![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Appart the fact that is very outdated ( published first in 1927) it tells nothing for the origin (eg "their origin.....") but only for their situation in 19 century. So no WP:RS on their origin (which is explained by other authors) and WP:OR of the contributor. Aigest ( talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Suliotes belonged to the Albanian nation. "A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government" — Anna Comnena ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cherry picking specific references and ignoring a mountain of bibliography can become very disrupting as in the recent case. Also Anna please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Alexikoua when did Anna claim ethnic purity?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Modern Albania as a state had to build its own history and so they try to paint everything Albanian oriented to build a concience among their people. This way they place Alexander the Great, Pyrros of Epirus, Skanderbeg, Karaiskakis, Ali Pasha, Markos Botsaris, Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad Ali, Kemal Atatürk, Fan Noli, Sulejman Demollari, George Tenet, Hakan Sükur, Eliza Dushku and many others as members of the same "Albanian" nation.
But very few modern-day Albanians can claim they descend from the Souliotes, instead a considerable portion of modern Greeks can, as Souliotes are listed among the subgroups of the modern Hellenic nation (based mainly upon a geographical and cultural position).
Unfortunately modern Greek historians also need to make everything sound Hellenic to prove a racial purity and continuity from Antiquity to Byzantine Greece unto now-a-days. This way they tend to forgett that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic state, with Hellenism as the cultural cohesive pattern, which not necessarily reflects being Greek.
As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.
Since neighbour states have always been Greece's foes, the Greeks tried to hide and get rid of every sort of alien compound that may be found in Greek history, this way they denny the existance of "minorities" inside their borders.
I think this article should not try to reflect modern nationalist point of views, because it will otherwise be biased either it leans towards Albania or towards Greece. Certainly a Byzantine context or even an Ottoman context are the suitable, pointing out these people's local identities and that the remnants of the Souliotes and Arvanites are today integrated in the populations of Greece, the same way the Arbereshe are in present Italy. Periptero ( talk) 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy" it probably helps that the souliotes and arvanites got to know what it means to be a tourkalbanos first hand and stayed far away.. "I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia" no its just the fact that your country hasnt gotten over hoxhaist propaganda where you are living illyrians, the arvanites are your "brothers", you are always helping out the poor greeks in some way etc... 85.75.248.252 ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"to prove a racial purity" periptero...you are wrong, the greek 'national historian' PAR EXCELLENCE..Paparrigopoulos completely disregarded any racial theories (he wrote that all modern day peoples are a mix so claiming purity in any case is wrong) and that was the path even the most chauvinist greek historians followed with few exceptions (as Mackridge writes no Greek really thought in racial terms when talking of ethnos and genos in the 18th - early 19th century..it was Fallmerayers excesses that brought that kind of discourse into Greece)..btw what you wrote about the 'pure' sphakiots and maniots belongs to a certain stream of outdated greek anthropology that tended to find ancient 'remnants'so its a bit odd that you bring it up in a discussion supposedly trying to AVOID 'racial' implications..anyone who wants to know what the souliotes 'were' and how they changed throughout their history should read Vaso Psimouli's 'Souli kai Souliotes' where the subject is treated seriously without albanian and greek nationalist interference (why is Karaiskakis in the pantheon...? do albanians claim the Sarakatsani as albanian too now..?) 85.75.248.252 ( talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
we agree on most serious matters (my comment about Paparrigopoulos being a defining historian of the greek national narrative was only about racialism never amounting to much other than fringe writers IMO..i cant say i really remember my, relatively recent, schoolbooks though lol but in my place we had plenty of non greek speaking greeks too so..) though of course i still dont agree about any such 'ancient' group like the sphakiots, maniots etc..its an overall outdated mode of thinking that was abandoned by serious scholars..if it lingers in the minds of some people like you said it doesnt mean anything as many such stereotypes do obviously...indeed its the same with the shqiptars-arvanites-arbereshe where i also agree with you and im sure if slightly more reasonable albanian (and greek..) users joined in things would be much easier for all of wiki..take care
87.202.140.189 (
talk)
00:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note that in that period the nationality was a matter of religion. One could not know for sure what the souliotes were. But one thing I know for sure, my grandmother name is Geavela(Tsavela in greek) and we are latinophone farsherots from Epirus, we are not greeks, nor albanians and I think the souliotes were not. Not to mention the actions of greek monks like Cosma who threaten the orthodox from Epirus with anatheme if not speak in greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerculetu ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC) -- Cerculetu ( talk) 18:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
greek was not a nationality back then, but a religious matter, otoman officials didn t recognize a nation not to mention that they were vlachs, my grandmother name is Geavela(Tzsavellas in Greece) and we are latinophone vlachs from Epirus, and now we are living in Romania-- Cerculetu ( talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a remarkable article about those people, but there is a non-consulting. Souliotes never identify themselves as Albanians, but Greeks, so I don't find appropriate the category Albanians that I have abstract it. -- MaxisExis ( talk) 20:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC).
In the Toskerishte dialect of Suli there is a socio-philosophic sentence: Pirdh Pirdh se do lironesh.
I paste here the text on the language of Souliotes, which obviously contradicts the Albanian national mythology and is daily deleted by a certain username. I call them again to add any original source supporting that Souliotes were speaking of feeling Albanians. Secondary "reliable" sources claiming so, are supposed to have relevant footnotes and bibliography. Don't they?
On the language spoken by Souliotes there are very few primary sources, and some secondary sources.
Some secondary sources claim that Souliotes were of
Albanian origin (
Albanian: Suliotët), while the dialect they initially spoke is classified as one of
Cham Albanian dialects
[6] However, it is recognized that speaking Albanian in that region is not a predictor with respect to other matters of identity (Hart, p. 199).
Religiously they belonged to the
Church of Constantinople, part of the larger
Greek Orthodox Church. The patron Saint was
St. Donatus, locally called "Aidonat".
[7]
The use of 19th century stuff as a reference is unacceptable here. On the other hand the additon of Yochalas about lignuistics is constructive and sheds light to a couple of issues. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The sources are there, have being taged for completion and you have been invited to add as many sources as you can. The article is not going back to the pro-Albanian POV.
I would invite all editors of this article to kindly read talk page before making any edit. Aigest ( talk) 08:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In the section about "Identity" there is a series of references supposedly saying that Souliotes were speaking the Albanian language. I checked some of them and I found a massive falsehood. For example, there was this ref:
With some googling I found the book, not online readable but searcheable with snippets. Searching for "Souliotes" I found only this:
"... to counter the Russian-sponsored movement of Souliotes and Chamerian beys against Ali Pasha."
[2]
Does anybody conclude from this passage anything about the language of Souliotes?
Obviously some users are cheating with false references. It seems that they attempt to use the following trick: First, they draw the arbitrary equation Cham = ethnic Albanian. Second, they search the bibliography for texts that associate (even remotely) Chameria or Chams with Souliotes, and third, they claim that "this source says that Souliotes were Albanians". I don't think this case is worth discussing. I only remind that Chameria was a geographical term, and everybody living is Chameria is a "Cham" by definition. In this view Souliotes may be Chams. In the article
Chameria/Modern history is made clear that "Cham" is not an ethnonym.
Therefore, all the references to the language or ethnic identity of Souliotes must be checked and cleared. Users who think they have credible references on this subject, are requested to provide the exact quotation and, if possible, snippet. Crude pro-albanian references, like Sandra Vickers, are good only for a laugh.--
Euzen (
talk)
08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Who cares? Since she is a "scholar", I suppose that in her books provides the original sources proving that Souliotes were speaking Albanian as first language (e.g. letters), which you are requested to copy here.
Let's take those references one by one.
Does Pappas claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian? Quote please.--
Euzen (
talk)
11:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
From the same list of references:
Does this ref. supports the text claiming that Souliotes were of Albanian descent? It refers only to the language. Searching the book for "Souliotes" does not provide any relevant snippet on pp. 118-119 as the ref. claims. Please quote the author if the ref. is relevant.-- Euzen ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this say anything about Souliotes' identity?
Does "partly hellenized" mean that the "other part" was Albanian? What if it was Vlach, Serbian, Gypsy, Bulgarian, Italian, Turkish etc? Albania was (and is) inhabited by many ethnicities.
In the above paragraph, user:Euzen is accusing other editors of falsehood. He brings up the example of the work of Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991 as an example of source falsification. This is strange because when we take a look at the article Pappas is used as reference in two cases 3a and 3b take a look. In the first one 3a Pappas is used as a reference for the sentence "The name Souli is of uncertain origin." look and in the other case of reference 3b it is used as a reference of anothere sentence "It has been suggested that it derives from the ancient Greek region of Selaida. Another view claims that it derives from the name of a Turk that was killed there. Yet another opinion based on etymology claims that the word derives from the Albanian term sul, which can be idiomatically interpreted as 'watchpost', 'lookout' or 'mountain summit'" look. The editor who used Pappas as a reference in both cases, also linked the google book snippet here. If we take a look at the snippets we can see tah in the first case 1 the sentence says "Christophoros Perraivos, who knew the Souliotcs at firsthand, said that the name came from a Turk who was killed there. Yet another opinion, based on etymology, claims that Souli comes from the Albanian term sul, which literally means ..." and in the second 2 "Yet another opinion, based on etymology, claims that Souli comes from the Albanian term sul, which literally means "tree trunk" or "pole" and idiomatically means "watch post" or "look out"".
we can see that there is no source falsification by anyone. This is a case of defamation and an administrator should intervene
Aigest (
talk)
14:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Struth! I paste here the reference in question (now No 29), attached to line "... the dialect they initially spoke .... Tosk Albanian".
29: Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. Laurie Kain Hart. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. (article consists of 25 pages). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association "To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian."
What is all this list? Do they claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian some time in the past? Can we have the quotations on that issue? For example, this Balázs Trencsényi says (I hope, but good faith has been lost here) "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith". How this comes to mean "they were speaking the Tosk Albanian dialect"? Does any of those authors refer to evidences that they were speaking Albnian as mother-tongue? If so, the user who posted (or pasted) these refs, can possibly post the sources of those sources.
Because we don't play with the national sentiments: Soon this section will be divided to two sub-sections, with primary and secondary sources respectively. Let us see if Mrs Vickers (and her institute in Britain) has access to voice recordings of Souliotes speaking Albanian.--
Euzen (
talk)
16:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bypassing that about "nationalistic interpretations", since we know each other from other Albaniads, thanks for the quotation of Pappas. If this really refers to Souliotes (which is not obvious in this passage) it refers to a tradition and this has to be clear in the article, as all the other historians agree that the earliest traces of S. are dated to 17th c. No need to commend on the assumption that "Skanderbeg's personal guard" were more "Albanians" than Skanderbeg himshelf. :)
There is no problem with citing all existing references, but since there are many who claim that S. were Greeks or mixture of Greeks, Albanians and Vlachs, it is provocative to present a ref. (e.g. Flemming) as THE Gospel on the Souliote's history. Maybe we'd better group the ref's to those who claim Albanian, Greek or other origin accordingly.
Since you appear to have the more scholar approach of the other pro-Albanian users, you probably noticed the pseudo-references produced on the trickery "Source XXX says they are Albanians, so (I conclude) they were speaking Albanian, and (you bet) that since they were speaking Albanian they were Albanians". This is why I will separate the primary from the secondary sources on the language alone.
Finally, by erasing the list of references inside other reference, I don't mean they have to be excluded. Simply, it seems that most of them are irrelevant to the statement on the language and, besides, refs in other refs is a questionable practice. Each one of them has to be linked to the proper text. For examble, does Hobsbaum claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian, and if yes, can we have the reference he bases this claim upon? --
Euzen (
talk)
09:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You are free to add as many reliable sources as you like. Each one must refer to the relevant phrase of the article (this is a WP rule). Primary sources referring to Souliotes speaking Albanian will be a great contribution to the article.
The Albanian Regiment in the French army was created in 1807 and consisted mainly of Albanians:
One of the most complete works on that regiment is that of Auguste Boppe "Le Régiment albanais (1807-1814)" [ http://books.google.com/books?id=kGitQwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Auguste+Boppe%22&source=bl&ots=nUsItjCAI3&sig=g-gRtnyPm4MYnn4bWScz5m05ro8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g qAWUPmAAtH74QS1xYDYCA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg here's] the link Aigest ( talk) 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice piece of info, but I fail to see the word 'Souliotes' in there, or more precisily the view you try to push that Souliotes were part of an ethnically pure military unit in French army (something that's already contradicted by Pappas). Alexikoua ( talk) 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)From Armies of the Napoleonic Wars: an illustrated history(2009): [6]: On 12 October 1797 Napoleon approved the recruitment of about 3,000 Albanians, most of whom were refugees from the harsh rule of the local Ottoman governor of the Albanian coast, Ali-pasha of Janina. The combined forced was organized as the Regiment Albanais (Albanian Regiment) on 12 December 1807 ... Despite additional recruitment among local Greeks, Italians and Dalmatian communities, it never reached its official establishment of 3,254. A battalion of Chasseurs a pied Grecs (Greek Foot Chasseurs), also known as Pandours de Albanie was raised by the French under an order of 10 March 1808 from Albanian and Greek refugees .. Its 951 men were combined into a singled Albanian Regiment.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nation and ideology: Ivo Banac. East European Monographs, 1981, p. 42 [ [7]]: In the eithy odd years during which Naples employed light infantry from the Balkans, the troops of the regiment and its successors were known popularly under the three names in addition to the aforementioned camociotti: the seemingly national names of Greci, Macedoni and Albanesi. These, names did not, however, have their later ethnic conotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting...
(p. 41-42)[ [8]] The Napoleonic wars brought about a proliferation of Greek units serving European powers which included veterans of the Neapolitan armed forces. During their occupation of the Ionian islands, the Russians organized units of Greek mainlanders, either under the sovereignty of the Septinsular Republic (Pichetti Albanesi, Corpo Macedone), or under direct Russian control (Legion legkikh strelkov, Osobyi grecheskii korpus). During the French occupation of the Ionian islands, these units were transformed into Le Regiment Albanaise and Les Chasseurs a pied Greces. (i.e. both these units included Greeks). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Some archival material of the "Albanian Regiment" are in Greek libraries and have been already published in Greece. Includes names of conscripts and pay-rolls. Aigest, if you insist why don't you create an article on that?
And Banac clearly states that: "the seemingly national names of Greci, Albanesi, and Macedoni. These names did not, however, haver their later ethnic connotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting.".
Actually you should find something which claims that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, so, according to what you try to prove, the 'Albanian regiment' consisted from ethnic Albanians only. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention the extreme nationalistic view to indirectly prove that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians in modern terms. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
An interesting article to expand, if we are permitted to.-- Euzen ( talk) 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's move to that article, then.-- Euzen ( talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the article "In some sources Souliotes are characterized as "Albanian-speaking Greeks" which has been taken out of context. That sentence continues with a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH sentences out of 19th century traveler books. As such they should be removed. Aigest ( talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Both parties should explain why they initiated a long term revert war campaign:
There is no rule against 19th c. sources. Btw, go to artilce Voisava Tripalda and see that 16th c. sources are used. Notice also the false refs supposedly supporting the "albanian Souliotes", which sources I challenged in this talk page and received no reply. -- Euzen ( talk) 11:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Also if a sentence is grammatically incorrect, this doesn't mean that someone should remove only a part of it, in order to promote a ethnically pure version that 'regiment Albanaise' consisted of ethnic Albanians only. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is for all Greek editors. I fully understand the importance of Suliotes in Greek history, but shifting their origin from Albanian to Greek does not make their contribution more valid, actually it is offensive to their sacrifices. They were who they were. All contemporary sources, i.e. counsels or ambassadors cite them as Albanian. I do not see any reference by you guys beside nowadays Greek historians. Moreover, by the end of the section there are references from Rizos, Arnakis, Protopsaltes. How neutral are they? Why Katsaros in not mentioned?
Incredible how can you pretend they were Greeks but somehow learned Albanian on the way. Where did they learn Albanian? At church? At school? Where?
Mondiad (
talk)
00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This article's section Identity contradicts somewhere itself. It contains the following sentences: In Ottoman-ruled Epirus, national identity did not play a role to the social classification of the local society; while religion was the key factor of classification of the local communities. The Orthodox congregation was included in a specific ethno-religious community under Graeco-Byzantine domination called Rum millet. Its name was derived from the Byzantine (Roman) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Christians were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language. According to this, the Muslim communities in Epirus were classified as Turks, while the Orthodox (Rum), like the Souliotes, were classified as Greeks.
How could the national identity did not play any role in the society and the religion to be the key factor of classification of the local communities but they to be classified as Greeks and Turks, i.e. by ethnicity not by religion? The used here source Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece is at a whole reliable but is not specialized in Ottoman social structure and contains some inaccuracies right there. In general in the Ottoman empire the people were bound to their millets by their religious affiliations rather than their ethnic origins, according to the millet concept. The Muslim millet united different populations regardless of ethnic and linguistic distinctions: Turkish, Arab, Kurdish, Albanian and so on. The Orthodox Christians were included in the Rum Millet, or the "Roman nation" conquered by Islam but enjoying a certain autonomy. Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Vlachs, Georgians, Arabs, Romanians and Serbs were all considered part of the same millet despite their differences in ethnicity and language. There were not Turkish or Greek millets in ethnic sense. However, under Ottoman rule ethnonyms never disappeared, which indicates that some form of ethnic awareness must have been preserved. In the nineteenth century, with the emergence of nationalism, the things radically changed and the relations between religious and ethnic self-identification were actually turned upside down. By the way, the word Turk was used only referring to common Anatolian villagers back in the 19th century. The Ottoman elite identified themselves as Ottomans in ethnic sense, but as Muslims in millet aspect. Ottoman law did not recognize notions such as ethnicity or citizenship; thus, a Muslims of any ethnic background enjoyed precisely the same rights and privileges under the Muslim millet.
As a conclusion: the people in classical Ottoman society identified themseves under the Millet system simply as Christians and Muslims not as Greeks and Turks.
As per Roudometof p. 19: In the late 1790s, Balkan Orthodox Christians routinely referred to themselves as “Christians” and referred to Catholics as either “Latins” or, more commonly, “Franks” (Arnakis 1963:131). Within the Ottoman Empire, these Greek Orthodox urban and mercantile strata were referred to by the Ottomans, the Church, and themselves as Rayah, Christians, or “Romans”—that is, members of the Rum millet.4 And then under line remak # 4 as follows: The name Roman was a legacy of history, not a factual identification of race or ethnicity... The term Roman originally designated a citizen of the Eastern Roman Empire (since the Western part had collapsed in the fifth century). Since Charlemagne’s reconstitution of the Western Roman Empire in 800, Western Europeans began employing the term Greek to denote the Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire, causing in the process the outrage of the Eastern Romans (i.e. “Byzantines”) (Gill 1980:68; Romanidis 1975:281). The Ottomans employed the term reaya to imply all land cultivators regardless of religion; but in practice, in the Ottoman Balkans, this term meant the Orthodox Christians. In European cartography of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries,“Grecia” included Dalmatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, the coastal area of Asia Minor, Albania, and the Aegean islands (Karathanasis 1991:9). For the Western audience in Germany, Austria, and Hungary, Greek Orthodox was synonymous with Orthodoxy (Stoianovich 1960:290). Jingiby ( talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The part in question which was recently removed (yet without explanation) may concern a past talkpage section Talk:Souliotes/Archive_5#A_claim_not_supported_by_the_source_used. Off course the reference to Greece points to the latter Greek state where this community became famous indeed due to the armed struggle and participation in the Greek revolution. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Aside from fussing about dialects and place names, this article completely lacks any discussion of anything but what Souliot men did in war. Where is the discussion of Souliot society? What happened to the Souliot women and children when the population was driven into exile? What was the nature of the Souliot domestic economy? What was the family structure? What was Souliot life like in peacetime? What contributions have been made to culture in Souliot society? And so forth?
Poihths ( talk) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a major WP:SYNTH problem with the Identity section. For example, the claim that their dialect was Cham Albanian or Tosk, and that they spoke it until the late 18th c. is not present in any of the references. I will edit the sentences based on what the references really say.-- Zoupan 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you? I said Albanologist, you said "Albanian language specialist". Now that you've searched for him on google, you came up with the same conclusion, Albanologist. He is recognized in Albania. Does this automatically mean that he has some expertise in Souliote history? No.-- Zoupan 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the introduction does not adequately summarize the Identity, ethnicity and language section. -- Zoupan 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits will be deleted as there is no consensus about them .The "ottoman greek" will be deleted as there is no consensus about that. Rolandi+ ( talk) 08:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Appart the fact that is very outdated ( published first in 1927) it tells nothing for the origin (eg "their origin.....") but only for their situation in 19 century. So no WP:RS on their origin (which is explained by other authors) and WP:OR of the contributor. Aigest ( talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Suliotes belonged to the Albanian nation. "A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government" — Anna Comnena ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cherry picking specific references and ignoring a mountain of bibliography can become very disrupting as in the recent case. Also Anna please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Alexikoua when did Anna claim ethnic purity?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Modern Albania as a state had to build its own history and so they try to paint everything Albanian oriented to build a concience among their people. This way they place Alexander the Great, Pyrros of Epirus, Skanderbeg, Karaiskakis, Ali Pasha, Markos Botsaris, Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad Ali, Kemal Atatürk, Fan Noli, Sulejman Demollari, George Tenet, Hakan Sükur, Eliza Dushku and many others as members of the same "Albanian" nation.
But very few modern-day Albanians can claim they descend from the Souliotes, instead a considerable portion of modern Greeks can, as Souliotes are listed among the subgroups of the modern Hellenic nation (based mainly upon a geographical and cultural position).
Unfortunately modern Greek historians also need to make everything sound Hellenic to prove a racial purity and continuity from Antiquity to Byzantine Greece unto now-a-days. This way they tend to forgett that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic state, with Hellenism as the cultural cohesive pattern, which not necessarily reflects being Greek.
As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.
Since neighbour states have always been Greece's foes, the Greeks tried to hide and get rid of every sort of alien compound that may be found in Greek history, this way they denny the existance of "minorities" inside their borders.
I think this article should not try to reflect modern nationalist point of views, because it will otherwise be biased either it leans towards Albania or towards Greece. Certainly a Byzantine context or even an Ottoman context are the suitable, pointing out these people's local identities and that the remnants of the Souliotes and Arvanites are today integrated in the populations of Greece, the same way the Arbereshe are in present Italy. Periptero ( talk) 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy" it probably helps that the souliotes and arvanites got to know what it means to be a tourkalbanos first hand and stayed far away.. "I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia" no its just the fact that your country hasnt gotten over hoxhaist propaganda where you are living illyrians, the arvanites are your "brothers", you are always helping out the poor greeks in some way etc... 85.75.248.252 ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"to prove a racial purity" periptero...you are wrong, the greek 'national historian' PAR EXCELLENCE..Paparrigopoulos completely disregarded any racial theories (he wrote that all modern day peoples are a mix so claiming purity in any case is wrong) and that was the path even the most chauvinist greek historians followed with few exceptions (as Mackridge writes no Greek really thought in racial terms when talking of ethnos and genos in the 18th - early 19th century..it was Fallmerayers excesses that brought that kind of discourse into Greece)..btw what you wrote about the 'pure' sphakiots and maniots belongs to a certain stream of outdated greek anthropology that tended to find ancient 'remnants'so its a bit odd that you bring it up in a discussion supposedly trying to AVOID 'racial' implications..anyone who wants to know what the souliotes 'were' and how they changed throughout their history should read Vaso Psimouli's 'Souli kai Souliotes' where the subject is treated seriously without albanian and greek nationalist interference (why is Karaiskakis in the pantheon...? do albanians claim the Sarakatsani as albanian too now..?) 85.75.248.252 ( talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
we agree on most serious matters (my comment about Paparrigopoulos being a defining historian of the greek national narrative was only about racialism never amounting to much other than fringe writers IMO..i cant say i really remember my, relatively recent, schoolbooks though lol but in my place we had plenty of non greek speaking greeks too so..) though of course i still dont agree about any such 'ancient' group like the sphakiots, maniots etc..its an overall outdated mode of thinking that was abandoned by serious scholars..if it lingers in the minds of some people like you said it doesnt mean anything as many such stereotypes do obviously...indeed its the same with the shqiptars-arvanites-arbereshe where i also agree with you and im sure if slightly more reasonable albanian (and greek..) users joined in things would be much easier for all of wiki..take care
87.202.140.189 (
talk)
00:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note that in that period the nationality was a matter of religion. One could not know for sure what the souliotes were. But one thing I know for sure, my grandmother name is Geavela(Tsavela in greek) and we are latinophone farsherots from Epirus, we are not greeks, nor albanians and I think the souliotes were not. Not to mention the actions of greek monks like Cosma who threaten the orthodox from Epirus with anatheme if not speak in greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerculetu ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC) -- Cerculetu ( talk) 18:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
greek was not a nationality back then, but a religious matter, otoman officials didn t recognize a nation not to mention that they were vlachs, my grandmother name is Geavela(Tzsavellas in Greece) and we are latinophone vlachs from Epirus, and now we are living in Romania-- Cerculetu ( talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a remarkable article about those people, but there is a non-consulting. Souliotes never identify themselves as Albanians, but Greeks, so I don't find appropriate the category Albanians that I have abstract it. -- MaxisExis ( talk) 20:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC).
In the Toskerishte dialect of Suli there is a socio-philosophic sentence: Pirdh Pirdh se do lironesh.
I paste here the text on the language of Souliotes, which obviously contradicts the Albanian national mythology and is daily deleted by a certain username. I call them again to add any original source supporting that Souliotes were speaking of feeling Albanians. Secondary "reliable" sources claiming so, are supposed to have relevant footnotes and bibliography. Don't they?
On the language spoken by Souliotes there are very few primary sources, and some secondary sources.
Some secondary sources claim that Souliotes were of
Albanian origin (
Albanian: Suliotët), while the dialect they initially spoke is classified as one of
Cham Albanian dialects
[6] However, it is recognized that speaking Albanian in that region is not a predictor with respect to other matters of identity (Hart, p. 199).
Religiously they belonged to the
Church of Constantinople, part of the larger
Greek Orthodox Church. The patron Saint was
St. Donatus, locally called "Aidonat".
[7]
The use of 19th century stuff as a reference is unacceptable here. On the other hand the additon of Yochalas about lignuistics is constructive and sheds light to a couple of issues. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The sources are there, have being taged for completion and you have been invited to add as many sources as you can. The article is not going back to the pro-Albanian POV.
I would invite all editors of this article to kindly read talk page before making any edit. Aigest ( talk) 08:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In the section about "Identity" there is a series of references supposedly saying that Souliotes were speaking the Albanian language. I checked some of them and I found a massive falsehood. For example, there was this ref:
With some googling I found the book, not online readable but searcheable with snippets. Searching for "Souliotes" I found only this:
"... to counter the Russian-sponsored movement of Souliotes and Chamerian beys against Ali Pasha."
[2]
Does anybody conclude from this passage anything about the language of Souliotes?
Obviously some users are cheating with false references. It seems that they attempt to use the following trick: First, they draw the arbitrary equation Cham = ethnic Albanian. Second, they search the bibliography for texts that associate (even remotely) Chameria or Chams with Souliotes, and third, they claim that "this source says that Souliotes were Albanians". I don't think this case is worth discussing. I only remind that Chameria was a geographical term, and everybody living is Chameria is a "Cham" by definition. In this view Souliotes may be Chams. In the article
Chameria/Modern history is made clear that "Cham" is not an ethnonym.
Therefore, all the references to the language or ethnic identity of Souliotes must be checked and cleared. Users who think they have credible references on this subject, are requested to provide the exact quotation and, if possible, snippet. Crude pro-albanian references, like Sandra Vickers, are good only for a laugh.--
Euzen (
talk)
08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Who cares? Since she is a "scholar", I suppose that in her books provides the original sources proving that Souliotes were speaking Albanian as first language (e.g. letters), which you are requested to copy here.
Let's take those references one by one.
Does Pappas claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian? Quote please.--
Euzen (
talk)
11:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
From the same list of references:
Does this ref. supports the text claiming that Souliotes were of Albanian descent? It refers only to the language. Searching the book for "Souliotes" does not provide any relevant snippet on pp. 118-119 as the ref. claims. Please quote the author if the ref. is relevant.-- Euzen ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this say anything about Souliotes' identity?
Does "partly hellenized" mean that the "other part" was Albanian? What if it was Vlach, Serbian, Gypsy, Bulgarian, Italian, Turkish etc? Albania was (and is) inhabited by many ethnicities.
In the above paragraph, user:Euzen is accusing other editors of falsehood. He brings up the example of the work of Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991 as an example of source falsification. This is strange because when we take a look at the article Pappas is used as reference in two cases 3a and 3b take a look. In the first one 3a Pappas is used as a reference for the sentence "The name Souli is of uncertain origin." look and in the other case of reference 3b it is used as a reference of anothere sentence "It has been suggested that it derives from the ancient Greek region of Selaida. Another view claims that it derives from the name of a Turk that was killed there. Yet another opinion based on etymology claims that the word derives from the Albanian term sul, which can be idiomatically interpreted as 'watchpost', 'lookout' or 'mountain summit'" look. The editor who used Pappas as a reference in both cases, also linked the google book snippet here. If we take a look at the snippets we can see tah in the first case 1 the sentence says "Christophoros Perraivos, who knew the Souliotcs at firsthand, said that the name came from a Turk who was killed there. Yet another opinion, based on etymology, claims that Souli comes from the Albanian term sul, which literally means ..." and in the second 2 "Yet another opinion, based on etymology, claims that Souli comes from the Albanian term sul, which literally means "tree trunk" or "pole" and idiomatically means "watch post" or "look out"".
we can see that there is no source falsification by anyone. This is a case of defamation and an administrator should intervene
Aigest (
talk)
14:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Struth! I paste here the reference in question (now No 29), attached to line "... the dialect they initially spoke .... Tosk Albanian".
29: Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. Laurie Kain Hart. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. (article consists of 25 pages). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association "To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian."
What is all this list? Do they claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian some time in the past? Can we have the quotations on that issue? For example, this Balázs Trencsényi says (I hope, but good faith has been lost here) "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith". How this comes to mean "they were speaking the Tosk Albanian dialect"? Does any of those authors refer to evidences that they were speaking Albnian as mother-tongue? If so, the user who posted (or pasted) these refs, can possibly post the sources of those sources.
Because we don't play with the national sentiments: Soon this section will be divided to two sub-sections, with primary and secondary sources respectively. Let us see if Mrs Vickers (and her institute in Britain) has access to voice recordings of Souliotes speaking Albanian.--
Euzen (
talk)
16:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bypassing that about "nationalistic interpretations", since we know each other from other Albaniads, thanks for the quotation of Pappas. If this really refers to Souliotes (which is not obvious in this passage) it refers to a tradition and this has to be clear in the article, as all the other historians agree that the earliest traces of S. are dated to 17th c. No need to commend on the assumption that "Skanderbeg's personal guard" were more "Albanians" than Skanderbeg himshelf. :)
There is no problem with citing all existing references, but since there are many who claim that S. were Greeks or mixture of Greeks, Albanians and Vlachs, it is provocative to present a ref. (e.g. Flemming) as THE Gospel on the Souliote's history. Maybe we'd better group the ref's to those who claim Albanian, Greek or other origin accordingly.
Since you appear to have the more scholar approach of the other pro-Albanian users, you probably noticed the pseudo-references produced on the trickery "Source XXX says they are Albanians, so (I conclude) they were speaking Albanian, and (you bet) that since they were speaking Albanian they were Albanians". This is why I will separate the primary from the secondary sources on the language alone.
Finally, by erasing the list of references inside other reference, I don't mean they have to be excluded. Simply, it seems that most of them are irrelevant to the statement on the language and, besides, refs in other refs is a questionable practice. Each one of them has to be linked to the proper text. For examble, does Hobsbaum claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian, and if yes, can we have the reference he bases this claim upon? --
Euzen (
talk)
09:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You are free to add as many reliable sources as you like. Each one must refer to the relevant phrase of the article (this is a WP rule). Primary sources referring to Souliotes speaking Albanian will be a great contribution to the article.
The Albanian Regiment in the French army was created in 1807 and consisted mainly of Albanians:
One of the most complete works on that regiment is that of Auguste Boppe "Le Régiment albanais (1807-1814)" [ http://books.google.com/books?id=kGitQwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Auguste+Boppe%22&source=bl&ots=nUsItjCAI3&sig=g-gRtnyPm4MYnn4bWScz5m05ro8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g qAWUPmAAtH74QS1xYDYCA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg here's] the link Aigest ( talk) 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice piece of info, but I fail to see the word 'Souliotes' in there, or more precisily the view you try to push that Souliotes were part of an ethnically pure military unit in French army (something that's already contradicted by Pappas). Alexikoua ( talk) 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)From Armies of the Napoleonic Wars: an illustrated history(2009): [6]: On 12 October 1797 Napoleon approved the recruitment of about 3,000 Albanians, most of whom were refugees from the harsh rule of the local Ottoman governor of the Albanian coast, Ali-pasha of Janina. The combined forced was organized as the Regiment Albanais (Albanian Regiment) on 12 December 1807 ... Despite additional recruitment among local Greeks, Italians and Dalmatian communities, it never reached its official establishment of 3,254. A battalion of Chasseurs a pied Grecs (Greek Foot Chasseurs), also known as Pandours de Albanie was raised by the French under an order of 10 March 1808 from Albanian and Greek refugees .. Its 951 men were combined into a singled Albanian Regiment.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nation and ideology: Ivo Banac. East European Monographs, 1981, p. 42 [ [7]]: In the eithy odd years during which Naples employed light infantry from the Balkans, the troops of the regiment and its successors were known popularly under the three names in addition to the aforementioned camociotti: the seemingly national names of Greci, Macedoni and Albanesi. These, names did not, however, have their later ethnic conotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting...
(p. 41-42)[ [8]] The Napoleonic wars brought about a proliferation of Greek units serving European powers which included veterans of the Neapolitan armed forces. During their occupation of the Ionian islands, the Russians organized units of Greek mainlanders, either under the sovereignty of the Septinsular Republic (Pichetti Albanesi, Corpo Macedone), or under direct Russian control (Legion legkikh strelkov, Osobyi grecheskii korpus). During the French occupation of the Ionian islands, these units were transformed into Le Regiment Albanaise and Les Chasseurs a pied Greces. (i.e. both these units included Greeks). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Some archival material of the "Albanian Regiment" are in Greek libraries and have been already published in Greece. Includes names of conscripts and pay-rolls. Aigest, if you insist why don't you create an article on that?
And Banac clearly states that: "the seemingly national names of Greci, Albanesi, and Macedoni. These names did not, however, haver their later ethnic connotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting.".
Actually you should find something which claims that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, so, according to what you try to prove, the 'Albanian regiment' consisted from ethnic Albanians only. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention the extreme nationalistic view to indirectly prove that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians in modern terms. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
An interesting article to expand, if we are permitted to.-- Euzen ( talk) 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's move to that article, then.-- Euzen ( talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the article "In some sources Souliotes are characterized as "Albanian-speaking Greeks" which has been taken out of context. That sentence continues with a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH sentences out of 19th century traveler books. As such they should be removed. Aigest ( talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Both parties should explain why they initiated a long term revert war campaign:
There is no rule against 19th c. sources. Btw, go to artilce Voisava Tripalda and see that 16th c. sources are used. Notice also the false refs supposedly supporting the "albanian Souliotes", which sources I challenged in this talk page and received no reply. -- Euzen ( talk) 11:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Also if a sentence is grammatically incorrect, this doesn't mean that someone should remove only a part of it, in order to promote a ethnically pure version that 'regiment Albanaise' consisted of ethnic Albanians only. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is for all Greek editors. I fully understand the importance of Suliotes in Greek history, but shifting their origin from Albanian to Greek does not make their contribution more valid, actually it is offensive to their sacrifices. They were who they were. All contemporary sources, i.e. counsels or ambassadors cite them as Albanian. I do not see any reference by you guys beside nowadays Greek historians. Moreover, by the end of the section there are references from Rizos, Arnakis, Protopsaltes. How neutral are they? Why Katsaros in not mentioned?
Incredible how can you pretend they were Greeks but somehow learned Albanian on the way. Where did they learn Albanian? At church? At school? Where?
Mondiad (
talk)
00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This article's section Identity contradicts somewhere itself. It contains the following sentences: In Ottoman-ruled Epirus, national identity did not play a role to the social classification of the local society; while religion was the key factor of classification of the local communities. The Orthodox congregation was included in a specific ethno-religious community under Graeco-Byzantine domination called Rum millet. Its name was derived from the Byzantine (Roman) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Christians were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language. According to this, the Muslim communities in Epirus were classified as Turks, while the Orthodox (Rum), like the Souliotes, were classified as Greeks.
How could the national identity did not play any role in the society and the religion to be the key factor of classification of the local communities but they to be classified as Greeks and Turks, i.e. by ethnicity not by religion? The used here source Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece is at a whole reliable but is not specialized in Ottoman social structure and contains some inaccuracies right there. In general in the Ottoman empire the people were bound to their millets by their religious affiliations rather than their ethnic origins, according to the millet concept. The Muslim millet united different populations regardless of ethnic and linguistic distinctions: Turkish, Arab, Kurdish, Albanian and so on. The Orthodox Christians were included in the Rum Millet, or the "Roman nation" conquered by Islam but enjoying a certain autonomy. Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Vlachs, Georgians, Arabs, Romanians and Serbs were all considered part of the same millet despite their differences in ethnicity and language. There were not Turkish or Greek millets in ethnic sense. However, under Ottoman rule ethnonyms never disappeared, which indicates that some form of ethnic awareness must have been preserved. In the nineteenth century, with the emergence of nationalism, the things radically changed and the relations between religious and ethnic self-identification were actually turned upside down. By the way, the word Turk was used only referring to common Anatolian villagers back in the 19th century. The Ottoman elite identified themselves as Ottomans in ethnic sense, but as Muslims in millet aspect. Ottoman law did not recognize notions such as ethnicity or citizenship; thus, a Muslims of any ethnic background enjoyed precisely the same rights and privileges under the Muslim millet.
As a conclusion: the people in classical Ottoman society identified themseves under the Millet system simply as Christians and Muslims not as Greeks and Turks.
As per Roudometof p. 19: In the late 1790s, Balkan Orthodox Christians routinely referred to themselves as “Christians” and referred to Catholics as either “Latins” or, more commonly, “Franks” (Arnakis 1963:131). Within the Ottoman Empire, these Greek Orthodox urban and mercantile strata were referred to by the Ottomans, the Church, and themselves as Rayah, Christians, or “Romans”—that is, members of the Rum millet.4 And then under line remak # 4 as follows: The name Roman was a legacy of history, not a factual identification of race or ethnicity... The term Roman originally designated a citizen of the Eastern Roman Empire (since the Western part had collapsed in the fifth century). Since Charlemagne’s reconstitution of the Western Roman Empire in 800, Western Europeans began employing the term Greek to denote the Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire, causing in the process the outrage of the Eastern Romans (i.e. “Byzantines”) (Gill 1980:68; Romanidis 1975:281). The Ottomans employed the term reaya to imply all land cultivators regardless of religion; but in practice, in the Ottoman Balkans, this term meant the Orthodox Christians. In European cartography of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries,“Grecia” included Dalmatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, the coastal area of Asia Minor, Albania, and the Aegean islands (Karathanasis 1991:9). For the Western audience in Germany, Austria, and Hungary, Greek Orthodox was synonymous with Orthodoxy (Stoianovich 1960:290). Jingiby ( talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The part in question which was recently removed (yet without explanation) may concern a past talkpage section Talk:Souliotes/Archive_5#A_claim_not_supported_by_the_source_used. Off course the reference to Greece points to the latter Greek state where this community became famous indeed due to the armed struggle and participation in the Greek revolution. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Aside from fussing about dialects and place names, this article completely lacks any discussion of anything but what Souliot men did in war. Where is the discussion of Souliot society? What happened to the Souliot women and children when the population was driven into exile? What was the nature of the Souliot domestic economy? What was the family structure? What was Souliot life like in peacetime? What contributions have been made to culture in Souliot society? And so forth?
Poihths ( talk) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a major WP:SYNTH problem with the Identity section. For example, the claim that their dialect was Cham Albanian or Tosk, and that they spoke it until the late 18th c. is not present in any of the references. I will edit the sentences based on what the references really say.-- Zoupan 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you? I said Albanologist, you said "Albanian language specialist". Now that you've searched for him on google, you came up with the same conclusion, Albanologist. He is recognized in Albania. Does this automatically mean that he has some expertise in Souliote history? No.-- Zoupan 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the introduction does not adequately summarize the Identity, ethnicity and language section. -- Zoupan 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits will be deleted as there is no consensus about them .The "ottoman greek" will be deleted as there is no consensus about that. Rolandi+ ( talk) 08:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)