This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"Written accounts of the Souliotic language"
The article is about Souliotes and not a general overview of Ottoman Epirus and Albania. There is also a section "Written accounts of the Souliotic language" and relevant content is expexted to be placed under this title, i.e. texts written in the language spoken by Souliotes. As far as I know, the oldest known texts are these two: the "Markos Botsaris dictionary" and the diary of Fotos Tzavellas. If any other text is known in any other language, it should be placed here. Other 20th century conclusions regarding general use of Greek language, is irrelevanat here, and so is the example of one Souliote "fluent in Albanian". There were thousands of Greeks fluent in Albanian, as well as in Turkish, Romanian or the language of their particular place of origin. If some users insist that this line offers some useful info, they may open a new section, something like "Language of individual Souliotes". Btw, Tzavelas wrote his diary for himself, as he explains in the first page, and was not an official text. Also, "Botsaris' Dictionary" was written for Pouqueville, and is not official either. Therefore, claims about use of Greek as official language .... Thank you. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Jingiby (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Skylax30, you make oroginal research conclusions about what you know. In the end its what is contained in scholarship. The bit cited from Baltsiotis is about the Albanian dialect used in the area where the Souliotes lived. Baltisotis refers to Albanian speech of some Souliotes until the early 20th century. You may not think its important, but its relevant to the article as the article is about Sou;liotes and Baltsiois refers to Albanian speech and a souliote. Seek consensus before making POV edits of removing cited and relevant content. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
In the talk page I can write anything I think relevant, and if you think it is "original research", doesn't matter. In the article we write cohesively, dividing the article in sections, with the proper titles and text. You may create an new section with all that about Albanian dialect "used in the area where the Souliotes lived". Of course, I create another one with the "Greek dialect used in the area where Soulites lived". There is no point in cherry picking in order to instruct the reader what to understand from the particular paragraph. However, I don't insist. Btw, do not post warning messages in my talk page, please. I know the rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- You can write anything you want in the talkpage, as long as its relevant to the topic of the article etc and it does not decend into wp:forum. The section has been stable for some years now after the wiki community spent a lot of time resolving much in this article. If the Albanian speech of the Souliotes is an issue for anyone, its been accounted for in historiography. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Skylax30 Jingiby Resnjari Two cents -- I think generally as a rule it is ok to add sources like Stav--- under the condition that sources showing the other POV on the matter are added as well for contrast. Because as we all know there are two POVs here on this issue. One is the (typically Greek) POV that the Orthodox Church was a post-Byzantine "Hellenic" ethnoreligious identity and this was the primary identity of its adherents; the other, typically held by Orthodox of Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian nationalities, was that during the Ottoman times, Orthodox Christians who initially held strong Albanian, Bulgarian and Vlach identities came under Greek influence through Greek social and linguistic dominance within the church, and some "patriotic" individuals "heroically" resisted these influences. Of course neither one of these narratives captures the whole truth: there were indeed many non-Greek speaking Orthodox with Greek identities but at the same time there was very serious discontent among especially Slavic and Albanian Orthodox believers, and the spread of education by Greek schools among Orthodox Bulgarians and Albanians in both cases accidentally stoked the emergence of modern Bulgarian and Albanian nationalism instead of only or even mostly Greek nationalism, ultimately leading to the Bulgarian Exarchate and Albanian Orthodox Autocephaly. I'm not against including the post-Byzantine identity stuff, but if we do, we have to show the other side as well.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Calthinus:, I disagree on Stav because there is nothing about Epirus or Souliotes cited in that piece of scholarship. The section on language, identity etc in the Soyuliote page uses sources that cite content that relates directly to this topic. Thats my view.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I hoped that at least we could discuss seriously. So, in Stavrakakis "there is nothing about Epirus or Souliotes", right? How about the three lengthy footnotes, Stoppel, Roudometof and Schwandner-Sievers, used here only to create an impression that "Greek" meaned "Orthodox Christian"? In order to avoid edit warring by deleting those irrelevant sources, I added only one (for the moment), just to show that there are different opinions. If you insist on your opinions, and you claim that you are right and I am wrong, please agree to brink this case to mediation. Till then, deletion of Stavrakakis or similar sources is against the rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: Regarding specifically the dialect that this tp title refers to, it might be best to split into Suliot dialect. I agree that in that topic, stuff about nationalism (except where it has an effect on language) doesn't belong. The dialect is a separate entity from its speakers. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Skylax30: Like it or not, "Greek" was used historically to mean simply "Orthodox Christian" just as "Turk" meant Muslim (or sometimes, Sunni specifically). This is not really an issue that there are two sides to, it's well attested -- unlike the matter of the ethnic identities of non-Hellenophone Orthodox. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Calinthus, you are wrong here, but I don't see why we bother about the term "Greek" here. I looked in the history of the article, and I found that paragraph Identity or Ethnicity was ambitiously created by a certain user "Balkanian's Word" in May 2010. [1]. He overcharged the claim that Souliotes were speaking "Tosks Albanian" with fifteen (15) footnotes, mostly the one copying the other, in the false belief that WP works like advertisement. Of course, none of those sources claims that has found any "Albanian" Souliotic text. The only one existing has been studied by T. Yohalas and his conclusions scrap all the other claims.
I think this article could do without a section on ethnicity or identity, as this is filled mostly with users' SYNTH and cherry-picking about ethnogenesis and languages in the Balkans, diverting to theories about "who was Greek in Ottoman Empire" (I have THE source on "Who was Albanian", but I will keep it for later). However, if the section has to exist, it must reflect all the existing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylax30 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Skylax30 Well there is plenty of attestation of Greek meaning "Orthodox Christian" so if this can be falsified that would be an impressive feat -- this doens't necessarily imply that actual Greek identity should be portrayed as inauthentic; a demonym can have different meanings in different contexts. Speaking a Southern (hence "Tosk" altho perhaps more correctly Cham) dialect of Albanian, makes you by definition a Tosk. This is not mutually exclusive with being Greek-- the Arvanites of Southern Greece are clearly Greek by national sentiment yet they are also clearly Tosks ethnolinguistically, and this is not a contradiction. Failure to find any text in the dialect really doesn't say much, given that some 99.9% of the Albanian population was illiterate in 1800, Albanians were the only Balkan group that was specifically denied the right to schooling in their own language in the late Ottoman Empire, and Albanian language texts were systematically suppressed by the Ottomans. The text before I removed it did not include all relevant views -- it included the lefty Western view that ethnicity and nationality "didn't exist before 1800", and it included what can basically be called the Greek-Orthodox synthesis view by Stav. It omitted all other views, marginalizing not only Albanian (and Bulgarian/Romanian) views, but also indeed alternative the views of many modern Greeks, views which do not equate to or even negate the Greek-Orthodox synthesis, such as modern civic patriotism. The question is whether we really need all these views on the page. As you said yourself, this section might be too long as it is. ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus, I appreciate your contribution to this article, but if you are irrelevant with the Balkans, let me explain you few things. a) There are identities or characterizations from the "in group" and the "out group". The Ottoman State knew only "Rums" (Orth. Christians). Yet, the "in groups" knew that they are Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Georgians etc, and this is clear in the old texts, songs etc. Unfortunatelly, there are many well-payed Anglosaxon authors who claim that they know something about Balkans, while they cannot read a single line in any Balkan language (I leave aside the politically motivated english historiography of the 90's). The ethnic Greeks were calling themselves also Γραικοί (Graeci) apart from Romioi. In the Souliotic songs "Arvanites" means "musim Albanians". b) Speaking Tosk does not make you a Tosk, not more than speaking Turk makes you Turk. I have never heared of any albanophone Greek (Arvanite) calling himself or being called "Tosk", or of a Greek from Constantinople calling himself "Turk". c) Albanians were possibly denied learning their language some time in late 19th c. in Ott. Emp., but they were free to do so in Greece. However, I am not aware of any major albanian text printed in Greece, at least not by ethnic Albanian. Many Souliotes acquired a high status and authority (and money) in free Greece in 19th c. (generals, members of Parliament, etc), and none claimed that he has some connection with Albania, neither they wrote anything in albanian or established any albanian schools. Clearly, albanophny in greece was not consisting any ethnic identity. The revolutionary proclamations of 1821 start with "We, the Nation of the Hellenes" and end with the signatures of many Arvanites, including Souliotes.
I aggree that general theories about ethnies in the Balkans of that time are mostly irrelevant here. One-sided and precarious citation of marxist and neo-liberal theories about "non-existing nations before Enlightmen" have certain complications: a) If there are no Greeks, there are no Albanians either. b) If they have a place in the article, so do other theories about the opposite (I added Stavrakakis hastily, but there are many more on the same key-note). Cheers.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're confusing three different things -- one is ethnolinguistic identity (population as identified by language and customs), one is national identity (to what nation x-people group hold allegiance to) and the last is ethnicity (as defined by self-designation and presumably shared cultural characteristics). "Turk" nowadays is a national identity, which is held by ethnic Turks as well as various other groups including Balkan diasporae, Greeks, Jews, Laz and others. One can be ethnically a Greek and hold Turkish citizenship as many of the Istanbul Greek community who speak the Istanbul dialect of Greek do.
- As for Tosk, that is a linguistic identity, not a national one (there is no "Tosk nation"). A Tosk is anyone whose native language is Tosk (Southern) Albanian -- this is the understanding of "Tosk" in both Albania and in the West, the latter of which critically determines the paradigm we use on English Wikipedia, which necessarily reflects the definitions of terms as understood in English by domain experts i.e. Albanologists (not Greek or even Albanology works in Greek). It is not merely anyone who speaks Tosk Albanian -- for example I speak Tosk Albanian but I am not a Tosk, because it is not my native language nor my ancestral language, just one I learned, just like learning Greek. Anyhow, no matter how patriotically Greek a native Tosk speaker is, it cannot change the fact that (s)he is a Tosk as per the linguistic definition. This is understood even by autochtonous Albanian populations in Northwest Greece, who also refer to themselves as Shkjipetars (Cham for Shqiptar i.e. ethnic Albanian, I have been in Greek Epirus and even spoken with some of them) while at the same time identifying as Greeks without any contradiction. Frankly, it's a shame that nationalists find this somehow threatening. There is no contradiction between being a patriotic Greek citizen and a Tosk or even an ethnic Albanian in addition to being an ethnic Greek-- well there are some who disagree with this but they tend to be xenophobic nationalist sorts. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have deleted both Stoppel and Stav for now-- they don't seem to be talking specifically about Suliots and absent agreement between you two, this seems the best solution for now. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Skylax, Balkanian's Word is ancient history and many years have passed since then and edits by many editors later have resulted in this version of the article. Much of what is in this article was added by me some years ago. A section on language and identity are relevant to this article, because the historiography on the Souliotes encompasses that even if some editors may not like it. All credible scholarship can exist in the article as long as they relate to the Souliotes.Resnjari (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have deleted both Stoppel and Stav for now-- they don't seem to be talking specifically about Suliots and absent agreement between you two, this seems the best solution for now. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming good faith.
Today the article says, in section "Identity ...": "During the early nineteenth century Souliote exile in Corfu, the Souliote population was registered in official Corfiot documents as Arvanites, Albanesi or even Alvanites (Αλβανήτες) by individuals married into the Souliote community." The 1st footnote, by an Albanian author, is specific about 1815. The other (Potts, 2014), more abstract, says "When they came to Corfu, the Souliots were usually registered in official documents, he says, as Albanesi or Suliotti." I made bold the words ommitted by User talk:Resnjari when he added this paragraph on June 26, 2015 [2]. He is requested to transfer to the article exactly what the source says. Thanks.
PS: He doesn't have to add the meaning of "Albanesi" of that time. I will do it.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shkelzen Raça is 1). an academic (i.e historian) and 2). what he cites is based on the Corfiot archive. His work is published in a peer reviewed journal and more than meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The sentence is based on what is written and nothing more. Don't make original research additions if the scholar or source has not referred to that. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also Potts does not contradict Raça (note he cites the actual document number/s from the Corfiot archive as well. Potts however does not do this). I have Potts as well. The sentence can be expanded as long as its inline the with sources.Resnjari (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Clarified sentence as requested. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also Potts does not contradict Raça (note he cites the actual document number/s from the Corfiot archive as well. Potts however does not do this). I have Potts as well. The sentence can be expanded as long as its inline the with sources.Resnjari (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong edit summaries
It's really weird to claim that brand new additions in the "Identity, ethnicity and language" sections have been there for years [[3]]. However, the 19th century Corfu records can be part of the correspondent section some paragraphs below.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually that's wrong. That content has been in the article since 2015 [4]. The diff you provided about an recent was me restoring content to that section that was moved without consensus by Skylax.Resnjari (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- You have also moved that content from the section which discusses 19th century travelers accounts which is wp:primary. That content does not belong there, it belongs in the Identity, Ethnicity and Language, as its based on the archive and additionally is based on scholars who have looked at the matter and meets wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- 19th century accounts by travellers are different from government records, not to mention the scholarship that cite them are wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is a brand new addition in "this" section, no wonder there is no word about Corfiot registry in the version just before the edit war in which you participated: [[5]]. Moreover, information about 19th century registries (not only travel accounts) need to be placed in the correspondent section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- The supposed argument that the 19th century registry info is cited by modern scholarship means nothing. It's still a piece of info offered by a 19th century account. According to this rationale the Psalidas account (cited by Kallivretakis) should be also part of the same section. I don't thing so.Alexikoua (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, the registry part was added to the sentence due to the discussion above (not sure if you read it) as an editor requested more detail. In essence the acedmic sources was there (including quotes) and yes the bulk of the content is from 2015 an not new as you claim which is disingenuous. What you have done is conflate government sources into a section on 19th and 20th century accounts. That should be separated from the travelers section. A possible Corfiote government records (early 19th century) section, above the travelers section would suffice as its about the Corfiot exile and government archive and earliest mention of Souliots outside a viewpoint of travelers.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- 19th century accounts by travellers are different from government records, not to mention the scholarship that cite them are wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- You have also moved that content from the section which discusses 19th century travelers accounts which is wp:primary. That content does not belong there, it belongs in the Identity, Ethnicity and Language, as its based on the archive and additionally is based on scholars who have looked at the matter and meets wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Resnjari if I understand this one correctly, Alexikoua would seem to be right that the register should be counted as a 19th century account. Well, perhaps not an "account" per se, but still it is more or less a primary-ish source from the time period and so would seem to belong in that section. My two cents. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thinking about it more, and skimming the above, I think I can see why it isn't quite the same as traveler writings, but I'm not sure I would support it being in the same thing as scholarly analysis either. Perhaps it should have its own place?---- Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus, the data in wp:secondary scholarship is based on the Corfiote archive about the earliest mention of the Souliote population of the time. Its not a travellers account. It can be a separate subsection above the accounts section with a title of Corfiote government records (early 19th century). Government records are different from travellers accounts.Resnjari (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. Or just "19th century classifications". Obviously the Greek understanding of what an Albanian is (ethnic group versus neighboring ethnonational state with love hate relationship) has changed.---- Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus, that kind of comes off as awkward if its done that way for a number of reasons. Scholars have cited from the archive that was from the shortlived era of autonomous government (Septinsular Republic) under a Russo-Ottoman(Ottoman in name, not control) protectorate. Its the first encounters of Souliotes with a government system that is not Ottoman, but a left over from the Venetian system. The descriptions, encounters etc of accounts by travellers etc come years and often decades after. Most are not Greek or even Albanian accounts but Western European and their understanding of the Souliots when they came across them in bigger numbers, a handful of people or individuals. It best to keep data in separate subsections, one for the government archive and the other for travellers accounts.Resnjari (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, to be frank this page is a mess but I can see that trying to fix it might not be even helpful. While the academic consensus seems to certainly be that they were of ethnic Albanian origin and came to play an integral role in teh Greek national struggle, ultimately assimilating into the Greek ethnicity, someone who reads it will certainly come to the conclusion that whole sections are tormented by (otherwise barely relevant to the article...) attempts to "prove" Souliotes are either "more" Greek or Albanian, and this hurts the quality of the article overall. Jingiby seems to have alluded to as much in one of his edit summaries. But as I said... I frankly don't see a way out that isn't likely to make things worse. ---- Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I may get flack for this and to be honest I'm not sure I support it myself but just gonna throw it out there because it's an idea that could have a good result -- what if we agreed to this : (1) ALL we discuss here is that the population had an Albanian ethnic origin and then assimilated to the Greek nation after they came to play a huge role in the Greek national struggle-- rmv all the he-said-she-said that plagues this page, (2) Split discussion on the historical identity development, traveler accounts, and later academic interpretations into a new page, Identity of the Souliotes. I think that would improve the coverage of this page, and quarantine all the problematic stuff into it's own page (akin to the solution for Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Black Egyptian hypothesis, which I participated in). This page is the one we need to have a higher quality because it is historically relevant. The other one might have notability issues but I believe it could be preserved for encyclopedic convenience as people will understand the ramifications that reintegrating hte material would have. I'm interested in the thoughts of many different people with different perspectives on this; tagging all who have participated in some way in this dispute-- @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Resnjari, Skylax30, Alexikoua, NeilN, EdJohnston, Ktrimi991, Jingiby, and Τζερόνυμο: (feel free to ping anyone I missed). Cheers and thanks all, ---- Calthinus (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's really weird to argue that 19th cent. Corfiot register data can be part of the top of the identity section. 19th century data should be part in the 19th century accounts section exactly before an editor took the opportunity to change this recently without cennsus [[19th- and 20th-century accounts [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Alexikoua your recent edits [7], [8], [9] are unconstructive have NO consensus. You unilaterally took it upon yourself to move sentences (which had been stable in the article since 2015 [10]) without consensus and to remove quotes that you don't like and clearly points to wp:idontlikeit. Even with the section on 19th century accounts the data on government documents would go right at the top and not at the bottom (where you placed it) because the Corfiote exile was in the early 1800s and all traveler accounts come after by chronological date.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Resnjari in my recent edits I restored the consensus version (please be careful about your accusations). Please seek consensus before you take the opportunity to move 19th century accounts in the top of the identity section (as you recently did here [[11]]). For future reference my edits were fully constructive per wp:BRD procedure. I'm sorry but wp:IDONTLIKE applies in this case to you. However you are welcome to present your arguments before taking such opportunity againAlexikoua (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- No you did not. If you had restored the consensus version that had been with most parts overall stable since 2015 it would look something like this [12] (24 May 2018), prior to Skylax30's POVish additions [13](which began on 10 June 2018) and your recent edits. Like you i can also access the edit history of this and other articles, and so can any other editor. Your the one showing wp:idontlikeit. You have no consensus for your recent edits. As for accusations, your the one going around on other people's talkpages (to editors who weren't even involved) and saying things about me [14] and restoring those comments after an administrator removed and called them "unconstructive" [15]. Its very disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Resnjari in my recent edits I restored the consensus version (please be careful about your accusations). Please seek consensus before you take the opportunity to move 19th century accounts in the top of the identity section (as you recently did here [[11]]). For future reference my edits were fully constructive per wp:BRD procedure. I'm sorry but wp:IDONTLIKE applies in this case to you. However you are welcome to present your arguments before taking such opportunity againAlexikoua (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Alexikoua your recent edits [7], [8], [9] are unconstructive have NO consensus. You unilaterally took it upon yourself to move sentences (which had been stable in the article since 2015 [10]) without consensus and to remove quotes that you don't like and clearly points to wp:idontlikeit. Even with the section on 19th century accounts the data on government documents would go right at the top and not at the bottom (where you placed it) because the Corfiote exile was in the early 1800s and all traveler accounts come after by chronological date.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's really weird to argue that 19th cent. Corfiot register data can be part of the top of the identity section. 19th century data should be part in the 19th century accounts section exactly before an editor took the opportunity to change this recently without cennsus [[19th- and 20th-century accounts [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I may get flack for this and to be honest I'm not sure I support it myself but just gonna throw it out there because it's an idea that could have a good result -- what if we agreed to this : (1) ALL we discuss here is that the population had an Albanian ethnic origin and then assimilated to the Greek nation after they came to play a huge role in the Greek national struggle-- rmv all the he-said-she-said that plagues this page, (2) Split discussion on the historical identity development, traveler accounts, and later academic interpretations into a new page, Identity of the Souliotes. I think that would improve the coverage of this page, and quarantine all the problematic stuff into it's own page (akin to the solution for Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Black Egyptian hypothesis, which I participated in). This page is the one we need to have a higher quality because it is historically relevant. The other one might have notability issues but I believe it could be preserved for encyclopedic convenience as people will understand the ramifications that reintegrating hte material would have. I'm interested in the thoughts of many different people with different perspectives on this; tagging all who have participated in some way in this dispute-- @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Resnjari, Skylax30, Alexikoua, NeilN, EdJohnston, Ktrimi991, Jingiby, and Τζερόνυμο: (feel free to ping anyone I missed). Cheers and thanks all, ---- Calthinus (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, to be frank this page is a mess but I can see that trying to fix it might not be even helpful. While the academic consensus seems to certainly be that they were of ethnic Albanian origin and came to play an integral role in teh Greek national struggle, ultimately assimilating into the Greek ethnicity, someone who reads it will certainly come to the conclusion that whole sections are tormented by (otherwise barely relevant to the article...) attempts to "prove" Souliotes are either "more" Greek or Albanian, and this hurts the quality of the article overall. Jingiby seems to have alluded to as much in one of his edit summaries. But as I said... I frankly don't see a way out that isn't likely to make things worse. ---- Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus, that kind of comes off as awkward if its done that way for a number of reasons. Scholars have cited from the archive that was from the shortlived era of autonomous government (Septinsular Republic) under a Russo-Ottoman(Ottoman in name, not control) protectorate. Its the first encounters of Souliotes with a government system that is not Ottoman, but a left over from the Venetian system. The descriptions, encounters etc of accounts by travellers etc come years and often decades after. Most are not Greek or even Albanian accounts but Western European and their understanding of the Souliots when they came across them in bigger numbers, a handful of people or individuals. It best to keep data in separate subsections, one for the government archive and the other for travellers accounts.Resnjari (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. Or just "19th century classifications". Obviously the Greek understanding of what an Albanian is (ethnic group versus neighboring ethnonational state with love hate relationship) has changed.---- Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus, the data in wp:secondary scholarship is based on the Corfiote archive about the earliest mention of the Souliote population of the time. Its not a travellers account. It can be a separate subsection above the accounts section with a title of Corfiote government records (early 19th century). Government records are different from travellers accounts.Resnjari (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus: I believe that all 19th century stuff that isn't confirmed by modern scholarship should be removed. If modern scholarship isn't touched by those old travelers/journalists/politicians etc. that makes it a good argument to get rid of them.Alexikoua (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually large chunks on the Souliot wars have had a citation needed tag for far to long. How does one know that what is said there about the wars with the Ottomans actually is true or some madeup wp:or from an editor. That ought to be removed first.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is the pre-June/pre-dispute version [16], the stable version. All changes should be discussed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly, this version doesn't say a word about the Corfiot registry in the top section of the the identity part. Any initiative to add this piece of info at the 1st paragraph should respect the wp:BRD procedure. Nice to have finally an agreement on that. Alexikoua (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, let me clarify something here. Skylax30 asked that that whole sentence be elaborated upon in the above thread called Assuming good faith. If you have read it, you would take into account that my addition on the Corfiote registry was in that context. The source and quote below stating the registry has been in the article since 2015. The sentence when first written was compact (as editors in the talkpage back then had expressed keeping things more compact) so thats the form that was there until Skylax30 asked for more elaboration. So how about this Alexikoua we return the article to the stable version of (24 May 2018) [17] before Skylax30 did edits and opened a pandorra's box ? You want to go back to a consensus version, that's where it was last.Resnjari (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am glad to see that everybody now understands which is the stable version. The protection template placed on the article says
This article is currently protected from editing until June 18, 2018, or until editing disputes have been resolved. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version.
For further information you can ask the administrator who performed the protection or open a discussion at AN. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)- The Corfiot registry can stay where it was in the consensus version (Ktrimi's dif) like the rest of the 19th century records. It's POV to have it in the lead paragraph of this section.Alexikoua (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now your all over the place. First you made a big deal about the Corfiote registry which was a few words, made a big deal about it in the above comments and now your ok with it after your rearrangement. That version by the way does not mention anything about a Corfiote registry Your edits have no consensus. Anyway if the version that Ktrimi placed up in the end (and as Alexikoua as agreed ) is the one to go with, i'll agree.Resnjari (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, @Ktrimi991: just to reiterate this is the version we agree to take back the article to [[18]]? Resnjari (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- That is unquestionably the stable/pre-dispute version of the article. Everyone of us should beware that this page is under ARBMAC rules, and one editor is currently blocked for warlike behaviour regarding the Souliotes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, @Ktrimi991: just to reiterate this is the version we agree to take back the article to [[18]]? Resnjari (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now your all over the place. First you made a big deal about the Corfiote registry which was a few words, made a big deal about it in the above comments and now your ok with it after your rearrangement. That version by the way does not mention anything about a Corfiote registry Your edits have no consensus. Anyway if the version that Ktrimi placed up in the end (and as Alexikoua as agreed ) is the one to go with, i'll agree.Resnjari (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Corfiot registry can stay where it was in the consensus version (Ktrimi's dif) like the rest of the 19th century records. It's POV to have it in the lead paragraph of this section.Alexikoua (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am glad to see that everybody now understands which is the stable version. The protection template placed on the article says
- Ok, let me clarify something here. Skylax30 asked that that whole sentence be elaborated upon in the above thread called Assuming good faith. If you have read it, you would take into account that my addition on the Corfiote registry was in that context. The source and quote below stating the registry has been in the article since 2015. The sentence when first written was compact (as editors in the talkpage back then had expressed keeping things more compact) so thats the form that was there until Skylax30 asked for more elaboration. So how about this Alexikoua we return the article to the stable version of (24 May 2018) [17] before Skylax30 did edits and opened a pandorra's box ? You want to go back to a consensus version, that's where it was last.Resnjari (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thinking about it more, and skimming the above, I think I can see why it isn't quite the same as traveler writings, but I'm not sure I would support it being in the same thing as scholarly analysis either. Perhaps it should have its own place?---- Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ktrimi991 and Resnjari: Alexi seems ok with removing the 19th century traveler crap, at least. What do you two think of the page split proposal? Imo it's an embarrassment (one of many in the Balkan region) that this page has this acne outbreak of he-said-she-said Albo-Greek one upsmanship, best to quarantine to another page that people (i.e. those not obsessed with "were they (not) Albanian/Greek/both/Martian") won't be forced to see. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your proposal Calthinus. The page indeed has many issues, coming from years of conflicts on the content. I think that firstly editors agree that no content other than that present in the pre-dispute version should stay, and ask the admin who performed the protection to rv back to the pre-dispute version. Then the splitting of the article can be discussed calmly, with no further confusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ktrimi991, well said and i agree.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. Sorry for rushing things. ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I assume there is a general agreement that the previous consensus version (as Ktrimi's dif) should be restored. Too much mess has been added during the recent edit war. A next step will be to get rid of all those 19th century stuff that's not confirmed by modern scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. Sorry for rushing things. ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ktrimi991, well said and i agree.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your proposal Calthinus. The page indeed has many issues, coming from years of conflicts on the content. I think that firstly editors agree that no content other than that present in the pre-dispute version should stay, and ask the admin who performed the protection to rv back to the pre-dispute version. Then the splitting of the article can be discussed calmly, with no further confusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
What you mean User talk:Alexikoua ? 19th c. stuff is qualitatively different from 20th c. stuff. If the former is a myth, it will be in the article as a myth. The job of the historian is not to "confirm" others but to express his relation with the past.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to ask the admin who performed the protection to restore the stable/pre-dispute version. An admin is a trusted person so any confusion of further conflict can be avoided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I made an edit request in line with the instructions of the admin who performed the protection. They confirmed that the edit request was in a valid form, and another admin restored the pre-July version. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to ask the admin who performed the protection to restore the stable/pre-dispute version. An admin is a trusted person so any confusion of further conflict can be avoided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope it is not forbidden to add new sourced material. I added the account of Koutsonikas that is very important source.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 17 June 2018
The recent changes, as agreed in the section above, do not reflect the consensus of the community and do not benefit the article. The pre-dispute/pre-July 2018 version of the article 21:17 version of 24 May 2018, as agreed in the section above, should be restored. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A useless title of section
The title "19th- and 20th-century accounts" has no point, and is wrong english, I believe. "Accounts" means writtings by people who witnessed their subject. Souliotes, as a peculiar community, ceased to exist after 1830's when the Greek state was formed and they settled to various villages. So, "accounts" cannot be older than 1860's, approximately. The rest, especially 20th c., are secondary texts, based mostly on imagination, political theories etc. Either we have to discard the title, or we separate the sources to 19th and 20th, as it was few days ago. Btw, I would request an explanation from the user who erased Koutsonikas as source, probably the only Souliote who wrote about his community. --Skylax30 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Due to the general mess created in the recent days it was agreed to restore a previous version. I would agree to add info that's part of the modern scholarship. For example professor D. Skiotes mentions Koutsonikas' descriptions. On the other hand the opinion of 19th century travelers, politicians, poets etc. needs to go unless it's mentioned in modern scholarship. If modern scholarship ignores these old accounts then wikipedia has a good reason to do the same.Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable. I am not aware of any serious modern paper on Souliotes not citing Koutsonikas and Peraivos, the eye-witnesses of the subject. On the other hand, WP is not excluding primary sources, although memoirs are not exactly PS. Anyway, if some do not like this line on Koutsonikas, I will create an article on him, and I will expand there. Finally, the dogma of WP is improvement of articles, not stability--Skylax30 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC).
- As the past few days has been draining for all editors involved with this, the community decided to leave things as they were from earlier in the year for a while as the consensus version. Editors are welcome to leave constructive comments for additions, problems and other improvements they wish to make to the article in the talkpage to have a path going forward. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice to know that you are welcomed in an article, by users who feel at home.
P.S.: As Anargyros Fagridas (Φαγκρίδας) said to me, there were authors who met Souliotes face-to-face, and others who saw them through binoculars.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- As stated above information based entirely from 19th century claims without confirmation by modern scholarship should go.There is plenty of stuff from 20-21th century bibliography anyway. As such: Holland, Rizos, Beauford, Tizer, Chirol have to go (to name a few).Alexikoua (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I could commend on Psimouli's reliability on ethno-political issues, but this is not a forum. Karabelias did it.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Karabelias Giorgos is not a reliable scholar. (Sjöberg, Erik (2016). The Making of the Greek Genocide. Contested Memories of the Ottoman Greek Catastrophe. New York: Berghann, p. 90-1. "the left wing nationalist publisher Giorgos Karabelias" Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless there is not opposition for the removal of 19th c. traveler/politician accounts as stayed above Ill procceed to their removal.Alexikoua (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not all of them. In a chapter by Potts pp.107-110 [19] he cites a host of 19th century accounts on Souliotes. It meets the parameters that you where saying about them being cited via wp:secondary. Holland can stay with the ref being substituted by Potts. The ones that can go (unless someone knows of their being cited also in wp:secondary so the refs can be substituted) in whole are:
- the Lord Byron sentence (based on wp:primary)
- Pouqueville (first sentence is based on wp:primary), second sentence which is repetition refers to his view on the Souli toponym, and is already mentioned in the Etymology section, via Pappas, so it can go too.
- Best(based on wp:primary)
- Beaufort(based on wp:primary)
- Tozer(based on wp:primary)
- Chirol(based on wp:primary)
- The Rizos-Nerulos sentence as well (first source is wp:primary, second source which attributes quote in Jelavich to him turns out not to be the case and it also comes from p.141 [20], as the ref in the article does not state this). However that bit about alliances and language is important and ought to go in the relevant section on Identity, ethnicity and language section (in the second paragraph) -this time with proper page reference following on either from the After the rise or On the other hand sentences.
- One other thing that relates to this issue is the NY Times article. Its in the Historiography section and should be moved to the 19th/20th century accounts section as it falls within that scope. The NY Times current article ref is based on wp:primary and should be replaced with Potts. Anyway hope that assists for now. Still lets wait a few days for comment before making any hasty moves of removal and then additions as well so editors are on the same page this time. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Davenport is also 19th c. and falls into the same "primary" category as the rest.Alexikoua (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yep agreed. With Davenport (apart from the one big clunky sentence in the Historiography subsection) as its wp:primary, there are 5 additional sentences in the subsection 17th century of the section Souliotes in the 17th and 18th centuries that would also need to be removed as well.Resnjari (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure that's a good reason to get rid of all citations. I'll add information based on academic scholarship about 17-18th century events.Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah sure sound good. On my thing as i gave the link to Potts here, there is relevant content by the scholar to this page and i want to add to the article on the accounts subsection (where he cites travelers), and a very few to Historiography subsection (the one or two academics not already covered in the article). I also want to do some ref formatting for Raca, Kahl, Potts (the refs have the necessary info) but can be better as per wiki referencing standards.Resnjari (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua: just so you know, i will be adding some additional sentences (as said in my previous comments) based on Potts to the 19th/20th century accounts section later today or tomorrow as there was no objections raised. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The text as it is now its a selection of specific primary accounts mentioned by Potts, some claim X and other claim Y. I don't know if additional primary accounts that recycle the same and the same are helpful in this case. On the other hand Potts offers some useful info that can be added about the "accounts": for example the terms Albania and Albanians had a geographic meaning there.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, the section got shrunk considerably due to removal of wp:primary. Potts cites those and is wp:secondary -makes up the shortfall. There are no other sources out there has an overview of those accounts. It wont be that many sentences anyway. I can add the stuff on Albania and Albanians too as long as its inclusive of that other data for the accounts section.Resnjari (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can count Hobbhouse, Byron, Flauriel, Lear, Foss. Most of them repeat various already stated theories. A brief mention on what each one claimed is ok, but I'm against extensive quotefarming.Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua: I know what you mean. The bit i have ready is an additional paragraph (of similar length to the 1st paragraph). In whole it will make the section 2 paragraphs long which and similar to other sections. No lengthy quotes in footnotes -source is available anyway.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I forgot to add that one other change needs to be done. It was brought up in the previous Assuming good faith thread (see above). The sentence in the article was elaborated upon as per Potts and Raca, but as all edits were undone due to the mess that happened in the wider scheme of things. Nonetheless that bit needs to be redone again. If there is no issue i want to re-add the small clarification [21] that makes it fully precise. If there is no objection, i'll add the paragraph on accounts tomorrow and the clarified sentence as well. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- About the small addition I fail to see why it's an isolated case: Raca doesn't claim that's an exception. I still can't understand what makes Botsaris' wife more Greek (Raca doesn't claim that she is from diferrent ethnicity). Her name is a typical Thesprotian/Epirote surname.Alexikoua (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- ok, we don't have to have the word Greek for his wife. The rest i take is ok?Resnjari (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- About the small addition I fail to see why it's an isolated case: Raca doesn't claim that's an exception. I still can't understand what makes Botsaris' wife more Greek (Raca doesn't claim that she is from diferrent ethnicity). Her name is a typical Thesprotian/Epirote surname.Alexikoua (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I forgot to add that one other change needs to be done. It was brought up in the previous Assuming good faith thread (see above). The sentence in the article was elaborated upon as per Potts and Raca, but as all edits were undone due to the mess that happened in the wider scheme of things. Nonetheless that bit needs to be redone again. If there is no issue i want to re-add the small clarification [21] that makes it fully precise. If there is no objection, i'll add the paragraph on accounts tomorrow and the clarified sentence as well. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua: I know what you mean. The bit i have ready is an additional paragraph (of similar length to the 1st paragraph). In whole it will make the section 2 paragraphs long which and similar to other sections. No lengthy quotes in footnotes -source is available anyway.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can count Hobbhouse, Byron, Flauriel, Lear, Foss. Most of them repeat various already stated theories. A brief mention on what each one claimed is ok, but I'm against extensive quotefarming.Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, the section got shrunk considerably due to removal of wp:primary. Potts cites those and is wp:secondary -makes up the shortfall. There are no other sources out there has an overview of those accounts. It wont be that many sentences anyway. I can add the stuff on Albania and Albanians too as long as its inclusive of that other data for the accounts section.Resnjari (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The text as it is now its a selection of specific primary accounts mentioned by Potts, some claim X and other claim Y. I don't know if additional primary accounts that recycle the same and the same are helpful in this case. On the other hand Potts offers some useful info that can be added about the "accounts": for example the terms Albania and Albanians had a geographic meaning there.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua: just so you know, i will be adding some additional sentences (as said in my previous comments) based on Potts to the 19th/20th century accounts section later today or tomorrow as there was no objections raised. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah sure sound good. On my thing as i gave the link to Potts here, there is relevant content by the scholar to this page and i want to add to the article on the accounts subsection (where he cites travelers), and a very few to Historiography subsection (the one or two academics not already covered in the article). I also want to do some ref formatting for Raca, Kahl, Potts (the refs have the necessary info) but can be better as per wiki referencing standards.Resnjari (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure that's a good reason to get rid of all citations. I'll add information based on academic scholarship about 17-18th century events.Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yep agreed. With Davenport (apart from the one big clunky sentence in the Historiography subsection) as its wp:primary, there are 5 additional sentences in the subsection 17th century of the section Souliotes in the 17th and 18th centuries that would also need to be removed as well.Resnjari (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not all of them. In a chapter by Potts pp.107-110 [19] he cites a host of 19th century accounts on Souliotes. It meets the parameters that you where saying about them being cited via wp:secondary. Holland can stay with the ref being substituted by Potts. The ones that can go (unless someone knows of their being cited also in wp:secondary so the refs can be substituted) in whole are:
Ok. Hughes account isn't about identity & ethnicity. I'll reorganize the section and divide it in contemporary and non-contemporary accounts.Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Later vs contemporary policies & identities
It appears that some parts from the first two paragraphs have to move in a separate paragraph: in particular "later Greek policy".Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at it the later Greek policy + As such, the dominant sentences they can go right at the end of the second paragraph or as a stand alone 3rd mini paragraph (following the 2nd paragraph) in that section, as either way it ties in the whole bit.Resnjari (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Late Ottoman era in pre 1820s
I wonder why the pre-1820 era can be labelled "late Ottoman". Discrepancy is even more obvious since Baltsiotis refers to early 1900s events not to mention that the author clearly mentions that this occurred during "late Ottoman" and not simply "Ottoman" period as it's wrongly written in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- First sentence in Baltsiotis refers to language situation in general. The second sentence about the late Ottoman bit referring to it being a 'semi-official language and used in documents' of which this part of the article sentence is based on: and it functioned as a second semi-official language that was also used in documents.. That part can go.Resnjari (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you need to explain why First sentence in Baltsiotis refers to language situation in general. in fact the specific section in Baltsiotis begins with: During the beginning of the 20th Century, ... and there is nothing about pre-1900 (par. 5-10). Anyway, I've found a source which 'can' support the 1st sentence (Stopel) and refers to Ottoman Epirus in general this time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, present Stoppel first here so i know what your referring too. Also what about Davenport, remove all sentences based on wp:primary ?Resnjari (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure I'll remove them alltogether (part of Puqueville too).Alexikoua (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, on its own merit, that Baltsiotis sentence can go. However in that section the 2nd paragraph needs to go first in chronological order as its about Fotos Tzavellas' diary written during 1792–1793 hence before the Botsaris dictionary. If that's done with a paragraph shift, to remove awkwardness the the current sentence that reads "Another written account on the language they used is the diary of Fotos Tzavellas, written during his captivity by Ali Pasha (1792–1793)." ought to be reworded something like as "A written account on the language Souliotes used is the diary of Fotos Tzavellas, composed during his captivity by Ali Pasha (1792–1793)."Resnjari (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep sounds reasonable. It might be also useful to add a small part based on Pappas about the official Souliote correspondence in this section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Which Pappas source is it (as he has written much as a scholar) ?Resnjari (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The one of 1982.Alexikoua (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Which Pappas source is it (as he has written much as a scholar) ?Resnjari (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep sounds reasonable. It might be also useful to add a small part based on Pappas about the official Souliote correspondence in this section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, on its own merit, that Baltsiotis sentence can go. However in that section the 2nd paragraph needs to go first in chronological order as its about Fotos Tzavellas' diary written during 1792–1793 hence before the Botsaris dictionary. If that's done with a paragraph shift, to remove awkwardness the the current sentence that reads "Another written account on the language they used is the diary of Fotos Tzavellas, written during his captivity by Ali Pasha (1792–1793)." ought to be reworded something like as "A written account on the language Souliotes used is the diary of Fotos Tzavellas, composed during his captivity by Ali Pasha (1792–1793)."Resnjari (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure I'll remove them alltogether (part of Puqueville too).Alexikoua (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, present Stoppel first here so i know what your referring too. Also what about Davenport, remove all sentences based on wp:primary ?Resnjari (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you need to explain why First sentence in Baltsiotis refers to language situation in general. in fact the specific section in Baltsiotis begins with: During the beginning of the 20th Century, ... and there is nothing about pre-1900 (par. 5-10). Anyway, I've found a source which 'can' support the 1st sentence (Stopel) and refers to Ottoman Epirus in general this time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's make something clear
There is a section about 19th century sources, and it's fine. There is no reason or rule that prohibits this. Any 19th c. source that looks serious (e.g. foreign diplomats, army officers and "spies") should be OK for the section. There is no point in deleting sources that spoil the soup of "Albanian origin", or the article becomes POVed.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Old source?
Ktrimi991: I am confused by your edit summary an old encyclopedia is not uselful for such strong claims
. What strong claim are you referring to? If the claim had been that "the first inhabitants came to Souli in the 16th century from the neighbouring villages, fleeing the Turks", I would absolutely agree. But it is not. The claim is that "Christoforos Perraivos ... reports" that this is the narrative from elder Souliotes. Hardly a strong claim, and a 1935 encyclopedia is just as good a source for the contents of a 19th century text by Perraivos as a more modern source. --T*U (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a strong claim. For more read WP:IDTERTIARY. Anyways, you can add the source again given it is supplemented with a "better source" tag. Pappas who is a reliable source mentions Perraivos' account but I can not access those pages. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I fail to see how stating that "Perraivos said so-and-so" is a strong claim. Please explain. --T*U (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The claim that a person who met Souliotes himself reported that tradition, yes, it is a strong claim. Furthermore, old encyclopedias (and newer ones, as a matter of fact) fall under WP:IDTERTIARY. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ktrimi991: OK, I accept that. But now Τζερόνυμο has reverted me when I did exactly as you said: reinserted the source with "Better source"-tag. --T*U (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The claim that Perraivos was"...considered the only one who could have a reliable opinion on the origins of Souliotes" is also a strong claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Τζερόνυμο: Yes, and that is why I already have removed it. Also: Your last revert is not helpful. Ktrimi991 said I could readd the source with a "Better source"-tag, which is exatly what I did. Please self revert. --T*U (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Problem is that an encyclopedia a century old is not an appropriate source. It is quite problematic for evaluating a controversial matter and it shouldn't be used. It is clear that the particular source is not based on secondary, academic literature, which makes it more untrustworthy. So I can not self-revert. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The specific source is old but another one (Fourikis) is older and its a "calendar" not even an encyclopedia or something of academic nature. @Ktrimi: origin theories based on tradition need to go the correct section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- whatabouterism is not an argument though.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've placed recent scholarship about 16th century settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Fourikis ref can be substituted with Raca who cites Fourikis as having being the only one to have looked at Souliote toponymy (and gives those examples), beyond just the term Souli.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've placed recent scholarship about 16th century settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- whatabouterism is not an argument though.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The specific source is old but another one (Fourikis) is older and its a "calendar" not even an encyclopedia or something of academic nature. @Ktrimi: origin theories based on tradition need to go the correct section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Problem is that an encyclopedia a century old is not an appropriate source. It is quite problematic for evaluating a controversial matter and it shouldn't be used. It is clear that the particular source is not based on secondary, academic literature, which makes it more untrustworthy. So I can not self-revert. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Τζερόνυμο: Yes, and that is why I already have removed it. Also: Your last revert is not helpful. Ktrimi991 said I could readd the source with a "Better source"-tag, which is exatly what I did. Please self revert. --T*U (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The claim that a person who met Souliotes himself reported that tradition, yes, it is a strong claim. Furthermore, old encyclopedias (and newer ones, as a matter of fact) fall under WP:IDTERTIARY. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I fail to see how stating that "Perraivos said so-and-so" is a strong claim. Please explain. --T*U (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Further improvements
The article is a mess, and needs work for improving flow, ref fixes, and grammar. Some sentences contradict each other, that is a big problem.
- The article of the Souliote war is almost unsourced. That article could be merged to this one.
- The section on folk songs should be expanded. Pappas has some stuff but I can not access the all of it to have a better understanding of what conclusions Pappas actually gives.
This article is not one of those that attract me a lot, and most of my intervention was to help editors find common ground on some issues of the article. The points above are good ways to make this article of greater value. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Pappas turns out to be an unreliable source. Unless you find any early publication of Souliotic songs in albanian language.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pappas covers the topic of the Souliotes and offers reliable descriptions. Ktrimi: which excactly conclusions you need? Pappas also offers some details from Peraivos account (about the fighing spirit etc.), but I can't see any folksongs inside.Alexikoua (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
If he is reliable on this particular point, he should have a footnote indicating the source of the "albanian souliotic songs". Does he have any? If not, this is just a claim.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Eyewitnesses know better
Recently [22], Ktrimi991 deleted this info, written by a british officer who was sent there to do exactly this: To see "how is things", in 1800.
- Around 1730 Souli had not more than 200 men bearing arms. Inhabitants of the neighboring countryside would retire to the mountains to avoid Ottoman oppression and thus the Souliote population increased. Before the final war with Ali Pasha, the families of Souli were: Leake W. Travels in Northern Greece, London, 1835, vol. 1, p. 502.
- Zervaioi, from Zerva, a village near Arta.
- Botzaraioi, originally from Dragani, today Ampelia, south of Paramythia.
- Drakaioi, from Martane, a village of the valley of Lamari, today in Thesprotia prefecture.
- Buzbataioi, from the Vlachochoria (Vlach Villages) of Mt. Pindus.
- Dagliaioi, from Fanari, near Preveza.
- Zavellaioi and Pasataioi, of unknown origin.
Obviously, it demolishes the speculative narrative that Souliotes "came from Albania".--Skylax30 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted.To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
- Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
- "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
- Conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
- The use of primary sources should be considered in terms of the policy regarding the use of images. There should not be too many, and they are not required. Skylax30, obviously you are wrong claiming eyewitnesses know better. Jingiby (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. That's why we have separate section for 19th c. sources. Let the reader decide who knows better. --Skylax30 (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is an essay composed by a user, and it is much debated [23]. WP does not exclude sources on the basis of their date.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Then check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There is the same story: "Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available... Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited...Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Please, stick to Wikipedia rules on dealing with sources, where possible. Jingiby (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am old enough to know the rules. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". And this is not even "primary" source.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is simply: unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I.e. your claim above that"eyewitnesses know better" is wrong. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Skylax: There is plenty of modern stuff with Perevos comments, folksongs, clan evolution, clan origins etc etc. I can give you links to an entire library, just ping me. No need to rely on primary archaelogy (which I find very interesting too)Alexikoua (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. I know all those, and I don't "rely" on Perraivos. This is my contribution for the benefit of readers who want to check the original sources. Reasonably, many readers do not trust secondary sources because as you see, everybody can be an "author". As far as I know, there are not any other primary sources on pre-1820 Souli. When you have an author who says "I talked to old Souliotes", all the rest are a waste of reading. --Skylax30 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is a further reading section. You can add those primary sources to that instead. Like this a reader can investigate themselves without it being in the body of the article, which should be based on wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. I know all those, and I don't "rely" on Perraivos. This is my contribution for the benefit of readers who want to check the original sources. Reasonably, many readers do not trust secondary sources because as you see, everybody can be an "author". As far as I know, there are not any other primary sources on pre-1820 Souli. When you have an author who says "I talked to old Souliotes", all the rest are a waste of reading. --Skylax30 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the body of the article I see a section about 19th century sources, and there I will put the 19th c. sources. If are surpassed, this can also be included in the article. Btw, this part of Perraivos will be in the wikisources. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The specific sub section is part of the identity-ethnicity language section. Your addition doesn't offer information about the specific topics. Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Skylax30: Lately I have been occupied with other things and have not had sufficient time for Wikipedia stuff. You have been told by editors to not add content sourced to 19th century books. Such stuff will be removed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The specific sub section is part of the identity-ethnicity language section. Your addition doesn't offer information about the specific topics. Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the body of the article I see a section about 19th century sources, and there I will put the 19th c. sources. If are surpassed, this can also be included in the article. Btw, this part of Perraivos will be in the wikisources. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ktrimi991:I am not here to "be told" what to do, for as long as I edit within the rules of WP. There are many 19th c. sources in the article, and can be more. I can very well create a new article 19th century sources on Souliotes.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Why are we even having these debate? It is more than obvious that primary sources can't be used in such a delicate matter. To identify the origins of a group of people is not simple work, and adding primary material could be highly misleading. Oh but let me see, we were having the same line of argumentation as we had in the article of Turkish Cypriots with the same user who insisted in using primary inconclusive work by an academic of the 50's just for the same reason. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perraivos appears to be an eyewitness and his work is of great value. What needs to be addressed is if secondary sources confirm this approach.Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I added Leake who, as a Brit agent, accepted Perraivos' info. The problem is that some of us feel uncomfortable with the fact that Souliotic clans were from neighbouring villages and not from "deep Albania".--Skylax30 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perraivos is not an eyewitness. He should have lived for over a hundred years and observe the timeline of Souliotes. Perraivos came in contact with elders and wrote down their opinion. That doesn't make him an eyewitness. He did know, and couldn't possibly know the historical methods which are now in use and produce much more accurate results. Seems fair and makes sense, that if secondary sources confirm his conclusions, we should use the secondary sources. If no secondary sources are found, we cannot validate and hence not use Perraivos work. (or the work of any other 19th-century writer) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. He came in "optical" (and verbal) contact with elders, therefore he is an eyewitness of Souliotes. At least more than Psimouli is.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. He is an eyewitness of some elder Souliotes but he is not an eyewitness of the origin of Souliotes.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Have you found any that he is?--Skylax30 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot! "Modern scholarship".--Skylax30 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Written accounts of Souliotic
I wonder why the D. Botsaris knowledge of the Albanian language is part of this section. I assume a move to aftermath and legacy (i.e. before Napoleon Zervas) is reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
A completely unencyclopedic info. Thousands of Greeks knew the Albanian language, as well as the Turkish, the Arabic, the Romanian, the Vlach, the Italian etc, while thousands of "Turkalbanians" (including Ali Pasha) were communicating in Greek.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is better there than when you are proposing it to be. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Simply "better there" isn't supposed to be an argument. Historical info have their place in history section & if a person is fluent in a language that's not a "written account".Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is not a mere "historical info", as it is an elaboration on a person's language regarding the language of all members of his community. Anyways, make what additions you want to make to the article. After you have finished them, I and other fresh eyes can give another evaluation of this issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- In addition, you added
This fact combined with the national sentiment they expressed led Greek scholar Emmanouel Protopsaltis to assert that the basic ethnic and linguistic component of Souli was Greek rather than Albanian
. The quote from the source does not make any mention of Protopsaltis. Have you forgotten to give the whole quote? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- In addition, you added
- It is not a mere "historical info", as it is an elaboration on a person's language regarding the language of all members of his community. Anyways, make what additions you want to make to the article. After you have finished them, I and other fresh eyes can give another evaluation of this issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Simply "better there" isn't supposed to be an argument. Historical info have their place in history section & if a person is fluent in a language that's not a "written account".Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is better there than when you are proposing it to be. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
How not to bully users with claims about "primary sources".
A user who has never been involved in this article before (apart from deleting), and he is just hounting me, is thinking that he can scare me with a supposed "burden on my soulders" [24]. This is almost a threat.
Now, back to the policy about "primary sources": [25]
- Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
- Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
This is exactly what we are doing here. We display some 19th c. sources, primary or not, for the information of the reader. We don't interpret and we dont base the article on them. Since there are already several 19th sources in the article, let's discuss how these will be selected. If there is no consencus on that, why should I not add more similar sources?--Skylax30 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- You should respect WP:Consensus. The agreement is not to have 19th century sources on this article. You are the only editor who does not want to respect it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is no 19th century source on the article. Those 19th century travellers mentioned on the article are sourced to books published in 1900s and 2000s. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are few. Paparigopoulos is 19th c., no matter if reprinted in the 20th c. Also Boppe Auguste. Davenport and Pouqueville are suggested as further reading. Any way, the question is why there shouldn't be any 19th century sources.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: The source says The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided.
To avoid misrepresentations the quote needs to be copy pasted on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment on displaying 19th century sources
In this article, a limited number (about half a dozen) of users are contributing recently, plus one who is only deleting.
The point of argument is the origin or national identity of Souliotes. Some users want to emphasize on sources which claim Albanian origin or identity (language etc), and others want to emphasize the local origin and Greek identity.
The subject (Souliotes) has a peculiarity: Their traditional community and way of living disappeared around 1830's, and there are very few sources who had a real contact with them. The rest (especially sources of the 20th c.) are interpretations of the previous, and some are heavily biased by the late 20th c. ethnic conflicts in the Balkans.
There is a section covering the 19th century sources in the article. Some (but not all) are already there, but there are more that qualify for this section. These old sources are just mentioned, with no comments. Two or three users are strongly opposing to a couple of these sources. Latest unwanted source, the Austrian Military Gazette of 1830. Another one is not even primary: William Leake Leake W. "Travels in Northern Greece", London, 1835, vol. 1, p. 502. The "problem" with those sources, as I understand it, is that they refer to Souliotes as Greeks and of local (rather than Albanian) origin.
My argument is this: a) WP does not exclude the older sources from the articles, and gives certain guidelines on how to use them. b) There are already some early 19th century sources in the article. Therefore, if we are to exclude some, we must agree on the process of exclusion.
Thank you.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
PS. Users and administrators who have been activly involved in the past in articles related to Albania, (e.g. protecting Skanderbeg) please do not comment here. I am many years in WP and I can recall history of articles as old as 10 years.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Undeleted and stricken out to retain page history and make further comments understandable. --T*U (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: This RfC is malformed and almost impossible to give an opinion about. If you read the description of how to start a RfC, it says in #3:
Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue
. We need something to comment on, something to say "Yes" or "No" or "Agree" or "Disagree" to. The current text is just a long statement about the proposer's opinion. Also, I would recommend Skylax30 to strike out their PS. Trying to decide who are allowed to take part in a discussion goes completely against the whole idea of Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)- Absolutely, not only is it neither neutral nor brief, it is indeed exclusionist. An RfC is an open invitation for anybody to drop by and comment, notwithstanding any active topic bans. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I thought that the opinions of the involved users are already stated in the talk page. Of course, if we have to add something new, I am not the one who can exclude anybody.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- The question: Can we add limited material (few lines) from early 19th century sources? The text will not be commented or interpreted. Alternatively, if those sources are not accepted here, in which Wiki can they be included? Can I create an article Early sources on Souliotes? Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is still not workable as a RfC. My suggestion is that you withdraw and close this RfC, then study carefully how RfCs are usually initiated, before you start a new and well-formed RfC. Just a suggestion, but it could make things easier to discuss. --T*U (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It is getting too bureaucratic, then.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
False claims by users, and SYNTH in the LEAD
Let's look now on the phrase "they talked Albanian ... because of their Albanian origin". The footnote contains 12 (twelve) sources who supposedly support the phrase. Some of them have a quotation, others don't. It is almost sure that here we have a SYNTH. i.e., certain users assume that if they came from "Albania" (in the geographical meaning) they have to speak albanian language, or the opposite. But there were many languages spoken in geographical Albania, including Greek, Serbian and Gypsy. Users who support the use of these sources, are requested to quote the exact phrase of every single source. By the way, Yohalas and Protopsaltes are/were academics of a very high status, certainly much more informed on Souli than Hobsbawm. Deleting them from the LEAD is a blatant pushing of POV.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- "I am almost sure" does not really provide evidence supporting your claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
To facilitate discussion, I copy here the quotes of those 12 sources.
Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek: “The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith”.
- Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs: (no quotation)
- Eric Hobsbawm: (no quotation)
- NGL Hammond: (no quotation)
- Richard Clogg: “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 in 1821.”
- Miranda Vickers: “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 Pappas: (no quotation)
- Katherine Elizabeth Fleming: “The history of the Orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap.”
- André Gerolymatos: “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.”
- Henry Clifford Darby: “… who belong 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 …”
- Arthur Foss (1978).“The Souliots were a tribe or clan of Christian Albanians who settled among these spectacular but inhospitable mountains during the fourteenth or fifteenth century…. The Souliots, like other Albanians, were great dandies. They wore red skull caps, fleecy capotes thrown carelessly over their shoulders, embroidered jackets, scarlet buskins, slippers with pointed toes and white kilts.”
- Nina Athanassoglou-Kallmyer (1983), “The Albanians were a mountain population from the region of Epirus, in the north-west part of the Ottoman Empire. They were predominantly Muslim. The Suliots were a Christian Albanian tribe, which in the eighteenth century settled in a mountainous area close to the town of Jannina. They struggled to remain independent and fiercely resisted Ali Pasha, the tyrannic ruler of Epirus. They were defeated in 1822 and, banished from their homeland, took refuge in the Ionian Islands. It was there that Lord Byron recruited a number of them to form his private guard, prior to his arrival in Missolonghi in 1824. Arnauts was the name given by the Turks to the Albanians”.
I don't see anything like "speaking albanian because ...". Do you, Tzeronymo?--Skylax30 (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I 'd suggest that we hold our horses until other users contribute and clarify what other sources are claiming. After all,we all should assume Good Faith. Plus it is not an extraordinary claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems that "The three-revert rule" has broken... Skylax30 has removed sourced text far too many times. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed unsourced text, mate, while keeping the sources in their proper phrase and meaning. And I think I can do it as many times as it takes.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)