Talk:Souliotes

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Balkan / European / Ottoman B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Ottoman military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Souliotes received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Keep in mind that Orthodox Albanians were called 'Greeks,' Muslims 'Turks' and Catholics 'Latins.' Also, a Greek 'Patriotic' book calling them Greeks means nothing. They spoke Albanian and most 1800's sources saw them as Albanian, long before the Balkans nations started to steal each other's heroes. To the Greek wikipedians: if they are Albanians, just admit it. No need to hellenise everything.

I also added a statement suggesting that there is controversy given their role in the Greek Revolution jus to warn users that some might be too happy to make theirs.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more scholarly sources that CLEARLY state that they were Albanian. Please do not revert by adding a Greek nationalist book that is upset. There is a LOT of impartial evidence that they were Albanian bandits that fought with whomever. Also, this had nothing to do with faith, but power. Ali cracked down on Muslims right after that and Ali had Christians and Muslims fighting for him.

Keep it Fake (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Athanasios Psallidas, a secretary of Ali Pasha, stated that Souli (also known as Kakosouli) contained Greek fighters who fought against the Albanians for many years.[9] An author of unknown origin stated that the Souliotes, under tyranny in Epirus, have proven that Greece still gives rise to individuals like Leonidas at Thermopylae.[10] Aside from contemporary accounts, the Souliotes were known as Greeks even by their enemies. Beli Pasha, son of Ali Pasha, sent letters to his father from April to December 1803 calling the Souliotes "Romans" (Ρωμέους), "Romioi" (Ρωμιούς) and "Romegans" (Ρωμέγους), that is, ethnic Greeks. Ahmed Moufit, great-grandson of Ali Pasha's sister (Siachnisa), attempted to convert the Souliotes into Orthodox Albanians in his chronicles. He wrote angrily about how the Souliotes invited Ali Pasha's attack in 1789 because they called themselves Christian Greeks who became tools of Russia.[11]"

This is too biased. You clearly ignore that "Greeks" might have meant religion but iclude what some unkown author and a greek nationalist said. Unless it's rewritten, I will write my sources and have it checked for accuracy. I posted scholarly articles, you posted junk

Keep it Fake (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Keep it Fake (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs some work to bring it up to proper standards. Just a few problems that I'd like to address:

• I too thought that the Souliotes in the 18th/19th century were indeed Albanian-speaking. How you interpret that in ethnic terms (as "Arvanites", "Chams", "Albanians", whatever) is a separate issue, but it needs to be dealt with somehow. And we don't need repeated assertions and counter-assertions, we need references. Let's ask Matia for sources, he seems to know about these things. Let's keep clear that ethnicity is not automatically the same thing as language, but let's also not hide the facts here.
• I'm extremely skeptical about the alleged continuity, both of the group itself and of its name, between the ancient "Selloi" and the modern "Souliotes". As for the name, the Babiniotis dictionary derives it from an Albanian word suli = 'mountain summit'. Nothing to do with "Selloi". The link sounds very much like a 19th-century romantic folk etymology, invented for obvious reasons. What the article currently says about alleged proofs is a blatant non sequitur. This should be treated as an unsourced speculation as long as it's not substantiated further.
• As for the ethnic continuity, if it's true that they were Albanophone, that would prima facie speak against such a tradition. Here, too, what we need is just sources, sources, sources.

Comments? I hope I find some time to work on this later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the word "suli" (mountain summit) be a loan from the Greek language? Strangely, it doesn't exist in the Albanian dictionary I checked. --Shadow 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, I know next to nothing about Albanian. But what would it have been loaned from, except the placename? You don't normally get geographical common nouns loaned from foreign geographical proper names that easily, do you? It could still be some older, obsolete or dialect word in Albanian and fail to appear in the dictionary for that reason. In any case, if Babiniotis has it, I'd guess we can rely on it - given the overall ideological stance of his dictionary on such matters, he would not leave out an opportunity to cast doubt on such a foreign etymology if it was in any way questionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the bit about "Selloi" and the alleged claims by Pantazis again. First, it's basically unsourced, as we don't have a reference for Pantazis. The information is from an unreliable website. Second, the argument (if Pantazis is in fact making it), is a double non sequitur. First, even if Selloi lived in Thesprotia in 800 BCE, that doesn't entail that people who lived in Thesprotia in 1300 CE were Selloi. There were such things as migrations in between, remember (e.g. some rather well-known migrations of Albanians south into Epirus.) And second, even if 14th-century Thesprotians were descendants of ancient Selloi, that would still tell us nothing about the etymology of the name, which is the only thing this section is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this passage yet again and will continue to do so as long as these concerns aren't answered:

"In support of the poet's belief, a Greek historian named Constantine Pantazis proved that the area that is currently Epirus in northwestern Greece was populated by one of the first ancient Hellenic tribes, the Selloi since 800 BC. The area was called Thesprotia by the Selloi."

Once more, what's wrong with it?

1. Unsourced
2. "proved" is non-neutral
3. that the Selloi were Greeks in the proper sense is hardly uncontroversial
4. that it was the Selloi who named Thesprotia is unsourced, dubious, not even said like this in Deuc.'s immediate source, and in addition it is also utterly irrelevant.
5. Plus, the double non-sequitur as pointed out above.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the mentioning of the "Selloi" yet again: At the moment, we don't have any serious reference that they were a "tribe" at all. The only ancient attestations to the name are to a religious office: "Selloi" were priests of Zeus at Dodona. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that there also was a tribe of that name, but we have nothing to base that on right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding another {fact} tag there: At the moment, we don't know if anybody (i.e. any serious scholar) has ever seriously entertained the hypothesis of an etymological link between "Selloi" and "Souli". The only thing we have is Kalvos, which may well be a once-off act of pure poetic license and need not imply belief in an actual linguistic link even on his own part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to Arvanitic. Arvanitic in the linguistic sense refers only to the dialects spoken in the south of Greek. Those in Epirus, especially in Thesprotia, are linguistically different, they're Cham Albanian. And Biris even argues that the first wave of settlers to Souli may have been Gheg speakers, an entirely different dialect, later mixed with Chams. But apparently not much is known about the nature of the specific dialect of Souli, as obviously it didn't survive as such after 1821. As long as we don't have concrete information about what form of Albanian they spoke, "Albanian" is the only thing we can say about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deucalionite, you've again removed the {fact} tag from the passage about the uprising of Dionysius the Philosopher. The source you quoted does not, as far as I can see, say anthing about a link between these events and the settlement of Souli. Can you please clarify where you get this idea from, or is it just your speculation? I'm not doubting that the uprising occurred, or that people were forced to move afterwards, I'm asking if there is anything in the literature that specifically links these particular movements with the settlement of Souli. Not that it would be implausible, to be sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Future Perfect, the source is based on pure "speculation". Read the paragraph below nice and slow lest you "miss" something. You can clearly see for yourself that when the Turks arrived in Thesprotia, Greeks were either killed, forced to convert, or forced to leave their homes and migrate to other regions (and not just to the Ionian islands). Now, let us put two and two together lest we assume that everything so far is still based on "speculation." If the Souliotes migrated in around 1600, wouldn't that migration (to a major extent) be influenced by the arrival of foreign military forces? In other words, had the Turks not caused massive amounts of chaos and destruction in Thesprotia, then I doubt the Souliotes would have had any real significant incentive to want to move from the plains to the mountains. Not only that but the Souliot migration is an obvious repeat of history since Epirotian Greeks migrated to the mountains when the Roman army arrived.

Here is the paragraph.

Τα αντίποινα των Τούρκων υπήρξαν σκληρά τόσο για την εθνική υπόσταση των χριστιανών, που υποχρεώθηκαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό να εξισλαμισθούν, όσο και για την πληθυσμιακή αλλοίωση στη Θεσπρωτία και στα Ιωάννινα. Συμπαγείς ομάδες άφησαν τις πεδινές εκτάσεις ή μετανάστευσαν στα Ιόνια νησιά, ενώ τουρκοποιήθηκε το κάστρο των Ιωαννίνων, που έχασε σχεδόν όλους τους χριστιανούς και μεγάλο μέρος των εκκλησιών και μικρομονάστηρων. Τότε άρχισε και το παιδομάζωμα, από το οποίο είχε εξαιρεθεί η πόλη. Γενικώς, στα Ιωάννινα πρέπει να φονεύθησαν τουλάχιστον 300 άτομα και στην ύπαιθρο να κάηκαν και να δηώθηκαν δεκάδες χωριά, κυρίως στη Θεσπρωτία, και το κλίμα της αστάθειας και του φόβου να κυριάρχησε για μια πενταετία (έως το 1616, οπότε μαρτυρείται και νέος διωγμός των χριστιανών στο κάστρο).

Now, if you have a better source that explicitly states that the Souliotes migrated to the mountains as a result of whatever events occurred, then provide it. However, this is the best thing that can logically verify why the Souliotes would even remotely consider moving from their comfortable homes in the plains to the mountains. If the Souliotes wanted to go to the mountains willingly, then they would have done so without any pressures from a foreign military force. Deucalionite 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that this is Original research. So, it will go. I'm not going to comment on how plausible I find your speculation; the policy is clear enough on this: we are not supposed to be doing such things. We are under no obligation to state in the article why Thesprotians would have settled in Souli; if the literature doesn't discuss such reasons, then we won't either. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I much prefer commas. Original research? You have got to be kidding me. Read again: Τα αντίποινα των Τούρκων υπήρξαν σκληρά τόσο για την εθνική υπόσταση των χριστιανών, που υποχρεώθηκαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό να εξισλαμισθούν, όσο και για την πληθυσμιακή αλλοίωση στη Θεσπρωτία και στα Ιωάννινα. If you know your Greek, then you will understand that the terms "populational change" is found in the sentence. What does a populational change encompass? Gee, I don't know. Exile perhaps? Sure. Συμπαγείς ομάδες άφησαν τις πεδινές εκτάσεις ή μετανάστευσαν στα Ιόνια νησιά. You will find in the sentence about how "compact groups left the plains or went to the Ionian islands". Please focus on the emphasis on the conjunction "or". If it was just "compact groups left the plains and went to the Ionian islands", then you would have a case in stating that the source does not at all remotely discuss the Souliotes being involved in a specific migration to the Ionian islands being that they went up into the mountains of Mourgas. Could the Souliotes have been one of those "compact groups" who left the plains? Of course they could. This is not original research my friend. I did not write the source. Yes, I am providing an analysis of the source, but the analysis is based on what is written in the source already. Over and out. Deucalionite 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know where I can find (online) that book by Biris (with ISBN# 9602040319)? — Sshadow 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Fangridas that Deucalionite has been quoting is hardly what we'd call a "reliable source". It's one of those three-a-penny cheap pamphlets of popular patriotic literature for the Greek mass market. An entirely non-notable work (only reference on the web is a one-line book anouncement in To Vima) by an entirely non-notable author (no hints as to academic credentials, peer-reviewed publications, nothing). I must admit that in the absence of anything better right now, we'll be condemned to using it. (Biris, while notably different in emphasis, is not much better in terms of academic qualities.) There's undoubtedly a good deal of factual information there that we can use. - But: This doesn't mean that the article should be highjacked by Fangridas' personal POV. In the matter of the Albanian element in the Souli population, even Fangridas admits that the mainstream of Greek and foreign historiography takes a strong Albanian element for granted. Okay, he then goes on to downplay that (in an argumentation that I personally find bizarre, but never mind that). - We can mention this POV of his, but the least we must do is to acknowledge in the article that the other view exists and is a majority view in scholarship.

As for the rest: The versions you guys are reverting to don't make any sense even in terms of text structure. Do you read what you are reverting to at all? That sentence about "origins further north" is just hanging there in mid-air totally out of context, the way you have it. And the bit about Dionysius the Philosopher is still original research. By the way, did you not see that Fangridas himself dates the main wave of settlement of Souli several decades after those insurrections? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Fangridas based on the content of his work. If you had read the book (or any of the relevant sections) instead of automatically shooting him down, then maybe you would have actually learned something. Fangridas provides a comparative analysis of the theories that mainstream academics (both Greeks and non-Greeks) have developed pertaining to the origins of the Souliotes. That, automatically, deserves any reader's full attention. If Fangridas' work was only a "three-a-penny cheap pamphlet for the Greek mass market", then it would not have been objective enough to have included different theories about the Souliotes (especially theories where he cites authors who believe that Souliotes were Albanians). With that kind of commentary coming from you, it is no wonder why I don't consider you a "philhellene." As I have said before, judge Fangridas based on the content of his work. Keep your personal commentary about Fangridas to yourself until you have actually understood the author's work both literally and contextually.

Another thing. Fangridas cites from different reliable authors and has provided very concrete evidence pertaining to the Souliotes being Greeks. Now, mainstream academia will no doubt adamantly call Souliotes "Albanians" only because they find anyone who speaks Arvanitika to be of Albanian origin. Unfortunately, too many scholars base cultural/ethnic origins on language and that is a significant academic miscalculation no matter who you are or how many diplomas you have. Language does not define ethnicity and I don't care what Babiniotis states about the Albanian etymological roots of the term "Souli" since etymology does not, by default, mean that the Souliotes were Albanians.

As for the Souliote migration into the mountains of Mourgas. I have already explained logically how that migration could have been influenced as a result of the failed insurrections of Dionysius the Philosopher. Now, did the Souliotes have to wait until Dionysius was defeated to leave the plains? Not really. The Souliotes left the plains of Thesprotia in around 1600 AD. It is a social fact that Thesprotia was experiencing major upheaval. So, if you want, I could clarify that the Souliote migration occurred during major upheavals in Thesprotia (with the failed insurrection of 1585 and the insurrections made by Dionysius the Philosopher).

For you to find Fangridas' arguments as "bizarre" indicates that you are not "pro-Greek". For Fangridas to provide evidence for his arguments should have already acquired your attention and, to some extent, your respect. Your arguments pertaining to Fangridas' lack of credentials also indicates that you are narrow-minded in not at least giving Fangridas his credit for providing a decent comparative analysis on a topic. To focus only on credentials blindly makes even good people want to state, "Credentials be damned." I can understand where such people come from because I have personally met academics with credentials who have lied to my face about historical/social events. Enough said. Deucalionite 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me to find Fangridas' arguments "bizarre" indicates, first of all, that I have read Fangridas. Got it? I did read him and I do base my judgment on this reading. Another thing I find bizarre is that you should evaluate other editors on criteria of being "pro-Greek" or not. Ever heard of NPOV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't get it. For you to have read Fangridas and provide an interpretation that does not give credit where credit is due is ludicrous in my book. You are correct to call Fangridas an author who has not shown how notable he is. However, to consider his work a "three-a-penny pamphlet" as if he was a propagandist from Goebbel's department shows that you are narrow-minded. I have seen pamphlets numerous times and I at least have the decency to separate the one's that are contributive and the ones that are based on utter nonsense. So, keep your unrealistic comments to yourself. Got it? Oh, by the way, I know what NPOV stands for, but its meaning is outmoded.

You want to know my criteria for evaluating editors Mr. "Philhellene"? Here are some of the criteria I follow by when I judge editors: Does the editor have a flexible mentality? Does he/she understand the possibility of mainstream academia to be wrong in light of evidence? Does the editor uphold a sense of honesty? Does the editor uphold a certain agenda? Does the editor honestly explain his/her agenda? Does the editor uphold a specific ideology? Is that ideology purely ideological or is it based on social reality? (this is just the tip of the iceberg).

I do not evaluate editors based on whether they are pro-Greek or anti-Greek. Though I am flattered that you would assume that. Simply put, I respect those who are honest enough to uphold what it really means to be a philhellene. Also, I do feel compelled to help my Greek brethren whenever I can and if they want my help. However, when there is someone who is deemed a "philhellene" and conducts actions that are not necessarily "philhellenic", then the name is just a fancy title. Got it? Have a nice day. Deucalionite 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So a question, is this guy a Wikipedia:Reliable source? - FrancisTyers · 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-, in my view. Okay for quarrying some factual information and summaries of a few of the views expressed in the older literature. Not all, because his coverage is far from complete. Not a good source at all where it comes to his own evaluation of the sources, which is highly idiosyncratic and hardly representative of modern scholarship, in all likelyhood. Trouble is just, we don't have anything much better to go by right now. As I said, I'm just opposed to taking the POV he expresses and presenting it as The Truth. I can send you scans of the relevant pages if you like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I forgot - you don't read Greek, do you? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope :( I can get along with French or Romanian, but no Greek :[ - FrancisTyers · 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanitic? Really? --Tēlex 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, K.E. Fleming in The Muslim Bonaparte calls them "of Albanian origin", but states they identified as Souliotes, not as Albanians or Greeks. Also Clogg calls them in Minorities in Greece "a warlike Albanian Christian community".--Aldux 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, i wouldn't think of a group of people that they are not Greek, if the last song they sang before dieing was in greek... --Hectorian 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Dance of Zalongo, the song known today under that name is certainly not what the Souliot woman were singing in the actual event, is it? If they were singing anything at all. The poem can't have been created before the event, because it refers to it. Or did they invent the song right there on the spot? But who then survived to tell the tale anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i know is that this song was a song sang by the Souliotes before the event, but the women of Souli decided to sing this one, as the most appropriate, in the edge of the cliff. now, do not think of that terrain as an Everest:). it was high enough, but people on the ground could listen to what 2 dozens of people were singing... when the souliot troops were defeated, some of the men survived (as wounded or captured). in addition, the enemies of them, would also have heard the song. a legend or not, i can't be sure 100%... but i have read many books refearing to it and watched many programmes describing it, that i tend to believe that it actually happened this way (honestly, i do not have reasons to believe the opposite). --Hectorian 13:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hectorian, you recently reverted

They were Orthodox Christians who spoke Greek and Albanian, and thus were part of the millet-i Rum (Rum millet) and as such only wrote in Greek.

to

They were Orthodox Christian bilingual Greeks who spoke Greek and Albanian, and thus were part of the millet-i Rum (Rum millet) and as such only wrote in Greek.

The first version sticks to agreed, documented facts. It is disputed (see this whole Talk page) whether they were 'Greeks' or 'Albanians'. And in fact the term 'Greek' in this context probably is simply a synonym for Orthodox Christian, and implies nothing about their ethnic identity. For this reason, it seems to me clearer to document that they were Orthodox Christians, spoke Greek and Albanian, and wrote Greek. Beyond that, it seems to be POV. --Macrakis 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to what u say they belonged in no ethnic group, right? The fact that they spoke greek, wrote in greek, fought in the Greek War of Independance does not leave much to dispute. the fact that they were bilingual in albanian is not enough to call them non-Greeks. --Hectorian 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is anachronistic to use modern ethnic labels for that period. But even beyond that, your argument fails. Are there not modern Greek Jews who speak Greek, write in Greek, hold Greek citizenship, join the Greek armed forces, etc. but who consider themselves to be "ethnically" to be Jews? And many aren't even bilingual in Ladino or Hebrew.... --Macrakis 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The example of the Jews is not relevant. Most Greek Jews (those who were not killed by the nazis) migratted to Israel, and i am sure they see Israel as their ancestral homeland. However, the Souliotes remained in Greece, and were/are Greeks in everything, apart from their 2nd mother tangue. 'anachronistic modern ethnic labels' may be just your POV. perhaps u could say that Maniotes were not Greeks as well, cause "it is anachronistic to use modern ethnic labels for that period". sorry, but if u have anything more to support a non-Hellenic ethnic identity for the Souliotes, just say so... --Hectorian 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still Jews in Greece, though not many. Your argument would claim that they are 'ethnically Greek'. As you can see from the first comment in this Talk page, some Souliots even today consider themselves Albanian. And the article is primarily about the 18th century. Standard historical methodology tries hard to avoid projecting today's categories into other times and places. It is not POV to be careful about sticking to the evidence. --Macrakis 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boring dispute. I'd tend to agree with Macrakis, only we currently have no decent sources either way. The only actual book on Souliotes we've seen in a year is that booklet cited by Deucalionite, which was low quality. Hasn't anybody got access to actual literature on those guys? Nobody doubts that they politically/ideologically identified with whatever the term "Greek" meant at the time ("έλληνες" yes, "ρωμιοί" yes, "γραικοί" probably not). But still, there's good enough reasons to believe that the Albanian element in their self-identification was strong enough that a characterisation as "Greek-Albanians" or something of the sort would be justified (see the Arvanites article; we have a Botsaris as late as 1899 explicitly calling himself an Αρβανίτης in a context where that term definitely still comprises all Albanians.) But that would be "original research" on my part, as is Hectorian's argument above. Wait till we get to see some real sources, I'll rewrite the article some time. For the moment, I'd much prefer Macrakis' neutral version, but I haven't yet made up my mind if I want to celebrate the end of the Greek summer vacations with a round of revert-warring. The rest of the same sentence is still so bad it might be not worth fighting over its beginning. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Actually, now that I look at it again, I forgot that Aldux had in fact cited a few interesting things from the serious literature, supporting the "Albanian" view. Will try to do a new version of that sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant quotes:

• The Souliotes, a Greek-speaking Orthodox tribe of Albanian origin... p. 99, K.E. Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999. ISBN 0691001944.
• The Souliotes, who are of Albanian origin but usually are grouped separately.... The Souliotes...provide an excellent example of the way in which group identity in Ali's regions was linked to land. The Souliotes's sense of communal identity inhere in the land on which they lived... the account of Souliot women throwing themselves and their children into the mountain gorge rather than surrender to Ali's forces stood as testimony not just to their pride but also to their allegiance to the land. p. 62f (note allegiance to the land), Fleming.
• ...the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians..., p. 23, William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, Frank Cass, 1966. ISBN 0714619744.

Again, it is clear that they were at least partly Greek-speaking, that they were of Albanian origin, and that they were Orthodox. Beyond that, national consciousness doesn't seem to apply.... --Macrakis 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps. Sometime we'll have to do some further rewriting further down in the article, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, this article needs much better sources. It appears to be based mostly on romantic-nationalist propaganda, not serious scholarship. It uses terms in English, like "Souliot Confederacy" and "Souliot Regiment", which I have not seen elsewhere. The article is very poor and needs work. --Macrakis 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U should provide sources contradicting the current ones, before asking for better... The English terms used are the exact translation of the Greek terms. The Greek word "αυτονομία" (autonomy) could also be used, as this is used extensively in historiography. as for the "romantic-nationalist propaganda" thing u said, i think it is better to leave it without a comment , for, as a counter-balance, i would had used words of similar strength and magnitude (e.g. anarcho-communist new order pseudo-history). Hectorian 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, this is no justification for blanket reverts removing uncontroversial copyedit corrections as you just did. And Macrakis' content changes were also improvements and had nothing to do with "anarcho-communist new order pseudo-history". Apart from that, Macrakis is also right about "romantic-nationalist" literature having been used here. Try "reputable modern academic historiography" as a proper alternative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide the link blow but first i want to quote the whole article.

"Brave Women.- The extraordinary courage of the Albanian women has been displayed over and over again in the history of the country: but one of the most celebrated instances was that recorded of a branch of the Albanian people represented by the Suliotes. When they were besieged by Ali Pasha in 1792, the Suliotes formed a semi-independent confederacy, comprising of 66 villages, in the districts of Margariti, Paramythia, and Janina. Up to the time of Ali Pasha they prided themselves on the regularity of the payments of their dues to the Porte. But the intrigues of the cunning old Veli, who wanted to get the whole of the spahilik of Suli into his greedy hands. Soon roused the people into rebellion, and they commenced their glorious and lengthened war against the far greater resources of the renowned Pasha. The latter, by means of the duplicity of which he was such a consumate master, had entrapped Tzavella, one of the Suliote heads of houses into his power, and then laid siege to the town of Suli. He endeavored by bribes to induce Tzavella to turn a traitor. Cunning here met his match; the crafty Suliote pretended compliance, and even left his own son, Foto, in Ali Pasha´s hands as a hostage. He returned to Suli under pretense of betraying the town. But no sooner had he arrived than he sent a letter of defiance to the pasha. Ali then assaulted te town and it was here that the heroism of the Albanian women became so conspicious. Mosko, the wife of Tzavella, and mother of Doto, showed prodigies of valor during the siege. She broke open some cartridge-boxes with a hatchet, and then loaded them on the other women, and rushing into the trenches, distributed them among the Suliotes. Ali threatened to roast alive her son Foto; but she replied she was young, and could have other children, and that she would eat a bit of the roasted flesh of her son rather than betraying her country.--Blackwood´s Magazine.

Published:February 8 1880 Copyright: The new york times."

(My english is good, but thats how they wrote in 1880)

The original article can be found in this link: [1]

View the full article to read what i have quoted.

This is a better source than most of the other sources on wikipedia. And it is more then enough to draw the conclusions of this debate.

Vandalism is not tolerated. If you do not agree with this source then you have to discuss it´s reliability.--Durim Durimi (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting source. Just make sure it adheres to WP:RS. Deucalionite (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats from 1880 and not a modern historical work.A mention in a 1880 newspaper is not a source.Megistias (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better, than today when everyone wants to adopt heroes.

70.20.216.107 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) It can not be used as a historical source. There were probably newspapers that potrated the Turks/Albanians as monsters and the Souliotes/Greeks as angels. We cant use those as historical sources. But it can be used if we can find more articles from newspapers and put a seperate section. But I dont now if it has a use. Seleukosa (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most terrible page I have seen till now. Full of shit!
1.Ανάργυρος Φανγκρίδας is not a WP:RS. RS is a good article, a reliable author and a reliable publisher. Ανάργυρος Φανγκρίδας is known only by his family, so he for sure does not fulfill WP:RS.
2."Clogg, Richard. Minorities in Greece: Aspect of a Plural Society. Oxford: Hurst, 2002." was terribly misscourced. He says that Souliotes were Albanians.
3.The article is terribly written.
4."Psallidas, Athanasios. Γεωγραφία Ηπείρου και Αλβανίας." has not ISBN, page number, year of publishing and etc.
5. If somebody does not fulfill this gaps, I am going to rewrite the article from the beginning.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with your assessment; as far as I'm concerned the page is yours to rewrite. When you do, please be so kind as to not fall into the converse trap, of turning the whole page into a rant arguing how they were Albanians, Albanians, Albanians (and, by the way, Albanians). By the way, you might also consider if it would be worth merging the page with Souli. I've never understood what these doublets of location pages and inhabitants pages are supposed to be good for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work, the page became more terrible than it was and we are glad to learn a new version of the history, that the bilingual and of Greek consciousness Souliotes were Cham Albanians!!!!! - Sthenel (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you are surprised. Live and learn. Actually, the world out there does view some things differently from the "version of history" you guys grow up with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google books search leads to the results (however there must be many other):

1. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-. William Miller. Souliotes, 'an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenized Albanians (Arvanites)'
2. The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Souliotes 'Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks...the most obvious examples of gradual intergration of Albanians into the national conciousness of Greeks are they Ydraioi and the Souliots' (this means they are Arvanites, or are the Ydraioi Chams?)
3. Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence: The Founder of Greek Independence. Christopher Montague Woodhouse[[2]] Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus...' (in another book of the same author says of Albanian origin, so Arvanites)
4. The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. 'Of Albanian origin' (aka Arvanites)
5. The Muslim Bonaparte. Katherine Elizabeth Flemin. 'of albanian origin' (Arvanites)
6. Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy. Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson. 'the Greek Albanian clans of the Souliotes'
7. Two Diaries.Frank McEachran. 'of Albanian origin' (again Arvanites)
8. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. IngentaConnect 'of Albanian origin' (Arv.)

So they were of Albanian origin the time of the Revolution. In the Souli area there were some families with the name 'Zervas' too. Suppose we have two Cham civil wars...Alexikoua (talk)

So the definition of Chams is that they are of Albanian conciousnes.... very nice, we got an answer.23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The page, however, is becoming biased because of easy assumptions. What I mean is that, the following false assumption was made: Arvanites have Orthodox Albanian origin and some Chams are orthodox, so orthodox chams are Arvanites of Epirus and vice versa, so Souliotes that also had an earlier Albanian origin and are Orthodox, are Arvanites of Epirus, so they are Chams, and so Chams played a large role in the Greek War of Independence. Now, haven't Souliotes been self-identifying as Greeks and not Chams for the last few centuries? So how does that make Chams active in the Greek Revolution? You see what I mean?--Michael X the White (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! On Souliotes there are references that say that they are Orthodox Albanians of the cham Brench.

• Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
• Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north
• Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0691001944, ISBN 9780691001944 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
• Gerolymatos, p. 141. "The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants."

And a lot of others. There is no assumption in this page, at least made by me. There are clear references about every single sentence.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' is product of original reasearch (i mean these Arvanites that feel realy Albanians). There are sill Arvanites of Epirus that dont feel that belong in that category, so it's misleading too.

As for the Souliotes, sources often confuse the terms Albanians and Arvanites. A english book said that politician Th. Pangalos said that he is Albanian (actually he said Arvanite). Another english statement that made me lauph: 'Albanians are the Scots of Greece', suppose the author meant the Arvanites too.

About the 1821 Revolution, the section is very one sided. I will add the role of the Muslim Chams in that period and the fierce 'Cham civil war' (waw maybe creat a new article with this title) that occured these period (Botsaris hated his Cham compatriots very much I suppose).

Find a citation of these above, and feel free to create the "Cham civil war". I can help you, on the case of Souliotes war with Ali Pasha, it is "Edward Augustus Freeman" on the book "The Ottoman Power in Europe", stating that "This was a conquest of Christians by Mahometans ; but it was not a conquest of Christians by Turks. It was in truth a conquest of Albanians by Albanians" But, you will have to find a place that clearly cits "Cham Civil war" in a RS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Botsaris do not forget, that he was in the Albanian regiment of the French Army, his mother tangue was cham albanian dialect, per Titos Jochalas, etc. etc. etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that Souliotes may be seen as having earlier Orthodox Albanian origin, but that does not make them Chams. I can see one source speaking of a cham branch, but that still would be cham origin, without making them Cham Albanians. From what is written in the article, Cham Albanians self-identify as Albanians, when Souliotes do not.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say that Souliotes self-identify as Greeks, as Souliotes today has just an origin sense. We are talking for the 18th and 19th century, when Souliotes was an actual ethnonym. Per sources, thay were Cham Albanians, and at that time they spoke Cham Albanian dialect, See Titos Jochalas.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, we must be careful to not project our 20th/21st-century ethnic categories back into the 18th century. In the time of the Souliots, this dichotomy between "Greek-identifying" and "Albanian-identifying" that you are thinking of simply did not yet exist in this form. Yes, Souliots identified politically with the Greek national cause, and were later prepared to merge into Greek society. That didn't stop them from being (Cham) Albanian at the time, and not just having "Albanian origins". The differentiation into (Greek-identifying) "Arvanites" and (non-Greek-identifying) "Albanians", just like the association of the name "Cham" with only on sides of that, is a product of the 20th century, perhaps even the second half of the 20th century. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean and I do not disagree, but I think in the case of Souliotes, they had already been self-identifying as Greeks before the Revolution. The differentiation may be a product of the past century, but if they had been saying "we're Greeks" since before 1800, then it is correct to say they're a Greek ethnic group with Orthodox Albanian origin. They're Greeks for themselves, and "scientists" and "intellectuals" decided they had Albanian origin. You see what I mean? I see your point with the "Cham" part being added later on, and that is why I think it is exaggerated to use a 20th century "ethnonym" for people of around 1800 (that actually have an ethnonym, Souliotes). We could say something like "they were Orthodox Albanians that sided with the Greek ethnic cause" or even better "they were Greeks with earlier Orthodox Albanian origin", but I definately think that "they were Cham Albanians" is over-exaggerated.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be thinking in terms of "Greek" and "Albanian" as two mutually exclusive categories. They were not. – But all in all, I'll say we should definitely de-focus this issue. Whether or in what sense these people were Greeks and/or Albanians is an issue of debate between nationally minded Wikipedians. It is not an issue of debate between serious authors in the real world. Of course they were Cham Albanians. That is such a self-evident statement, and at the same time so boring to everybody but a few nationalists, that the article should waste as few words as possible on even making it. We should definitely not waste article space and time buttressing it up, refuting it, discussing it or arguing for or against it. The article should simply take it for granted. What we might write about (with one or two sentences) is that among present-day Greeks this identification is often avoided, because of the contrast between the negative political association of the term Cham and the positive historical connotations of the term Souliote (e.g. by taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian.) But that's a statement about modern mainstream Greek ideology, it isn't a statement about the Souliots or the Chams themselves, so it's only of marginal relevance in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted? Self-evident? Since when? Can you explain us how? How can we say that two groups with Greek consciousness but (probably) Albanian origin of the early 19th century mainly can be identified with a population group of mainly the 20th century with full Albanian consciousness? How can terms used much earlier can be mixed with a late 20th century term?? It makes no sense at all.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes sense! It makes sense in a wider scope of mixture and dispute: the Souliots and the Arvanites are Albanians... the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, the Ancient Epirotes were Illyrians, even the Greek origin of the Spartans has been in "dispute" (supposendly descending for the Jewish tribe of Dan...). Anything possible to disconnect the Greeks from their history and to make them not feel proud of their ancestors (this attitude reminds me of someone...).

If we were about to break the above comment in order to see its meaning we could: Whether or in what sense these people were Greeks and/or Albanians is an issue of debate between nationally minded Wikipedians: for those not "nationally minded", multi-multi-thinking Wikipedians, followers of acculturation (in the pretext of multi-culturalism), whirshippers of the American melting pot, the Souliotes were "everything" or nothing... But further down we read: Of course they were Cham Albanians: is a nationally minded Wikipedian talking now? {...} The article should simply take it for granted: for a gazillion-th time, language cannot be used as ethnic self-identification. If so, everyone in the US, Australia and Britain is English. among present-day Greeks this identification is often avoided and negative political association of the term Cham: the thing is that this identification was never used among the Greeks, past and present, it is not just "avoided" today, because for the Greeks this was never an identifying option. It largely becomes an identification option (surely not self-) for those who turned the Balkans into this, after the Cold War. The Souliotes not only viewed themselves as Greeks, but they were viwed as such by the rest of the Greeks, the Ottoman rulers, as well as their contemporary Westerners. taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian: is the term "Arvanite" a modern construct? Not really... Quite the contrary, it has been in use for many centuries, long before the creation of the Albanian state and the process of the Albanian nation-building. Hectorian (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone needs proof that the tendency to directly correlate language with ethnic identity is ludicrous, please refer to the following secondary source:

Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", pp. 118-119 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963). "Similarly, on some islands of the Aegean, and even in the neighborhood of Athens, we may come across Albanian-speaking Greeks, whose ancestors fought for Greece in the 1820's, while other Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians from Karystos on the Euboea emigrated to Asia Minor and adopted Turkish as their vernacular. (...) From these examples it will appear that language is no criterion of nationality: it sits lightly on the cultural equipment of our Balkan peoples and it may accommodate itself to any new environment. Language usually carries with it what Finlay calls "literature"-not merely the written records, which were scanty in an age of nonliteracy, but, more significantly, the oral tradition (poems, fables, proverbs, songs) that form part of a people's modes of expression."

Ultimately, I tend to agree with Hectorian in that Future's arguments contain serious caveats. Deucalionite (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality and ethnicity are not the same. Secondly, please bring references that they were not Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author makes no explicit distinction between nationality and ethnicity (both terms mean the same thing to him). Second, the reference you are looking for is right here:

Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", p. 141 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963). [Footnote] "On the basis of language, Albanian nationalists claimed as their own a good number of Greece's national heroes. (...) Nonetheless, a common language was not sufficient to cement an alliance between Muslim Albanians and Albanian-speaking Greeks, such as the Souliotes, during the Greek Revolution."

Mortal Kombat! Just kidding. :) Anything else my friend? (By the way, I'm currently looking over the Cham Albanians article with fresh eyes.) Deucalionite (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference Balkanian:

Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142. "The Greek letter...indicated that 25,000 men were ready to join in battle against the Turks, more if there were to be Russian presence. But the petitioners from the city of Kastoria noted that their fellow Greeks, the Souliotes in the mountains of Albania, did not receive the support of Russian officials in their battle against the local Turkish authorities."

The Souliotes as "fellow Greeks"? Blasphemy! :) Deucalionite (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most common view on the ethnicity of the Souliotes was that they were a mix of Greek and Albanian people living in the area, bilingual in Greek and Albanian, who had possibly Greek consciousness but beyond it they were strongly identified with their region and their "Souliote identity". But it is clear that they never considered themselves Albanians and part of the Albanian nation. Such designations like "Cham Albanians" are irrelevant. The article makes the readers feel that it refers to a clearly Albanian population, and Souliotes were not either in terms of origin or in terms of culture. - Sthenel (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stressing that they were "not part of the Albanian nation" or "not of Albanian consciousness" presupposes that there was such a thing as an Albanian nation or Albanian (political) consciousness to begin with. Which there wasn't. So this denial is in itself nonsensical. Up to the League of Prizren and the foundation of the modern Albanian nation state, "Albanian" stood for an ethnolinguistic group, a language community, not more and not less. As such, the term (pre-1900) was of exactly the same status as a term like "Vlach" (until today). It did not have any connotations of political/cultural orientation. Just like everybody is a Vlach who speaks Vlach, everybody was an Albanian who spoke Albanian. This was the only meaning of the term that existed. And that is precisely the only sensible meaning the term can be used – and is in fact used in modern scholarship – when refering to those periods today. In this sense, it is not mutually exclusive with being Greek (in the sense of a political/cultural orientation, of Romoios). An Albanian could have any number of different political-cultural ways of self-identification, including that of identifying as Greek, without ceasing to be an Albanian, just as a Vlach can call himself a Greek without ceasing to be a Vlach. We can call Markos Botsaris an Albanian just as we can call George Averoff a Vlach. It's the same thing. The need to distinguish between (merely) Albanian-speaking people and "Albanians proper" is an issue only after 1900, and it would be quite anachronistic to project it back into earlier times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it would not be anachronistic to call the Souliotes Cham Albanians because of their bilingualism? "Albanian" stood for an ethnolinguistic group, but the Souliotes were not only Albanian-speakers; you said that everybody was an Albanian who spoke Albanian, in this way the Souliotes were Greeks and not Cham Albanians as they spoke Greek too. And the most important is that this region of Epirus was inhabited by Greek and Albanian people, so people of mixed cultural and linguistic heritage were the most possible "product" of this match. What I can't get is why the article stresses their "Albanian part", calls them definitely Albanians and ignores "anything Greek" in them. - Sthenel (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...so they were "Greeks and not Cham Albanians"? You are still stuck with the either-or. Sigh. I see the suggestion that two terms may not have been mutually exclusive is still causing cognitive overload. Yes, I'm sure the word "both" is a very difficult concept to grasp. As for why the article is currently ignoring "anything Greek in them", well, obviously it shouldn't, and it doesn't. Except for one sentence in the lead, which was recently inserted like that by Balkanian`s word. See my warning somewhere further above, when I asked him "please be so kind as to not fall into the converse trap, of turning the whole page into a rant arguing how they were Albanians". The temptation must have been great. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of my point is that a mixed population should not be called Greeks or Albanians, but this article does so and seems really nationalistic. That's what I want to point out. - Sthenel (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there seems to be not much evidence they were particularly "mixed" (in any non-trivial sense, i.e. apart from the trivial fact that no population on earth is ever mathematically "pure".) For all I can see, they were as "purely" Albanian as it gets, i.e. no more and no less "mixed" than other populations that we have no qualms describing with a single epithet either. They were ethnolinguistically Albanians, with a Greek cultural/political orientation. Sure, they were also bilingual in Greek - but so was everybody, including the Muslims. That's not a sign of mixture, it's just a sign they had a regional lingua franca. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that they were ethnolinguistically Albanians comes up from where exactly? Ethnically? Has their ethnicity been proven in the sources? I don't think so. Did they have Albanian consciousness (the most important for someone in order to be characterized ethnically)? Of course not! On the contrary, the subjacent to the Ottoman rule Albanian troops were in fact the immediate enemies of the Souliotes, with the latter neither considering them as the brothers who had gone astray. They referred to the Albanian enemies as foreigners to them. Linguistically? They were not only Albanian-speakers, so they were not ethnic Albanians by language. So, the only people that can call them definitely Albanians are these who dispute the Greek presence in Epirus, consider it a pure Albanian territory, and support that the Greek language was spoken there only as a lingua francaof the time and not because Epirus had Greek population as well. - Sthenel (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sthenel, for the umpteenth time: your criterion of "consciousness" is an anachronism. There was no Albanian "consciousness" your criterion could possibly be tested against. On the other hand, language is a defining criterion of ethnicity. Of nationality, no, but of ethnicity, yes. Those are two different concepts in English, which Greek people tend to confuse. Speech communities are commonly regarded as ethnic units. Is it so difficult to understand that 19th-century bilingual Greek/Albanian speakers (whose primary, native home language and ancestry was Albanian) were Albanian, and can be called thus with no special disclaimers attached, just like bilingual Greek/Vlach speakers are Vlachs (and not "mixed Vlachs", "people of Vlach origins who no longer are Vlachs" or the like)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand why the lead was reworded as such. They fact that wiki editors tend to find compromise by faking realities is the most disturbing and unencyclopedic of all. It is clear that they were Albanians (of the cham branch), who were hellenized when nationalism flowerished in the region. As such, the lead should be reworded again per this argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sthenel, you just confused me. Let me take them one by one. The notion that they were ethnolinguistically Albanians comes up from sources. Did they have Albanian consciousness? The surely had a souliot consciousness as per sources, but this does not mean that they were not part of an ethnic group. "the subjacent to the Ottoman rule Albanian troops were in fact the immediate enemies of the Souliotes", yeah right. All Albanians were fighting alongside the turks and all the greeks were fighting against them. Put this generalizations out. They have no place. A number of Cham Albanians, as a number of Muslim Greeks were part of the "muslim-based-army" of the Ottoman Empire, the rest, christians, but even Muslim Albanians were anti-ottoman forces (even Ali Pasha fought against Ottomans, and then against Souliotes, and then alongside Souliotes against Ottomans). "They were not only Albanian-speakers, so they were not ethnic Albanians by language.". We are speaking about mother-tongues in here. I am not billingual because I can speak Greek and Albanian, and I am not four?lingual because I can speak Albanian-Greek-English and Italian, I just know foreign languages. They ofcourse spoke Greek too, as Ismail Qemali, Naim Frashëri, and all Southern Albanians did, because they just had it as a lingua franca. Do not forget that the regiments of the French army in the region, were based on languages, and Souliotes, including Markos Botsaris, became part of the Albanian Regiment of the French Army when they were forced to leave Souli.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they had a particular consciousness, that was Greek and not Albanian. And finally, I'll say one more time that it seems nationalistic to say that Greek was only spoken in Epirus as a lingua franca and not as a native language. I don't have anything else to say. Thanks for the discussion! - Sthenel (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says that Greek was spoken in Epirus only as a lingua franca. Ofcourse there were Greeks in Epirus, even in Kosovo, as far as I know. Ofcourse Greeks in Epirus were a substantial community, maybe a majority. But, we are not speaking about this. We are discussing about a certain (12 thousand at most) community, which was not mother-tongue-Greek-speakers, but who were lingua-franca-Greek-speakers.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism is not only to adjust "ethnicity" to 18th-19th centrury people groups, but also to categorise them according to their mother tongue, in an era (just like today) that the mother tongues do not define nations. FT, maybe the Greek language lacks a clear distinction between "ethnicity" and "nationality", but be sure that in the early 19th century there was no such thing as "Greek nationality", for simply there was not an independent Greek state. But there was for sure a Greek ethnos, ethnicity, Genos (as contemporary Greeks used to say), and the Souliotes were part of it, as has been proven by their acts and history. Maybe the English language (perhaps other Germanic languages as well, I don't know) has two words that the Greek lacks, but the confussion these two words create is enormous in Wikipedia. For example: who is a German-American? An American citizen of German ancestry? A citizen of Germany (thus excluding Austria, Switzerland, etc) in the US? A German speaker (inclyding the previously mentioned countries) in the US? And what about the German Jews? Are they ethnically Jewish or German (sonething that could be seen as oxymoron)? What about the 3+ millions of Germans of Polish exctraction and their many more descendants? And the Sorbs, etc? One may put anything he/she wants in this basket... simply cause it is free and creates the "much wanted" confussion! Long example, yet proves that Wikipedia is inclussionist by preference: when a certain group of editors (or one alone), believes that the status of Ancient Macedonian language as Greek is disputed, the minor sources are presented as works of brilliant minds, but when a certain (or the same) group of editors believes that the Souliotes were/are not Greek, their monolithic view is presented in the article as an undisputable fact, regardless of the significance of other sources.

Gosh! And in the discussion that follows here, we are talking about the ancestry and origin of the Souliotes! (They do not know the origin of the Albanians, of course, yet they link them undisputably with all the Balkans, just cause this is the current trend in Trans-Atlantic politics... afterall, the origin of the Greeks (as a whole or as subgroups) is their main aim to present as multi-bastardized foreigners...). Or whether the Albanians (Muslims) were their enemies or brethens! Or whether Greek was the dominant or just the lingua franca in Epirus! No one dares to read some history? The Souliotes sacrificed their lives for the Greek cause... not for a supposed Albanian one. Ali Pasha Tepelenli uprooted them... is this a sign of a brethens' bond? Greek has continual native presence in Epirus (including North) for more than three millenia... which "lingua franca" ever achived this?

Having spoken, I will rest my case. As time passes, I understand more clear that Wikipedia is not only an English-language online Wikipedia, but also an Anglo-American political φερέφωνο. Thankfully, readers have become more suspicious lately and they do not take every crap they read here as granted... Hectorian (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP, with all due respect, your line of argumentation is not very convincing. "Albanian" may have been synonymous with "Albanophone" then, but not today. And our readers live in the here and now. Similarly, we no longer treat Turk and Muslim as synonymous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all ethnic names in the area have shifted their meanings to some extent since the disintegration of Ottoman order, including that of the Greeks. As I was telling B.'s w. yesterday, if we went by the logic that terms can only be used in their precise present-day meanings, we could never use any of them. But our sources do. Sources do use both "Albanian" and "Greek" to describe these people. Sometimes with extra disclaimers and explanations, often without. The term "Albanian" is certainly not more anachronistic than the term "Greek" in this context. My position is we should do as the sum of our available sources does: use both, leave the reader exposed to a natural small amount of ambiguity, and only go into further explanations if we decide to do an actual in-depth discussion of ethnicity (for which we don't yet have suitable material at this point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including that of the Greeks, precisely. Which is why we no longer refer to Orthodox Albanians as Greeks, even when discussing their history. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your quip about the Greeks' "taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian", are the "Chams" not a modern construct? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern Greek sense, where the term is restricted to the Muslims, yes, of course. In the dialectological / ethnographic sense, hardly. But I admit I'd like to see a bit more material about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The salad called Souliotes contains Greek and Albanian ingredients. Please clarify which are these ingredients, because we are confusing the nationality of the 20th century, with the ethnicity of 18th century, when Souliotes existed as such, i.e. as the inhabitants of Souli. It maybe written that they were an Albanian community, which was finally hellenized, after their incorporation in the Greek mainstream culture (of course, when it became mainstream national culture, i.e. in the mid 19th century, when they had long time left Souli).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong about "Greek-Albanian"? We have reliable sources for this characterisation, it's a sensible compromise, and it's essentially correct. Because they truly were both. For a first sentence, it's just as precise and as vague as it needs to be. If you insist on further elaboration, that can be done further down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That`s what I do not like on wikipedia, to have a compromise, only because we do not like one reality or another (like the one, I have tried two years ago in Chaonians if you remember). This case is clear, secondary sources talk about at-least Hellenized Albanians, i.e. Albanians who became Hellenized. As the hellenization could not have started before the Greek War of Independence, because there did not exist a national culture, rather then a elite orthodox culture, we cannot say that they were Greek-Albanians when they lived in Souli.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, Future's arguments (this time around) seem to make a lot of sense. Calling the Souliots "Greco-Albanians" allows us to more accurately describe their sense of "Souliotness" (a typical sense of localism that Greeks in general tend to exhibit) by acknowledging their "Greekness" (from an ethno-cultural and ethno-religious standpoint), and their "Albanianness" (from a holistically linguistic standpoint) simultaneously. Their "Hellenization" would mostly entail their adoption of modern Greek developed by the modern Greek state (the Maniots and Tzacones, if I recall correctly, also exhibited strong levels of localism and underwent the same type of "state integration"). Of course, we can explain all of these dynamics in the introduction or in a separate section. Deucalionite (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"holistically linguistic standpoint" LOL.

"because there did not exist a national culture" yes because the albanians had a "national culture" before the early 20th century when the souliots were already greeks in every meaningful sense...

you are arguing post-national matters in pre-national times. the souliots were albanian-speaking greek orthodox people of albanian and greek-speaking (yes actually) origin 85.74.215.73 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "Albanophone Greek Orthodox", as suggested here? It is not only factually more precise but avoids loaded ethnonyms altogether, referring only to the objective reality of their language and religious affiliation. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Everybody is happy to have unambiguous 100% ethnic attributions in the lead, as long as it's their own ethnic group. Once it becomes clear that the "other side" might have an equally good claim to have "their" ethnic group mentioned, people suddenly realise that naming ethnic groups might generally not be such a good idea after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Σε μένα μιλάς; ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single ethno-cultural group adopting and consistently utilizing a foreign tongue (a common phenomenon in the Ottoman Empire) leaves little to the imagination in terms of conflicting "100% ethnic attributions". The term "Greek" (and even "Albanian") is only a "loaded ethnonym" if one views it in tandem with Greek state-building processes. But that hardly proves that "Greekness" was a byproduct of 19th century nationalism when such a paradigm already contained a series of extant and very durable pre-modern ethno-cultural dynamics. Calling the Souliotes a "Greek-Albanian community" objectively reveals their actual membership in different collectives. Simultaneously, they were members of an Albanian linguistic community, members of an Orthodox religious community, and members of an ethno-cultural Greek community. This is the "triumvirate" defining their particular sense of "Soulioteness" prior to their avid participation in the Greek Revolution and in modern Greek state-building processes. I personally would prefer to call them "Albanophone Greeks of Orthodox persuasion", but "Greek-Albanian" (or "Greco-Albanian") is a more concise term. Deucalionite (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction: We have contradicting sources about their "ethno-cultural community".Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason there are "contradicting sources" is because plenty of scholars still view language as an ethnic identifier. The fluidity of language usage in the Ottoman Empire is proof enough that correlations between language and ethnic identity are not always direct. Granted, Greek-speakers had a greater tendency to self-identify as "Romioi" or "Graikoi" (irrespective of Ottoman millet-based appellations), but that hardly stopped non-Greek populations from adopting Greek or speaking Greek if they learned enough to get by. Language adoption is a very common phenomenon throughout the Ottoman period (the Albanian language is no exception). Deucalionite (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Souliotes happen to speak a variant of the Albanian language, which is seen by Albanians as an evident sign of their "Albanian-ness". However, the Souliotes never used Albanian ethnonyms for purposes of self-identification nor did they see their common language with other Albanian groups as proof of kinship. Deucalionite (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arnakis ref [3] will of course be removed again. It is quite obviously not suitable to support that point in the text. Apparently it was chosen deliberately as a polemical commentary against the very point made in the text, replacing an attempt at formulating a neutral middle ground with a polemical partisan statement. Unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. The Arnakis essay happens to be edited by Barbara and Charles Jelavich, superb experts on issues regarding Balkan history. Moreover, the reference in question was used as a friendly response to a friendly request by Balkanian in providing references that bluntly regard the Souliotes as anything other than a band of Albanians. The best thing about Arnakis is that he doesn't engage in "ethno-linguistic holisticalities" (Greek vs. Albanian), but rather indicates a more nuanced understanding of Balkan ethnic and social dynamics. He calls the Souliotes "Albanian-speaking Greeks", which really isn't all that different from the term "Greek-Albanian" since the introduction already mentions the fact that the Souliotes were Albanian-speakers. Deucalionite (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, we have forgot that the first think we have to do is to give sources. Lets put the sources about Souliotes down and see who is right, and who is wrong, without analyzing them. I will add some sources which , please add more:

Are Albanians:

• Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
• Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north
• Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0691001944, ISBN 9780691001944 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
• Gerolymatos, p. 141. "The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants."
• Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith"
• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs. Greece: The Modern Sequel : from 1831 to the Present Edition: 2 Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2004 ISBN 185065462X, 9781850654629 p. 184 describes Souliotes as "Orthodox and partly hellenized Albanian tribes".
• Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality Edition: 2, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 0521439612, 9780521439619 p. 65
• NGL Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Published by Clarendon P., 1967, p. 31 "The Liaps held the area from Valona to Delvine and inland to Tepelene; the tsams from Delvine to Souli and inland to Ioannina and Pogoniani"

Are Hellenized Albanians:

• Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, The Eve of the Greek Revival: British Travellers' Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-century Greece, Published by Taylor & Francis, 1990, ISBN 0415034825, 9780415034821
• William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, Published by Routledge, 1966, ISBN 0714619744, 9780714619743

Are Greeks or Albanian-speaking Greeks:

• Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", pp. 118-119, 141 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963).
• Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142.

I think that only arguing about nothing is making this page as Greek-Albanian. If there are no more sources that claim Greekness than it would be reworded (without pulling out their Greekness, but ofcourse emphasising their Albanianness), because not just the majority, but also great historians, like Hobsbown (one of the best in 20th century) agree on that point. Waiting for discussion, not on issues, but on sources (do not forget: reliable, and most of all on this field.)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality versus quantity. Of course, you forgot to include Arnakis on the list. Deucalionite (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly the opposite of what I say: quality and not quantity. Hobsbawn alone could smash 500 Arnakis:-). I did not add him, because as I saw, there was a dispute of his reliability.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobsbawn may be a great historian, but his expertise in Balkan history pales in comparison to Arnakis' work (edited by renowned Balkan experts, Barbara and Charles Jelavich). I already explained Arnakis' reliability and the fact that he avoids forms of "maximalist rhetoric". That's why assuming that the Souliotes were "ethnic Albanians" simply because they spoke Albanian only panders to Albanian state-building ideologies. As far as I can tell, most of the sources listed are already incorporated into the article. So, no one needs to really engage in a round of Street Fighter IV with you to see who's the bigger Blanka. Deucalionite (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody got access to the following, to check? Gounaris, Vassilis (2006): "Σύνοικοι, θυρωροί και φιλοξενούμενοι: διερεύνοντας τη 'μεθώριο' του ελληνικού και του αλβανικού έθνους κατά τον 19ο αιώνα." ["Compatriots, doorguards and guests: investigating the 'periphery' of the Greek and the Albanian nation during the 19th century"] In: P. Voutouris and G. Georgis (eds.), Ο ελληνισμός στον 19ο αιώνα: ιδεολογίες και αισθητικές αναζητήσεις. Athens: Kastanioti. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access at all. What do you think about my listing sources, for finding a solution?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Got a copy of the Gounaris article from our good old friend G. Tzimas. Very interesting stuff indeed. The article is concerned only with the ideologies expressed in the internal Greek discourse of the 19th century, not with the Souliote history as such, so the author doesn't bother to give an explicit judgment of what these people actually "were" in his opinion. But there's some very interesting passages showing that contemporary (up to c.1900) discourse in Greece itself was taking their Albanianness pretty much for granted. In fact, the role of Albanians like Botsaris in post-independence Greece was systematically used as an argument directed towards the remaining Albanians (both Christian and Muslims) outside Greece, calling them to join the Greek national idea and create a joint Greek-Albanian state. An argument along the lines of: See how well we are treating your fellow Albanians here in Greece, so come and join us. The consensus in most 19th-century Greek discourse was that Albanians were a phylē seperate from the Greek (and the Souliotes and southern Greek Arvanites were clearly included in that), but that they had no potential of ever constituting an ethnos, so the issue was to integrate them into the Greek one before some other power would do the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what I proposed above. Albanians, who later were integrated into the Greek nation. As far as I see there is only Arnakis that talks about Albanian-speaking Greeks, because all the rest, either speak about Albanians (in 18th and 19th century) and a minority about Hellenized Albanians. Whatsoever, in my personal, non-wiki-argument idea, the fact that Hammond and especially Hobsbawn speak about Albanians, its too easy to conclude on this point.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. As for the list, I just hope the "ethnic maximalists" don't end up bludgeoning each other again. (I'll bring the popcorn.) :) Deucalionite (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added Arnakis, if he is reliable there`s no problem. I`m not trying to maximalise anything. But, just seeing the list, the most prominent and the majority in the same time of historians, say clearly about their origin. If this is the final result, than it would be NPOV to say "Albanians, whose ethnicity is disputed by historians as Greeks", if the result turns upround than "Greeks, whose ethnicity is disputed...". As for Hobsbawn, it would be a blasphemy to say that his not the one, as he is considered the best historian of the century.:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do the majority of historians, as you say, have specific reasons for stating that the Souliotes were "holistically Albanian"? If they don't, then all they're really doing is "assuming" about their origins. The reason I'm asking is because Arnakis at least provides an entire nuanced explanation as to why there is so much "controversy" over the identity of the Souliotes. He doesn't just state that the Souliotes were "Albanian-speaking Greeks" and leaves the rest to the imagination of the reader. As for Hobsbawn, I don't deny his status as "historian of the century". However, every prominent historian is given that particular title especially post-humously. So, I think we should stick to sources providing nuanced explanations of Balkan groups instead of mere "historical declaratives" (just to be safe). Deucalionite (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we can see:

• Only one author speaks about Albanian-speaking Greeks.
• Only 2 authors speak about Hellenized Albanians
• All the rest (including NGL Hammond and Eric Hobsbawm) say that they were Albanians.
• Only one author has a full NPOV study about their ethnicity (Gounaris)

All of them integrated conclude on this points:

• Souliotes were just Souliotes (they had regional identity)
• Souliotes were ethnic Albanians
• Souliotes were integrated into the Greek nation after(all exept Arnakis) the Greek War of Independence.

So the only encyclopedic solution instead of Greek-Albanians which says nothing is: Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, with a regional identity, which later became integrated into the Greek nation.

Greek Albanian cannot stay inthere because it is not explained how such a thing can exist.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct you, Gounaris, as I said, is not a study specifically about the ethnicity of the Souliotes. It is a study of political-ideological attitudes towards Albanians in 19th-century Greece. It just incidentally shows in a few passages that it takes for granted that Souliotes are part of that story. Indeed, so far it seems we have no detailed study of them at all. All the papers I've seen give them only a brief mention in passing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we do not have anything that makes them Greek except Arnakis study. But whatsoever, even if it is not a study, which I took as granted, the rest, speak about their ethnicity, regional identity and nation. My exact proposal is:

The Souliotes (Template:Lang-sq, Template:Lang-el), also known as Souliots or Suliots were a warlike ethnicaly Albanian community, with a regional identity, which later was integrated into the Greek nation. They were named after the village of Souli, a mountain settlement in Thesprotia, Greece, where they established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in the 17th and 18th centuries. Τhey belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and spoke the Cham dialect of Albanian.

Thats all.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on the ethnicity issue, in my view. The intelligent thing is to de-focus the whole topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am sure, that if we leave the "Greek-Albanian" part, there should be at least four paragraphs to explain what do we mean. These single sentence, is enaugh to explain their Albanianess (ethnicity), Greekness (nationality) and Souliotiness (regional identity). One sentence, for two words and four paragraphs. Good trade isn`t it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we really want to take the focus away from ethnicity, why not get rid of it altogether? It's not essential. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a possible solution. We may add the sentence i proposed after their religion and language.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think your sentence works at all. You're still projecting the modern ethnic Albanian identity onto them. Let the facts speak for themselves: they spoke Albanian, were Greek Orthodox, and fought for Greece's independence. Enough said. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my friend I do not project any "ethnic identity" because no source give us any ethnic identity. Ethnicity is something else, like nationality. Their identity was strictly Suliot, their ethnicity was Albanian (per sources) and they were later integrated into the Greek Nation. So, I am not projecting anything in here. Its quite obvious that I do not know what to say anymore, because fucking sources support this solution.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is certain, the Souliots identified with the Greek liberation cause for which they fought as 'Greeks' against the 'Turks' (including against the Albanian Muslims).Politis (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say something else, please read the above section speaking on sources not on what we like and what we do not. Sources are clear, and Wiki works on sources.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing their self-identification as Greeks? Not even your infallible sources do that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read that? The majority of sources speak about self-identification as Souliotes, and as nothing else. Thats why I am insisting on Souliot identity.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My infallible sources? Yes they are, because all of them conclude on the same thing, and we are talking about NGL Hammond and Eric Hobsbawm, not just historians, but the best ones.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. It feels so great being right in the middle equidistant to both sides in a dispute, for once. It makes me sooo feel I must be right and my solution is the best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutesy doesn't suit you at all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ΚΕΚΡΩΨ:-). But you are right, the problem is that Greek-Albanian, is foolish wording, as it cannot exist as a term, because it implies about nationality and ethnicity, which implies self-identification (Greek Britons e.g.). In this case they did not self-identify as "Greek-Albanians", but just as Suliots, they had not ethnicity and nationality at the same time, because their nationality was absorbed later on (as per sources), and thus "Greek-Albanian" cannot stand. So, I do not understand why a sentence like the one that I proposed, is so bad. Its just NPOV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanian's word, your purpose is to stress their ethnicity which was not clear. They were a Greek-Albanian community and this phrase gives to the reader a general view of what these people were. We are talking for several days about the same thing... - Sthenel (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but who says that? From 13 RS that we have, only SINGLE ONE states that they are Albanian-speaking Greeks, and the rest that they are Albanians or Hellenized Albanians and it is not enough for that. Can somebody give another source exept Arnakis, becouse I will just use my wiki-weapons (sources) to make it clear in the text.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First we have to determine the levels of kinship the Souliotes had with Greek and Albanian populations before we decide to remove the term "Greek-Albanian". The secondary sources you provided so far just don't seem to explain the underlying forces defining the Souliotes' "ethnic Albanianness". They only provide historical declaratives of their "ethnic Albanianness" based mostly on their capacity to speak Albanian. We already know that the Souliotes shared a linguistic relationship with other Albanians, but they did not view this as proof of kinship. They self-identified as Orthodox Greeks, fought avidly with other Greeks, and willingly contributed to Greek state-building processes. How can we say that the Souliotes had "Albanian origins" or that they were "ethnic Albanians" when their decisions clearly indicate that they were conscious of their kinship ties with Greeks?

If the term "Greek-Albanian" is not a viable phrase, then a more plausible solution is to regard the Souliotes primarily as "Orthodox Albanophone Greeks" while stating that other authors view them as Cham Albanians. Deucalionite (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come one Deuc, we`ve come over that 100 years ago. Souliotes did not "self-identified as Orthodox Greeks", but they had a regional identity, per sources we have. Where did you found this Greek self-identification? We are speaking about a regional identity, a Souliotes self-identification. That`s why we`re arguing? On the other hand, we are spaking about ethnicity and nationality, which are two different concepts. Arnakis speaks about Nationality, not about Ethnicity, all the rest, that speak about ethnicity, say that they were Albanians. Thats why, I proposed, that we should writte: Souliotes were ethnically Albanians, with a regional identity, who became integrated into the Greek nation. THIS IS TOTALLY BASED ON SOURCES.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I already explained that the regional identity of the Souliotes has three components that most of your sources fail to mention. They were members of a Greek ethno-cultural community, an Albanian linguistic community, and an Orthodox religious community. I also explained to you that Arnakis does not distinguish nationality and ethnicity, to him they are the same thing or at least mean the same thing. You're sources provide zero nuanced explanations defining the "Albanianness" of the Souliotes let alone on their origins. They assume that they had to have been Albanians, because they happen to speak Albanian. Like Arnakis says, language adoption in the Ottoman Empire was a common pheonomenon. As long as that is the case, there is really no basis for directly correlating language with ethnic identity. If anything, the Jelaviches would laugh at the overall notion. Deucalionite (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already explained? Based on what? OR? Who says that they were members of a Greek ethno-cultural community? Who says that Arnakis does not distinguish nationality and ethnicity? If he doesn`t, that he is not writing in english, because in english there`s a clear distinction between these terms. Arnakis says only a single sentence about this, stating that "Albanian-speaking Greeks, the Souliotes, is such an example". Why cannot we see Gounaris. According to Fut, who has this book, Gounaris says that "up to c.1900 discourse in Greece itself was taking their Albanianness pretty much for granted. In fact, the role of Albanians like Botsaris in post-independence Greece was systematically used as an argument directed towards the remaining Albanians (both Christian and Muslims) outside Greece, calling them to join the Greek national idea and create a joint Greek-Albanian state". If even Greeks took as granted their Albanianess, how could others try to explain it. This is bsh, at least OR. If no solution is going to be mered, I am going to add all the stuff I have listed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: what you put in quotes here was not a quote from Gounaris, it was my summary of him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may borrow a line from Kekrops: "Don't be ridiculous." Calling the expertise of the Jelaviches to compile superb works from a wide array of disciplines and standpoints OR is plain asinine. As for Gounaris, he only proves one thing, politics is politics and that they are always subject to change according to shifting circumstances. Big whoop. What does evolutionary political discourse have to do with the Souliotes self-identifying as Greeks even before the Greek Revolution? Deucalionite (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Greek ethno-cultural community? As far as I have seen the Souliotes costumes and folk was identic with the Chams and Albanian tosks. They were speaking like Chams, singing and dancing like Chams, dressed like Chams and whatever you may find on their usances customs and costumes the were identically like Chams, the only difference was their religion. Chams were moslems and Souliotes were of Orthodox religion. In that time all the orthodox Albanians in all the Balkan area and also in Southern Italy practised their liturgy in Greek language (the autonomy of the Albanian Orthodox Curch was declared in XX century). he Souliotees history looks just like the Mirdita highlanders in North Albania which were an indipendent catholic Albanian population and used to rob and put ransoms on the neighboring moslem willages around Mirdita. If you were to ask them at that time they classified themselves as Catholic, Latins or Mirditors. The Mirditors identified themselves Mirditors just like Souliotes identified themselves as Souliotes. Just as it's mentioned abouve there were not a strong ethnicity feeling through Albanians on that time. But if you have to speak about the Souliotes ethnicity (language, folklore, costumes, customs) it is more apropriate to say they were Albanians. Also I might add that it is not sufficent to base the ethnicity on the religion otherwise I might suggest that the Orthodox Greeks are not related to Classic Greeks because they have different religion or better, I might declare myself of a Buddist and what...does this mean I must be Indian or Chinese? Aigest (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. You make it seem as though Greek culture in Epirus just suddenly vanished. Religion, according to Arnakis, is a preserver of nationality (or ethnicity). Your "suggestions" need serious tweaking. Deucalionite (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nationality is not ethnicity, clear these senses Deuc. Who says that Souliotes self-identify as Greeks? Souliotes self-identified as Souliotes, thats far too obvious. And I do not call their work as an OR, I am calling OR your assumptions, "the regional identity of the Souliotes has three components that most of your sources fail to mention. They were members of a Greek ethno-cultural community, an Albanian linguistic community, and an Orthodox religious community" Thats nowhere on Arnakis, its you that explained me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone today knows the difference between nationality and ethnicity. To Arnakis, however, ethnicity and nationality are the same thing. Religion during the Ottoman era is a powerful force, because it preserves the former and grants it the means to metastasize into the latter. As for the Souliotes, they self-identified as Souliotes much like Maniots self-identified as Maniots. Both groups share one thing in common: a strong adherence to Byzantine rituals and customs that were tweaked to serve their respective local needs. Localism, overall, is a typical trait that all Greeks tend to exhibit. Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Deucalionite "Religion, according to Arnakis, is a preserver of nationality (or ethnicity)" hmmm it looks like we have to stop calling Greek an Orthodox Greek :) cmon are you serious about this guy, can you understand its affirmations??Aigest (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Jelaviches chose him and they're serious experts on Balkan history. :) Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't you see? It's a waste of electrons trying to discuss with Deucalionite. Not worth it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You`re not helping Fut., cause you have no answer, as far as I can see for this issue.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. You perceive everything you don't like as a waste Future. Meh. By the way Balkanian, no hard feelings. I rather enjoy this debate and appreciate the academic stimulation (I'm an addict and need my fix). ;) Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]