![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The title "19th- and 20th-century accounts" has no point, and is wrong english, I believe. "Accounts" means writtings by people who witnessed their subject. Souliotes, as a peculiar community, ceased to exist after 1830's when the Greek state was formed and they settled to various villages. So, "accounts" cannot be older than 1860's, approximately. The rest, especially 20th c., are secondary texts, based mostly on imagination, political theories etc. Either we have to discard the title, or we separate the sources to 19th and 20th, as it was few days ago. Btw, I would request an explanation from the user who erased Koutsonikas as source, probably the only Souliote who wrote about his community. -- Skylax30 ( talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Due to the general mess created in the recent days it was agreed to restore a previous version. I would agree to add info that's part of the modern scholarship. For example professor D. Skiotes mentions Koutsonikas' descriptions. On the other hand the opinion of 19th century travelers, politicians, poets etc. needs to go unless it's mentioned in modern scholarship. If modern scholarship ignores these old accounts then wikipedia has a good reason to do the same. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable. I am not aware of any serious modern paper on Souliotes not citing Koutsonikas and Peraivos, the eye-witnesses of the subject. On the other hand, WP is not excluding primary sources, although memoirs are not exactly PS. Anyway, if some do not like this line on Koutsonikas, I will create an article on him, and I will expand there. Finally, the dogma of WP is improvement of articles, not stability-- Skylax30 ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC).
Nice to know that you are welcomed in an article, by users who feel at home.
P.S.: As Anargyros Fagridas (Φαγκρίδας) said to me, there were authors who met Souliotes face-to-face, and others who saw them through binoculars.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I could commend on Psimouli's reliability on ethno-political issues, but this is not a forum. Karabelias did it.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless there is not opposition for the removal of 19th c. traveler/politician accounts as stayed above Ill procceed to their removal. Alexikoua ( talk) 08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Hughes account isn't about identity & ethnicity. I'll reorganize the section and divide it in contemporary and non-contemporary accounts. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears that some parts from the first two paragraphs have to move in a separate paragraph: in particular "later Greek policy". Alexikoua ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why the pre-1820 era can be labelled "late Ottoman". Discrepancy is even more obvious since Baltsiotis refers to early 1900s events not to mention that the author clearly mentions that this occurred during "late Ottoman" and not simply "Ottoman" period as it's wrongly written in the article. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a section about 19th century sources, and it's fine. There is no reason or rule that prohibits this. Any 19th c. source that looks serious (e.g. foreign diplomats, army officers and "spies") should be OK for the section. There is no point in deleting sources that spoil the soup of "Albanian origin", or the article becomes POVed.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Recently [4], Ktrimi991 deleted this info, written by a british officer who was sent there to do exactly this: To see "how is things", in 1800.
Obviously, it demolishes the speculative narrative that Souliotes "came from Albania".-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. That's why we have separate section for 19th c. sources. Let the reader decide who knows better. -- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is an essay composed by a user, and it is much debated [5]. WP does not exclude sources on the basis of their date.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 08:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am old enough to know the rules. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". And this is not even "primary" source.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Why are we even having these debate? It is more than obvious that primary sources can't be used in such a delicate matter. To identify the origins of a group of people is not simple work, and adding primary material could be highly misleading. Oh but let me see, we were having the same line of argumentation as we had in the article of Turkish Cypriots with the same user who insisted in using primary inconclusive work by an academic of the 50's just for the same reason. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. He came in "optical" (and verbal) contact with elders, therefore he is an eyewitness of Souliotes. At least more than Psimouli is.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why the D. Botsaris knowledge of the Albanian language is part of this section. I assume a move to aftermath and legacy (i.e. before Napoleon Zervas) is reasonable. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
A completely unencyclopedic info. Thousands of Greeks knew the Albanian language, as well as the Turkish, the Arabic, the Romanian, the Vlach, the Italian etc, while thousands of "Turkalbanians" (including Ali Pasha) were communicating in Greek.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This fact combined with the national sentiment they expressed led Greek scholar Emmanouel Protopsaltis to assert that the basic ethnic and linguistic component of Souli was Greek rather than Albanian. The quote from the source does not make any mention of Protopsaltis. Have you forgotten to give the whole quote? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
A user who has never been involved in this article before (apart from deleting), and he is just hounting me, is thinking that he can scare me with a supposed "burden on my soulders" [6]. This is almost a threat.
Now, back to the policy about "primary sources": [7]
This is exactly what we are doing here. We display some 19th c. sources, primary or not, for the information of the reader. We don't interpret and we dont base the article on them. Since there are already several 19th sources in the article, let's discuss how these will be selected. If there is no consencus on that, why should I not add more similar sources?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Alexikoua: The source says The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided.
To avoid misrepresentations the quote needs to be copy pasted on the article.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this article, a limited number (about half a dozen) of users are contributing recently, plus one who is only deleting.
The point of argument is the origin or national identity of Souliotes. Some users want to emphasize on sources which claim Albanian origin or identity (language etc), and others want to emphasize the local origin and Greek identity.
The subject (Souliotes) has a peculiarity: Their traditional community and way of living disappeared around 1830's, and there are very few sources who had a real contact with them. The rest (especially sources of the 20th c.) are interpretations of the previous, and some are heavily biased by the late 20th c. ethnic conflicts in the Balkans.
There is a section covering the 19th century sources in the article. Some (but not all) are already there, but there are more that qualify for this section. These old sources are just mentioned, with no comments. Two or three users are strongly opposing to a couple of these sources. Latest unwanted source, the Austrian Military Gazette of 1830. Another one is not even primary: William Leake Leake W. "Travels in Northern Greece", London, 1835, vol. 1, p. 502. The "problem" with those sources, as I understand it, is that they refer to Souliotes as Greeks and of local (rather than Albanian) origin.
My argument is this: a) WP does not exclude the older sources from the articles, and gives certain guidelines on how to use them. b) There are already some early 19th century sources in the article. Therefore, if we are to exclude some, we must agree on the process of exclusion.
Thank you.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. We need something to comment on, something to say "Yes" or "No" or "Agree" or "Disagree" to. The current text is just a long statement about the proposer's opinion. Also, I would recommend Skylax30 to strike out their PS. Trying to decide who are allowed to take part in a discussion goes completely against the whole idea of Wikipedia. -- T*U ( talk) 20:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It is getting too bureaucratic, then.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Before we leave various 20th century anglosaxons etc judge what was the ethnicity of Souliotes, let them speak. In the First National Assembly at Epidaurus, Souli was represented by Fotos Boboris from Himara (today in Albania), and Zois Panou from Paramythia. They signed the first national declaration, starting with "The Greek Nation, [...] declares today through our legal representatives, ... our political existence and independence ..." January 1st, 1822. The same assembly appointed Notis Botsaris as Minister of War.
If WP presents any Albanian national symbol in relation to the article, I assume the case will be of international diplomatic interest.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 13:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It is quite interesting that the pronoun "we" is in brackets. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Let's look now on the phrase "they talked Albanian ... because of their Albanian origin". The footnote contains 12 (twelve) sources who supposedly support the phrase. Some of them have a quotation, others don't. It is almost sure that here we have a SYNTH. i.e., certain users assume that if they came from "Albania" (in the geographical meaning) they have to speak albanian language, or the opposite. But there were many languages spoken in geographical Albania, including Greek, Serbian and Gypsy. Users who support the use of these sources, are requested to quote the exact phrase of every single source. By the way, Yohalas and Protopsaltes are/were academics of a very high status, certainly much more informed on Souli than Hobsbawm. Deleting them from the LEAD is a blatant pushing of POV.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
To facilitate discussion, I copy here the quotes of those 12 sources.
Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek: “The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith”.
I don't see anything like "speaking albanian because ...". Do you, Tzeronymo?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems that "The three-revert rule" has broken... Skylax30 has removed sourced text far too many times. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed unsourced text, mate, while keeping the sources in their proper phrase and meaning. And I think I can do it as many times as it takes.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I see, btw, that you have nothing to offer on this particular piece of discussion, and your edits in the article are a mere disruption.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Tzeronymo, I advice you not to transfer here the tactics that you use in the greek WP. The present discussion is not about Psimouli and Karabelias, which is another topic and other paragraph. What is relevant here is that the quotations do not support the claim "they spoke albanian because they came from Albania". So, I rephrased that part, while keeping the sources and quotations. If you can provide a source on the above claim, please do. Be sure that you have red the source, and therefore you have the quotation.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 10:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, civility requires that after expressing your opinion, you leave the initiative to other users who have been active in this article for years. As far as I see, you came here recently, only to delete and revert others, after you found (or heared) that I am around.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
ΟΚ then. In that case, WP introduces to "Albanian origin and Greek identity" a meaning other than the originally intented by certain users. Cheers.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 06:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Be aware that yesterday an admin placed a link to this article and talk page on their talk page to monitor the situation easily. Everything needs consensus and to be balanced. The current situation does not allow for changes to the lede. Let see what happens later. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have already explained. Since the origin and ethnicity of the Souliotes is disputed, both infoboxes need to be on the article. The stable version/lede shows that they had Albanian origin and Greek ethnicity, with your changes with no consensus, the article saya that the Souliotes' ethnicity is disputed. The new version in other words says that the identity of the Souliotes (whether they felt Greek or Albanian) is disputed. In English, "identity" is part of "ethnicity". Hence, now the Souliotes are not Greeks anymore on this article Ktrimi991 ( talk) 13:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The "Greeks" in infobox may be understood as "Greek citizens", which all Souliotes became, after the establishment of the Greek state. Fortunatelly, citizinship cannot be altered by late 20th century propaganda.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 06:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As these varying opinions suggest, Greek academics have not been able to agree whether the Souliots were Albanian, Albanian-speaking Greeks, or a mixture of Greeks and Hellenized Christian Albanians who had settled in northern Greece. The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today.The next paragraph starts with
Foreign writers have been equally divided, though he does not specify what do foreign writers dispute. Then he lists some non-Greek historians who all say the Souliotes were of Albanian origin. In the end Potts gives his own conclusion
The most diplomatic solution is probably to accept that the Souliots were indeed a Graeco-Albanian people, or “a mixture of Greeks and Albanian Christians". So a solution is to change the bit you added with
However some scholars give a diplomatic solution that they were a Greaco-Albanian people. This refers to both origin and ethnicity, since a Graeco-Albanian group is of mixed origin and ethnicity. This could satisfy all views, IMO. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 05:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Foreign writers have been equally divided.lis in a separate paragraph where Byron and Hobhouse (old outdated travellers) are not mentioned. Later Potts presents what he consideres "recent" sources and all of them give an Albanian origin and ethnicity for the Souliotes. Anyways, do not bother. We can not find consensus at all. WP:Undue applies here, Potts and Pappas can not be equalled to more than 15 academics. If you wish
However some scholars give a diplomatic solution that they were a Greaco-Albanian people. Alternatively, seek some third opinion on WP:Undue. I am not going to extend this discussion on a small disappered tribe beyond logic. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This trick is used in the article to push the pro-Albanian POV. For the moment, section "Identity, ethnicity and language" has this clumsy SYNTH paragraph about "classification" of ottoman subjects:
The above is not generally accepted. There many sources supporting that the Greeks had a national identity since 13th century, and must be included. Also, other parts of the article contradict the above claim. For example, " Claude Fauriel described the Souliotes in 1814 as a mixture of Greeks and Albanian Christians". Of course, there were also Serbians, Bulgarians etc who were not called "Greeks". Id est, Christians were divided in ethnicities.
On the other hand, the ethnonyme "Albanian" is used in the article without explanation or definition. Fore example: "nucleus of the Suliote population consisted of Albanians" (Davenport), or "mountains of Suli were occupied by Albanians in the early medieval period" ( British passer-by Edward Lear). So, who was "Albanian" in early medieval period? If there is an explanation about "Rum" and "Greek", there should be one for "Albanian". We have albanologist Oliver Schimtt who explains that "Albanian" in medieval periond (around 15th - 16th c) meaned one of these:
(my free translation by memory).
Opinions please.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Super. Now look in the bibliography for the meaning of "Albanian" the same period, and add it in the article.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Since it is clear that Souliotes were Christians, references to "Rum millet" in the article, are rather irrelevant and misleading, a blatant attempt to say that "Greek means christian". I propose that either it is deleted, or we add definition of "Albanian". This is the source for the meaning of "Albanian" in post-medieval texts: Schmitt Jens Oliver (2009), Skanderbeg: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan, pp. 353, 354. -- Skylax30 ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The edits of the last few days shows my point. Mr Ktrimi991 wants lengthy theories about who was "Greek" in Ottoman Empire, but not the symmetric info on who was "Albanian". SYNTH about Christians>Rums>Greeks>Souliotes will be reverted, if not counterbalanced by sources supporting that Greeks had a national identity before the ottoman occupation.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 18:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In the nineteenth century, the ethnic and geographical terms Albanian and Albania were used often to incorporate the people of the area and southern Epirus, now part of Greece.The article gives what info is relevant to usages of "Greek" and "Albanian" in that time. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Why so much fuss and such an edit war for the ethnically Tosk Albanians of Orthodox faith who contributed to the Greek Independence? Why so much pick-fighting?? For what? As a new user I am shocked to see how much both of the sides wants one version to prevail over the other and shame on both for the pickfighting. Shame on everyone who is disrupting an article which gives the main idea to the reader: that the Soulis were orthodox Albanians who self identified as greeks and contributed to their independence. As for the part: "thousands of greeks spoke albanian", well, how probable is it that an ethnicity which, under the ottoman empire, was allowed to speak and write its language, as well as practice its faith( the ancestors of modern Greeks) to learn a language of,as they often refered to albanians "Turkalbanians" or "Savages"? Albanians at the time, nor had an empire, kingdom, or even dominance or political leverage towards the local populations. Sure that, some of the greeks who happened to live in places which were almost exclusively inhabited by albanians at the time, had to speak albanian as a second language. However, given the facts stated above and that ALbanians were up to the 19-20th century regarded and factually illiterate people, with no dominance in the region, i highly doubt that there were thousands of greeks learning albanian as a second language. Hence, indeed language plays a crucial factor in determining the ethnicity of the souliotes and not only, which for the sake of the good faith and the western accounts and academic works, appear to be fully albanian by origin, language and customs, who later on, because of the political streams and the greek cultural and chrictian affiliation preferred to assimilate into the christian greek nation and self identify with that, which is ok and perfectly correct historical fact. The page provided this idea even before the viscious war on edits to gaim some microcopical advantages as regards the opinion of the reader whether the Souliotes were Greek or Albanian. This is simply unacceptable and such a meaningless war should not be repeated again in my opinion as it is everything but constructive and surely it does not serve the reader's best interest. I urge everyone to calm down and not show any signs of being biast here. I say this because I know how this would have gone if many people who signed the Albanian Declaration of Independence would have been originally Greek from let's say Thessaly, whose mother tongue was greek, customs were greek and they would adhere to the Albanian cause. I highly think the tables would have turned in a much worse fashion! Just providing food for thought!
Lastly, what is the problem of citing and referring to first hand sources of people who were there and met these people, spoke to them and eventually wrote about them in the 19th century?? What does this mean it is an old source? What does it mean it is outdated? Does it mean that these people around 200 years ago who actually met the souliotes were WRONG and the modern scholars who have read and referenced works in order to create an opinion about them have a better and more reliable view than them? I guess this might start to look like the page: "Himara" all over again, where everything from the 15th century ownwards, such as Venetian, Ottoman and Russian documents portraying the Himariotes as orthodox Albanians until the Greek uprisings is ommitted and obviously, not just accidentally! Or like in the Dhërmi page, where it is ommitted the fact that those churches are acually called UNITARY churches and were a typical mean of Albanians to seek from help from the powerful, catholic West, without having to change their religion in the 16th century! If this seems dubious, just search Arbëreshe or Albanian Unitary church. Moreover, the same thing happens in the Epirus page, where the reigns of Gjin Bua Shpata, Petër Losha and Gjin Zenebishi are not given due importance and in the end not even mentioned in the " list of names" of the rulers of Epirus which is shameful, given that there is plenty of literature that shows that in their time, cities such as Gjirokastra and Arta were flowrishing! And to close the discussion, the fact that they came from the villages near Paramythia not from "Albania" and ehnce they were not originally Albanian has a clear nationalistic tone to it! Sorry to burst your bubble, but whoever wrote that, I bet that he/she knows very well that the bulk of the coastal Epirus and many villages deep in the mainland (yes those villages with albanian names which the greek government changed the names of, surprise surprise!) were inhabited by Cham Albanians. If whoever wrote that needs proof, I can offer you the survay I have done for the past four months which I am going to publish soon, as to the fact that right now, at least from Parga until the Albanian border and many villages inside the Epirus region(the full list of which I am going to publish soon) around 82% of the elders of these villages at least understand Cham Albanian and around 43% are able to speak the Cham dialect to its fullest. Also many toponyms remained, one of the most obvious ones being the largest beach near vola, which is one of the main tourist attractions there, the name of which is "prapa mali"( meaning behind the mounain in Albanian, word by word) Just as in the Dropull region in Albania there are entire ethnic Greek villages in the region, also the Chams who converted to orthodox and decided to stay were much more than the ones who left, thus it is not only a handful of Chams left, but to my surprise, that region originally is almost totally mixed, although in the greek part the remaning Chams do not have the lux to be called Albanians, whereas the minorities in the Dropull region can and this is due to reason which greek editors here know very well.
I apologise for writing such a long message here, I just wanted to make the editors aware of the fact that nationalism and propaganda by catching upon useless phrases and passages from various sources as well as the shameful edit war that just happened here is not in the best interest of any reader and let alone the ones who are really concerned about these issues. Please next time, both sides refrain from putting your point of view and showing as to why it has supremacy. Rather edit and discuss instead of attacking the previous editor by shoving your points of view on each other's throats. Like this, not only the articles will be way more constructive, but also the 2 peoples will soften the tensions and start getting together, since whether both of the parties like it or not, the past and the future connects us, with or without definitions and cherry-pickings!
I once more apologise for the long message, I am simply trying to contribute to the best interest of the readers! Cheers, 84.26.41.112 ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Gjergj Zogaj 84.26.41.112 ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the general feeling of the message of Gjergj Zogaj. Nationalism is not constructive in any way, it is clear that minimizes the chances of co-operation among people (that is just my pov though). Anywayz, I have to say, I strongly disagree with the use of primary sources. Primary sources are misleading as we, as wikipedians, cannot assess their validity, their POV nor their importance- if we proceed with primary sources, we will end up with original research. This is a task of academics or other scholars, to provide us with reliable knowledge. More @ Wikipedia:Core content policies. Cheers. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 08:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I am glad that we find a common point. As regards to the 19 century source, well, if we go with this logic wouldn't it mean that every single thing we read out there will have to have a dubious validity or a dubious POV? Aren't all the articles in the wikipedia academic research by us, the Wikipedian editors in this sense, since we cite here academic sources who researched before us? It is a reference that gives impetus to our claims isn't it? I mean there are so many Greek authors cited there. Who assures me that they are impartial and not showing their pov? There are also Albanian authors cited. Who assures me that the validity and the POV of these authors, who are nationals of either one or the other side do not have an interest and at their smallest chance of discretion they will use it to give primacy to one party over the other, especially given modern politics? Let's be honest with each other, none of the sides is pure in what they claim and it is our job to even try to make something close to pure(Purity can never be reached).
In my humble opinion, let alone that simply STATING a source (hence letting the reader be the judge, obviously they are not sheeps and we presume they can have thinking capacities like normal people) does not make me do original research, but it would be more correct a primary source from the 1800's, where the political bias of the time did not come even close to that of nowadays. Ading to that, the parties making the observation were neither Greek or Albanian, which makes me think, with so many factors, and given that you are not committing original research for the reasons stated above, I want a reasoned opinion as to why publishing an account of the time, a PRIMARY source, would be misleading? After all, in all the prestigious faculties in the world regarding any subject, be this law, economics, history, etc. the tutors teach the students that primary sources are much needed and neccessary to rise the credibility of what you are saying. Again, please tell me where do you base this misleadingness. Does wikipedia have way different rules than the rest of the world's rules?
I strongly disagree that a source of people who WERE there, MET these people and subsequently reached a conclusion about certain things, based on their first hand observation shows more POV and is more misleading than the modern day academics, who, themselves refer to such documents. EVEN IF, they show the slightest sign of POV (which they don't, but that's just my pov again!) that is all account of the time that we have at our disposal, and for what reason on earth we should deprive the reader from knowing that such documents of the time exist? Mind you, had such a document stated that they were greeks, would you have the same opinion on it? please let's talk without gloves here. I have seen in countless pages about greece, greek history or cities, such documents are cited THERE and if you will ask me I will give you examples. Why are double standarts used with or without intention here?? I am urging you to avoid the game of words and be serious here. I am not insulting yours, or anyone's intelligence or capacities and you should not either by playing with words like this!
Lastly, please, if you really abide and are led by the principle of non nationalism and seeking for the best of the reader as I am, explain the points I just mentioned by reasoning them. If you will agree with me in the end, it would be great to reach a consensus. We, the people of the 2 countries here on wikipedia, have the chance to do and behave like our politicians do not. We truly love our countries and are not blinded by bigger interests as they are. Why not reach impartial, single standardised consensuses and treat the pages regarding both of the nations in the same way, without trying to make one POV prevail over the other?
Once more sorry for the long message, I am just here to(try) to resolve certain issues that arise because of the stubornness of both of the peoples and hence makes us enter in a big balkan pot, where we fight, and the reader remains misinformed. I urge you to reasonably explain me what I asked above once more and hopefully we will reach an agreement as to how vital first hand sources are! Thank you, Kind Regards
84.26.41.112 (
talk) 15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Gjergj Zogaj
84.26.41.112 (
talk)
15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Just broke it down. hope its better now
Soulites are of Albanian origin and not of Greek; stop inserting ridiculous pro-Greek origin material! As long as it is disputed which origin they "belong", we are not allowed to insert for example the "Greeks" template! -- Lorik17 ( talk) 12:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Lorik17 is right though that an infobox should be placed somewhere in the article. We should address this problem by adding the {{
Albanians}}
somewhere in the article, preferably next to the greek infobox, so as infoboxes would reflect the text (Albanian origin/greek identity)
Cinadon36 (
talk)
06:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
how on earth do we know how they "identified". That's easy: They fought and died for the Greek cause. They wanted to be Greek. And they did identify with a modern nation state: the Kingdom of Greece, in whose armed forces they served and achieved high office. They fought against Albanians. Markos Botsaris was killed by an Albanian. I imagine he and the other Souliotes would be quite horrified to be considered Albanians nowadays. It would be the height of absurdity to add these people to the Albanians template. By this logic, we would also have to add the Arvanites, another group that self-identifies as Greek and not Albanian. Khirurg ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
That's easy: They fought and died for the Greek cause. They wanted to be Greek. And they did identify with a modern nation state: the Kingdom of Greece, in whose armed forces they served and achieved high office---> Apart from easy, it is Original Research as well. I agree with Calthinus and Alexikoua's initial proposal to remove both templates/infoboxes Cinadon36 ( talk) 08:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
these infoboxes are not only about national groups, but also ethnolinguistic groups which can be identified by customs, language, etc.. @Cinadon
Apart from easy, it is Original Research as well.I have nothing to say to that. I suggest you do some reading. Markos Botsaris was not just some rebel in the mountains, he was a General in the Greek Army. Ditto Kitsos Botsaris. These were Greek government officials. So were their descendants. Botsaris' grave was desecrated by Ottoman Albanians when Missolonghi fell to the Turks. Khirurg ( talk) 15:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyways, we should not redirect the discussion, right? Doing so would be trolling.lolYou used lol in your reply to me, then you take me to task for replying in the same manner. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Also, what you wrote was clear, and my response addressed your points clearly. Saying that I don't understand your response means you didn't understand what I wrote in my response. Dr. K. 17:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Saying that I don't understand your response means you didn't understand what I wrote in my response.Now it is me who is not understanding the other editor's comment. But lets move on and have anyone interested in the content dispute respond to the important question:If some sources do consider Souliotes Greeks and some consider them an Albanian tribe, why should Souliotes be on only one template? Why should it not be excluded from all templates and put an end to the same dispute that emerges every few months? Alexikoua and I actually almost found a solution to it but in the end the thought that the dispute would not be repeated prevailed. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 17:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Resnjari and Alexikoua: Do you want to make those changes to the Identity section (Albanian academia etc) before or after the RfC/third opinion? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks that this article have a problem with the greek nationalsm? Which hardly deny the ethnicity even there are lot of source which proof her ethnicity. Suliots was nothing else as albanian orthodox from the south highlands, also knowed as "Çamë", also the albanian-greek translate-book used by Marko Boqari shows clear that they spoke albanian and didn't use greek as second languages (bilingual). And also stop making a mess with identity and ethnicity, we clearly know which ethnicity they had, and its albanian. Every modern source proof`s this fact,and there are a lot of source, just me can tell two:
Schmitt, Oliver Jens - The Albanians
Albertz, Anuschka - Exemplary heroism. The Reception History of the Battle of Thermopylae from Antiquity to the Present.
-- 31.10.130.45 ( talk) 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Alexikoua:, Raca p.202. [10]. I 'll be removing the verifiablity tag you placed. Resnjari ( talk) 21:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I read through the infobox discussion from 3 years ago and find the conclusion made to not include the Albanian infobox quite strange. It seems bizarre to me that the only factor at play here is self identification. Ethnic origin, country of origin, genetic origin, language spoken, culture, and tradition are not considered. The Souliotes did come to identify as Greek due to their faith. The Souliotes are essentially an Albanian diaspora in Greece, much like the Arvantines, who were assimilated, yet they are not included in the Albanian people template. When the population numbers are given of an ethnic group, often those who do not identify with the ethnic group are still considered (e.g. Italians in France or Albanians in Turkey). The French people, Italian diaspora, Germans templates include diaspora communities that may or may not consider themselves as French/Italian/German due to assimilation.
I see no reason why Albanians abroad, such as the Souliotes, should not be considered in the template. The argument is that they did not identify as Albanian, but they certainly did when they first arrived from Albania, if they considered themselves anything at all. And like I said, there are already examples of sub-groups not identifying with a nation yet are included in the Template. I'm fine with the Greek template being included. They are a Greekified group. There is still a substantial amount of evidence for the Souliotes being of full or partial Albanian origin though. (and as a side note, there are indeed modern Albanians in Southern Albania of full or partial Souliote origin which would certainly object to the claim "other Souliotes would be quite horrified to be considered Albanians nowadays". Quite a hilarious claim that should have no impact on a serious discussion. I guess "Ali's appeal based on shared Albanian origin" must have induced panic attacks at the time.) I'm curious to know when/where a decision was made on Wikipedia, site-wide, that self-identification was the sole factor of consideration for inclusion of a subgroup in a template? Seems oddly specific, and hasn't been followed by other templates. Djks1 ( talk) 23:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
One last thing I forgot to mention - the Souliotes were placed by the French into the Albanian Regiment (France) along with other Greco-Albanian groups, such as the Himariotes. So, I don't think they'd protest their placement in the Albanian template too strongly. Djks1 ( talk) 23:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I find it extremely misleading to add a template about ethnic Greeks in this article. The Souliotes were not ethnic Greeks. Ahmet Q. ( talk) 07:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, I have personally come to have adopted an agnostic stance as far as the desirability of sidebar templates in encyclopedia articles is concerned. I fail to see why they were created in the first place, but I trust the community of the encyclopedia's editors must have had a reason for introducing their usage. If they are to be used in this article, I would suggest that they are collapsible and that the one of the Albanian tribes (not the Albanians, since this seems to imply their belonging in the Albanian nation, which as the course of history evolved, was not the case for the Souliots) is placed next to the paragraph that describes the Souliots's organization in clans and the one on the Greeks is placed in a section that clearly discusses their integration in the Greek nation (i.e. the one on the War of Independence, the "Aftermath and legacy" or the relevant passage from "Historiography"). Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 16:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence by Nikolopoulou (2013) from the lead paragraph. The sentence is Because of their identification with
Greece, they were referred to as "Greeks" by their Ottoman and Muslim Albanian opponents.
This sentence contradicts the rest of the article. It is correctly discussed as the view one of source in the main body, but it can't remain in the lead paragraph as it contradicts parts such as at the beginning of the Greek War of Independence the Christian Albanian Souliotes were still unfamiliar with ideas of nationalism and they did not see themselves as leading "Greek armies", even declaring in a letter to the Russian Tsar that they do not have anything in common with the other Greeks, feeling closer to fellow Albanian Muslims instead.
More broadly, a problem which is not discussed in the article is that the Souliots like all other communities acted based on their economic and political interests. As a result, not all Souliots fought against Ali Pasha and not all Souliots were Christians. I think that we should all be a bit more moderate in how we discuss the subjects and maintain the good communication environment of the past year. --
Maleschreiber (
talk)
22:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
According to the article According to Nikolopoulou, due to their identification with Greece, they were seen as Greeks by their Muslim Albanian adversaries as well.[3] Ali Pasha, on the other hand, established an alliance with the Souliotes in 1820 by appealing to the shared ethnic Albanian origin of the Souliotes and his Muslim Albanian forces.
We are not going to have a situation where have just one part in the opening. Maleschreiber described it pretty well already.
Alltan (
talk)
01:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
the dominant ideology in Greece considered as Greek leading figures of the Greek state and obscured the links of some Orthodox people such as Souliotes had to Albanian.How about instead of writing a long-winded section entirely designed to just refute this opinion (which would be just one sentence) along 10 sentences which say the opposite, we simply don't use it in the lead to begin with? Why exactly is that a big issue? Alltan ( talk) 02:09, 25 July 2022 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The title "19th- and 20th-century accounts" has no point, and is wrong english, I believe. "Accounts" means writtings by people who witnessed their subject. Souliotes, as a peculiar community, ceased to exist after 1830's when the Greek state was formed and they settled to various villages. So, "accounts" cannot be older than 1860's, approximately. The rest, especially 20th c., are secondary texts, based mostly on imagination, political theories etc. Either we have to discard the title, or we separate the sources to 19th and 20th, as it was few days ago. Btw, I would request an explanation from the user who erased Koutsonikas as source, probably the only Souliote who wrote about his community. -- Skylax30 ( talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Due to the general mess created in the recent days it was agreed to restore a previous version. I would agree to add info that's part of the modern scholarship. For example professor D. Skiotes mentions Koutsonikas' descriptions. On the other hand the opinion of 19th century travelers, politicians, poets etc. needs to go unless it's mentioned in modern scholarship. If modern scholarship ignores these old accounts then wikipedia has a good reason to do the same. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable. I am not aware of any serious modern paper on Souliotes not citing Koutsonikas and Peraivos, the eye-witnesses of the subject. On the other hand, WP is not excluding primary sources, although memoirs are not exactly PS. Anyway, if some do not like this line on Koutsonikas, I will create an article on him, and I will expand there. Finally, the dogma of WP is improvement of articles, not stability-- Skylax30 ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC).
Nice to know that you are welcomed in an article, by users who feel at home.
P.S.: As Anargyros Fagridas (Φαγκρίδας) said to me, there were authors who met Souliotes face-to-face, and others who saw them through binoculars.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I could commend on Psimouli's reliability on ethno-political issues, but this is not a forum. Karabelias did it.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless there is not opposition for the removal of 19th c. traveler/politician accounts as stayed above Ill procceed to their removal. Alexikoua ( talk) 08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Hughes account isn't about identity & ethnicity. I'll reorganize the section and divide it in contemporary and non-contemporary accounts. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears that some parts from the first two paragraphs have to move in a separate paragraph: in particular "later Greek policy". Alexikoua ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why the pre-1820 era can be labelled "late Ottoman". Discrepancy is even more obvious since Baltsiotis refers to early 1900s events not to mention that the author clearly mentions that this occurred during "late Ottoman" and not simply "Ottoman" period as it's wrongly written in the article. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a section about 19th century sources, and it's fine. There is no reason or rule that prohibits this. Any 19th c. source that looks serious (e.g. foreign diplomats, army officers and "spies") should be OK for the section. There is no point in deleting sources that spoil the soup of "Albanian origin", or the article becomes POVed.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Recently [4], Ktrimi991 deleted this info, written by a british officer who was sent there to do exactly this: To see "how is things", in 1800.
Obviously, it demolishes the speculative narrative that Souliotes "came from Albania".-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. That's why we have separate section for 19th c. sources. Let the reader decide who knows better. -- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is an essay composed by a user, and it is much debated [5]. WP does not exclude sources on the basis of their date.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 08:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am old enough to know the rules. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". And this is not even "primary" source.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Why are we even having these debate? It is more than obvious that primary sources can't be used in such a delicate matter. To identify the origins of a group of people is not simple work, and adding primary material could be highly misleading. Oh but let me see, we were having the same line of argumentation as we had in the article of Turkish Cypriots with the same user who insisted in using primary inconclusive work by an academic of the 50's just for the same reason. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. He came in "optical" (and verbal) contact with elders, therefore he is an eyewitness of Souliotes. At least more than Psimouli is.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why the D. Botsaris knowledge of the Albanian language is part of this section. I assume a move to aftermath and legacy (i.e. before Napoleon Zervas) is reasonable. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
A completely unencyclopedic info. Thousands of Greeks knew the Albanian language, as well as the Turkish, the Arabic, the Romanian, the Vlach, the Italian etc, while thousands of "Turkalbanians" (including Ali Pasha) were communicating in Greek.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This fact combined with the national sentiment they expressed led Greek scholar Emmanouel Protopsaltis to assert that the basic ethnic and linguistic component of Souli was Greek rather than Albanian. The quote from the source does not make any mention of Protopsaltis. Have you forgotten to give the whole quote? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
A user who has never been involved in this article before (apart from deleting), and he is just hounting me, is thinking that he can scare me with a supposed "burden on my soulders" [6]. This is almost a threat.
Now, back to the policy about "primary sources": [7]
This is exactly what we are doing here. We display some 19th c. sources, primary or not, for the information of the reader. We don't interpret and we dont base the article on them. Since there are already several 19th sources in the article, let's discuss how these will be selected. If there is no consencus on that, why should I not add more similar sources?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Alexikoua: The source says The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided.
To avoid misrepresentations the quote needs to be copy pasted on the article.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this article, a limited number (about half a dozen) of users are contributing recently, plus one who is only deleting.
The point of argument is the origin or national identity of Souliotes. Some users want to emphasize on sources which claim Albanian origin or identity (language etc), and others want to emphasize the local origin and Greek identity.
The subject (Souliotes) has a peculiarity: Their traditional community and way of living disappeared around 1830's, and there are very few sources who had a real contact with them. The rest (especially sources of the 20th c.) are interpretations of the previous, and some are heavily biased by the late 20th c. ethnic conflicts in the Balkans.
There is a section covering the 19th century sources in the article. Some (but not all) are already there, but there are more that qualify for this section. These old sources are just mentioned, with no comments. Two or three users are strongly opposing to a couple of these sources. Latest unwanted source, the Austrian Military Gazette of 1830. Another one is not even primary: William Leake Leake W. "Travels in Northern Greece", London, 1835, vol. 1, p. 502. The "problem" with those sources, as I understand it, is that they refer to Souliotes as Greeks and of local (rather than Albanian) origin.
My argument is this: a) WP does not exclude the older sources from the articles, and gives certain guidelines on how to use them. b) There are already some early 19th century sources in the article. Therefore, if we are to exclude some, we must agree on the process of exclusion.
Thank you.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. We need something to comment on, something to say "Yes" or "No" or "Agree" or "Disagree" to. The current text is just a long statement about the proposer's opinion. Also, I would recommend Skylax30 to strike out their PS. Trying to decide who are allowed to take part in a discussion goes completely against the whole idea of Wikipedia. -- T*U ( talk) 20:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It is getting too bureaucratic, then.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Before we leave various 20th century anglosaxons etc judge what was the ethnicity of Souliotes, let them speak. In the First National Assembly at Epidaurus, Souli was represented by Fotos Boboris from Himara (today in Albania), and Zois Panou from Paramythia. They signed the first national declaration, starting with "The Greek Nation, [...] declares today through our legal representatives, ... our political existence and independence ..." January 1st, 1822. The same assembly appointed Notis Botsaris as Minister of War.
If WP presents any Albanian national symbol in relation to the article, I assume the case will be of international diplomatic interest.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 13:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It is quite interesting that the pronoun "we" is in brackets. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Let's look now on the phrase "they talked Albanian ... because of their Albanian origin". The footnote contains 12 (twelve) sources who supposedly support the phrase. Some of them have a quotation, others don't. It is almost sure that here we have a SYNTH. i.e., certain users assume that if they came from "Albania" (in the geographical meaning) they have to speak albanian language, or the opposite. But there were many languages spoken in geographical Albania, including Greek, Serbian and Gypsy. Users who support the use of these sources, are requested to quote the exact phrase of every single source. By the way, Yohalas and Protopsaltes are/were academics of a very high status, certainly much more informed on Souli than Hobsbawm. Deleting them from the LEAD is a blatant pushing of POV.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
To facilitate discussion, I copy here the quotes of those 12 sources.
Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek: “The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith”.
I don't see anything like "speaking albanian because ...". Do you, Tzeronymo?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems that "The three-revert rule" has broken... Skylax30 has removed sourced text far too many times. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed unsourced text, mate, while keeping the sources in their proper phrase and meaning. And I think I can do it as many times as it takes.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I see, btw, that you have nothing to offer on this particular piece of discussion, and your edits in the article are a mere disruption.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Tzeronymo, I advice you not to transfer here the tactics that you use in the greek WP. The present discussion is not about Psimouli and Karabelias, which is another topic and other paragraph. What is relevant here is that the quotations do not support the claim "they spoke albanian because they came from Albania". So, I rephrased that part, while keeping the sources and quotations. If you can provide a source on the above claim, please do. Be sure that you have red the source, and therefore you have the quotation.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 10:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, civility requires that after expressing your opinion, you leave the initiative to other users who have been active in this article for years. As far as I see, you came here recently, only to delete and revert others, after you found (or heared) that I am around.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
ΟΚ then. In that case, WP introduces to "Albanian origin and Greek identity" a meaning other than the originally intented by certain users. Cheers.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 06:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Be aware that yesterday an admin placed a link to this article and talk page on their talk page to monitor the situation easily. Everything needs consensus and to be balanced. The current situation does not allow for changes to the lede. Let see what happens later. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have already explained. Since the origin and ethnicity of the Souliotes is disputed, both infoboxes need to be on the article. The stable version/lede shows that they had Albanian origin and Greek ethnicity, with your changes with no consensus, the article saya that the Souliotes' ethnicity is disputed. The new version in other words says that the identity of the Souliotes (whether they felt Greek or Albanian) is disputed. In English, "identity" is part of "ethnicity". Hence, now the Souliotes are not Greeks anymore on this article Ktrimi991 ( talk) 13:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The "Greeks" in infobox may be understood as "Greek citizens", which all Souliotes became, after the establishment of the Greek state. Fortunatelly, citizinship cannot be altered by late 20th century propaganda.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 06:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As these varying opinions suggest, Greek academics have not been able to agree whether the Souliots were Albanian, Albanian-speaking Greeks, or a mixture of Greeks and Hellenized Christian Albanians who had settled in northern Greece. The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today.The next paragraph starts with
Foreign writers have been equally divided, though he does not specify what do foreign writers dispute. Then he lists some non-Greek historians who all say the Souliotes were of Albanian origin. In the end Potts gives his own conclusion
The most diplomatic solution is probably to accept that the Souliots were indeed a Graeco-Albanian people, or “a mixture of Greeks and Albanian Christians". So a solution is to change the bit you added with
However some scholars give a diplomatic solution that they were a Greaco-Albanian people. This refers to both origin and ethnicity, since a Graeco-Albanian group is of mixed origin and ethnicity. This could satisfy all views, IMO. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 05:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Foreign writers have been equally divided.lis in a separate paragraph where Byron and Hobhouse (old outdated travellers) are not mentioned. Later Potts presents what he consideres "recent" sources and all of them give an Albanian origin and ethnicity for the Souliotes. Anyways, do not bother. We can not find consensus at all. WP:Undue applies here, Potts and Pappas can not be equalled to more than 15 academics. If you wish
However some scholars give a diplomatic solution that they were a Greaco-Albanian people. Alternatively, seek some third opinion on WP:Undue. I am not going to extend this discussion on a small disappered tribe beyond logic. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This trick is used in the article to push the pro-Albanian POV. For the moment, section "Identity, ethnicity and language" has this clumsy SYNTH paragraph about "classification" of ottoman subjects:
The above is not generally accepted. There many sources supporting that the Greeks had a national identity since 13th century, and must be included. Also, other parts of the article contradict the above claim. For example, " Claude Fauriel described the Souliotes in 1814 as a mixture of Greeks and Albanian Christians". Of course, there were also Serbians, Bulgarians etc who were not called "Greeks". Id est, Christians were divided in ethnicities.
On the other hand, the ethnonyme "Albanian" is used in the article without explanation or definition. Fore example: "nucleus of the Suliote population consisted of Albanians" (Davenport), or "mountains of Suli were occupied by Albanians in the early medieval period" ( British passer-by Edward Lear). So, who was "Albanian" in early medieval period? If there is an explanation about "Rum" and "Greek", there should be one for "Albanian". We have albanologist Oliver Schimtt who explains that "Albanian" in medieval periond (around 15th - 16th c) meaned one of these:
(my free translation by memory).
Opinions please.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 07:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Super. Now look in the bibliography for the meaning of "Albanian" the same period, and add it in the article.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Since it is clear that Souliotes were Christians, references to "Rum millet" in the article, are rather irrelevant and misleading, a blatant attempt to say that "Greek means christian". I propose that either it is deleted, or we add definition of "Albanian". This is the source for the meaning of "Albanian" in post-medieval texts: Schmitt Jens Oliver (2009), Skanderbeg: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan, pp. 353, 354. -- Skylax30 ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The edits of the last few days shows my point. Mr Ktrimi991 wants lengthy theories about who was "Greek" in Ottoman Empire, but not the symmetric info on who was "Albanian". SYNTH about Christians>Rums>Greeks>Souliotes will be reverted, if not counterbalanced by sources supporting that Greeks had a national identity before the ottoman occupation.-- Skylax30 ( talk) 18:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In the nineteenth century, the ethnic and geographical terms Albanian and Albania were used often to incorporate the people of the area and southern Epirus, now part of Greece.The article gives what info is relevant to usages of "Greek" and "Albanian" in that time. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Why so much fuss and such an edit war for the ethnically Tosk Albanians of Orthodox faith who contributed to the Greek Independence? Why so much pick-fighting?? For what? As a new user I am shocked to see how much both of the sides wants one version to prevail over the other and shame on both for the pickfighting. Shame on everyone who is disrupting an article which gives the main idea to the reader: that the Soulis were orthodox Albanians who self identified as greeks and contributed to their independence. As for the part: "thousands of greeks spoke albanian", well, how probable is it that an ethnicity which, under the ottoman empire, was allowed to speak and write its language, as well as practice its faith( the ancestors of modern Greeks) to learn a language of,as they often refered to albanians "Turkalbanians" or "Savages"? Albanians at the time, nor had an empire, kingdom, or even dominance or political leverage towards the local populations. Sure that, some of the greeks who happened to live in places which were almost exclusively inhabited by albanians at the time, had to speak albanian as a second language. However, given the facts stated above and that ALbanians were up to the 19-20th century regarded and factually illiterate people, with no dominance in the region, i highly doubt that there were thousands of greeks learning albanian as a second language. Hence, indeed language plays a crucial factor in determining the ethnicity of the souliotes and not only, which for the sake of the good faith and the western accounts and academic works, appear to be fully albanian by origin, language and customs, who later on, because of the political streams and the greek cultural and chrictian affiliation preferred to assimilate into the christian greek nation and self identify with that, which is ok and perfectly correct historical fact. The page provided this idea even before the viscious war on edits to gaim some microcopical advantages as regards the opinion of the reader whether the Souliotes were Greek or Albanian. This is simply unacceptable and such a meaningless war should not be repeated again in my opinion as it is everything but constructive and surely it does not serve the reader's best interest. I urge everyone to calm down and not show any signs of being biast here. I say this because I know how this would have gone if many people who signed the Albanian Declaration of Independence would have been originally Greek from let's say Thessaly, whose mother tongue was greek, customs were greek and they would adhere to the Albanian cause. I highly think the tables would have turned in a much worse fashion! Just providing food for thought!
Lastly, what is the problem of citing and referring to first hand sources of people who were there and met these people, spoke to them and eventually wrote about them in the 19th century?? What does this mean it is an old source? What does it mean it is outdated? Does it mean that these people around 200 years ago who actually met the souliotes were WRONG and the modern scholars who have read and referenced works in order to create an opinion about them have a better and more reliable view than them? I guess this might start to look like the page: "Himara" all over again, where everything from the 15th century ownwards, such as Venetian, Ottoman and Russian documents portraying the Himariotes as orthodox Albanians until the Greek uprisings is ommitted and obviously, not just accidentally! Or like in the Dhërmi page, where it is ommitted the fact that those churches are acually called UNITARY churches and were a typical mean of Albanians to seek from help from the powerful, catholic West, without having to change their religion in the 16th century! If this seems dubious, just search Arbëreshe or Albanian Unitary church. Moreover, the same thing happens in the Epirus page, where the reigns of Gjin Bua Shpata, Petër Losha and Gjin Zenebishi are not given due importance and in the end not even mentioned in the " list of names" of the rulers of Epirus which is shameful, given that there is plenty of literature that shows that in their time, cities such as Gjirokastra and Arta were flowrishing! And to close the discussion, the fact that they came from the villages near Paramythia not from "Albania" and ehnce they were not originally Albanian has a clear nationalistic tone to it! Sorry to burst your bubble, but whoever wrote that, I bet that he/she knows very well that the bulk of the coastal Epirus and many villages deep in the mainland (yes those villages with albanian names which the greek government changed the names of, surprise surprise!) were inhabited by Cham Albanians. If whoever wrote that needs proof, I can offer you the survay I have done for the past four months which I am going to publish soon, as to the fact that right now, at least from Parga until the Albanian border and many villages inside the Epirus region(the full list of which I am going to publish soon) around 82% of the elders of these villages at least understand Cham Albanian and around 43% are able to speak the Cham dialect to its fullest. Also many toponyms remained, one of the most obvious ones being the largest beach near vola, which is one of the main tourist attractions there, the name of which is "prapa mali"( meaning behind the mounain in Albanian, word by word) Just as in the Dropull region in Albania there are entire ethnic Greek villages in the region, also the Chams who converted to orthodox and decided to stay were much more than the ones who left, thus it is not only a handful of Chams left, but to my surprise, that region originally is almost totally mixed, although in the greek part the remaning Chams do not have the lux to be called Albanians, whereas the minorities in the Dropull region can and this is due to reason which greek editors here know very well.
I apologise for writing such a long message here, I just wanted to make the editors aware of the fact that nationalism and propaganda by catching upon useless phrases and passages from various sources as well as the shameful edit war that just happened here is not in the best interest of any reader and let alone the ones who are really concerned about these issues. Please next time, both sides refrain from putting your point of view and showing as to why it has supremacy. Rather edit and discuss instead of attacking the previous editor by shoving your points of view on each other's throats. Like this, not only the articles will be way more constructive, but also the 2 peoples will soften the tensions and start getting together, since whether both of the parties like it or not, the past and the future connects us, with or without definitions and cherry-pickings!
I once more apologise for the long message, I am simply trying to contribute to the best interest of the readers! Cheers, 84.26.41.112 ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Gjergj Zogaj 84.26.41.112 ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the general feeling of the message of Gjergj Zogaj. Nationalism is not constructive in any way, it is clear that minimizes the chances of co-operation among people (that is just my pov though). Anywayz, I have to say, I strongly disagree with the use of primary sources. Primary sources are misleading as we, as wikipedians, cannot assess their validity, their POV nor their importance- if we proceed with primary sources, we will end up with original research. This is a task of academics or other scholars, to provide us with reliable knowledge. More @ Wikipedia:Core content policies. Cheers. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 08:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I am glad that we find a common point. As regards to the 19 century source, well, if we go with this logic wouldn't it mean that every single thing we read out there will have to have a dubious validity or a dubious POV? Aren't all the articles in the wikipedia academic research by us, the Wikipedian editors in this sense, since we cite here academic sources who researched before us? It is a reference that gives impetus to our claims isn't it? I mean there are so many Greek authors cited there. Who assures me that they are impartial and not showing their pov? There are also Albanian authors cited. Who assures me that the validity and the POV of these authors, who are nationals of either one or the other side do not have an interest and at their smallest chance of discretion they will use it to give primacy to one party over the other, especially given modern politics? Let's be honest with each other, none of the sides is pure in what they claim and it is our job to even try to make something close to pure(Purity can never be reached).
In my humble opinion, let alone that simply STATING a source (hence letting the reader be the judge, obviously they are not sheeps and we presume they can have thinking capacities like normal people) does not make me do original research, but it would be more correct a primary source from the 1800's, where the political bias of the time did not come even close to that of nowadays. Ading to that, the parties making the observation were neither Greek or Albanian, which makes me think, with so many factors, and given that you are not committing original research for the reasons stated above, I want a reasoned opinion as to why publishing an account of the time, a PRIMARY source, would be misleading? After all, in all the prestigious faculties in the world regarding any subject, be this law, economics, history, etc. the tutors teach the students that primary sources are much needed and neccessary to rise the credibility of what you are saying. Again, please tell me where do you base this misleadingness. Does wikipedia have way different rules than the rest of the world's rules?
I strongly disagree that a source of people who WERE there, MET these people and subsequently reached a conclusion about certain things, based on their first hand observation shows more POV and is more misleading than the modern day academics, who, themselves refer to such documents. EVEN IF, they show the slightest sign of POV (which they don't, but that's just my pov again!) that is all account of the time that we have at our disposal, and for what reason on earth we should deprive the reader from knowing that such documents of the time exist? Mind you, had such a document stated that they were greeks, would you have the same opinion on it? please let's talk without gloves here. I have seen in countless pages about greece, greek history or cities, such documents are cited THERE and if you will ask me I will give you examples. Why are double standarts used with or without intention here?? I am urging you to avoid the game of words and be serious here. I am not insulting yours, or anyone's intelligence or capacities and you should not either by playing with words like this!
Lastly, please, if you really abide and are led by the principle of non nationalism and seeking for the best of the reader as I am, explain the points I just mentioned by reasoning them. If you will agree with me in the end, it would be great to reach a consensus. We, the people of the 2 countries here on wikipedia, have the chance to do and behave like our politicians do not. We truly love our countries and are not blinded by bigger interests as they are. Why not reach impartial, single standardised consensuses and treat the pages regarding both of the nations in the same way, without trying to make one POV prevail over the other?
Once more sorry for the long message, I am just here to(try) to resolve certain issues that arise because of the stubornness of both of the peoples and hence makes us enter in a big balkan pot, where we fight, and the reader remains misinformed. I urge you to reasonably explain me what I asked above once more and hopefully we will reach an agreement as to how vital first hand sources are! Thank you, Kind Regards
84.26.41.112 (
talk) 15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Gjergj Zogaj
84.26.41.112 (
talk)
15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Just broke it down. hope its better now
Soulites are of Albanian origin and not of Greek; stop inserting ridiculous pro-Greek origin material! As long as it is disputed which origin they "belong", we are not allowed to insert for example the "Greeks" template! -- Lorik17 ( talk) 12:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Lorik17 is right though that an infobox should be placed somewhere in the article. We should address this problem by adding the {{
Albanians}}
somewhere in the article, preferably next to the greek infobox, so as infoboxes would reflect the text (Albanian origin/greek identity)
Cinadon36 (
talk)
06:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
how on earth do we know how they "identified". That's easy: They fought and died for the Greek cause. They wanted to be Greek. And they did identify with a modern nation state: the Kingdom of Greece, in whose armed forces they served and achieved high office. They fought against Albanians. Markos Botsaris was killed by an Albanian. I imagine he and the other Souliotes would be quite horrified to be considered Albanians nowadays. It would be the height of absurdity to add these people to the Albanians template. By this logic, we would also have to add the Arvanites, another group that self-identifies as Greek and not Albanian. Khirurg ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
That's easy: They fought and died for the Greek cause. They wanted to be Greek. And they did identify with a modern nation state: the Kingdom of Greece, in whose armed forces they served and achieved high office---> Apart from easy, it is Original Research as well. I agree with Calthinus and Alexikoua's initial proposal to remove both templates/infoboxes Cinadon36 ( talk) 08:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
these infoboxes are not only about national groups, but also ethnolinguistic groups which can be identified by customs, language, etc.. @Cinadon
Apart from easy, it is Original Research as well.I have nothing to say to that. I suggest you do some reading. Markos Botsaris was not just some rebel in the mountains, he was a General in the Greek Army. Ditto Kitsos Botsaris. These were Greek government officials. So were their descendants. Botsaris' grave was desecrated by Ottoman Albanians when Missolonghi fell to the Turks. Khirurg ( talk) 15:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyways, we should not redirect the discussion, right? Doing so would be trolling.lolYou used lol in your reply to me, then you take me to task for replying in the same manner. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Also, what you wrote was clear, and my response addressed your points clearly. Saying that I don't understand your response means you didn't understand what I wrote in my response. Dr. K. 17:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Saying that I don't understand your response means you didn't understand what I wrote in my response.Now it is me who is not understanding the other editor's comment. But lets move on and have anyone interested in the content dispute respond to the important question:If some sources do consider Souliotes Greeks and some consider them an Albanian tribe, why should Souliotes be on only one template? Why should it not be excluded from all templates and put an end to the same dispute that emerges every few months? Alexikoua and I actually almost found a solution to it but in the end the thought that the dispute would not be repeated prevailed. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 17:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Resnjari and Alexikoua: Do you want to make those changes to the Identity section (Albanian academia etc) before or after the RfC/third opinion? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks that this article have a problem with the greek nationalsm? Which hardly deny the ethnicity even there are lot of source which proof her ethnicity. Suliots was nothing else as albanian orthodox from the south highlands, also knowed as "Çamë", also the albanian-greek translate-book used by Marko Boqari shows clear that they spoke albanian and didn't use greek as second languages (bilingual). And also stop making a mess with identity and ethnicity, we clearly know which ethnicity they had, and its albanian. Every modern source proof`s this fact,and there are a lot of source, just me can tell two:
Schmitt, Oliver Jens - The Albanians
Albertz, Anuschka - Exemplary heroism. The Reception History of the Battle of Thermopylae from Antiquity to the Present.
-- 31.10.130.45 ( talk) 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Alexikoua:, Raca p.202. [10]. I 'll be removing the verifiablity tag you placed. Resnjari ( talk) 21:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I read through the infobox discussion from 3 years ago and find the conclusion made to not include the Albanian infobox quite strange. It seems bizarre to me that the only factor at play here is self identification. Ethnic origin, country of origin, genetic origin, language spoken, culture, and tradition are not considered. The Souliotes did come to identify as Greek due to their faith. The Souliotes are essentially an Albanian diaspora in Greece, much like the Arvantines, who were assimilated, yet they are not included in the Albanian people template. When the population numbers are given of an ethnic group, often those who do not identify with the ethnic group are still considered (e.g. Italians in France or Albanians in Turkey). The French people, Italian diaspora, Germans templates include diaspora communities that may or may not consider themselves as French/Italian/German due to assimilation.
I see no reason why Albanians abroad, such as the Souliotes, should not be considered in the template. The argument is that they did not identify as Albanian, but they certainly did when they first arrived from Albania, if they considered themselves anything at all. And like I said, there are already examples of sub-groups not identifying with a nation yet are included in the Template. I'm fine with the Greek template being included. They are a Greekified group. There is still a substantial amount of evidence for the Souliotes being of full or partial Albanian origin though. (and as a side note, there are indeed modern Albanians in Southern Albania of full or partial Souliote origin which would certainly object to the claim "other Souliotes would be quite horrified to be considered Albanians nowadays". Quite a hilarious claim that should have no impact on a serious discussion. I guess "Ali's appeal based on shared Albanian origin" must have induced panic attacks at the time.) I'm curious to know when/where a decision was made on Wikipedia, site-wide, that self-identification was the sole factor of consideration for inclusion of a subgroup in a template? Seems oddly specific, and hasn't been followed by other templates. Djks1 ( talk) 23:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
One last thing I forgot to mention - the Souliotes were placed by the French into the Albanian Regiment (France) along with other Greco-Albanian groups, such as the Himariotes. So, I don't think they'd protest their placement in the Albanian template too strongly. Djks1 ( talk) 23:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I find it extremely misleading to add a template about ethnic Greeks in this article. The Souliotes were not ethnic Greeks. Ahmet Q. ( talk) 07:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, I have personally come to have adopted an agnostic stance as far as the desirability of sidebar templates in encyclopedia articles is concerned. I fail to see why they were created in the first place, but I trust the community of the encyclopedia's editors must have had a reason for introducing their usage. If they are to be used in this article, I would suggest that they are collapsible and that the one of the Albanian tribes (not the Albanians, since this seems to imply their belonging in the Albanian nation, which as the course of history evolved, was not the case for the Souliots) is placed next to the paragraph that describes the Souliots's organization in clans and the one on the Greeks is placed in a section that clearly discusses their integration in the Greek nation (i.e. the one on the War of Independence, the "Aftermath and legacy" or the relevant passage from "Historiography"). Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 16:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence by Nikolopoulou (2013) from the lead paragraph. The sentence is Because of their identification with
Greece, they were referred to as "Greeks" by their Ottoman and Muslim Albanian opponents.
This sentence contradicts the rest of the article. It is correctly discussed as the view one of source in the main body, but it can't remain in the lead paragraph as it contradicts parts such as at the beginning of the Greek War of Independence the Christian Albanian Souliotes were still unfamiliar with ideas of nationalism and they did not see themselves as leading "Greek armies", even declaring in a letter to the Russian Tsar that they do not have anything in common with the other Greeks, feeling closer to fellow Albanian Muslims instead.
More broadly, a problem which is not discussed in the article is that the Souliots like all other communities acted based on their economic and political interests. As a result, not all Souliots fought against Ali Pasha and not all Souliots were Christians. I think that we should all be a bit more moderate in how we discuss the subjects and maintain the good communication environment of the past year. --
Maleschreiber (
talk)
22:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
According to the article According to Nikolopoulou, due to their identification with Greece, they were seen as Greeks by their Muslim Albanian adversaries as well.[3] Ali Pasha, on the other hand, established an alliance with the Souliotes in 1820 by appealing to the shared ethnic Albanian origin of the Souliotes and his Muslim Albanian forces.
We are not going to have a situation where have just one part in the opening. Maleschreiber described it pretty well already.
Alltan (
talk)
01:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
the dominant ideology in Greece considered as Greek leading figures of the Greek state and obscured the links of some Orthodox people such as Souliotes had to Albanian.How about instead of writing a long-winded section entirely designed to just refute this opinion (which would be just one sentence) along 10 sentences which say the opposite, we simply don't use it in the lead to begin with? Why exactly is that a big issue? Alltan ( talk) 02:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)