Talk:Souliotes/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Tertiary account

I just noticed that Elsie tertiary work is part of the "Identity ethnicity and language" section. Nevertheless, as a clearly tertiary source it should be removed in the same fashion as in the origin of Ali Pasha Talk:Ali_Pasha#Tertiary_source.Alexikoua (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, I still wonder why the appeal of Ali Pasha, as part of his diplomatic approach to secure a short lived alliance with the Souliotes can be taken as a real general view of the Muslim Albanians towards the Souliotes [[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources themselves contained within the article state that Greek was a generic religious term while also being interpreted as a ethnic term depending on the context. Ali's appeal being within the article is important considering that they were fighting each other and that both patched things in an alliance. The bit contained in Flemming gives details as to what Ali thought of the Souliotes, as Ali thought of himself as Albanian and the Souliots also. As for Ali's other motivations for it who knows. Motivations not academically cited. The guy was a Machiavellian character par excellence. Resnjari (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ali's appeal was nothing more than a diplomatic trick. No wonder he changed allies several times during his live. Not to mention that this fragile and short lived alliance was part of a greater Greek-Albanian alliance.

Let me help you that the term Albanian was also quite diferrent with the modern concept of ethnicity. I assume you know what Albanian in 18th-early 19th century Ottoman context means.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read Benedict Anderson's Imagining Communities. I am very well aware that all ethno-linguistic and religious groups have undergone changes in "imagining" what the community (tribe, nation etc) constitutes at a certain point in time. For example: Romioi to Ellines (though Grecophone Muslims have not undergone that transition). I cited Flemming and that is what Flemming wrote without any addtions and you can check. Look up the specific page on google books if you so wish. I looked at the book through my university online database. Albanian depending on which ethnicity was using the word, or some variant meant different things. For example Arnaut for the Turks meant Albanian(regardless of faith) while that same word used by Slavic peoples meant an ethnic marker but also some with bad mores and behavior. Same with the word Shqiptar, Albanian speakers use it as a marker for themselves, but without the q letter when rendered in Slavic as Shiptar it carries the same negative connotations as Arnaut. We don't know what Albanian meant for Ali or the Souliotes. You would need to find a secondary source that has done such an analysis on that. Until then all one can say with certainty is that Ali appealed to the Souliotes for an alliance based on shared Albanian origins. Also the era of conversions had been a recent phenomenon amongst Albanians which mainly occurred during the 18th century as related by Giakoumis. It is difficult to ascertain in such situations to what point religions or other played in (re)forming identities and so on if at all unless you have a source that says something regarding that and Albanian speaking populations' Islamisation.Resnjari (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In general the term Albanian had nothing to do with something close to ethnicity in the Ottoman era, as with "Macedonian". As a publication of Stadford Uni. states ([[2]] p. 189):

"Macedonian" and "Albanian" were stylized terms, akin to zoave or .lager, which described soldiers who were garbed and armed in the prevailing styles of the Balkans. The term Macedonian was no doubt borrowed from the Neapolitan usage, while the term Albanian was used because the people of Albania had achieved fame by providing auxiliaries for the Ottoman Empire. The Albanians or Arnauts had become a mainstay in the armies of the Sultan and his vassals, thus becoming known as "the Swiss of the Near East" to European observers.

The term "Albanian" is usually present in a military context, due to the fact that people of the correspondent geographic region provided valuable service to the Ottomans.Alexikoua (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is true that the word Albanian meant soldier as an additional meaning to the ethnic marker. Yet as Frederic Anscombe recent extensive examination of the Ottoman archive (which was not accessible when Pappas did his reaserch) noted regarding Albanians and matters of banditry (during the 18th and early 19th century), the Ottoman state apart from using Millet terminology also used the ethnic marker with regarding to Albanians (Anscombe also noted noted that the Ottomans used the ethnic marker in documents in relation to other problematic Muslim peoples). He writes the following (Anscombe, Frederick, ‘Albanians and “mountain bandits”’, in Frederick Anscombe (ed.), The Ottoman Balkans, 1750-1830, Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton, 2006, p.88) [3]:

"This Albanian participation in brigandage is easier to track than for many other social groups in Ottoman lands, because Albanian (Arnavud) was one of the relatively few ethnic markers regularly added to the usual religious (Muslim-Zimmi) tags used to identify people in state record."

Albanian had multiple meanings for multiple people and their views of them in the Balkans. Ali was an Albanian and he was talking to Albanian speaking people (and are outlined as such by Greek scholarship). When Ali as an Albanian though offered an alliance to the Souliotes and appealed to them regarding shared Albanian origins, there is nothing to say that that is what he did not infer. Unless you have a source that says Ali meant something else?Resnjari (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Fact is that from the avaliable bibliography that the term Albanian was diferrent from its latter meaning. Also taking Ali's claims as a historical fact isn't the best academic argument (let me inform you that he also claimed to be of Turkish origin). Thus, there is no need to examine what he really meant. Fleming didn't bother too.Alexikoua (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pappas wrote with what was available to him. The available bibliography comes from non-Muslim sources, or in other words the other side. Anscombe represents the views from the Ottoman side which recognised that Albanian/s existed. Anscombe states very clearly it was used as a ethnic marker, not with some other meanings. Now you can take what you wish from that, but the Ottoman archive cannot be rewritten and Anscombe's research is valid. Moreover Flemming does not say that Ali meant something else when he spoke of Albanian origins. Within the Ottoman side there was a recognition of Albanians as a people and amongnst those themselves recongising themselves as such. When you say that Ali himself said he had Turkish origins, is this from some Greek sources or from credible peer reviewed ones (Greek and non-Greek) citing Ali as claiming as such.Resnjari (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

there was a recognition of Albanians as a people and amongnst those themselves recongising themselves as such. That's nothing more than an wp:OR concert, since the definition of this term by all available bibliography points to the opposite. "Albanian" as a group was quite diferrent and this is clearly stated in bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship builds upon itself. You are yet to refute Anscombe's research of the Ottoman archive nor that of Flemming. They say Albanian. It is you who says it meant something else regarding Ali or the Ottomans (of which Ali was a administrative representative). Also you are placing wp:OR on the Flemming source inferring that it meant something else for Ali or the other. Moreover, what is your source out there to say that the Ottomans did not use the word Albanian (Arnaut/Arnavut) as an ethnic marker ? I have provided to you the source that cites much archival details especially in relation to the period of when Ali lived. Also Anscombe is discussing Muslim sources, not non-Muslim ones of which previous available scholarship referred and had access too. So there is also nothing also to refute Flemming's citing of Ali Pasha's reference to Albanian origins that it meant something else or that Ali meant something else by it. Since you think my view is formed by "Albanian nationalism", actually it is formed by peer reviewed non-nationalistic Greek scholarship. Vassilis Nitsiakos says this of the matter (Nitsiakos, Vassilis (2010). On the border: Transborder mobility, ethnic groups and boundaries along the Albanian-Greek frontier. LIT Verlag. p. 200 [4]:

"Who and what was this man, beyond the myth of the “Turkish Albanian satrap” cultivated in Greece? I think of how astonished my students always look when I tell them that Ali Pasha was not Turkish but Albanian. I explain that this unclear, ideologically and sentimentally charged term, “Turkish-Albanian”, only refers to Muslim Albanians, through a general identification of Turks with Muslims, which is related to the millet system of administration used by the Ottomans to classify populations. In a similar manner, most Orthodox Christians were identified with Greeks, causing huge problems to other ethnic groups, hence the schismatic tendencies of national Churches in the time of emerging national movements. Traces of this historical differentiation are still evident in South Albania today between Christian and Muslim Albanians."

Maybe i am wrong and Nitsiakos too is a "Albanian nationalist".Resnjari (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Albanian in 18th-early 19th century, Fleming, Nitsiakos, Ancombe included, is something diferrent than Albanian today. Simply claiming that this had the same meaning is nothing more than extreme wp:OR, unacceptable in modern academic thought. I'm afraid that even if the talkpage will be flooded with unrelated quotefarming this historical fact will still remain.Alexikoua (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also let me make it easier, per Birol Gundogdu, Ottoman Constructions of the Morea Rebellion (2012), 1770s: A Comprehensive Study of Ottoman Attitudes to the Greek Uprising, p. 233:

Needless to say, the term Albanian or Greek had nothing to do with nationality in the sense that we understand these terms today.

It's easy to understand that someone who is propagating that Greek had a diferrent meaning, while Albanian remained unchanged, simply adopts an extreme national pov, which should be avoided here.Alexikoua (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No i never said that Greek had a different meaning. That would be saying it had one meaning. Greek had multiple meanings, one was the religious and the other was an ethnic marker. Albanian was ethnic marker and also had military (and derogatory) connotations. My point was that amongst the Ottoman administration, Albanian carried meanings of an ethnic marker when it was used in their documents as outlined by Anscombe. Ottoman documents point to officials being aware of multiple meanings of the word Albanian existent during that time. All one can say was that Ali was a Ottoman official and Flemming only cites that Ali appealed to Albanian origins and that is that. Bingol put it best on page 298:

"More importantly, however, having scrutinized the primary documents in greater detail, we have come to the conclusion that prior to the insurrection of 1770 Ottoman society is mistakenly described as being divided into homogenous groups, strictly defined according to their religion, nation or other kind of group identity.In this regard, terms that we had so often come across in the archives such as kocabaşıs, ayan, bandits, rebels, Maniots, Muslims vs. Christians, Albanians, Greeks, reaya, klepht, armotoloi, askeri, state officers, governors etc. need to be used with utmost care. Such terms were neither a strict classification used to categorize certain Ottoman subjects and to differentiate them totally from others nor their members restricted themselves to specific meaning of these terms that we have given to them today.Instead, intimate relations and crossing between members of such seemingly distinct groups was quite common."

Whether Albanian meant military or ethnic origins, Flemming does not say regarding Ali. Also I am well aware of academic thought regarding the matter as its usually me bringing that up in other discussions.Resnjari (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Neutrality Tag ?

Just asking, unless anyone else has any other issues with this article to do the edits or voice their concerns about a part of the article so it can be reworked. Otherwise if everyone is done or satisfied with what has been done so far and has no other issues or input to add, the removal of the neutrality tag ought to be undertaken or not ? Resnjari (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Guys, any other issues that need addressing within the article or can the neutrality tag be removed now ?Resnjari (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, it happened that I have read the Wikipedia:POV Cleanup recently, so here we go:

1) "If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag."

2) "If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)"

3) "If the issues seem to be suitably resolved, remove the tag."

I think you should feel free to remove the Tag if you believe of the conditions above are met. :) Regards, --SilentResident (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Thank you for the advice and it has saved me time as i have been looking for the policy. There is a lot on wikiepdia to find sometimes. That said, i am not sure if i am best placed to remove the tag as other editors may disagree if i do it. It can stay for a while longer, though in time if no one makes an edit of substance (this excludes vandals) or brings a issue to the fore (of actual substance) in the talkpage over some months, would there be a Wikipedia forum where a admin or non-Balkan editors could make that determination for removal? I ask so if its possible i do it right when i contact and don't get no "canvassing" allegations. Best. Resnjari (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, go ahead, you can remove it now if you want, it could be ok. Since July 2015 it is a long wait already. Anyways, if someone else disagrees with the tag's removal, he can simply restore it back anytime (and of course point out to the reasons for its restoration, like if he found further problems in the article, or whatever). --SilentResident (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, tag is removed. I hope that was ok - anyways, if someone disagrees with its removal, he can simply restore it back and update the Talk page accordingly, so other editors can be coordinated in fixing/addressing any possible NPOV issues. Have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant material about identity

All that material about millets and things is irrelevant and even surpassed. The Souliotes had a strong local identity, were out of the Ottoman control and, therefore, practically out of the millet system (in the sense of privileges given to non-muslim communities). The only sure is that they were Christian Orthodox. Their mother-language is questionable and any attempt to create here futile albanian connections is only deleterious to the article. I propose that we delete most of the irrelevant material. The article is about Souliotes, not about Epirotes in general.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Souliotes mother tongue was not questionable. Albanian was their mother tongue as per peer reviewed sources with a eventual transition to Greek. Please provide peer reivwed sources for such claims as you make that are current. Yohalas wrote in the 1980s and there are others who have built upon that. Changes of that nature will be reversed. Provide some more details like a page number and inline citation at the very least for one to locate such things. Best. Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yochalas' work has been peer reviewed indeed by the Academy of Athens who published it. You may very well show us other studies proving that the mother tongue of the Souliotes was the Albanian. LINGUISTIC STUDIES please, not a sentence from Elsie's blog. --Skylax30 (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating. Yochalas in the context that you refered to in the sentence is already cited in the Souliotic language section with the same page numbers and inlines. Moreover please refrain from placing your personal POV regarding scholars such as Elsie. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, Yochalas should not be repeated much, but he is the only one who has studied the Souliotic language. All the others make circular claims: "They spoke Albanian because they are of Albanian origin (geographic, ethnic?) and they were of Albanian origin becoz they spoke Albanian". Yochalas explains indeed that they spoke the Greek idiom of Argyrokastron, which explains the "Albanian origin". In the discussion we can freely express personal points of view. This is what discussion is about.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Explanation needed for a German source

There is this source, supposedly supporting that the Souliotes were called "Arvanites" by the Greeks:

Thede Kahl (1999). "Die Zagóri-Dörfer in Nordgriechenland: Wirtschaftliche Einheit–ethnische Vielfalt [The Zagori villages in Northern Greece: Economic unit - Ethnic diversity]". Ethnologia Balkanica. 3: 113-114. "Im Laufe der Jahrhunderte hat es mehrfach Ansiedlungen christlich-orthodoxer Albaner (sog. Arvaniten) in verschiedenen Dörfern von Zagóri gegeben. Nachfolger Albanischer Einwanderer, die im 15. Jh. In den zentral- und südgriechischen Raum einwanderten, dürfte es in Zagóri sehr wenige geben (Papageorgíu 1995: 14). Von ihrer Existenz im 15. Jh. wissen wir durch albanische Toponyme (s. Ikonómu1991: 10–11). Von größerer Bedeutung ist die jüngere Gruppe der sogenannten Sulioten – meist albanisch-sprachige Bevölkerung aus dem Raum Súli in Zentral-Epirus – die mit dem Beginn der Abwanderung der Zagorisier für die Wirtschaft von Zagóri an Bedeutung gewannen. Viele von ihnen waren bereits bei ihrer Ankunft in Zagóri zweisprachig, da in Súli Einwohner griechischsprachiger Dörfer zugewandert waren und die albanischsprachige Bevölkerung des Súli-Tales (Lakka-Sulioten) engen Kontakt mit der griechischsprachigen Bevölkerung der weiteren Umgebung (Para-Sulioten) gehabt hatte (Vakalópulos 1992: 91). Viele Arvaniten heirateten in die zagorische Gesellschaft ein, andere wurden von Zagorisiern adoptiert (Nitsiákos 1998: 328) und gingen so schnell in ihrer Gesellschaft auf. Der arvanitische Bevölkerungsanteil war nicht unerheblich. Durch ihren großen Anteil an den Aufstandsbewegungen der Kleften waren die Arvaniten meist gut ausgebildete Kämpfer mit entsprechend großer Erfahrung im Umgang mit Dörfer der Zagorisier zu schützen. Viele Arvaniten nahmen auch verschiedene Hilfsarbeiten an, die wegen der Abwanderung von Zagorisiern sonst niemand hätte ausführen können, wie die Bewachung von Feldern, Häusern und Viehherden.

My german is not good but this reference to Vakalopoulos doesn't say anything about Souliotes called "Arvanites", does it? Can someone translate this in english and replace the german text in the article? Thanks. --Skylax30 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A translation was given last year of that section in the talkpage (please see archives for more - and of previous discussions relating to this topic), though i will place it for you in here. In English the paragraph from Kahl reads:

"Over the centuries Orthodox Christian Albanians (also called: Arvanites) have settled repeatedly in different villages of Zagori. Successive Albanian immigrants of the 15th century immigrated to central and southern to Greece, with few to Zagori. Of its existence in Zagori, we know it through Albanian toponyms. Of greater significance is the newer group called Souliots – the mostly Albanian-speaking population from the area of Suli in central Epirus - with the beginning of the exodus to Zagori also made an important contribution to the economy of Zagori. Many of them were already bilingual when they arrived in Zagori, because in Suli citizens of Greek-villages had immigrated there, and the Albanian-speaking population of Suli-Tales (Lakka-Suliots) had had close contact with the Greek-speaking population of the wider area (Para-Suliots) (Vakalópulos 1992 91). Many Arvanites married into the Zagori society, while others were adopted by Zagorians (Nitsiákos 1998: 328) and assimilated quickly in their society. The Arvanite population was not irrelevant. Due to their large share of the insurgencies of the Klefts, Arvanites mostly well-trained fighters were protecting with a correspondingly large experience in dealing with the villages of Zagori. Many Arvanites attended to various auxiliary works that no one would or could perform, because of the exodus of Zagorians, such as guarding of fields, houses and livestock."

Thede Kahl's article mainly deals with Greek Zagori. A part of the population there stems from a former Orthodox Albanian speaking or Arvanite element that arrived from Souli in the 19th century that has become part of the local Greek population. There because of that, Kahl covers issues relating to the population who has Souli origins in his academic article on Zagori. He cites Vakalópulos in relation to the geographical makeup of Souli. Souli or the bit that Albanian speakers used to inhabit until Ali Pasha kicked them out was the Lakka Souli area of a few villages while the wider Souli area to the north with many villages is Greek speaking. Of the former Albanian speaking Souli settlements, only Samoniva has been revived by a few Greek families (Ikas, Dalianis, Bekas and Tokas) that hail from the northern Greek speaking part of wider Souli (Fatos Rrapaj, (1995), Fjalor Onomastik te Epirit [Onomastic dictionary of Epirus]. p. 381. - citing Spiros Mouselimis' data). Kahl is cited in the Wikipedia article because he is peer reviewed and of good standing and that article is published in a academic journal of good standing (meeting wp:reliable and wp:secondary requirements). If you want to read it all, here is the link where you can look into it further. [5]. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So, it's your personal interpretation that "The Souliotes were also called Arvanites by Greek monolinguals". No problem. Settle to the Souliotic songs - soon to be part of the article - where "Arvanites" are the enemies of the Souliotes.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Skylax30, it’s not my personal interpretation and i am not going down that road. Greek speaking monolinguals that came into contact with Souliot populations (areas that today constitute modern day Greek Epirus, southern Albania and especially Corfu island) referred to Souliotes as Arvanites and Alvanites etc (it is referenced in the article with good academic scholarship). For example, in the Corfiot archive of population registers in the early 19th century, those Souliot populations that fled Ali Pasha (the majority going to Corfu and settling there permanently) referred to them as such and is accounted for in the article. You can add stuff on Souliot songs as the article is about Souliotes anyway. A few words on the term Arvanites. Arvanites - in the sense as a population group known with that name today in the Peloponnese, Attica, Boeotia etc fought in the Greek war of independence and alongside the Souliotes and they were not adversaries/enemies. On the other hand, Arvanites as a generic term for Albanian speakers in Greek was used for all Albanian speakers regardless of religion until WW2 and that type of usage still persists in Greek Epirus (see Baltsiotis for more). Going by what you added in the article and what you possibly might mean by using the term enemies in the talkpage, i think you are referring to Muslim Albanians. They were the Souliotes adversaries during the wars with Ali. The Souliot wars occurred right after the 18th century which saw large numbers of Orthodox Albanian speaking people convert to Islam and there was frictions between those who where newly converted and those that stayed Orthodox (for more see: Islam in Albania. It’s a legacy that still persists and haunts in one way or another those Albanian speakers who espouse an Albanian identity today of various faiths. Anyway that's a different topic and long after the Souliot wars (if you want to discuss that you can on my talkpage or yours in good faith as its off topic instead of in here). I hope that assists. Anyway read the sources. Of the continuous parts at least, the article is robust. Its needs work on the stuff which well doesn't attract attention like the actual conflicts the Souliotes had as it is poorly referenced and at times if at all. If that gets addressed it would be nice to see this article go to GA evaluation. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Before you nominate it for GA, try to make a lead that reflects the whole article. For example, you will have to compromise the "albanian origin" with Leake's report on the origins of every family (some were Vlachs), or the "albanian speakers" with the 2 linguistic works (plus Byron) who don't support this. --Skylax30 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

About GA all i said was in time it would be nice for a editor to nominate it and it to pass. It cannot be nominated for now because the sections relating to bits about the wars need to have references in many areas (which are lacking actually for many years). No one has challenged the events that happened and probably reason why no one has addressed the referencing there is because, well its the boring bits to do unlike the other stuff. At GA they will point the referencing issue out too and it will fail. On Leake it is true that there where families who had come from different places and having a Vlach and Greek origin (these where few though). Ironically i have addressed what you say in Albanian Wikipedia on the Souliotes article almost 2 years ago. On familes a few comments. The Zerva family came from the village of Zerva which is a village north of Lelova (today: Thesprotikon) and part of the tradtionally Arvanite speaking zone. The Botsaris are from Dragani (today: Ambelia), traditionally an Arvanite village in Thesprotia. The Dangli family are from Kanalaki, a tradtionally Arvanite village of the Fanari plain in Preveza prefecture. The Tzavella famaily are considered either having a northern Albanian origin or an unknown origin and the Paso or Vaso family being of unknown origins. The Drakoi family are from Martan or Martin village (village abandoned during 19th century -no longer existing. See Kokolakis, p. 251. [6]) in the tradionally Greek speaking plain of Lamari above Preveza. The Buzbu family come from the Pindos mountians (which village is unknown) and are Vlach. The core of Souli was inhabited by a Albanian speaking (Arvanite) population that received a few families that were not Arvanite though they assimilated them and became part of the Arvanite population. Its why scholars (many Greek) have noted an Albanian origin overall. Those scholars also come after Leake, Byron too and Leake, Byron falls under a primary source category. Find a contemporary scholar that cites this and it can go in the body, etc to meet Wiki criteria of wp:secondary and wp:reliable. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman Greek

The community was part of the Ottoman Greeks and Rum Millet, rather than describing it awkwardly as an "Orthodox Christian group", this community should be factually described, as Ottoman Greek.--Zoupan 20:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Altthough origin seems unclear, not to mention it was also irrelevant in the Ottoman system of social classification, per Millet system this was quite precise and definitelly deserves to be mentioned in lede.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the references don't refer to them as "Ottoman greeks ".The case is sent to the revelant dispute resolution noticeboard so don't edit thing without consensus.Ottoman greek refers only to ethnic greeks .See wikipedia.There is no consensus about that.Rolandi+ (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the millet system should be mentioned. However that term "Greek" is subject to interpretation as peer reviewed acaedmic sources point out such as Lambros Baltsiotis, a Greek peer reviewed academic from Panteion University in Athens who states the following regarding the matter (for more see: "The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece", link: http://ejts.revues.org/4444 ):

"Yet this situation was not a novelty. Prior to this period, Chamouria was already a nuisance both for the Greek state and the Christians of Epirus who identified themselves as Greeks. As the less ambitious Greek irredentists’ target in 1912 was to include all the areas up to a line including Korçë-Gjirokastër-Himarë within the frontiers of the expanded Greek state, the aim was to obscure the fact that the Christian, or even the Muslim population, didn’t speak Greek but Albanian. Concealing the existence of the Albanian language appeared as a concept as soon as the possibility of Greek expansion into Epirus appeared. Dimitrios Hassiotis, a historian and politician who supported Greek claims, writes in 1887 that in the whole of the Chamouria region, only in Paramythia do “some of the inhabitants understand the Albanian language for commercial reasons” (author’s emphasis). The initial distortion of facts was followed by an effort to account for the allegedly “occasional” use of Albanian. This “appeal to hope” is not only applied to the distortion of the linguistic reality of the area as perceived by non natives, but is extended to a wider spectrum of facts and evaluations. An example of the way this “appeal to hope” was accepted as reality is that Greek officers in the interwar period truly believe that Italy and “Albanian propaganda” are to blame for the reactions of the Muslims in Chamouria and not Greek policies implemented in the area."

"The fact that the Christian communities within the territory which was claimed by Greece from the mid 19th century until the year 1946, known after 1913 as Northern Epirus, spoke Albanian, Greek and Aromanian (Vlach), was dealt with by the adoption of two different policies by Greek state institutions. The first policy was to take measures to hide the language(s) the population spoke, as we have seen in the case of “Southern Epirus”. The second was to put forth the argument that the language used by the population had no relation to their national affiliation. To this effect the state provided striking examples of Albanian speaking individuals (from southern Greece or the Souliotēs) who were leading figures in the Greek state. As we will discuss below, under the prevalent ideology in Greece at the time every Orthodox Christian was considered Greek, and conversely after 1913, when the territory which from then onwards was called “Northern Epirus” in Greece was ceded to Albania, every Muslim of that area was considered Albanian."

"If we consider that even in the case of Macedonian/Bulgarian speaking villages there are at least a dozen books on the history of the villages, with some actually making direct or indirect references to their linguistic alterity, we presume that in the case of Chamouria there are two issues that local authors do not want to deal with: the linguistic alterity, a common language with Muslims (and Albanians) and the 1944-1945 incidents."

Its important that the lead doesn't not replicate ideology of the Greek state or others with an agenda from the past whereby Orthodox people being Albanian speaking from the area where all classified as "Greeks". This does not make them Albanians too. Yes the Souliotes identified with the Greek cause. But what Greek meant then and what it means now are two different things. For Greek speakers then, they identified as Romioi and today as Ellines. Being Orthodox was what solidified the Greeks regarding Greek identity from 1821 onwards. We should not place a interpretation that says Greeks had a monopoly on Orthodoxy, or that Orthodox by default meant Greek, as there were political agendas and reasons behind that reasoning (as shown by Baltsiotis). Politics should be kept away from reevaluating the past. The word "Orthodox" or "Christian Orthodox" or "Orthodox Christian" would suffice in place of the POV pushing "Greek Orthodox" and be a neutral resolution to the matter regarding the lead. Resnjari (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: It appears you are in the wrong article: Souliotes left this area in the 1820s, thus 20th century politics that concern Thesprotia are completely irrelevant with the identity of the Souliotes. As for the term "Greek" they were labelled as such inside the society they lived and the reason is explained inside the article in detail.Alexikoua (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, Baltsiotis does not at all state that these Greek views began in the twentieth century. He places them directly within the context of the nineteenth century and as being ongoing into the twentieth. Do read the whole article and thank you for pointing out that i might be in the "wrong article". I notice many Greek editors like to remind me that the encyclopedia is in English, or like now to make sure that i am in the right article, or even like Athenean who wanted to make sure i even have cognitive abilities (although he used other more colourful words). I am glad that all the Greek editors here are always looking out for me and are so generous in their outlook toward people of Albanian heritage. Where would we Albanians be without such generosity. However, as i don't want to overburden all the Greek editors with such trifles, Wikipedia policy says that a editor should not be the focus of attention (unless they are not following the rules) and that only content (sources etc) should be (or its merits) not other matters as others seemed to be concerned about regarding myself.

Now back to Baltsiotis, he states:

"Concealing the existence of the Albanian language appeared as a concept as soon as the possibility of Greek expansion into Epirus appeared."

He then follows that with giving examples from the nineteenth century. This has been a long and ongoing process of trying to concealing that Albanian as a language existed amongst the people in the area.

"Souliotes left this area in the 1820s,"

True, but not all left Eprius. Kahl gives examples that part of the Souliote population was still within the larger region of Epirus (in Zagori). And Baltsiotis does talk about Epirus and the Greek state's and others who had a irredentist position view regarding the region and how they went about it until 1946.

"As for the term "Greek" they were labelled as such inside the society they lived and the reason is explained inside the article in detail."

Well according to Baltsiotis, the word "Greek" was used regarding Orthodox Albanian speaking people as a term with political overtones for one to conceal Albanian lingusitic realities. Two, which society? How do you know that locals in the Thesprotia region who spoke Albanian called them ? I have an Albanian source based on scholar Fatos Rrapaj who spent much time with Muslim Cham Albanian refugees (and Orthodox Albanians in Albania of the Konispol area) who gave him songs and much micro-toponym lists of all the villages they came from in Greece (if you want that source cited which was published in 1995 and the Souliotes word as used in the Albanian Cham dialect, i'll include it. More than happy to use it). If anything, in the article what we do have as outright proof of what they where called during the era (at least in Corfu) even amongst Greek speaking people was "Arvanites, Albanesi or even Alvanites (Αλβανήτες)". Same amongst Zagori Epirote Greeks (as per Kahl). Now what does Baltsiotis say about the term Arvanites ? That is what is used for an Albanian speaker regardless of their religion by Greek speaking people and still in use with that meaning in your native Greek Epirus. Please don't give an interpretation on the sources as could constitute original research. Wikipedia says doing that is a big no, no. Base your information on the source/s. Resnjari (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears you can't get the point: Ottoman classification of the society was established long before the creation of the Greek state and Souliotes inhabited Thesprotia until 1820s. Apart from large scale wp:synth and wp:or I can't see a decent argument to support that. No wonder, Baltsiotis work is focused on the Cham community of the first half of 20th century (the title is quite clear), not the Souliotes who were already expelled from Thesprotia a century ago. To sum anything concerned about "modern Arvanites in Epirus" has not the slightest connection in the case of the Souliotes. As for Zagori I assume you need to give a precise reference from Kahl about the existence of an Arvanite community that resides there today (or some of its remnants), else the modern use of the term "Arvanites" needs to go, in absence of "modern Souliotes in Epirus".Alexikoua (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Apart from large scale wp:synth and wp:or I can't see a decent argument to support that."

I have referred to Baltisotis paragraphs in whole. Moreover, if i had not you would infer that i was not being concise about it. And also i am doubting you have bothered to actually have read the article, so yes i don't want, but i have to resort to such means.

"Baltsiotis work is focused on the Cham community of the first half of 20th century (the title is quite clear)".

A title is not indicative of a source, but its content. Otherwsie if that was the citeria all sources on any Wikipedia page would become invalid. Show in policy for me to take that on board.

"It appears you can't get the point: Ottoman classification of the society was established long before the creation of the Greek state and Souliotes inhabited Thesprotia until 1820s."

Alexikoua, like i said before don't worry about my cognitive skills, concentrate on the scholarly content. A Greek peer reviewed scholar has pointed out in great detail (which i have pointed to in the talk page by citing it extensively), not in a one or two liner about the millet system, but in great detail, that the Greek state, Greek politicians and historians were out there trying to obscure for one the existence of the Albanian language amongst the people in Epirus and two that similar tactics were also done toward Orthodox Albanian speaking peoples like the Arvanites and Souliotes from the nineteenth century onwards. Also there were Souliotes in Epirus (Zagori) and others in Greece like in (Corfu). Under the Ottoman state Greek meant something completely different like Orthodox, not "ethnic Greek" and conflation of the two was the product of nineteenth century nationalism (as stated in the Baltsiotis article, while the Wikipedia article does discuss Souliote history for a couple of centuries before the 1820s. Find a source that says the Souliots thought of themselves "Greek" during that era. A credible one, by the way). The Souliots only side with the Greek movement in the 1820s. I am most curious to see if you are willing to make the points you have to me in the Serbian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Orthodox Church articles, who were at various times non-existent and under the Patriarchate, thereby making them "Greek Orthodox". Do change the content there so it is in line with what your stating, because just having "Orthodox" or "Orthodox Christian" is not encompassing the whole historical picture in those articles. State on those pages that they were "Greek Orthodox", so you know we can have consistency as to what you’re saying. Doing so, i will defiantly take what you have said on board. Absent that, i am sticking to peer reviewed Baltsiotis on the matter and that within the article it should be either "Orthodox" or "Orthodox Christian", but defiantly not "Greek Orthodox" as it is POV pushing.

"To sum anything concerned about "modern Arvanites in Epirus" has not the slightest connection in the case of the Souliotes. "

Kahl does not give dates for when the Soiliots arrived in Zagori. Instead he just states that they are a newer population in Zagori that came after the earlier Albanian migrations of the 15th century. Hence, how would you define "modern" in that instance ? Here is the whole Kahl paragraph dealing with Albanian speakers in Zagori. Note that he only states that the Souliote settled (and on page 106 he gives a list of which villages they are found. See below for more) Other Orthodox Albanian speakers from the Konitsa region such as from the villages of Gorgopotamos or Chionades only came as seasonal workers (masons) and did not settle there permanently, and he specifically writes he is unsure about the Albanian links of the village of Tristeno. The Arvanite population, or those designated as such in Zagori stem from the Souliots.

"Im Laufe der Jahrhunderte hat es mehrfach Ansiedlungen christlich-orthodoxer Albaner (sog. Arvaniten) in verschiedenen Dörfern von Zagóri gegeben. Nachfolger Albanischer Einwanderer, die im 15. Jh. In den zentral- und südgriechischen Raum einwanderten, dürfte es in Zagóri sehr wenige geben (Papageorgíu 1995: 14). Von ihrer Existenz im 15. Jh. wissen wir durch albanische Toponyme (s. Ikonómu1991: 10–11). Von größerer Bedeutung ist die jüngere Gruppe der sogenannten Sulioten – meist albanisch-sprachige Bevölkerung aus dem Raum Súli in Zentral-Epirus – die mit dem Beginn der Abwanderung der Zagorisier für die Wirtschaft von Zagóri an Bedeutung gewannen. Viele von ihnen waren bereits bei ihrer Ankunft in Zagóri zweisprachig, da in Súli Einwohner griechischsprachiger Dörfer zugewandert waren und die albanischsprachige Bevölkerung des Súli-Tales (Lakka-Sulioten) engen Kontakt mit der griechischsprachigen Bevölkerung der weiteren Umgebung (Para-Sulioten) gehabt hatte (Vakalópulos 1992: 91). Viele Arvaniten heirateten in die zagorische Gesellschaft ein, andere wurden von Zagorisiern adoptiert (Nitsiákos 1998: 328) und gingen so schnell in ihrer Gesellschaft auf. Der arvanitische Bevölkerungsanteil war nicht unerheblich. Durch ihren großen Anteil an den Aufstandsbewegungen der Kleften waren die Arvaniten meist gut ausgebildete Kämpfer mit entsprechend großer Erfahrung im Umgang mit Dörfer der Zagorisier zu schützen. Viele Arvaniten nahmen auch verschiedene Hilfsarbeiten an, die wegen der Abwanderung von Zagorisiern sonst niemand hätte ausführen können, wie die Bewachung von Feldern, Häusern und Viehherden. Auch aus der Umgebung von Kónitsa kamen einzelne Arvaniten in das Gebiet, z.B. Maurer aus Gorgopótamos und Maler aus Chionádes. Sie blieben jedoch meist nur vorübergehend in Zagóri und siedelten sich nur selten an. Die Gewohnheit, arvanitische Bevölkerung für Bauarbeiten anzuheuern, war auch im übrigen Griechenland sehr verbreitet. Eine besondere Rolle scheint arvanitische (albano-vlachische?) Bevölkerung in Trísteno gespielt zu haben (Lambrídis 1993: 81, 83). Auch wenn die heutige Bevölkerung keinerlei Erinnerung an arvanitische Vorfahren bewahrt hat, legen albanische Sprachreste in ihrem Griechisch nahe, daß die ersten Siedler des Dorfes Arvaniten gewesen sind. Dies würde auch seinen aromunischen Namen erklären: Arbineși heißt „das albanische“. Arvanitische Familien haben sich in mindestens zwölf Dörfern in Zagóri angesiedelt."

Translation:

"Over the centuries Orthodox Christian Albanians (also called: Arvanites) have settled repeatedly in different villages of Zagori. Successive Albanian immigrants of the 15th century immigrated to central and southern to Greece, with few to Zagori. Of its existence in Zagori, we know it through Albanian toponyms. Of greater significance is the newer group called Souliots – the mostly Albanian-speaking population from the area of Suli in central Epirus - with the beginning of the exodus to Zagori also made an important contribution to the economy of Zagori. Many of them were already bilingual when they arrived in Zagori, because in Suli citizens of Greek-villages had immigrated there, and the Albanian-speaking population of Suli-Tales (Lakka-Suliots) had had close contact with the Greek-speaking population of the wider area (Para-Suliots) (Vakalópulos 1992 91). Many Arvanites married into the Zagori society, while others were adopted by Zagorians (Nitsiákos 1998: 328) and assimilated quickly in their society. The Arvanite population was not irrelevant. Due to their large share of the insurgencies of the Klefts, Arvanites mostly well-trained fighters were protecting with a correspondingly large experience in dealing with the villages of Zagori. Many Arvanites attended to various auxiliary works that no one would or could perform, because of the exodus of Zagorians, such as guarding of fields, houses and livestock. Many Arvanites attended to various auxiliary works that no one would or could perform, because of the exodus of Zagorians, such as guarding of fields, houses and livestock. From around Kónitsa individual Arvanites came in the area, e.g. masons from Gorgopotamos and painters from Chionádes. They remained, however, usually only temporarily in Zagori and settled rarely. The habit of hiring Arvanite populations for building, was also very common in rest of Greece. The Arvanites (Albano-Vlachs?) seemed to have played a special role amongst the Trísteno population (Lambrídis 1993 81, 83). Although today's population has preserved no memory of Arvanite ancestors, there are Albanian language remnants within the Greek that the first settlers of the village could have been Arvanites. This would also explain the Aromanian name: Arbineşi meaning "the Albanian". Arvanite families have settled in at least twelve villages in Zagori."

"As for Zagori I assume you need to give a precise reference from Kahl about the existence of an Arvanite community that resides there today (or some of its remnants), else the modern use of the term "Arvanites" needs to go, in absence of "modern Souliotes in Epirus".

Done. Here it is (added it to article). Note that Kahl wrote in 1999 and did his fieldwork then so that is why he uses twentieth century):

p. 106. Liste der Zagóri-Dörfer im 20. Jh. mit alten und neuen Bezeichnungen.[List of Zagori villages in the 20th century with old and new names.]

Zugewanderte arvanitische Familien in übriger Bevölkerung aufgegangen. [Immigrant Arvanite families within in other populations.]: Arísti (Artsísta), Megálo Pápingo, Anthrakítis (Kaminiá), Asprángeli (Dovrá), Kavallári, Kípi, Leptokaryá (Liaskovétsi), Monodéndri (Páno Veítza), Tsepélevo, Vítsa, Vradéto.Resnjari (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i will only accept Greek Orthodox being in the lead and not being POV pushing, if the following sentence (proposal in bold) is added in to the latter section (Identity, ethnicity and language) and under this sentence: "According to this, the Muslim communities in Epirus were classified as Turks, while the Orthodox (Rum), like the Souliotes, were classified as Greeks."

From the middle of the nineteenth century until the middle twentieth century, the term Greek was also used by the Greek state, politicians and historians to obscure the links some Orthodox people such as Souliotes had to the Albanian language.<ref.>Baltsiotis. The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece. 2011. "The fact that the Christian communities within the territory which was claimed by Greece from the mid 19th century until the year 1946, known after 1913 as Northern Epirus, spoke Albanian, Greek and Aromanian (Vlach), was dealt with by the adoption of two different policies by Greek state institutions. The first policy was to take measures to hide the language(s) the population spoke, as we have seen in the case of “Southern Epirus”. The second was to put forth the argument that the language used by the population had no relation to their national affiliation. To this effect the state provided striking examples of Albanian speaking individuals (from southern Greece or the Souliotēs) who were leading figures in the Greek state. As we will discuss below, under the prevalent ideology in Greece at the time every Orthodox Christian was considered Greek, and conversely after 1913, when the territory which from then onwards was called “Northern Epirus” in Greece was ceded to Albania, every Muslim of that area was considered Albanian."</ref.>

see: Baltsiotis for more (http://ejts.revues.org/4444#bodyftn16)

Resnjari (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only assume that the only reason you insist on flooding the discussion page with irrelevant information is because you have run out of arguments. In fact you accidentally admit that there are no Souliotes in modern Epirus: "Also there were Souliotes in Epirus (Zagori) and others in Greece like in (Corfu). ". Thus, who is today called Arvanite in Epirus is irrelevant with this article, which deals with a community who is non-existent in modern Epirus. If you can't understand this simple fact, I'm sorry but posting another 50k of text will not change that.Alexikoua (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, concentrate on the content please, don't "assume" or question my "understanding" as to what my cognitive faculties are as Wikipedia policy states to desist from personal attacks (.e.g: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks). Look, Kahl gives a list on page 106 of 12 villages that have Arvanites. Someone has given him that list, maybe locals of non-arvanite heritage or so on (i can't say who as he says its fieldwork). That is my point. It is true that these people themselves have no memory of an Arvanite past. Kahl does not say when that was lost. So before you get all tangled up, note that there is that issue too. However i have taken on board your point. Resnjari (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no wonder that Kahl doesn't provide anything close to this (Auch aus der Umgebung von Kónitsa kamen einzelne Arvaniten in das Gebiet, z.B. Maurer aus Gorgopótamos und Maler aus Chionádes. Sie blieben jedoch meist nur vorübergehend in Zagóri und siedelten sich nur selten an. Die Gewohnheit, arvanitische Bevölkerung für Bauarbeiten anzuheuern, war auch im übrigen Griechenland sehr verbreitet. Eine besondere Rolle scheint arvanitische (albano-vlachische?) Bevölkerung in Trísteno gespielt zu haben (Lambrídis 1993: 81, 83). Auch wenn die heutige Bevölkerung keinerlei Erinnerung an arvanitische Vorfahren bewahrt hat, legen albanische Sprachreste in ihrem Griechisch nahe, daß die ersten Siedler des Dorfes Arvaniten gewesen sind. Dies würde auch seinen aromunischen Namen erklären: Arbineși heißt „das albanische“. Arvanitische Familien haben sich in mindestens zwölf Dörfern in Zagóri angesiedelt."). Text in bold, the modern population of Zagori has not preserved the slightest memory about his Arvanitic past. Thus it's clearly stated that the isn't an Arvanitic community today there.Alexikoua (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They haven't and yet on page p106 there is a list of 12 villages and he list as having Arvanite families. Well on a local level they may have no remembered a Arvanite past, yet Kahl somehow was able to gather that list. I have been going over his article and it does not say if he got the information from local Greek. Only fieldwork. But some local informant/s has kept a memory of that for him to give a list on page 106. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resnjari (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that a Souliote community still exists in Souli, provided that Kahl states that the population today has not preserved any memory of its Souliotic past. Every reasonable reader will agree that the modern use of the term "Arvanite" in the case of the Souliotes is irrelevant, at least based on Kahl who refutes your own arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

He refers to villages on page 106 of villages that have families of Arvanite descent (12 in all). He also says that these people stem from the Souliots. How they define themselves today is their matter and on that pint i now agree with you. However those of Souliote descendant are there and people some on the ground were telling Kahl that so and so village has families of Arvanite origin. Maybe it was the oldies in the villages as he went around, but he complied that list from some people in the area. He does not state from whom though. But he does say that the Arvanite descent population directly stems from the Souliots and their migrations. They existed at one point in time. As Baltsiotis gives individual examples, there were people in the Souliote community still speaking Albanian. Who knows when the Souliotes all transitioned to becoming monolingual Greek speakers? If you know of any works dealing with the matter i would appreciate it by citing them here so i can have a look at them. Resnjari (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My God!! The Greek-Pov pushing of all articles concerning Arvanite and Albanian historical figures is simply disgusting!! This is stealing other people's nationality, fair and square..even the stones know the Soulites were Arvanites, they spoke Albanian and dressed Albanian!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etimo (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Most people who "spoke Albanian and dressed Albanian" and were of the Orthodox faith did not see themselves as Albanian, even a large part of that population still in Albania who views themselves as Northern Epirot (i.e Greek) today. So get over it. Speaking Albanian and even using the self-appellation of Shqiptar does not make people Albanian !Resnjari (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The people described in this article neither spoke exclusively Albanian nor wore clothes seen in Albanian communities only. I have to disagree with the self definition-ethnonym of Shqiptar too. It appears that there is no reference to back all this.Alexikoua (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the matter in a generalised sense regarding people who were (or the few who still are) Orthodox and Albanian speaking. Albanian nationalism claims that Orthodoxy is a component of Albanian identity, when the bulk of those people have either been reluctant participants (coerced into it by Enver and those espousing "National Awakening" tenets through duress or giving them some economic incentives) in the Albanian project. In a post communist environment that has withered away for many and Northern Epirot (synonymous with being Greek) identity has taken its place. As Hart has noted, just because one speaks Albanian (as a mother tongue) is not indicative of Albanianness or Albanian identity. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless this is not the right place to express nationalistic views and Orthodoxy is not a component of Albanian identity in a generalised sense.Alexikoua (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how familiar you are with the tenets of Albanian nationalism though, it expresses the view that Orthodoxy is one of four pillars that is a component of Albanian identity. Now that is Albanian nationalism. I don't adhere to that ideology and rubbish based on fallacies. The above editor was repeating such precepts. And i gave a stern reply. Why ? Because the scholarship itself bares it out not to be so (Skoulidas, Nitsiakos, Skendi, Gawrych, Kokolakis etc). I have always maintained that i am deeply against Albanian nationalism, Albanian nationalists and all its precepts even the bit based on the concocted cult of Skanderbeg. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Written accounts of the Souliotic language"

The article is about Souliotes and not a general overview of Ottoman Epirus and Albania. There is also a section "Written accounts of the Souliotic language" and relevant content is expexted to be placed under this title, i.e. texts written in the language spoken by Souliotes. As far as I know, the oldest known texts are these two: the "Markos Botsaris dictionary" and the diary of Fotos Tzavellas. If any other text is known in any other language, it should be placed here. Other 20th century conclusions regarding general use of Greek language, is irrelevanat here, and so is the example of one Souliote "fluent in Albanian". There were thousands of Greeks fluent in Albanian, as well as in Turkish, Romanian or the language of their particular place of origin. If some users insist that this line offers some useful info, they may open a new section, something like "Language of individual Souliotes". Btw, Tzavelas wrote his diary for himself, as he explains in the first page, and was not an official text. Also, "Botsaris' Dictionary" was written for Pouqueville, and is not official either. Therefore, claims about use of Greek as official language .... Thank you. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Jingiby (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30, you make oroginal research conclusions about what you know. In the end its what is contained in scholarship. The bit cited from Baltsiotis is about the Albanian dialect used in the area where the Souliotes lived. Baltisotis refers to Albanian speech of some Souliotes until the early 20th century. You may not think its important, but its relevant to the article as the article is about Sou;liotes and Baltsiois refers to Albanian speech and a souliote. Seek consensus before making POV edits of removing cited and relevant content. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

In the talk page I can write anything I think relevant, and if you think it is "original research", doesn't matter. In the article we write cohesively, dividing the article in sections, with the proper titles and text. You may create an new section with all that about Albanian dialect "used in the area where the Souliotes lived". Of course, I create another one with the "Greek dialect used in the area where Soulites lived". There is no point in cherry picking in order to instruct the reader what to understand from the particular paragraph. However, I don't insist. Btw, do not post warning messages in my talk page, please. I know the rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You can write anything you want in the talkpage, as long as its relevant to the topic of the article etc and it does not decend into wp:forum. The section has been stable for some years now after the wiki community spent a lot of time resolving much in this article. If the Albanian speech of the Souliotes is an issue for anyone, its been accounted for in historiography. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30 Jingiby Resnjari Two cents -- I think generally as a rule it is ok to add sources like Stav--- under the condition that sources showing the other POV on the matter are added as well for contrast. Because as we all know there are two POVs here on this issue. One is the (typically Greek) POV that the Orthodox Church was a post-Byzantine "Hellenic" ethnoreligious identity and this was the primary identity of its adherents; the other, typically held by Orthodox of Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian nationalities, was that during the Ottoman times, Orthodox Christians who initially held strong Albanian, Bulgarian and Vlach identities came under Greek influence through Greek social and linguistic dominance within the church, and some "patriotic" individuals "heroically" resisted these influences. Of course neither one of these narratives captures the whole truth: there were indeed many non-Greek speaking Orthodox with Greek identities but at the same time there was very serious discontent among especially Slavic and Albanian Orthodox believers, and the spread of education by Greek schools among Orthodox Bulgarians and Albanians in both cases accidentally stoked the emergence of modern Bulgarian and Albanian nationalism instead of only or even mostly Greek nationalism, ultimately leading to the Bulgarian Exarchate and Albanian Orthodox Autocephaly. I'm not against including the post-Byzantine identity stuff, but if we do, we have to show the other side as well.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, I disagree on Stav because there is nothing about Epirus or Souliotes cited in that piece of scholarship. The section on language, identity etc in the Soyuliote page uses sources that cite content that relates directly to this topic. Thats my view.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I hoped that at least we could discuss seriously. So, in Stavrakakis "there is nothing about Epirus or Souliotes", right? How about the three lengthy footnotes, Stoppel, Roudometof and Schwandner-Sievers, used here only to create an impression that "Greek" meaned "Orthodox Christian"? In order to avoid edit warring by deleting those irrelevant sources, I added only one (for the moment), just to show that there are different opinions. If you insist on your opinions, and you claim that you are right and I am wrong, please agree to brink this case to mediation. Till then, deletion of Stavrakakis or similar sources is against the rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Regarding specifically the dialect that this tp title refers to, it might be best to split into Suliot dialect. I agree that in that topic, stuff about nationalism (except where it has an effect on language) doesn't belong. The dialect is a separate entity from its speakers. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Like it or not, "Greek" was used historically to mean simply "Orthodox Christian" just as "Turk" meant Muslim (or sometimes, Sunni specifically). This is not really an issue that there are two sides to, it's well attested -- unlike the matter of the ethnic identities of non-Hellenophone Orthodox. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Calinthus, you are wrong here, but I don't see why we bother about the term "Greek" here. I looked in the history of the article, and I found that paragraph Identity or Ethnicity was ambitiously created by a certain user "Balkanian's Word" in May 2010. [7]. He overcharged the claim that Souliotes were speaking "Tosks Albanian" with fifteen (15) footnotes, mostly the one copying the other, in the false belief that WP works like advertisement. Of course, none of those sources claims that has found any "Albanian" Souliotic text. The only one existing has been studied by T. Yohalas and his conclusions scrap all the other claims.

I think this article could do without a section on ethnicity or identity, as this is filled mostly with users' SYNTH and cherry-picking about ethnogenesis and languages in the Balkans, diverting to theories about "who was Greek in Ottoman Empire" (I have THE source on "Who was Albanian", but I will keep it for later). However, if the section has to exist, it must reflect all the existing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylax30 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30 Well there is plenty of attestation of Greek meaning "Orthodox Christian" so if this can be falsified that would be an impressive feat -- this doens't necessarily imply that actual Greek identity should be portrayed as inauthentic; a demonym can have different meanings in different contexts. Speaking a Southern (hence "Tosk" altho perhaps more correctly Cham) dialect of Albanian, makes you by definition a Tosk. This is not mutually exclusive with being Greek-- the Arvanites of Southern Greece are clearly Greek by national sentiment yet they are also clearly Tosks ethnolinguistically, and this is not a contradiction. Failure to find any text in the dialect really doesn't say much, given that some 99.9% of the Albanian population was illiterate in 1800, Albanians were the only Balkan group that was specifically denied the right to schooling in their own language in the late Ottoman Empire, and Albanian language texts were systematically suppressed by the Ottomans. The text before I removed it did not include all relevant views -- it included the lefty Western view that ethnicity and nationality "didn't exist before 1800", and it included what can basically be called the Greek-Orthodox synthesis view by Stav. It omitted all other views, marginalizing not only Albanian (and Bulgarian/Romanian) views, but also indeed alternative the views of many modern Greeks, views which do not equate to or even negate the Greek-Orthodox synthesis, such as modern civic patriotism. The question is whether we really need all these views on the page. As you said yourself, this section might be too long as it is. ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, I appreciate your contribution to this article, but if you are irrelevant with the Balkans, let me explain you few things. a) There are identities or characterizations from the "in group" and the "out group". The Ottoman State knew only "Rums" (Orth. Christians). Yet, the "in groups" knew that they are Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Georgians etc, and this is clear in the old texts, songs etc. Unfortunatelly, there are many well-payed Anglosaxon authors who claim that they know something about Balkans, while they cannot read a single line in any Balkan language (I leave aside the politically motivated english historiography of the 90's). The ethnic Greeks were calling themselves also Γραικοί (Graeci) apart from Romioi. In the Souliotic songs "Arvanites" means "musim Albanians". b) Speaking Tosk does not make you a Tosk, not more than speaking Turk makes you Turk. I have never heared of any albanophone Greek (Arvanite) calling himself or being called "Tosk", or of a Greek from Constantinople calling himself "Turk". c) Albanians were possibly denied learning their language some time in late 19th c. in Ott. Emp., but they were free to do so in Greece. However, I am not aware of any major albanian text printed in Greece, at least not by ethnic Albanian. Many Souliotes acquired a high status and authority (and money) in free Greece in 19th c. (generals, members of Parliament, etc), and none claimed that he has some connection with Albania, neither they wrote anything in albanian or established any albanian schools. Clearly, albanophny in greece was not consisting any ethnic identity. The revolutionary proclamations of 1821 start with "We, the Nation of the Hellenes" and end with the signatures of many Arvanites, including Souliotes.

I aggree that general theories about ethnies in the Balkans of that time are mostly irrelevant here. One-sided and precarious citation of marxist and neo-liberal theories about "non-existing nations before Enlightmen" have certain complications: a) If there are no Greeks, there are no Albanians either. b) If they have a place in the article, so do other theories about the opposite (I added Stavrakakis hastily, but there are many more on the same key-note). Cheers.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing three different things -- one is ethnolinguistic identity (population as identified by language and customs), one is national identity (to what nation x-people group hold allegiance to) and the last is ethnicity (as defined by self-designation and presumably shared cultural characteristics). "Turk" nowadays is a national identity, which is held by ethnic Turks as well as various other groups including Balkan diasporae, Greeks, Jews, Laz and others. One can be ethnically a Greek and hold Turkish citizenship as many of the Istanbul Greek community who speak the Istanbul dialect of Greek do.

As for Tosk, that is a linguistic identity, not a national one (there is no "Tosk nation"). A Tosk is anyone whose native language is Tosk (Southern) Albanian -- this is the understanding of "Tosk" in both Albania and in the West, the latter of which critically determines the paradigm we use on English Wikipedia, which necessarily reflects the definitions of terms as understood in English by domain experts i.e. Albanologists (not Greek or even Albanology works in Greek). It is not merely anyone who speaks Tosk Albanian -- for example I speak Tosk Albanian but I am not a Tosk, because it is not my native language nor my ancestral language, just one I learned, just like learning Greek. Anyhow, no matter how patriotically Greek a native Tosk speaker is, it cannot change the fact that (s)he is a Tosk as per the linguistic definition. This is understood even by autochtonous Albanian populations in Northwest Greece, who also refer to themselves as Shkjipetars (Cham for Shqiptar i.e. ethnic Albanian, I have been in Greek Epirus and even spoken with some of them) while at the same time identifying as Greeks without any contradiction. Frankly, it's a shame that nationalists find this somehow threatening. There is no contradiction between being a patriotic Greek citizen and a Tosk or even an ethnic Albanian in addition to being an ethnic Greek-- well there are some who disagree with this but they tend to be xenophobic nationalist sorts. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I have deleted both Stoppel and Stav for now-- they don't seem to be talking specifically about Suliots and absent agreement between you two, this seems the best solution for now. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Skylax, Balkanian's Word is ancient history and many years have passed since then and edits by many editors later have resulted in this version of the article. Much of what is in this article was added by me some years ago. A section on language and identity are relevant to this article, because the historiography on the Souliotes encompasses that even if some editors may not like it. All credible scholarship can exist in the article as long as they relate to the Souliotes.Resnjari (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming good faith.

Today the article says, in section "Identity ...": "During the early nineteenth century Souliote exile in Corfu, the Souliote population was registered in official Corfiot documents as Arvanites, Albanesi or even Alvanites (Αλβανήτες) by individuals married into the Souliote community." The 1st footnote, by an Albanian author, is specific about 1815. The other (Potts, 2014), more abstract, says "When they came to Corfu, the Souliots were usually registered in official documents, he says, as Albanesi or Suliotti." I made bold the words ommitted by User talk:Resnjari when he added this paragraph on June 26, 2015 [8]. He is requested to transfer to the article exactly what the source says. Thanks.

PS: He doesn't have to add the meaning of "Albanesi" of that time. I will do it.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Shkelzen Raça is 1). an academic (i.e historian) and 2). what he cites is based on the Corfiot archive. His work is published in a peer reviewed journal and more than meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The sentence is based on what is written and nothing more. Don't make original research additions if the scholar or source has not referred to that. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Also Potts does not contradict Raça (note he cites the actual document number/s from the Corfiot archive as well. Potts however does not do this). I have Potts as well. The sentence can be expanded as long as its inline the with sources.Resnjari (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Clarified sentence as requested. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2018

The recent changes, as agreed in the section above, do not reflect the consensus of the community and do not benefit the article. The pre-dispute/pre-July 2018 version of the article 21:17 version of 24 May 2018, as agreed in the section above, should be restored. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong edit summaries

It's really weird to claim that brand new additions in the "Identity, ethnicity and language" sections have been there for years [[9]]. However, the 19th century Corfu records can be part of the correspondent section some paragraphs below.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually that's wrong. That content has been in the article since 2015 [10]. The diff you provided about an recent was me restoring content to that section that was moved without consensus by Skylax.Resnjari (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You have also moved that content from the section which discusses 19th century travelers accounts which is wp:primary. That content does not belong there, it belongs in the Identity, Ethnicity and Language, as its based on the archive and additionally is based on scholars who have looked at the matter and meets wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

19th century accounts by travellers are different from government records, not to mention the scholarship that cite them are wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a brand new addition in "this" section, no wonder there is no word about Corfiot registry in the version just before the edit war in which you participated: [[11]]. Moreover, information about 19th century registries (not only travel accounts) need to be placed in the correspondent section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The supposed argument that the 19th century registry info is cited by modern scholarship means nothing. It's still a piece of info offered by a 19th century account. According to this rationale the Psalidas account (cited by Kallivretakis) should be also part of the same section. I don't thing so.Alexikoua (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the registry part was added to the sentence due to the discussion above (not sure if you read it) as an editor requested more detail. In essence the acedmic sources was there (including quotes) and yes the bulk of the content is from 2015 an not new as you claim which is disingenuous. What you have done is conflate government sources into a section on 19th and 20th century accounts. That should be separated from the travelers section. A possible Corfiote government records (early 19th century) section, above the travelers section would suffice as its about the Corfiot exile and government archive and earliest mention of Souliots outside a viewpoint of travelers.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari if I understand this one correctly, Alexikoua would seem to be right that the register should be counted as a 19th century account. Well, perhaps not an "account" per se, but still it is more or less a primary-ish source from the time period and so would seem to belong in that section. My two cents. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, and skimming the above, I think I can see why it isn't quite the same as traveler writings, but I'm not sure I would support it being in the same thing as scholarly analysis either. Perhaps it should have its own place?---- Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, the data in wp:secondary scholarship is based on the Corfiote archive about the earliest mention of the Souliote population of the time. Its not a travellers account. It can be a separate subsection above the accounts section with a title of Corfiote government records (early 19th century). Government records are different from travellers accounts.Resnjari (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Or just "19th century classifications". Obviously the Greek understanding of what an Albanian is (ethnic group versus neighboring ethnonational state with love hate relationship) has changed.---- Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, that kind of comes off as awkward if its done that way for a number of reasons. Scholars have cited from the archive that was from the shortlived era of autonomous government (Septinsular Republic) under a Russo-Ottoman(Ottoman in name, not control) protectorate. Its the first encounters of Souliotes with a government system that is not Ottoman, but a left over from the Venetian system. The descriptions, encounters etc of accounts by travellers etc come years and often decades after. Most are not Greek or even Albanian accounts but Western European and their understanding of the Souliots when they came across them in bigger numbers, a handful of people or individuals. It best to keep data in separate subsections, one for the government archive and the other for travellers accounts.Resnjari (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, to be frank this page is a mess but I can see that trying to fix it might not be even helpful. While the academic consensus seems to certainly be that they were of ethnic Albanian origin and came to play an integral role in teh Greek national struggle, ultimately assimilating into the Greek ethnicity, someone who reads it will certainly come to the conclusion that whole sections are tormented by (otherwise barely relevant to the article...) attempts to "prove" Souliotes are either "more" Greek or Albanian, and this hurts the quality of the article overall. Jingiby seems to have alluded to as much in one of his edit summaries. But as I said... I frankly don't see a way out that isn't likely to make things worse. ---- Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I may get flack for this and to be honest I'm not sure I support it myself but just gonna throw it out there because it's an idea that could have a good result -- what if we agreed to this : (1) ALL we discuss here is that the population had an Albanian ethnic origin and then assimilated to the Greek nation after they came to play a huge role in the Greek national struggle-- rmv all the he-said-she-said that plagues this page, (2) Split discussion on the historical identity development, traveler accounts, and later academic interpretations into a new page, Identity of the Souliotes. I think that would improve the coverage of this page, and quarantine all the problematic stuff into it's own page (akin to the solution for Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Black Egyptian hypothesis, which I participated in). This page is the one we need to have a higher quality because it is historically relevant. The other one might have notability issues but I believe it could be preserved for encyclopedic convenience as people will understand the ramifications that reintegrating hte material would have. I'm interested in the thoughts of many different people with different perspectives on this; tagging all who have participated in some way in this dispute-- @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Resnjari, Skylax30, Alexikoua, NeilN, EdJohnston, Ktrimi991, Jingiby, and Τζερόνυμο: (feel free to ping anyone I missed). Cheers and thanks all, ---- Calthinus (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's really weird to argue that 19th cent. Corfiot register data can be part of the top of the identity section. 19th century data should be part in the 19th century accounts section exactly before an editor took the opportunity to change this recently without cennsus [[19th- and 20th-century accounts [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua your recent edits [13], [14], [15] are unconstructive have NO consensus. You unilaterally took it upon yourself to move sentences (which had been stable in the article since 2015 [16]) without consensus and to remove quotes that you don't like and clearly points to wp:idontlikeit. Even with the section on 19th century accounts the data on government documents would go right at the top and not at the bottom (where you placed it) because the Corfiote exile was in the early 1800s and all traveler accounts come after by chronological date.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari in my recent edits I restored the consensus version (please be careful about your accusations). Please seek consensus before you take the opportunity to move 19th century accounts in the top of the identity section (as you recently did here [[17]]). For future reference my edits were fully constructive per wp:BRD procedure. I'm sorry but wp:IDONTLIKE applies in this case to you. However you are welcome to present your arguments before taking such opportunity againAlexikoua (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No you did not. If you had restored the consensus version that had been with most parts overall stable since 2015 it would look something like this [18] (24 May 2018), prior to Skylax30's POVish additions [19](which began on 10 June 2018) and your recent edits. Like you i can also access the edit history of this and other articles, and so can any other editor. Your the one showing wp:idontlikeit. You have no consensus for your recent edits. As for accusations, your the one going around on other people's talkpages (to editors who weren't even involved) and saying things about me [20] and restoring those comments after an administrator removed and called them "unconstructive" [21]. Its very disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus: I believe that all 19th century stuff that isn't confirmed by modern scholarship should be removed. If modern scholarship isn't touched by those old travelers/journalists/politicians etc. that makes it a good argument to get rid of them.Alexikoua (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually large chunks on the Souliot wars have had a citation needed tag for far to long. How does one know that what is said there about the wars with the Ottomans actually is true or some madeup wp:or from an editor. That ought to be removed first.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the pre-June/pre-dispute version [22], the stable version. All changes should be discussed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, this version doesn't say a word about the Corfiot registry in the top section of the the identity part. Any initiative to add this piece of info at the 1st paragraph should respect the wp:BRD procedure. Nice to have finally an agreement on that. Alexikoua (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let me clarify something here. Skylax30 asked that that whole sentence be elaborated upon in the above thread called Assuming good faith. If you have read it, you would take into account that my addition on the Corfiote registry was in that context. The source and quote below stating the registry has been in the article since 2015. The sentence when first written was compact (as editors in the talkpage back then had expressed keeping things more compact) so thats the form that was there until Skylax30 asked for more elaboration. So how about this Alexikoua we return the article to the stable version of (24 May 2018) [23] before Skylax30 did edits and opened a pandorra's box ? You want to go back to a consensus version, that's where it was last.Resnjari (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to see that everybody now understands which is the stable version. The protection template placed on the article says This article is currently protected from editing until June 18, 2018, or until editing disputes have been resolved. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. For further information you can ask the administrator who performed the protection or open a discussion at AN. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Corfiot registry can stay where it was in the consensus version (Ktrimi's dif) like the rest of the 19th century records. It's POV to have it in the lead paragraph of this section.Alexikoua (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Now your all over the place. First you made a big deal about the Corfiote registry which was a few words, made a big deal about it in the above comments and now your ok with it after your rearrangement. That version by the way does not mention anything about a Corfiote registry Your edits have no consensus. Anyway if the version that Ktrimi placed up in the end (and as Alexikoua as agreed ) is the one to go with, i'll agree.Resnjari (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, @Ktrimi991: just to reiterate this is the version we agree to take back the article to [[24]]? Resnjari (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That is unquestionably the stable/pre-dispute version of the article. Everyone of us should beware that this page is under ARBMAC rules, and one editor is currently blocked for warlike behaviour regarding the Souliotes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 and Resnjari: Alexi seems ok with removing the 19th century traveler crap, at least. What do you two think of the page split proposal? Imo it's an embarrassment (one of many in the Balkan region) that this page has this acne outbreak of he-said-she-said Albo-Greek one upsmanship, best to quarantine to another page that people (i.e. those not obsessed with "were they (not) Albanian/Greek/both/Martian") won't be forced to see. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal Calthinus. The page indeed has many issues, coming from years of conflicts on the content. I think that firstly editors agree that no content other than that present in the pre-dispute version should stay, and ask the admin who performed the protection to rv back to the pre-dispute version. Then the splitting of the article can be discussed calmly, with no further confusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, well said and i agree.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for rushing things. ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume there is a general agreement that the previous consensus version (as Ktrimi's dif) should be restored. Too much mess has been added during the recent edit war. A next step will be to get rid of all those 19th century stuff that's not confirmed by modern scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What you mean User talk:Alexikoua ? 19th c. stuff is qualitatively different from 20th c. stuff. If the former is a myth, it will be in the article as a myth. The job of the historian is not to "confirm" others but to express his relation with the past.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am going to ask the admin who performed the protection to restore the stable/pre-dispute version. An admin is a trusted person so any confusion of further conflict can be avoided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I made an edit request in line with the instructions of the admin who performed the protection. They confirmed that the edit request was in a valid form, and another admin restored the pre-July version. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope it is not forbidden to add new sourced material. I added the account of Koutsonikas that is very important source.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Further improvements

The article is a mess, and needs work for improving flow, ref fixes, and grammar. Some sentences contradict each other, that is a big problem.

• The article of the Souliote war is almost unsourced. That article could be merged to this one.
• The section on folk songs should be expanded. Pappas has some stuff but I can not access the all of it to have a better understanding of what conclusions Pappas actually gives.
  

This article is not one of those that attract me a lot, and most of my intervention was to help editors find common ground on some issues of the article. The points above are good ways to make this article of greater value. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Pappas turns out to be an unreliable source. Unless you find any early publication of Souliotic songs in albanian language.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Pappas covers the topic of the Souliotes and offers reliable descriptions. Ktrimi: which excactly conclusions you need? Pappas also offers some details from Peraivos account (about the fighing spirit etc.), but I can't see any folksongs inside.Alexikoua (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If he is reliable on this particular point, he should have a footnote indicating the source of the "albanian souliotic songs". Does he have any? If not, this is just a claim.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Old source?

Ktrimi991: I am confused by your edit summary an old encyclopedia is not uselful for such strong claims. What strong claim are you referring to? If the claim had been that "the first inhabitants came to Souli in the 16th century from the neighbouring villages, fleeing the Turks", I would absolutely agree. But it is not. The claim is that "Christoforos Perraivos ... reports" that this is the narrative from elder Souliotes. Hardly a strong claim, and a 1935 encyclopedia is just as good a source for the contents of a 19th century text by Perraivos as a more modern source. --T*U (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a strong claim. For more read WP:IDTERTIARY. Anyways, you can add the source again given it is supplemented with a "better source" tag. Pappas who is a reliable source mentions Perraivos' account but I can not access those pages. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how stating that "Perraivos said so-and-so" is a strong claim. Please explain. --T*U (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim that a person who met Souliotes himself reported that tradition, yes, it is a strong claim. Furthermore, old encyclopedias (and newer ones, as a matter of fact) fall under WP:IDTERTIARY. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991: OK, I accept that. But now Τζερόνυμο has reverted me when I did exactly as you said: reinserted the source with "Better source"-tag. --T*U (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim that Perraivos was"...considered the only one who could have a reliable opinion on the origins of Souliotes" is also a strong claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Τζερόνυμο: Yes, and that is why I already have removed it. Also: Your last revert is not helpful. Ktrimi991 said I could readd the source with a "Better source"-tag, which is exatly what I did. Please self revert. --T*U (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that an encyclopedia a century old is not an appropriate source. It is quite problematic for evaluating a controversial matter and it shouldn't be used. It is clear that the particular source is not based on secondary, academic literature, which makes it more untrustworthy. So I can not self-revert. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The specific source is old but another one (Fourikis) is older and its a "calendar" not even an encyclopedia or something of academic nature. @Ktrimi: origin theories based on tradition need to go the correct section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

whatabouterism is not an argument though.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've placed recent scholarship about 16th century settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The Fourikis ref can be substituted with Raca who cites Fourikis as having being the only one to have looked at Souliote toponymy (and gives those examples), beyond just the term Souli.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)