered whether it is relevant to his relations with the Souliotes. Did the Souliotes oppose him out of loyalty to the sultan for example?--Ptolion (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually they didn't recognize his authority at all. So you suggest 'brigand leader' suits better, since 'brigand' means very little?Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the change. A pasha doesn't need to be a brigand. He was a pasha, which would be equivalent of a Duke in the Western world. He may even have started his early career as a brigand, but he was made Pasha for military reasons and given a nobelty title. From that point he was an Albanian lord, not an Albanian brigand. Pushing the POV that he was a brigand while being a Pasha is against Wiki rules.--sulmues (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

clever, isn`t it?

As, I saw, the consensus that was long ago (before I leave) is changed to a new one, putting out anything that has to do with ethnicity. Thus, no mention about it, thus putting out the sources in general and the Albanian ones in paticular (which were the majority), clever isn`t it?
Nevertheless, I propose two things:
1. To put out from the lead the ethnicity of Ali Pasha, and his soldiers (isn`t this part of defocusing from ethnicity? otherwise, we should put Souliotes` ethnicity first of all, the article is about them.
2. To create a section about their ethnicity. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Soulites' ethnicity is debate and a section is a good idea. I would prefer the title 'identity' instead of ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Concensus, Page not Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Souliotes → Suliotes — Suliotes is the name that is most used by sources, as such it should be the name of the article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I request the move of this page from Souliotes to Suliotes. Valuing the various sources used in this page about the Suliotes, the name used by the majority of historians is Suliotes and not Souliotes.

Update Per WP:NC the proper name for the article, should be that the most RS use, and in WP:NC is stated that the names that are used in the articles references is a good example. As such, the references are divided as follows:

  • Uses only Suliotes
  1. Laurie Kain Hart. Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
  1. Elsie, Robert (1986), Dictionary of Albanian Literature, London, United Kingdom: Greenwood Press, p. 17, ISBN 0-313-25186-X, retrieved 2009-03-31
  1. Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419
  • Uses only Souliotes:
  1. Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson (2001), Nationalism, globalization, and orthodoxy: the social origins of ethnic conflict in the Balkans, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 25, ISBN 9780313319495
  • Uses both variants:
  1. Katherine Elizabeth Fleming. The Muslim Bonaparte: diplomacy and orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece. Princeton University Press, 1999. ISBN 9780691001944, p. 99

As it is clear, the majority of these sources use Suliotes, and not Souliotes.

Secondly, after doing a google test, in scholar and google books (not in google.com, because of the patronym Souliotes, which is popular in Greece), the result was:

  1. Google books:
  1. Google scholar:

For this three reasons, as per WP:NC, Suli and Suliotes ought to be the actual name of this article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Update While I did the google test, I was actually wrong. I reendered the data from the google test, using only those pages that are in English per WP:ENG. The difference is quite clear now! Secondly, I removed the references about Souli and Suli, because as is said below, they are not representing the geographical location of Souli. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support move per evidence provided--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Support move per Balkanian`s word's reasoning. An Albanian settlement has to go with its Albanian name. --sulmues (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as nationalist nonsense. I note that virtually all the results for "Suli" and "Souli" have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual Souli. As for "Souliotes" vs. "Suliotes", the difference in the number of hits is not sufficiently significant to establish which one is common usage, but I note that "Souliotes" has been the stable article name for years (since the beginning in fact). Athenean (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment 1. Please be polite. 2. That it has been in a wrong name since the begining is not an argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: My comment is not impolite and I stand by it. It is nationalism, because only a nationalist would call "Souliotes" the wrong name. You just want to replace "Souliotes" with "Suliotes" because "Suliotes" is the more "Albanian" spelling. So this is just a frivolous nationalist crusade to "right" a historical "wrong". It also is nonsense because virtually all the 20000+ hits for "Souli" and "Suli" have nothing to do with the actual Souli as anyone who clicks on the link can tell. So either you do not know what you are doing or else are trying to deceive the community (which is it?). I also note that virtually all the hits for "Suliotes" refer to a particular poem by Lord Byron. He uses "Suliotes" in his poem, so it is natural to expect the sources discussing the poem to use "Suliotes". However, this is hardly representative of common usage. Athenean (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: As it is quite obvious, the wrong name in what I said is "wrong" as per wiki-policies, not "wrong" as per good or bad. You first said that this is nationalism, and than I said that this is the "wrong" name, so you even knew what would I answer to you, thats why you wrote about a nationalistic view, isnt it right? Nevertheles, about the real argument, as it seems both Souli and Suli are irrelevant in the search, but clearly Suliotes and Souliotes are relevant. Lord Byron`s Suliotes poem is not 1000 times in google books, is just ones, as such one down, from the 923 hits, still is more used. Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the hits for "Suliotes" concern the poem by Lord Byron. As for the rest of your ungrammatical unintelligible post, I'm sure you think it makes sense to you but it doesn't to anyone else. Athenean (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Did you see that virtually all the 20000+ hits for "Suli" and "Souli" have nothing to do the actual Souli? Evidently the nominator doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he knows *exactly* what he's doing). Athenean (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Oppose: the evidence isn't strong enough for this move. Actually: google search: Souliotes 103,000 hits [[2]], Suliotes 34,000 [[3]].

Comment This is not the case, as most of them are Demetres Souliotes, George Souliotes, Janis Souliotes, and whoever-greek-uses-this-name Souliotes. We are talking about a population group, not about persons.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: I already told you to avoid trolling comments, since you are still under civility supervision. This has nothing to do with racial purity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment This is not a vote poll, this is argumentation based on wikipolicy, so please be more clear than "pretty clear".Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: When you type Suliotes in Googlescholar it shows the msg 'Did you mean Souliotes?' [4]. Moreover the vast majority (if not all) of the hits in Suliotes are either irrelevant or 19th century works.Alexikoua (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment It is not the case again, per my first and main argument that most of the sources that used to and are in this page do mention Suliotes and not Souliotes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The dubious Google results aren't good enough from this one, especially when the population concerned are named after a settlement in Greece with a clear official spelling. Yet another case of Albanian irredentism.--Ptolion (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I still wait to see a clear argument for this move. The google books hits actually is a counter-argument for this move since the results are completely irrelevant.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • First, a comment: what exactly is the fuss about? Both "Suliotes" and "Souliotes" are essentially the same, English transliterations of Σουλιώτες, hinging on the different ways used for transliterating the Greek ου into English. I really find it odd that we have to be divided along national lines in a vote which does not have any implications whatsoever. There is no "correct" form per se; per WP:ENG we could also follow the English form, which is "Suliots", but which does not meet the most common in use criterion. As Balkanian said, a search in Google Scholar (IMO the best indicator for the more recent trends & scholarly usage) comes up with 482 hits for "Suliotes" and 239 hits for "Souliotes", with many of the latter being transliterations from Greek or from French articles. Per common use, Support for "Suliotes". Constantine ✍ 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced the move is a good idea. There are redirects in place for the alternative spellings, so I don't see any compelling reason to move; the alternatives are equally balanced at gbooks or gscholar on alternating sides. What's to gain? Even if it were a clear win (which I don't see it is), readers using the "right" names will get redirected to the "wrong" names and the matching article. Josh Parris 12:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That is actually a good question. There is nothing to be gained, indeed. As I said, there is no "right" or "wrong" version of the name, it is merely a matter of semantics. This move proposal is in itself rather redundant, but it is in place and per the guidelines for naming things, it has a sound footing. Other than that, IMO the proposal is of no consequence. Constantine ✍ 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not speak on my behalf, I can do it myself. In this case with "wrong" I clearly ment, wrong as per wikipolicies, not wrong per good or evil. Thank you for being so nice.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The nominator has been assiduously canvassing every Albanian user he knows: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Athenean (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: This is not a vote poll, this is an wiki-policy debate, as such no votes may be counted, just arguments. And a note to Athenean, I have asked the opinions even of other users: like this one, but as I said this is not voting ;). Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
There is also this [[9]] additional canvassing attempt.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would be canvassing if it was a vote poll, but this is not a vote poll, this is a move request and as such the closing admin will not take into account the votes but WP:ENG and WP:NC.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It is the definition of canvassing since you addressed the message only to the Albanian users and about your argument in not being a vote, the expression "I need your opinion" adding to the fact that you called only Albanians, makes it more of a trumpet calling for a campaign for arguments than an innocent informative message. But I am sure that you will not repeat that unnecessary move in the future. To me (and I believe to everyone older than 7 months in the Balkan-related articles) your reappearance in WP will soon transform the articles again into a large battleground through canvassing, edit warring, and tagteaming. I may be wrong but I am afraid it's only a matter of time. But time will tell. --Factuarius (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Balkanian's word's friendly notice to ONE PERSON is nothing as compared to user:Athenean's wp:canvassing to the ENTIRE Greece TF ([10]). --sulmues (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues, I do not know how familiar you are with WP rules and procedures, but notifying a related WP project (any related WP project!) about an open move discussion within its scope is no canvassing. I've done repeatedly with various similar discussions, and I'll keep doing it, because it is not only acceptable but sometimes very useful as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I note that since Balkanian's fellow SPAs have failed to make any intelligent arguments and just cast !votes, I guess by his own words their !votes should be ignored. On the other hand, since this article falls within the scope of WP:GREECE, it is appropriate that I post a notice there. Athenean (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • weak oppose, mainly for consistency with Souli, which should remain where it is according to transliteration rules (ISO 843 and WP:GREEK). For Souliotes, English evidently uses both spellings, preponderance of the simple -u- spelling, if any, isn't strong enough to force our compliance, and if in doubt it will be preferable to stick with that version that also happens to be our preferred transliteration for the original Greek. (BTW, out of linguistic curiosity, when we use "S(o)uliot-es" here, is that a transliterated but original Greek word, containing the Greek plural suffix -ες ([es]), or an assimilated English loan word, containing the English plural suffix -s ([s])?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There is no clear prevailence for "Suliotes" in any specialized google search. In any case, I was always reluctant to accept Google results as the basic criterion for page moves. Transliteration rules seem to favor mostly the "Souliotes" version, which is indeed consistent (FPS argument) with the Souli article. In any case, I cannot understand all this "heat" here, and I do not see any strong reason for the move. The arguments of the nominator are not compelling enough to justify the move; to make me say "ok, it is indeed wrong where we have the article, let's move it". But, at the same, time, if the move finally takes place, I don't see why this is problem and why there is so much fuss and useless divisions on nationalistic lines (I agree with Constantine on that). Finally, allow me to point out that this is not a fight for more votes, and, consequently: a) tension is useless, and b) calls, instructions (e.g. which votes to ignore and which not to ignore) and notes to the closing administrators are also useless. Closing administrators know their job better that you think, and they will close this discussion properly assessing the situation.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me finally point out that one can also make google book and scholar searches with the terms "Suliots" and "Souliots" as well, where the results are also inconclusive (Google web: Souliots 19600 hits, Suliots 22.300 hits; Google book: around 590 hits for each terms; Google scholar: Suliots 110, Souliots 56 – I confess I did not further processed or analyzed these hits as BW or Athenean did, it is up to you to assess them). I thus insist in my initial argument: we have four names all of them used in English; none clearly prevails; none is regarded as "wrong". So, provided there are the proper redirects and provided all these terms are included in the lead, I don't see why we should move the article, unless somebody can convince me that the current (consistent with Souli) title is either inaccurate or uncyclopedic or unscientific.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see further arguments provided in the lead of this section. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest edits

According to the latest edits made by Balkanian's Word, (although not explained in discussion page) I see that specific parts of the lead were changed or removed without a reason, like that Ali Pasha was 'Muslim Albanian', which is essential to the context. Another fact that's also unexplained is that the bombardment of sources (17), which was removed as per a past consensus explained also by User:Moreshi in this page, was mysteriously restored. As I see only one source is needed in this sentence, this of 'Laurie Kain Hart'.Alexikoua (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes over time so I think that before making again such mass removals you should at least discuss the issue. Also try not to plagiarize by directly copy/pasting text from books.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have told before, if the ethnicity of Ali Pasha is relevant than for sure the ethnicity of Souliotes is relevant in the pages of Souliotes. The agreement was defocusing and that is what I did.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have nothing against a brief "ethnicity" paragraph, in principle, but the recent version by Balkanian`s et al is unacceptable for several reasons:

  • Bad English throughout.
  • It's problematic to first assert that national identity is "difficult" to ascertain, but then to state the "ethnically" Albanian claim without any hedging and as a hard fact.
  • It's problematic to sanitize the description of the religious identity to such an extent that the word "Greek" doesn't even occur in it (but instead to overload it with irrelevant detail about "spiritual leadership")
  • It is problematic to date their assimilation in the Greek nation to "after the War of Independence". That dating is unsourced, and questionable.
  • The source bombardment is completely unacceptable. Only the lowest of the low among our POV-warriors ever use more than three footnotes in a row. This is just extremely bad style.

A word to B.W. personally: welcome back, but I can only warn you in the strongest possible terms against resuming any edit wars over this. We've recently seen just about everybody else sanctioned, and we may soon be back at WP:AE. And in your case, given your status as an obvious single-purpose advocacy/agenda account, and your prior history of permanent revert-warring over just these topics, I predict not just a revert limitation but a full topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment:
A source is needed that clearly states that the assimilation process begun 'after' the War of Independence. Revert summaries like

[[11]] 'consensus changes over time', aren't enough to make this sentence stay without a single source. Also, the source should clearly mention this fact, otherwise some rewording is needed here.Alexikoua (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

[12] your edit, which is more or less the same as BW's edit about national identity. If you think that they had a clear national identity they you shouldn't add that they didn't have a clear national identity.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol:

I say: "the question of a national identity, whether Greek or Albanian can hardly be applied here." [[13]], while Balkanian: "Ethnically they were Albanians" [[14]]. He used a wrong edit summary that's allAlexikoua (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The national identity of Souliotes is hard to be provided, in a period where the national consciousness was not eminent in the region where they lived.

was added by BW which is the same as your edit. For the record ethnicity and national identity are two completely different concepts.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, even Venizellos himself tells us, that at least when the Dance of Zalongo was inspired, those women`s mother tangue was ALBANIAN. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The "ethnicity" section added by Balkanian is simply terrible. I completely agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's comments. Atrocious English, weasel-wording (using phrases like "Church of Constantinople" in an obvious attempt to avoid having to use the word Greek), not to mention the extreme POV-pushing using 15 sources. The way it is written now, it is completely irredeemable. It should be removed and re-written from scratch, preferrably as an "Identity" section (and at the bottom of the article), by someone who is obviously less emotionally involved in the topic. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Put out "ref" overload, added Greek as you liked, English has been improved since Fut commented on that. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding me with this? You just moved them to the end of the article. Not nearly good enough, the section goes. Athenean (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

George Finlay, although a 19th century historian (although he is considered a notable historian), seems to be the only one who gives us a description of the Hellenization of the Souliotes. Although, he does not give a clear cut view, on when we can say that this process was finally over, he tells us thet they gradually lost their Albanian characteristics after they were expelled from Suli, i.e. after 1803. I think that as this is the only source which precisely tells something about this story, and because Finlay is considered a great historian, we may put it in the article.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, I propose:

Ethnicity

The national identity of Souliotes is hard to be provided, in a period where the national consciousness was not eminent in the region where they lived.<ref> As sources claim, Souliotes had a rather strong local identity.<ref> Ethnically they were Albanians, belonging to the Cham branch of Tosks.<ref> Religiously, they belonged to the Church of Constantinople, part of the larger Eastern (or Greek) Orthodox Church.<ref> After they were driven out from Souli, in 1803, the Albanian characteristics of those tribes gradually were vanished and on the course of time they became part of the Greek nation.<ref>Finlay</ref>
What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Totally pov-pushing. Where is there anything on Souliotes on that book. Also, why did you remove the ethnical part, which was sourced? Please explain, otherwise it is a clear pov-pushing case.Balkanian`s word (talk)
Finlay is the only one that says that they were branch of the Tsamides. But unfortunately no 20th century detailed research confirms this. Very interesting is the Albanian point of view of that time, written by Hadji Seckreti in his Alipashiad (where he clearly seperates Souliotes from Tsamides). But both sources can't meet wp:rs here. I've made some re-adjustment in the section and renamed it: ethnicity->identity.

The sources say 'of Albanian origin', see Flemming, one of the most credible ones.Alexikoua (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Finaly is a historian and has wrotten historic books, not verses like Haxhi Sekreti ;).Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Which book? Stoppel? It deals with all the communities of Epirus, Souliotes was one of them (p. 7).Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Where does the book that you added as a source mention anything on Souliotes, or Sulioten better? I did not find anything. If you do not provide something clear from that book, about Souliotes, than please do remove it. No synth please.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Souliotes lived in Ottoman Epirus and this journal doesn't make any exception to the Souliotes, if you mean this, they were an Orthodox community living in Ottoman Epirus. I can't understand what's the meaning of this weird edit, which sounds more than a blind revert [[15]]:
  1. multiple sources are back (contrary to multiple consensuses),
  2. the last unsourced sentence is restored (After the Greek War of Independence they were assimilated into the Greek nation[citation needed])
  3. 'Ethnically Albanian' instead of the 'of Albanian origin' that's verbally taken from several sources like Flemming.
  4. mixed origin scenario is removed, while it is sourced by Miller (mysteriously the source remains but what the source claims has gone).

Actually this last revert is more like a wp:idontlikeit move creating a wp:synth, contrary to any discussion and reference.Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

multiple sources is not a bad thing, it was just non-esthetic. Please, can you provide the full citation of that book? Your wording was totally POV-pushing. 1. It is not self-identification, it was how the state used to divide muslim and orthodox population. 2. You wrotte that despite (the Ottoman law? the way that the ottoman empire used to divide people? despite what?) some (you ment the majority of sources didn`t you) considered them as Albanians (99% of the sources?) or mixed Greek-Albanians (1 source?). You also have a problem in distinguishing national identity with ethnicity and in this case just to put the word Greek (Rum would be the right word) you mess up in this also the millet system of the ottoman empire...., especially when talking about 19th century. As for the last sentence you may remove it. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

About this reference bombardment that creates this wp:synth conclution see comments of Moreschi and Fut. (The source bombardment is completely unacceptable. Only the lowest of the low among our POV-warriors ever use more than three footnotes in a row. This is just extremely bad style.) Moreover, 1&2 points are completely synth, the source I provided doesn't talk about the 'Millet system', but about social classification in general (it's verbally taken from German).Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Balk.: As I see you quickly reworded this sentence even though you can't understand the German source, in which this part is based on.[[16]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I do not understand German, does not mean that I cannot understand the difference between "ethnicity" and "social groups", (the first the one you added and the second the one used in the ref). As for the source bombardment, you can keep only one of them if you want, but which one?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you adopt Fut's and Moreschi's approach instead of insisting on a complete synth&or theories against a series of past concensuses.Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
And which is that aproach? To leave sources out?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For a start, I changed "belonged to Church of Constantinople" to "Greek Orthodox Church". The previous wording seemed like an exercise in hedging and trying to avoid certain words. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I also removed the unsourced bit about them assimilating after the War of Independence. Nothing controversial there I hope. Athenean (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion about what Finlay says? It is in the beggining of this section. Do you think we may use him as a source?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
@Balk. I can't understand your obsession with a 19th century source, in an attempt to create disruption in the article. +Hart doesn't adopt Finlay's description.Alexikoua (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My problem with the "Church of Constantinople" (the "choc" as you call it) is that the way it is written now, it seems like the "choc" is a subset of the Greek Orthodox Church, when in fact it is the other way around. Athenean (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I`m sorry. I cannot follow. Isn`t the Church of Constantinople (choc per idiolect :P) part of the Greek Orthodox Church (either this term meaning the whole Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Greek liturgical tradition)? Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
@Alex. I am not obsessed with Finlay, but he`s the only one that gives some light, on when the process of Hellenization started. Nobody else, does that AFAIK.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If you cannot follow, maybe you should read more and write less. The Greek Orthodox Church is a subset of the Church of Constantinople, as are a number of other Orthodox Churches. To suggest that the Church of Constantinople is a subset of the Greek Orthodox Church is simply wrong. The Church of Constantinople is the umbrella organization under which all the various orthodox churches are included. Hope that makes sense. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry about Finlay but we need to rely on wp:rs stuff. Actually this "...belonging to the Cham branch of Tosks" is Finlay and needs to go.19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Being some years ago an Orthodox, it does not make sense at all. There is only one Holly Catholic and Apostocil Church, and that is not the Church of Constantinople, which has just jurisdiction over some parts of the World. The One, Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church does not have a name, because it is just the Church, but commonly it is refered either as the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church (per tradition). The Church of Constantinople is primus inter pares between various jurisdictions of the One, Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church, as well as one of the four ancient sees. How does this make sense.
It is not Finlay but Hart, who praises Finlay that says that, as well as Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944..Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's check Hart:

"Finlay's late 19th-century description of the Suliotes gives some impression of the complexity of social categories in this area. To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian. The Tchamides (Tsamides, Cham in Albanian) were both Christian and Muslim by the late 18th century (in the 20th century, Cham applies to Muslims only)."

The bold text is Hart, the text inside "" is what Finlay believed about Souliotes (not adobted by Hart, just mentions Finlay's description).Alexikoua (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean, please change that about the Church of Constantinople, as you say maybe you should read more and write less.
@Alex, Yeah, and why is she speaking about Chams, when she is speaking of Souliotes? She is citing Finlay, so what is the problem about that. Also, do not forget reat Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944, which states it inline.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you post about the "Holly and Apostocil" something something makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Possibly something got lost in translation. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that history is repeating, consensus is again forgotten, and we talk about the same stuff, same material: Dozens of sources that adopt a diferrent approach, that's why Flemming one of the most credible works in the subject was preffered.

Another source is Woodhouse: [[17]].

If you are interested in the Albanian point of view there is the Hadji Sekhreti [[18]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read the verses of Haxhi Sekreti, but we are not speaking about verses, but history. As for the Church, I have been only 1 year attending the religion that you say you are part of, but for sure I have learned more than you do. Please get clear on what is the Greek Orthodox Church vs. the jurisdiction called Church of Constantinople. As for Woodhouse, he is not a RS, Christopher Montague Woodhouse was an autodidact historian, not cited by other prestigious authors, so does not fulfill WP:RS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
OOPS! The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (Greek: Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Oikoumenikòn Patriarcheîon Kōnstantinoupóleōs; Turkish: Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi,[1][2] "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate"), part of the wider Greek Orthodox Church, is one of the fourteen autocephalous churches within the communion of Orthodox Christianity.. OOPS!Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Woodhouse wrote several books on the subject, especially about the Greek War of Independence, by the way he was a professor. It would be exagerrated to claim that he didn't meet wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That does not make him an historian. You call WP:RS when we speak about one of the most well-known historians (Finlay), because he lived in the 19th century, why do not you call WP:RS, once more for non-historians whose hobby is to writte history?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
OOPS! Citing wikipedia as a source! OOPS! Athenean (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea about Orthodoxy, do you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Reluctant intervention: Balkanian is quite right on the Greek Orthodox Church, which is not the same as the Orthodox Church of Greece. The former includes Constantinople, but also the ancient patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, as well as a number of other autocephalous or Ecumenical Patriarchate-supervised archdioceses or exarchates, while the latter doesn't even cover the entirety of the Greek state itself. Anyhow, this issue is tangential, and please, all of you, calm down. Constantine ✍ 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's stop beating around the bush, shall we? It is quite clear what's going on here: Balkanian is playing word games so as to avoid the appearance of the word "Greek" in the section in question, which is anathema to him in connection to the Souliotes. My fault for stooping down to this level. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
????????? It was: The belonged to the Church of Constantinople, which was part of the larger Greek Orthodox Church. You made it: They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church, under the spiritual leadership of the Partriarch of Constantinople. By the way, in that section the word Greek is 3 times, the word Albanian is once. Who is obssessed? Me, or you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see ANY reason why the Church of Constantinople needs to be mentioned in the first place. Constnatinople is very far away from Souli. Also, I see Zarri violated the longstanding consensus to keep ethnicity out of the lead, which will be removed. Athenean (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
...I didn't make any edits to the lead, I simplified the identity section.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The region was (and still is) under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople (though after 1920 this jurisdiction is exercised by the Church of Greece.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, that's not a reason to include the Church of Constantinople. All of Greece was under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople at the time. So what? To say they were part of the of the Greek Orthodox Church is more than sufficient. Simpler, better. The rest is just an attempt to confuse the waters, for the usual reasons. Athenean (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute tag

If someone disputes the fact that they were Cham Albanians, instead of Albanians not part of a particular branch then the obvious solution is to simplify the sentence and not add a dubious tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain me what's this blind revert again? [[19]] @Zjarri. perhaps you should reconsider this blind revert strategy. And yes not a single wp:rs claims what you say (I mean the Tsam stuff which is absent from the entire bibliography, you don't believe some 19th century stuff to be rs?) that's why we have the dispute tags you are so eager to remove.Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua I didn't blindly revert you and if you think that you should recheck my edit as my edit wasn't even content removal or a restoration of a previous version. You added dubious tag because you dispute that they were Cham Albanians and I removed that they were Cham Albanians and simplified it as Albanians which you didn't dispute. Therefore the dubious tag was unnecessary because the reason of its addition was removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Alex is probably right, we need to ref seperatly the Cham origin of them. So, I did put the two references who undoubtly say about their belongig after Cham branch and then the rest of the sources after the sentence. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the obsession to keep a useless bibliography, what's really wp:idontlike style here, is the systematic misuse of sources. Hart, doesn't adopt Finlay's 19th century description (he just says that they initially spoke Albanian). By the way this 'Henry Clifford Darby' has a link or something or is it just an off-line source?Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Church

Note to Athenean, if you have no idea about the Orthodox Church, read about it before reverting. They belonged to the Church of Constantinople. The Church is part of the larger Greek Orthodox Church, which itself is part of the larger Eastern Orthodox Church, which itself is part of the Christian religion. the Church of Constantinople had jurisdiction over Souli, and was the one who excercised this authority until 1920. The Greek Orthodox Church (or tradition to be fair) is not an institution at all.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tradition or institution, whatever. Greek Orthodox Church is the most known term, it is accurate, and it is sufficient. The rest are just the usual journalist's tricks to muddy the waters and sow confusion. Athenean (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Stop ORing please. The Greek Orthodox Church was there, but the fact is that they were and are under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople. Its just the way it is. Your behaviour, except of being a violation of your 1RR, is also incredibly WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Who is ORing here? And sorry to disappoint you, no 1RR violation. Athenean (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeap, sorry about 1rr. You`re ORing about GOCH and CHOC. It is quitte clear where they belonged. You just do not like it. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What's there not to like? Just trying to keep things as simple as possible, that's all. Athenean (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Suliots

Why is the Greek rebellion mentioned that much when it's just a small part of their history?--KëngaJonë 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Greek Orthodox Church isn't an institution therefore to state that someone belonged to it without mentioning the institution leads to a deductive error.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Snippet abuse...

It seems that this source: Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I apologize for the mass revert, I did not see it. As for the question on "identity" section, it is quite clear that you try to avoid the ethnical part. That section deals not with language but with identity as such it has included: nationality (doubious, nonexistent in that period), religious identification (classification based on millets), religion itself (Church of Constantinople, and so it needs to be adressed also the ethnical part, which as per sources we have is quite clear: cham branch of Tosk albanians (Hart, Vickers, et.al.).Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The term 'identity' deals with a series of issues (religion, language, nationality, origin). Since the majority of the sources say 'of Albanian origin' (the rest say mixed) this sould be stated verbally. Also, you continue to misuse Hart, in fact you are based on a 19th century source (Finlay) which is quite weird since you ignore the majority of 20th century bibliography. Hart just says they initially spoke Albanian (this is stated too). Actually the meaning remains the same with the difference that the we clarify how the dialect they initially spoke was classified.Alexikoua (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

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

The following request appears on that page:

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

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

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

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

A claim not supported by the source used

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

Thomas Gordon - Souliotes an Albanian tribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that all the British WWII secret agents were "experts" in the nationalities of the Balkans. Just like Harry Hodgkinson who "failed to investigate any archive" (O.Schmitt) but concluded that George Castriotis was Albanian (by race?). It seems that the colleges of London were doing good job on racialism that time, thanks to their field work in Africa.

Btw, the user BuaSpata ommitted the word "strictly" from Woodhouse'w quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Slow removal of sources and text

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

Sthenel I'm going to have to revert you: Please discuss in the talk page rather than via edit summary when you make these controversial edits. We've been on this with Alexikoua a thousand times. --Sulmues (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, so I've restored the lead back to the previous status, after the weird initiative by Zjthoues.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree too with the consensus and I made a minor edit about the name of their dialect. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbereshe, Arvanites & Souliotes

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

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

- Wrong. The Arberesh community consider themselves as war refugees that escaped from Ottoman repression. They came mostly from Himare and Morea, as well as from other part of Albania. The Arberesh had a great role in Albanian National Awakening especially during 19-th century. The Arvanites established their communities throughout the whole actual modern Greece during 13 and 14 century. Part of this migration was organized by Latin rulers of Attica and Morea. Byzantine Empire during that period had no control of these territories" (Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Byzantine Empire had not the effective control of most territories but Arvanites (and Arbereshe) were former Byzantine population, both culturally and in terms of religion, although some Arbereshe were Latin-rite catholics. The "Albanian" conception was as alien to them as the "Hellenic" conception was irrelevant to Byzantine Greeks at that time. Even though in the western world the Byzantines were regarded wrongly as Greeks, this is the reason why Arbereshe were labelled as "Greeks" (Greci) when they installed in Southern Italy. This categorization was kept up to the late 20's when Mussolini's expantionist visions towards both Albania and Greece, made Arbereshe to be "Albanians", even changing the medieval names for villages and churches. Piana dei Albanesi has been in fact Piana dei Greci for more than 400 years. Arbershe villages were forcibly added the term "Albanese": Shen Kostadini was made San Costantino Albanese, Shen Pali was made San Paolo Albanese, Fullkunara turned to Falconara Albanese, Shen Kola to San Nicola Albanese and many others.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again Wrong: "Albanian" is an English word. Every one should understand that Arberesh call themselves Arberesh and not Albanian. Arvanites call themselves Arvanite and not Albanian. Shqiptaret call themselves Shqiptar and not Albanian. They all speak the same language. Of course they don't have the same citizenship, but they all know their origin. The "Albanian" conception was not alien, especially for them in Greece. While in Italy they are labeled as Greci, in Greece still today they call themselves Arvanites, not Ellines,not Roumeliotes, not Vllahos,.... Their identity is still alive. Two hundred years of forced Hellenization has done a lot of damage, but still the fire is warm. Ask them!--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think I made myself clear that when I use the word "Albanian" I am refering to Shqiptars. Their Byzantine identity and their Balcanic origin is still alive in both Arbereshe in Italy (including keeping their language) as well as Arvanites in Greece. This identity does not include any sort of ethnic identification with Ottomanized shqiptar lackies or present-day Albania. People living in Central Greece, Thessaly and some parts of Northwestern Peloponesse were described by Byzantines as Ελλαδίτες (Helladites) and their theme was named Hellas (θέμα Ἑλλάδος). This way those who immigrated to Italy from Grecia were the Greci. The term Arvanites is how Arvanite speakers (and their descendants) are called in Greece of course, just the same way Greek people from different regions are called Maniates, Sfakianoi and Makedones in a regional (homeland) way. Nothing to do with the Alvanoi (Αλβανοί), meaning Shqiptars. I do not need to ask anyone: I served in the Greek army with Arvanite-blooded mates and my own grandmother was an Arberesh immigrant from Italy to Argentina. Fire is still warm, but has nothing to do with Hoxha's artificial one.Periptero (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Considering Albanians as ottomanized shqiptar "lackies" sound to me as kiosk propaganda worth to stay silent and smile instead only. HOWEVER for others who have had the chance to read about Ottoman Empire I would like to mention that the majority of Ottoman administration and most important position in the Ottoman hierarchy like Dragomans, Vallachian Vojvodes, Orthodox Mitropolites, City Primates, Region Archondes, Armatolies (kept by ottomans to preserve Byzanthine police structures), marine sailors, financial and tax administration.............. were not Albanians. These "lackies" positions were held by the Roms or Rums, the ones who in the past 150 years start calling themselves as Greek. Regarding Hoxha's history theme, Hoxha as a servant of Russian-Serb Orthodox Communists has completely deformed and kept in dark the whole Albanian history. During 50 years of communism there was not a single publication of any foreign author, and a complete lack of information. In his History books was never mention or shown for example that Napoleon Zerva was a souliot, or demographic description of the actual Greece by authors like Finlay were completely prohibited. Finally regarding what Arvanites feel today towards Shqiptars, can easily be compare with what Italo-Argentines feel today when they apply to get back their Italian identity and passport. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- We are getting off subject. The fact that there were "lackies" under Ottoman service from all Balkan ethnes - including Greeks of course- has nothing to do with the fact that Arvanites, Souliotes and Arbereshe reject being compared with Turkified Muslim Albanians. Matching Souliotes with Shqiptars is like matching Sphakianoi with Cretan Turks (Muslims). Arvanites today self-identify like Greeks either as the result of a process of assimilation (Albanian and academic majority argument) or a cultural conection (Greek argument), and do not consider themselves to belong to Albania or the Albanian nation. They call themselves Arvanites (in Greek) and Arbëror (in Arvanitika); the term Shqiptar (the same used by Albanians of Albania), is strongly disliked by Arvanites who definitely resent being called that way (Αλβανοί). Same thing happens with the Arbereshe in Italy who resent being named Albanesi. This is purely because they DO NOT identify with the modern Albanian state or modern Albanians. And regarding the Italian Argentines, I can assure that there is a strong difference: you may have the impression that Argentines of Italian descent are just coming back to their roots so as to catch a European passport and flee from crisis, but even though, they do not resent their Italian heritage, a fact that Arvanites, Souliotes and Arbereshe fully do with their supposed Albanian (Shqiptar) one. Plus, Arvanites and Souliotes do not need to apply for Greek citizenship. They are Greeks for at least 200 years.Periptero (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Turkified Muslim Albanians is only a fiction. Albanian were never Turkified. Albanians, both Muslims and Christians, preserved for hundreds of years their songs, dances, dresses (especially their fustanella), houses (kulla-albanian towers), and even their hair style. If there was someone who got Turkified, you can find that by hearing Buzuki songs and watching greek dance of Kreta or greek costume of Smyrna. This is why Greeks in their struggle of finding a new identity, especially after creation of Greek Kingdom, adopted many Albanian elements like fustanella, chamiko dance, etc to get back to their original roots. Regarding Arvanites, Souliotes and Shqiptars I agree with you that today they don't feel the same, and this make sense. Today for example we have North of Italy that consider South of Italy as "North Africa". Still, they are consider one nation, one culture, one history, etc. Even worse we have a Muslim from Pontus which speak greek and a Christian Karamanlides who speak turkish both nothing to share with each other, are consider greek. Why not shqiptars(both muslim and christians) and souliotes or arvanites which spoke and speak the same language, have the same way of life, came from the same area, historically consider by all as Albanians, should not be consider from the same nation? --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am glad that although we both have broad different opinions, in an academic spirit at least we can share our points with respect. I won't stick to the music subject that you point out since there is a important consensus in musical historians (which you may not agree) that exept for tsifteteli and zeibekiko it was Byzantine music the one that influenced Turkish one. But since you use the term “FICTION” you must be aware that much of the modern Albanian identity was mostly shaped by Comunist Albania (1945–1991) -focused on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue and appropriating Ancient Greek history as Albanian- which is fully regarded as fictional among serious circles. During this period, scholars, and particularly archeologists, were impelled to establish a connection between the ancient Illyrians and Albanians. Albanian nationalism attaches great importance to the possibility of Illyrian contribution to Albanian ethnogenesis. In this view Albanians claim to be descendants of Pelasgians such as the Etruscans and Illyrians but also ancient Macedonians and Epirotes which they also deem as Pelasgians. These ideas comprise a national myth (so as not to use your word “fiction”) whose scope is to establish a supposed precedence over neighboring peoples and to encourage movements for independence and self-determination, as well as irredentist claims against neighboring countries. This way, Aristotle, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Alexander the Great and Phillip II of Macedon were Pelasgo-Illyrian "Albanians" and so ancient Greek culture (and thus the result of the Hellenistic civilisation) had been spread by "Albanians" according to them. On the other hand, regarding the Greeks "national concience", according to Herodotus, Hellenes were defined by the four principles of Ὅμαιμον (omaemon/ same blood), Ὁμόγλωσσον (omoglosson/ same language), Ὁμόθρησκον (omothriskon/ same religion) & Ὁμότροπον Ἔθος (omotropon ethos/ same way of living). This belief is still present today. Even if the first part of the "equation" (omaemon), may be today out of the question for certain people, the other three parts are still universally valid (omoglosson & omotropon for sure, omothriskon by the switch from paganism to Christianity). There is an unbroken cultural history & tradition, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people for millenia. Other contributions were surely made in Greece by different peoples (Latins, Franks, Arvanites, Slavs, Vlachs, Saracens and even Turks) which have shaped together with the strong local Hellenic compound the modern Greek identity but it doesn't erase continuity with the Ancient. I see no match at all with Italy that you mention, where since ancient times the region had so diverese ethnes like Latins, Italics, Hellenes, Etruscans, Punics and Celts grouped all together, only sharing geography and never creating an ethnogenesis, not even when they were awarded Roman citizenship in Roman Empire times. Neither with modern Italians who have a huge cultural and ethnic diversity. Therefore Padanians (northern Italians) who claim Celtic descent feel they have nothing in common with Mediterranean (or Saracen) southern Italians, hence their racism and secessionist will. The Italian state is nothing more than a political idea that does not reflect ethnic and linguistic reality. By contrary in Greece, the Maniots, Tsakonians, Moraites, Macedonians, Sarakatsans, Sfakiots, Cretans, Psarians, Roumeliotes, Epirotes, Arvanites and many other peoples (in geographical sence) regard (and regarded) themselves as either Greeks or at least ὁμοούσιοι Έλληνες ("omoousian" Greeks), that is to say to be members of the same nation, country and history. This way, Arvanites and Souliotes contributed greatly in the shaping of modern Greece by sharing much of their own identity (music, dances, ways of living and traditions) with whom they regard to be their legitimate kinsmen. This identity understood in a regional and cultural sence but not ethnic. It is both Arvanites (and Arbereshe) and Souliotes who do not believe to belong to the "Albanian" ethne and of course, do not identify with Albanian history and culture at all. Arbereshe in fact, are proud of their Balcanic and Byzantine heritages and to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of Arbanon but they neither identify themselves with present-day inhabitants of modern Albania nor consider themselves to be part of the same nation. Periptero (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- For your information the "History of modern Albania" starts taking shape at the same time with the "History of modern Greece". For all authors, to write a book about Greece during 17/18/19-th century, Greek revolution and/or Kingdom of Greece, their work was not proper and complete without Albanian chapters. This was not true for other nations or subgroups like Slavs(bulgars-serbs), Sarakatsanos, Gypsies, Vlahos, Turks, Jews, Arabs or Caucasians; all neighbors to Greeks(Romai). So was not Communism who created Albanian history, but Others, and for sure not authors like Fallmerayer. These authors, most of them philhellenes, were not aware of geopolitical struggle in Balkan, and they did a "mistake". Their books brought to us documents and facts which today might not sound right to the modern Greeks. When they wrote these books, they didn't know how painful was going to be for a modern Greek in 21st century the fact; that more than half of Otto's subject was not Romai "milet" and didn't speak Romaika, and almost half of their first "Vouli" held in "Napoli of Romania" didn't understood other language than Albanian. As for the rest; I don't want to spend time on how Italy can't be compare with modern Greece or what is left to buzuki music if we take out tsifteteli and zeibekiko , and what an Arab-looking Greek of Crete with a fair-haired Suliot shared in their blood. I am just wondering what is going to happen with Bulgars of FYROM 150 years from today. Are they going to believe their own tale about their "Macedonians" legacy as decedents of Alexander? Will the poor Herodotus be cited one more time for another fake nation? --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is evident we won't agree. You keep pointing out the dark colour of some Greeks, up to chosing Cretans who (besides the Sphakiots) are indeed believed to be an amalgamation of diferent races (notably Saracenic). But why not matching Souliots with Maniots or Tsakonians? Do you really find so much physical difference? What will happen in your "skin based conception" with many Arbereshe from Italy? And if you happen to pass by the Abruzzi and Molise and find the olive-skinned Arbereshe population there ... in your own words then: they are not "Albanians" because of their skin? Fancy, because my sun-bathed skinned Arbereshe cousins believe themselves to be the true descendants of the Kastrioti's remnants ... but their skin tone seems to dismiss this ancestral tradition if I stick to what you say. Now, in the other hand the fact that Arvanitic speakers were present in the first Modern Greece's senate is no shame for Greeks at all. Arvanites were great contributors to the Greek independance and the making of modern Greece. The same Arvanites that identified with HELLAS and consider themselves as HELLENES. But here will rely our ancestral discussion: for you (and many others) Arvanites and Souliotes are Albanians. For them, they are HELLENES. They didn't consider to be different from what you call the Romeika speakers. Many scholars label language as unproper for establishing ethnicity. Greeks instead staunchly show that there is an unbroken cultural substractum, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people which I partially agree. But there was also a sizeable portion of Hellenes that spoke no Greek language at all since they had fell to cultural assimilations from neighbouring peoples. Now ... did the "HELLENIC" Arvanito-Souliotes become Arvanitophone somewhere in the Middle Ages? I think they did. But you will think the oposite so it is useless to discuss. My personal experience shows me, that being myself only 1/4 HELLENIC I was able to retain speaking Greek language although born and raised in a Spanish speaking country; but not my own children who are only 1/8 HELLENIC and do not speak Greek at all. But they feel they belong to the Greek ethne, bear Greek citizenship and are proud of their Greek heritage. Maybe here is just a practical example of the whole subject we are all dealing.Periptero (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I never mentioned skin colour. You better READ again all my lines and you will see that there is someone else talking about Albanian as mixture of gypsies or turks. Saying Arab looking does not necessary mean dark or black. I was referring to Cretans figure features, not skin colour. So, do not point the finger to me. Another thing that I would like to mention is that I appreciate the way you are inspiring your kids on being proud of their origin. Every parent should do that. I do that. But this is not an argument. Now, regarding matching of Suli with Mani (for your information Mani in Albanian mean Berry and hope you know that Mani was famous for silk production) I like to agree with you. When I first saw Mani houses of Vathi (Vathi mean "pen","sheepfold" in Albanian, "stani" that greeks use is a turkish one) and Skutari (Skutari city north of Albania) I found their architecture identical to Albanian towers of Gheg clans of Mirdita, Kelmend or Hoti (I advise you to find picture of "kulla-tower" from north of Albanian and you will see that I am right. Trust me. I asked and learned also that there is no other place or region in Greece to have houses or building similiar to Mani. There might be a connection. How? Maybe the "pelasgian" one. As per your Arvanitophone theory I see that you are only making worse your position. To help you understand what you wrote, please keep in mind that if Arvanitas or Suliotes become Arvanitophone you should say Albanophone later the language became Arvanitophone, and second you should pretend in your mind that these Latins lords who brought these population down to Attica were all Albanonphone and they forced them to speak Albanian. Do you really believe this? Also your buddy Serbians will not like this theory. They have another one which has almost the same sense of humor, but they are talking about modern time not Middle Ages. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let us see, I will quote myself " ...Modern Albanians are considered by Arbereshe as the result of the ammalgamation with Turks, Gypsies and Slavs ..." A conception that I do not invent, but that is accepted in many Arbereshe villages in Italy which has been staunchly pointed out by them with popular in the 90's. My cousins used to repeat something: "Ne kemi asgjë të përbashkët. Ju jeni shqiptarë dhe ne jemi të pista Arbëreshë lavdishme"; and they showed very worried so as not to be confused with the "ladri albanesi" (Albanian thieves) that were ilegally arriving. Your reaction and words have been: "... There are hundreds of authors describing Albanian as uncivilized,.... BUT never none of them called them Gypsy or with dark skin ... description that sounds perfect for South of Italy or Greek Islands, BUT not for Albanians ... " also you have pointed out that "... what an Arab-looking Greek of Crete with a fair-haired Suliot shared in their blood ...". I am just talking about ammalgamation with foreign compounds, you keep on pointing out skin tone ... As for the Maniots (and here I speak with great connaisance since my small Hellenic portion of blood is Maniot), I agree with you that the "pyrgospitia" towers are very much alike with the mirdite "kulla" towers. In Corsica you may also find them, as well as in some isolated places in both the Calabria and Sicily too. As per the Maniot people, tradition in every family (which is very strong) refer to three origins about their populations: ancient lacedemonian kinship, sphakiot migrations and byzantine refugees from Constantinople. As a matter of fact, the Maniots consider themselves as η καθαροτατη φίλη τον ελλήνων (the purest branch of the Greeks) and are very proud to have withstood against both Frankish and Turkish yokes but also against Saracen, Albanian and Egyptian raids (all these peoples had overun the other Peloponessian regions in different periods of history); therefore they deem themselves as to have kept the Hellenic spirit alive. As per the connection between Maniots and "Albanians", I am not that sure this to happen. As a matter of fact, there was a strong rejection from Maniots to Morean Arvanites (Christians) and Turkalbanians (Muslims) alike, both of them classified as σκυλαρβανίτες (Arvanite dogs) - not instead with the Souliots who they respected because of the fighting against the Ottomans and keeping the flame of freedom alive-. This fact did not take place with the other Moraites who welcomed Arvanties as their equal in in the Peloponessian Senate (this Maniot attitude I must accept that may give a point to your position about the Arvanites being "Albanians"). Vathy (Βαθύ) means "deep" in Greek, and there is also a Scutari(Üsküdar) in Bithinia, today's Turkey that was known in medieval times as Σκουτάριον(Scutarion) and whose name is said to derive from the soldiers stationed there who were known for their thick leather shields. In the end, what I tried to show with my kids example is that lossing mother tongue (in my family's case is Greek) is the easiest way to de-culturalize when you are in a background other than yours (in my family's case is South America) and you get mixed with other ethnes (in my family's case with Italians, French etc.). Imagine that it only took three generations after my grandfather emigrated to Argentina (nearly 80 years ago) to reach a member of my family that although being Greek speaks no Greek language at all (who is my daughter. And this happened during the 20th and 21st. century where communications were common. Don't you think what may have taken place in the middle ages so far? This way, I try to imply that just reducing the fact that because Arvanites and Souliotes spoke Arvanitika does not make them "Albanians". I suggest reading "LANGUAGE CONTACT, LANGUAGE SHIFT AND IDENTITY.- WHY ARVANITES ARE NOT ALBANIANS" by PETER TRUDGILL.Periptero (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


- "Akoma" I can remember my mother talking about her childhood. She was born in Selanik (in Kule Kafe quartier), a "Jewish" city that time, and grow up in Katerini. Always she was telling me that she didn't have the chance to learn Hebrew (Jewish population vanished, soon after the Ottoman administration left), but she was able to learn a little Vlahika in Katerini. Other than a small Albanian community, the rest of Katerini population was of Vlah origin. Later the demographic situation changed after the arrival of Greco-Turkish war refugees from Anatolia. Since than, the Greek language was forced to all, and the intense process of Hellenization started. In mid 30's this process had reached the peak and nobody was tolerated. The dark period of "pure" nation, a nation with no minorities, had come. And Ioannis Metaxas tolerated no one in this process, which was mostly directed towards Albanian element in Greece. In the beginning of 40's, her family decided to leave Katerini after hundreds years living there, and move to Albania (most of her family relatives decided to stay in Greece). During that period, life in Albania was a little better. In Greece food was very expensive, and home pets like cats and dogs were coming close to extinction. I remember her saying that when she was passing through Albanian-Greek border, and when she saw Korca full of Greeks looking for food, for the first time in her life she was feeling a Greek citizen, and she felt closer than ever to these people which were struggling for their life. In these difficult times and far from her birthplace she was feeling more than ever connected to her neighborhood of Katerini and Thessaloniki. She spent the rest of her life in Albania. BUT. Greece was always for her a special place, was her birthplace, although she was consider by Greek state an immigrant. In order to get the Greek citizenship was required to all Albanians of this part of Greece (Northeast) to change their religion, names and reject their nationality or MOVE OUT. Most of her relatives had no choice than to continue their life, so they did what the State asked them "democratically". Only a few of them, and the elders decided to change nothing, and they lived as immigrants in their own homes. About house architecture, I agree with you about similarities between Mani and Corsica, Calabria or Sicilia houses, because I believe part of population for these regions, were originally from Morea. Even Napoleon has been considered as a Maniote. However I like to believe that the connection is here, within us, between North of Albanian and South of Morea. Maybe I am wrong, and to be honest I don’t want to argue more about this. Now let’s get back to our Suli. Suliotes were not diaspora like Arvanites. After the creation of Greek state they become immigrants and they had no choice than to become Greek citizens. From this moment and far from their mountains they lost almost everything that made them special. Also I really appreciate your sincere confession about Greek-Arvanite relations. We have many books about this subject starting from “Gin” Kantakouzenos and his wife Kuqia, or “love” between Kundurioti with Mavrocordatos. Even the peaceful Corfiotes or Ionian Islanders never liked the “poor” Souliotes.I always see that relations as a deal between roomies, not a brotherhood love. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that modern Greek historians need to make everything sound Hellenic to prove continuity starting from Antiquity and passing on to Byzantine Greece unto now-a-days. This way they tend to forgett that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic state, with Hellenism as the cultural cohesive pattern, which not necessarily reflects being Greek. Since neighbour states have always been Greece's foes, the Greeks tried to hide and get rid of every sort of "alien" compound that may be found in Greek history, this way they denny the existance of "minorities" inside their borders. But Arvanites and Vlachs played a major role in the shaping of the modern Greek nation. Without their contribution, modern Greece wouldn't be what it is today. As certain as undeniable. But whereas you find that Souliotes were forced to become "modern Greeks", my experience by treating many of them showed me that their identification with Greece is as strong and nationalist or more than others in Greece. And as a matter of fact, the rejection goes on to "modern Albanians"; hereby I find this common with the Arbereshe.Periptero (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Previously in this discussion page there was a link of New York Time about an old women of Suli speaking Albanian, dated around 1880. That can be consider as one of the last examples of having Suliotes mention in history. Later, after three, four or five generations of being Greek citizen they for sure called themselves Greek, and use their city location to identify their origin. I don't know how old are you, however I am surprised to hear that in South America you had the chance to talk to people which still can remember Qafa or Kunji villages of Suli. Now, if they told you that they are from Suli but they feel Greek and speak Greek, I am just wondering what an Arvanite would think about these guys who lost their language and origin to adopt a new one. What an Arvanite, who preserved for 700 years almost everything carried from Albanian mountains, what he would feel about these guys? Will he consider them mercenars or patriots? As per their dislike towards Shqiptars, I asure you that is true for every nation. Do you have an idea about feelings of thousands of Greeks from North of Greece, when they flee to save their lifes and move to Soviet Union during Greek Civil War? I can assure you that they dislaked Sphakiotes of Crete, more than Bulgars of Macedonia or Turks of Kazakistan. I had one of this families as my gitone in Tirana for almost 40 years and heard a lot about this subject. As per the Arberesh feeling towards Shqiptars, I suggest you to reconsider your smoke. What you mention about Shqiptars going to Italy(your phrase in Albanian language), everyone should feel ashamed even to read that phrase. Being poor and feeble doesn't mean inferior, and the child of an immigrant should know that better than anyone. I met in my life many Arberesh from Italy, and never heard about that. I had the chance to met one of them, which his father Terenc Toci was member of Rilindja Shqiptare movement http://letersia.zemrashqiptare.net/article/AutoreTTH/TerencToci/3215/, and had the chance to hear the contrary. They do believe that they belong to the same family. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbereshe feelings towards the Shqiptars do not rely in the Shqips' poverty or misery. Their rejection comes from long time ago, since the Shqips are regarded as Ottomanized, that is to the say the enemies of what Arbereshe, as Castriota's remnants have been fighting against before settling in Italy. For ages, people in southern Italy used the phrase "Mamma ! I Turchi !" (Mom ! The Turks !) to express that danger was coming. Shqips themselves are regarded as those "Turchi" too, the Muslim hordes bringing destruction. This is the ancestral cultural rejection. But if you want to know is about present times, I tell you that it is because of the Shqips' way of living with lack of values, ethos and principles. We do not want to be neither matched nor mixed with such people. When they started appearing over there in the 90's they were very different than other immigrants. They brought with them criminal motivations (theft, abduction of women, children kidnapping, traffic of organs) and violence, rather than seeking a better place to live. You may say that there have been criminal organizations in Italy for centuries, and it is true. But the difference is that there is no honor in Shqips, no "omertà", no codes. Arbereshe have been a pious, peaceful and religious people for ever. We are not "family" with the incivilized, primitive and God-less Shqips. And I am not ashamed at all to think as we do, after reading about the coward crimes that your shqip "brothers" and kosovar "cousins" committed since their arrival to the region. The comparison with the Greeks fleeing to USSR is no match. Of course those would hate other fellow Greeks: they were communists ! They felt no sence of ΠΑΤΡΊΣ (fatherland) or ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΑ (religion). They were just following political motivations and receiving orders from the Commintern, up to the point of wishing to betray on to the Yugos the lands that were gained at such a tremendous cost of lives like Greek Macedonian. No patriotism at all. This expalins the attrocities they comitted in innocent villages. Regarding Souliotes and Arvanites in Argentina, they do not form a separate group inside the Greek comunity . They are mixed all over in the different sections (Arvanites are mostly integrated in the Peloponnesian Union). I had the oportunity to talk with some octogenary men who were first-hand immigrants from the Thesprotia region. One especially, that passed away some years ago, came from Paramythia and his family name was Tsiamis. He had been a soldier in Greece who had served under my grandpa's command, and was a very proud Souliot. He felt no different towards other Greeks. But he disliked Albanians, whom he called either "Tourkiá", "Tourkotsamides" or "Spaides". He spoke a local language, a "dialect" with other fellow Epirots. It is a pitty that the Greek goverment has had a policy on turning down the teaching of other languages within the Greek territory (Arvanitika - and Souliotika -, Vlahika, Slavika) because it is a great cultural damage. Now, I think it is far too late to fix. There is a funny thing that once happened to me here. I have been in touch with a remarkable Albanian diplomat who now happens to be a Foreign Affairs personality in Albania, named Gilbert Galanxhi. He was seeking for personel knowing a certain degree of Albanian language to work in the Albanian embassy in Buenos Aires. Therefore I contacted a few grown-up qualified people of Arvanite extraction (descendants of immigrants from Greece) to go to the embassy and apply. Galanxhi was very pleased and when he submitted the candidates to the ambassador himself (who was a Muslim), he received as an answer that "no Greeks were needed to work for the Albanian embassy". Interesting. Periptero (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

- I can imagine how an Italian historian will read your story about Albanian invasion of Italy and Italian screaming "Mamma! I Turchi! (which according to your excellent argument are Muslim Albanians). Especially after the fact that Ottomans stop thinking about passing Otranto channel before the Albanian become Shqip (or Muslim according to you).For sure he will cry. As per the rest of paragraph related to 100% criminal background of every single Albanian immigrant (including babies as well) who left Albania in the 90's, you gone make him laugh. Simple, because there is no other region in world which has exported organized crime to compare with South of Italy. Every nation have criminals but a criminal nation doesn't exist. I can't accuse Greeks as criminal because 30 or 100 Greek criminals went to Bosnia to join Ratko Mladic and committed crimes again civil population. And don't forget that those Greek criminals fought together for and with the same people which on the next paragraph you like to call them Yugos (because you don't have the courage and feel ashamed to call them Serbs). In general this paragraph is correct, and if we change word communism with orthodoxy, USSR with Russian Empire, Comintern with Philikie Eteria, I can visualize the same story, the same people, the same region, the same geopolitical interest repeated again and again. I agree with you at this point. Also you are right about G. Galanxhi, although I don't believe Teri P. (the so-called "the Muslim") has said those words. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Read ! I quote myself: "... For ages, people in southern Italy used the phrase "Mamma ! I Turchi !" (Mom ! The Turks !) to express that danger was coming...". That shqips are regarded as "turks" does not mean that during Middle ages there was an albanian threat of invasion. Just that modern day Albanians are deemed as "Turks" by Arberesh, therefore the same feeling of repulse and rejection that for ages, southern Italians had against ottomans and muslims qualifies exactly for present day Albanians. As per organised crime, again I quote myself "... the difference is that there is no honor in Shqips, no "omertà", no codes...". Regarding Greece's neighbours, I call them Yugos because their country was Yugoslavia, a communist multiethnic slavic regime led by a Croat-Slovene like Tito. Why should I call them Serbs? Why should I feel ashamed? Besides I do not consider Serbs as brothers as I do not consider Bulgarians, Romanians or Albanians neither. Greeks are a "brother-less" ethnos. About the Albanian embassy personel, I must say that Galanxhi was excellent as a diplomat and a true gentleman. By the way I did not mention Teri Pojani. How do you know that he was the muslim? We should chat this privately. Periptero (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- So as to make things much clear, here is a source about the differences between Arbereshe and Albanians[23]. As a conclusion I quote what Arbereshe from Molise feel: "...Loro si appellano Arbrèsh e con gli albanesi attuali non hanno nulla a che fare..." (Arberesh with the present Albanians there is no match); "... sono musulmani ed ex-comunisti, noi cattolici, di rito greco ..."(Albanians are muslims and former communists meanwhile we are Greek rite catholics); "... tra noi, oggi, c’è anche chi si vergogna di passare per un albanese ..." (for us today, it is shame to be mistaken with an Albanian).Periptero (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
-http://www.jemi.it/biblioteca/cat_view/1388-documenti-vari?start=5, http://www.jemi.it/biblioteca/doc_download/25-articolo-apparso-su-geo-2006. Make sure to have Prodebugger with you when you will read "Articolo apparso sul Geo 2006". I expecting your little "arberesh" blood will have the courage to fairly respond to this article especially to the first paragraph on the first page. Let me know if you need more to clear up your mind. I am afraid that you have chosen the wrong path. There is big difference between Albanians of Italy and Albanians of Greece. The Albanians of Italy doesn't live in fear. They can express themselves. To not get boring from reading, I have attached a couples of videos to enjoy. Get some one from ASFALIA to translate (hopefully an Arvanite) and watch it to the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k6RGnYdlPU&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tee2LjLiM3o&feature=related --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I read both articles you sent me, no matter I do not adhere, of course. And as per the paragraph you point out, I find it respectable this man's attitude. I can just assure you, that it does not represent the majority tough. I also enjoyed the links, since I found events where both my aunt and uncle were present, like these: http://www.jemi.it/arbereshnelmondo/notizie-mainmenu-2236/emigrati-arbshn-america-arbsh-nel-mondo-nav-2439/1184-argentina/1299-papas-elia-visita-gli-elia-gli-arbereshe-dargentina http://www.jemi.it/la-chiesa-italo-albanese/eparchia-di-lungro-/comunicati-mainmenu-534/711-terza-visita-pastorale-delleparca-di-lungro-in-argentina Now that you send me some videos, I also provide you with these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WplmrDJDKBY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_N1aMOeBwg Unfortunately you won't have any UÇÇ or UÇK personel available to translate you since they are in Greek. But in both Korydallos and Nafplion prisons you may find plenty of Albanians convicted for children rape and abduction or organ traffic who surely may give you a hand with the language. By the way, did you know that Georgios Karatzaferis, the chairman of the Popular Orthodox Rally is of Arvanite extraction?Periptero (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to assure me about the light of the sun. As I said, it is better for you and people who think like you, not to use the Albanian of Italy as an argument to your autosuggestion of tale. I will bring one more example from thousands of them, which clearly speaks out about Albanian Arberesh continuity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrlHOjrCh9w. As per your prison comments, it is hard to believe any Greek statistics if they are true or not, and also here we are not talking about Greek prisons demography. I can't talk about Souliotes, and in the same time talk about Greek pedophile arrested in Edessa, Greece years ago, raping many Albanian children. Will make no sense. Now, if you insist, you can ask Kico Mustaqi, a member of Greek minority in Albania, and the last Minister of Defense of the Communist Regime, to help you translate paragraphs of the attached web site which is in Albanian language: http://tiranaweb.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=89445&p=3&topicID=9895734 --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
.- A Communist's opinion is not relevant to me, but so as to learn more I may ask some friends of mine, members of the Κόμμα Ένωσης Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων (Ομόνοια) to help me. As per the Italian Arbereshe and the supposed communion with modern Albanians, you may bring as many Shqip propanda as you want, as I can bring as many anti-Shqip as I do have. I do not need (and neither want) to convince you about how Arbereshe feel: Con gli albanesi attuali non abbiamo nulla a che fare. On the other hand, unfortunately at this point we ain't talking or discussing serious matters. We are having a sort of cyber feud, which helps nothing to this topic or to ourselves, as our positions are totally against each other. Anyway, I must admitt that I do belive in duelling and I would have been extremely pleased to engage you in the honor field (not to death, of course ... at least let's keep that clear) since I do not like your coward personal attacks behind a keyboard. But 21th. century laws forbidd such activities and I stick to the rules. Besides I assume that about 15.000 km distance separate each other. Therefore, I suggest to keep our discussion in our talk pages, and maybe we may even get something possitive about all these in the future.Periptero (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
.- I am really sorry to hear that a zealous anti-communist is friend with Κόμμα Ένωσης Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων (Ομόνοια) members, who half of them are ex-agents of "SIGURIMI", like Bollanos. My professor of Marxism in University for example was Priamo Bollano, who later became Director of Statics Institute and hold this position till 1990. As per the "coward" thing and the rest I'll promise that I'll keep this discussion on our talk pages. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
.- True and right.- Many were communist lackies, the same thing that happens in Serbia. But my friends, happen not to be "commies", in fact they had both the Hoxhaists and the plain Shqips as foes equally. See you in my talk page.- Periptero (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

- Wrong. Souliotes were formed as community much later than the fall of Byzantine Empire (1204 or 1453). Suli till 1767 was under the influence of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (at the urging of the Greek church in Istanbul by Ottoman authorities). That is why some of their family names had slavic influences.(Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Although in this article it is stated that the Souliotes were originally a branch of the Tsamides, which is the main point that Albanians focus; in the Illiad (Ιλιάδα Η-234), a people called Sellous (Σελλούς) from Epirus are described among the first northwestern hellenic tribes. Tucydides later refers to their city state as Solion (Σόλιον). This conception was present among Byzantine Empire scholars. That before 1700 when the first "four villages" confederation was established the community was under the Archbishopric of Ohrid (therefore the slavic patronimics) is uncertain. Tradition was very important among Souliotic communities and their tales and songs refer both to continuity with antiquity and two main external population migration to their lands: the first being a contingent of Skendebey's army after his death and the second a migration from Pavle Orlovic's fiefdom in Novo Brdo, after the fall of the Nemanjic empire.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again Wrong: Are you sure that Homer in Iliad has mention this Sellous from Epirus? Homer use words as the Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) — aka the Hellenes (Greeks), or Danaans (Δαναοί), and Argives (Ἀργεĩοι). While Greeks should work hard to define their position in this poem, Epirus was a term used by Corinthians colonists in Corfu to identify mainland. Homer died long time before this tale. Considering Suli as Sellous from Epirus it sound to me not correct, and will take years of light to prove it. Also among Orthodox Christians, antiquity was an alien concept. It was consider heretic. The worse enemy of antiquity tradition was the christian faith. For your information Cosmas of Aetolia was predicting greek language and prohibiting albanian language not because of Aristotel. He had a different agenda. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the Iliad subject, it is pretty much clear to me, but of course it may be subject to an academic discussion in a broader sence than the one we are having here. We have evident different views. Anyway, the terms Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) or Danaans (Δαναοί) and Argives (Ἀργεĩοι) are general patronimics used by Homer to identify the Greeks. The term Sellous (Σελλούς) is a specific one (< θ. σελ- = φωτίζω), for northwestern hellenic tribes which for many scholars is the origin of the latter term "Hellene" (Έλλην). Regarding Christianity and Hellenism, I agree that they were opossites for ages. Being "Hellenic" meant being pagan. But Greek language had become the language for Eastern Christian religion. This way, Saint Kosmas asked all Orthodox Christians to establish schools and learn (Koine) Greek so that they might understand the scriptures better and generally educate themselves. He is still highly regarded even by Orthodox Albanians for the message that he gave. But we are entering matters of faith and it is not the scope of the discussion.Periptero (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is something interesting in Arnold Toynbee's book "The Greeks and their Heritages". In the Spanish edition ("Los Griegos: Herencias y Raices"), by Fondo de Cultura Económica, Printed in Mexico, ISBN 968-16-2515-3, pg. 204 it states that " ... the Souliot soldiers were Albanian Christians from Orthodox faith ..." whereas "... the Souliot peasants were of Greek origin..."(foot note 216). Periptero (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your persistence to get a connection between Suli and Sellous doesn't help anyone to consider Albanian Orthodox Christian as Hellene. As you are saying this community was established four or five centuries ago and not 30 or 35 centuries ago(Homer period). So, we don't have yet any scholar who can find the lost trail. Unless we refer to scholars which has not yet the courage to accept for example that; Minoan civilization is mainly connected to Egyptian civilization. Arnold Toynbee's book is right. Like all highlanders around the world, Souli Albanian highlanders (warriors and not soldiers) were busy with their robbery "trips" and didn't have time to do the homework. This is why they brought Romai(greek) servants to "help". It was shame for all of them to work on field (shepherd maybe). For a long time most of the Albanian regions structure was like that. For example Albanians beys of Laberia brought Romai (greeks) servants for Dropulli field, Myzeqe lowlands with Aromanian servants, Vurgu,Korca,Prizren. This was true for other nations, even for Greeks. For example in Morea for the same period we have almost the same structure, but in contrary the Albanian here are the field servants (see George Finlay, History of Greek Revolution). --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mycenaean Greece is certainly Hellenic for me (and for most scholars too). I do not see therefore why the conection between Suli and Sellous cannot be possible. But let's stick to the only thing in common we may have in the whole subject: Toynbee's article. Let us suppose the fact that the Souliots were of "Albanian origin".(here, I will accept 'just for our understanding'). Toynbee, implies that a sort of mixture between the warrior class and the shepherd /peasant class may have taken part, what gives reason to Miller's definition that "... the Orthodox Souliotes, are an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians..." (Miller, William: The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927. Routledge Publisher (September 9, 1966), page 23). This may also be the reason why Meli Pasha, Ali pasha's son refered to the Souliotes not as Romans (Ρωμαίους) or Rums (Ρωμιούς) which would imply simply Christians, but as Romegans (Ρωμέγους) which means "Hellenes" Periptero (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


- First, I said "Minoan" not "Mycenaean". Second, Veli Pasha (not Meli Pasha) was the most worthless son of Ali pasha, and a pure ignorant which never wrote a letter in his life. If you are reading books which modern Greeks historians saw in their dreams, I will let you enjoy the tale. But please, do not make that mistake to mix the wolf (Suliot) with the sheep (Romai). How can a Xhavella's daughter married a servant and let that "miserable" touch her body. You should read Pouqueville or Finlay (http://books.google.com/books?id=-ktoAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Finlay+the+greek+revolution&hl=en&ei=gcGpTZ3nF4yZhQf15_nTCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) to understand this. The definition equation for Suliot is simple: Who work at field can't be a warrior, and subsequently not Suliot. He should be called peasant or servant, and maybe speak romaika or get "Hellenised" (how the modern Greek historians like to call),but he can't bear the name of Suliot. I do accept the idea that maybe among Suliotes were families of Romai, Vlah or Slav blood. For example a fugitive or brigand, who got shelter in Suli and marry a Suliot daughter, he had to learn Albanian and became member of clan. That was the only way to get a Suliot "permanent resident". This is how I see that "mixture". That mass didn't have a mixing "temperature" and "density". --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that you express that "... Minoan civilization is mainly connected to Egyptian civilization ..." but since I link the Homeric period on to Mycenaean Greece (and not Minoan which is prior), I find possible the conection between Σόλιον and Σελλούς, but this becomes irrelevant at this point of our exchange of views. Now, regarding who's reading tales ... let us see: you cite me Finlay, which I read and take as an important source for the Greek revolution. But on the other hand I cite you Miller, who understands things pretty different. There are also Allison Philips or William St. Clair ... So, you believe I am buying Greek sponsored tales, just the way I belive that you are propagating Albanian fictional history. We both have parts we are right and wrong. Quid est veritas? I won't convince you as for sure you will not convince me. But in a good atmosphere we will get on sharing our views. Now, regarding the "wolf" and the "sheep": Lambros Koutsonikas, one of the main Souliotic leaders refered to the Souliotes in his collected memoirs, as the descendants of Hellenes who had gathered in the mountains to flee from Roman army attacks. Markos Botsaris banners with the words of ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΊΑ - ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΑ - ΠΑΤΡΊΣ, weren't addressed to the Albanians precisely. I also presented to you a work from an socioliguist expert like Peter Trudgill (who as matter of fact worked in colaboration with ethnologue George Tzavaras - of pure Souliot extraction, descendant of warlike XHAVARA clan -), who concluded that the animal fable you reject has in fact taken place. There are also some villages in the Arcadian highlands in the Peloponnese, whose population is a blend of Tsakonians, Souliotes and indigenous. Your "caste" system may have taken place somewhere earlier at a start, but the shift to Greek language because of their identification gradually -and unfortunately - made them to become monolingial only in Greek. But Greek language was already present throughout the whole Epirus for ages. Ali Pasha himself, wrote and spoke in Greek (at least for certain special reasons). I also agree with you that Veli Pasha (not Meli, sorry ... in the rush ...) was a full incompetent, but letters were surely written by clerks ... weren't they?.Periptero (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am expecting to hear your opinion about this subject, and not read ASFALIA sponsored web sites like http://panepirotic-federation.blogspot.com/2008/06/souliotes.html. By the way is this KucoNika (not Koutsonikas) from the same clan who betrayed Suliotet to the Turks? --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am refering to LAMPROS KOUTSONIKAS (Λάμπρος Κουτσονίκας), the young rebel of the Glorious 1821 Revolution and Souliotic leader that was a historician of Epirus. The same that the folk songs refer as "Σουλιώται είναι ορέ τούρκοι, με τον Κουτσονίκα; και αν αγαπάτε, κοπιάστε" (Hey Turks, we are the Souliotes under Koutsonikas; and if you dare, come over.") You have been reading my opinion in every comment I have been posting. I'm not sponsored by anyone, as I do not think you to be sponsored by the fictional albanian "historians", or the UÇÇ or the UÇK. But, what if the Panepirotic Federation of Australia (like every other Panepirotic Federation worlwide) share the same view that I have? You tend to label things RIGHT-WRONG. It is alright for science and maths, but not for Humanities. I have been to Greece, where I fulfilled my military service duty as a para in the Army. I had mates of Arvanitic and Vlah descent in my unit. They were among the most patriotic chaps. With love for Greece and the Greek nation. And I met also descendants of Souliotes who were even more patriot than the former, up to taking part in several radical right organizations. I remember that in those days in the mid-90's we were all 20-year-old-boys committed to defend our country against the enemies: Turkey in the first place and Albania in second. These guys, were the most vehement anti-Albanian people in Greece. I still remember their jokes about crossing the border and killing all the "alipashas" over there. Do you really think these men are your folks? You keep on pushing an idea that these people are "Albanian" and that "the fire of their Albanian conscience is still alive". That, is pure propaganda and untrue. These people, no matter if in their origin somewhere in the Middle Ages might have came from "Albania" or speak / spoke "Albanian"; are proud to be Greeks. They do not feel Hellenized, but integrated to the modern Greek nation. They self-identify as Greeks and do not consider themselves to belong to "Albania" or the "Albanian nation" up to the point of resenting being called "Albanians". We have been changing our opinions and it is evident we will not agree. I think our discussion should be over. Periptero (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

- It took my a while to decide if I should reply to this paragraph. I was waiting you to delete it. Why? If killing of three or four innocent soldiers while they were sleeping, make you Great Palokari, I am sure that even a snake will feel ashamed. However I don't want to keep you long this time and will never reply to you about this matter. I would only like to mention that there is no another nation who has given always to Greece help and support more than the Albanians. Look around and you will see Turks, Bulgars, FYROM's, Italians, Arabs. Do you have an idea how much everyone of these guys love you? Did you ever thought about Philohelenes that fought for Greece? I can assure you that most of them were not from England, Russia, Serbia, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, .... Most of them were Albanians. Now our discussion is over. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- We weren't just interested in killing two or three "innocent" soldiers who were sleeping, but to annihilate the whole batallion of those bastards that were inflicting damage to our fellow countrymen enslaved and humiliated in Βόρειος Ήπειρος (Northern Epirus). But of course, those were 20-year old impulsive boys' "sins of youthhood" because now-a-days I do not believe in wars at all. By retelling you this, I just wanted you to find out that the concience of those that you deem as "Albanians" is very far from being so.- Periptero (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- "WE". Interesting. So now, beside being a kripto Argentino-Italo-arkeo Greek-Arbero- Swic-Ger-Jew-Gypsi-China-Russ-Pol-Spain-Azerba-Armeno-whoknows, happen to be also a terrorist. Very interesting. "Kiosque" you are really a funny guy. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "WE".- At that time I was part of a military unit with other chaps, whom I shared the same beliefs and love for motherland Greece. I am a Greek citizen and have fulfilled my military duty as so. I am not kripto-nothing. I just come from a mixed ethnic background (French-Tiroler from my paternal & Greek-Arberesh from my mother's) and so what. I am very proud of it. Is it so difficult to understand? I explain you: Argentina has been such an integrative country that immigrant communities never lived in ghettos, so admixture is very common here (mainly in Buenos Aires). If you want to learn more about me, pay a visit to my talk page. We can even discuss these and other topics there. I have never been a terrorist. Just a patriot soldier who at his early 20's believed in setting things right with the lousy cowards from the other side of the border by the use of arms. But fortunately, people grow up, develop and change.Periptero (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are a brave man? A PaloKari? The following is a very interesting paragraph from Georgy Finlay, but please ask Alexua not to delete it:

It became then not uncommon, in Greece and Macedonia, to see the children of the proudest Osmanlees dressed in the fustinello, or white kilt of the Tosks. Subsequently, when Veli Pasha, the second son of Ali of Joannina, governed the Morea, even young Greeks of rank ventured to assume this dress, particularly when travelling, as it afforded them an opportunity of wearing arms. The Greek armatoli and the Christians employed as police-guards, even in the Morea, also wore this dress; but it was the fame of the Albanians—for the military reputation of the armatoli was then on the decline and that of the Suliots on the ascendant—which induced the modern Greeks to adopt the Albanian kilt as their national costume. It is in consequence of this admiration of Albanianism that the court of King Otho assumes its melo-dramatic aspect, and glitters in tawdry tinsel mimicry of the rich and splendid garb which arrested the attention of Childe Harold in the galleries of the palace of Tepelin; but the calico fustinello hangs round the legs of the Greeks like a paper petticoat, while the white kilt of the Tosk, formed of a strong product of native looms, fell in the graceful folds of antique drapery. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the text you placed. I do not see why others should erase it. It is Finlays's point of view which is clearly highlighted by most Albanian users. Regarding the fustanella subject, look what happens if we look things with a different prisma:
- Smithsonian Institution and Mouseio Benakis 1959, pg. 8: "From the ancient chiton and the common chitonium (short military tunic), fastened by a belt round the waist and falling into narrow regular folds, is derived the fustanella which by extension gives its name to the whole of the costume."
- Fox, Lilla Margaret (1977). Folk Costumes from Eastern Europe. London, United Kingdom: Chatto & Windus (Random House) pg. 56: "The young shepherd wears a fustanella, descendant of the military tunic of ancient Greece, now rarely worn except by certain regiments."
- Kazhdan, Alexander Petrovich, ed (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York, New York and Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. "Akritic Imagery", pg. 47: "While 35 plates have the warrior wearing the podea or pleated kilt (sometimes called a fustanella) attributed to Manuel I, ...”

These are just links from sources on the Fustanella article, that even I may not agree with them myself. Does the fact that a qualified author like Finlay points out his possition about something, necessary means it is true?

What if we stand on Samuel Howe or Thomas Gordon? And if we lean towards modern historians like Richard Clogg, C.M. Woodhouse or Arnold Toynbee? And if we step on the modern Greek historian par excellence like Constantine Paparrigopoulos, who may be as qualified or more than Finlay? Do they point the same regarding the Albanians or the Arvanites?

What does Kolias think? And Koçolari? And ethnologue Hart's conclusion that " ... Speaking Albanian, for example, is not a predictor with respect to other matters of identity .. There are also long standing Christian Albanian (or Arvanitika speaking) communities both in Epirus and the Florina district of Macedonia with unquestioned identification with the Greek nation ...".

But there is one thing that is really funny for me: poor King Otto's " ... admiration of Albanianism ...?"' (!!!). Maybe this is another reason -besides being fully bone idle and incompetent - why they kicked his bottom so hard so as to fly back non-stop to Bavaria.Periptero (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

- Indeed, I am a brave man. Do not even doubt it. But pallikarides are other members of my family, rather than me. Pallikarides were my Maniot ancestors who fought Ibrahim Pasha in the Greek War of Independence. A Pallikaris was my granpa's elder brother who died in the Sakarya Battle in the Asia Minor War in 1922. Another Pallikaris was my grandpa who fought the Italians in Klisura, or his younger brother who died near Tepeleni both in the Second World War. Pallikarides were my mother's three first cousins -children - burnt alive by the communists in the Greek Civil War. A Pallikaris was also my mother's second cousin who is a M.I.A. in Cyprus, as a member of the Peloponnesian ELDYK in the 1974 War with Turkey.Periptero (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

- Close. To put your thoughts on right track you should separated Epirote term from Greek. Greek was a term used by the westerners for religious purposes only. Greek as a nation was created 180 years ago when Roumeliotes and Arvanites together with Moreotes ( under the control of England, Russia and France) decided to create a new state and to call no more their language Romaika. Also regarding “genetic evidence” there is no such thing unless you are referring to color of skin or assumptions.(Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Modern Greece is a newly formed nation, true (and made up of different subgroups: Sarakatsans, Aromanians, Arvanites, Slavophones etc). But Hellenic people are among the oldest nations in the world, and as such is the Greek language. I cannot separate the term "Epirote" with "Greek" since historically Epirotes were members of the Doric Hellenic tribes. Modern Epirotes are Greeks in national terms since they belong to the Epirus province in Greece and bear Greek citizenship. The strong Greek minority in Norther Epirus, present day Albania may not be part of Greece, but still belong to the Hellenic nation. But what I was trying to express is something else. According to genetic studies there is much genetical link between Arbershe and Tosks (southern "albanians") with Epirote Greeks, than between Arbereshe and Tosks with Ghegs and Kosovars (northern "albanians"), implying that southern "albanians" are indigenous or ancestral Balkanic populations whereas northern "albanians" are foreigner and relatively modern inhabitants of the region. This is what is called the "Pelasgian connection". Here is where I find fully mistaken to have Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes categorized as "albanians", as a whole same nation. I suggest you read an article "Y-STR variation in Albanian populations..." by Gianmarco Ferri et al in the International Journal of Legal Medicine. Also try the "Albania" label on Dienekes Pontikos genetics blog.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your elaboration about affinity between Tosks and Chameria (or how you like to call Tosk Albanians and Greek Epirotes) make sense because here we are talking about the same people, same nation but broken (because of Hellenization politics and Anatolian Greek colonization). Even if we consider here that we have two different nations, again Mr. Ferri is right. Why? Simple. Borders between nations are not sharp lines divided by untouchable zones, but broad zones of blood specters. Like a rainbow of language, culture, ethnography, religion. The Pelasgian connection to my view stays not here in "South", but North, among Ghege Catholic Clans preserved in their wild old way of life. While Tosk and Chams were influenced by Byzantine religion and culture, Albanian Catholics of Kelmendi and Hoti were true bearer of "Pelasgian connection". Even today they use an "old" pagan pray: "Per Qiell e per Dhe" which can be translated as "I pray to Sky and Earth". --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I consider that the Ancient Greek compound was stronger in the southern region of the Greek peninsula (i.e. from Thessaly downwards if watching a map). In the Peloponesse, only the ancient Arcadians are considered Pelasgians. For Greek historians, Pelasgians are proto-Greeks. I personally adhere to the posture that they were Balcanic indigenous populations. This way, northern inhabitants of the Greek peninsula Macedonians and Epirotes are indeed a mixture of the Greek compound with the indigenous compound (Thracian, Illyrian, Dardanian). What Ferri concluded is that there is diffrent genetic evidence between the Albanians themselves. He finds afinity between present "southern" Albanians with present "northwestern" Greeks, but not between the former and the "northern" Albanians and "kossovar" Albanians who have different marker. He stresses that the first two (Tosks + Epirotes) are of indigenous Balcanic population descent, meanwhile the last two might have an alien descent (that is to say they are "Albanians" but with Slavic, Turkic and/or Caucasian compounds).- Periptero (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


- I rather like to believe that Albanians are of Dinaric race, that got mixed during their history with barbarian invaders. Genetics data gives interesting data but using them to prove what divides the Albanians from Greeks, or Gypsies doesn't help much. I remember viewing a documentary film about genetic data of black celebrities of USA. Most of them happen to be consider as 30%-50% of British-German descent.--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also prefer to find the things that Balcanic societies share in common and leave the racialist conception aside. I do not believe in racial purity of no kind. Maybe the rejection to Albania and Albanians from Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes is just cultural and not ethnic, although it may have been historically directed this way because of the necessity of showing themselves different or even also for their countries political reasons, so let's say we reach an agreement in this point. Cheers ! Periptero (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


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

-Term "Shqiptar" was used only by residents of Albanian and was used strictly between Albanians, as an internal code to differentiate the foreigner element. “Shkip flas” which mean “speak clearly” was used in the same fashion as the Slavic nations use term “Nasha jezik”, “Nashka” or “Nashka”. The Arberesh still today consider themselves as Albanian. (Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Arbereshe consider themselves Arbereshe, not Albanians (Albanesi in Italy). My grandmother's family has been living in Southern Italy since medieval times. Two of my cousins are majors in two Arbereshe villages and I can assure you that Arbereshe feel no connection to modern Albanians at all, besides the geographic link. Arbereshe see themselves as the descendants of Ancient Pelasgians and do not even share the Thraco-Illyrian official Albanian hypothesis of their supposed ethnogenesis. In fact, many Arbereshe were among the most vehement against Albanian immigration in the early 90's and so on. Modern Albanians are considered by Arbereshe as the result of the ammalgamation with Turks, Gypsies and Slavs.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
-Ridiculously wrong. There are hundreds of authors describing Albanian as uncivilized,.... BUT never none of them called them Gypsy or with dark skin. Your description sound perfect for South of Italy or Greek Islands, BUT not for Albanians. ALSO just for your information De Rada and other arberesh of Italy were founders of "Albanian Rinascimento" and were proud to be Albanian.(Unsigned Answer)
-REPLY: Arbereshe were always proud of being the original Albanians, and I agree that they are the ones who kept true "albanianess" alive. The fact that the "Rilindas" took many of these thoughts in the early 20th. century so as to give birth to the modern Shqip identity, does not mean that there is continuity between both movements. Canti di Milosao, which is the literary symbol, refers to the fifteenth-century !!! There relies Arberesh pride, not in being the succesors of Turkish vassals. The Albanian awakening sponsored by the Arbereshe is based upon the belief that we Arbereshe are the true Albanians and followers of Skenderbey's spirit; therefore the necessity of not falling into assimilation so as not to dissapear or follow the fate of most Shqips who lost their Christian faith , since they mostly fell into Islamization and Turkification (or Ottomanization if you prefer), a fact that Arbereshe reject and repulse. Arebershe are proud to be pure Albanians, and Christians. There is no link on to the establishment of modern Albania as a sovereign nation, based upon prior Muslim pashaliks in the Arbereshe awakening. There is no link neither with Hoxha's official Albanian story. I do not mean to offend anywone, but just understand this feeling: Arbereshe are true Albanians, Shqips are something else (and skin colour has nothing to do with this belief).Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

- Turkalbanian is only a fiction created to occupy Albanian territories after the fall of Ottoman Empire. Regarding Souliotes or Arvanites inspiration about old Greece and Byzantine Empire, you better consider Russian Empire instead. Souliotes or Arvanites knew about Greek civilization as much as the Apaches knew about Maya civilization.(Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Lambros Koutsonikas, one of the main Souliotic leaders refered to the Souliotes in his collected memoirs, as the descendants of Hellenic Epirotes who gathered in the mountains to flee from Roman army attacks. Athanase Psalidas, who was Ali Pasha's clerk stated in his writings that the Souliotes were "Greek fighters" (Γραίκους πολεμιστές) remnants of Ancient Hellenic tribes. Beli Pasha, Ali pasha's son refered to the Souliotes not as Romans (Ρωμαίους) or Rums (Ρωμιούς) which would imply simply Christians, but as Romegans (Ρωμέγους) which means local Hellenes. I appreciate the irony within Apache and Mayas, but it seems that there was a little knowledge about Hellenic and Byzantine civilization at the time. Never forget that tradition was the main way of communication in highlander societies. Periptero (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Neither deleted nor deformed.- The whole contents of your positions are there. I just re-scheduled the "personal" discussion we were having in a "forum-style" into a much more neat development of arguments for other users to be able to get involved and share their opinion in this matter as well.Periptero (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm an Italian Arberesh and I completely agree with Periptero's point of view. --Prodebugger (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Souliotes/Archive_5&oldid=1079348893"