Talk:Souliotes/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Souliotes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Appart the fact that is very outdated (published first in 1927) it tells nothing for the origin (eg "their origin.....") but only for their situation in 19 century. So no WP:RS on their origin (which is explained by other authors) and WP:OR of the contributor. Aigest (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Suliotes belonged to the Albanian nation. "A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government" —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They fought for Greek independence, not Albanian. That should tell you something. Anyway, if you read the talkpage history, there is a longstanding consensus to not include ethnicity in the lede, for a variety of reasons. Athenean (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking specific references and ignoring a mountain of bibliography can become very disrupting as in the recent case. Also Anna please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Greek fighters fight for USA these days. Are they American? Also X please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights would suit you more. You seem to be very interested in Albanians. You edit everything related to Albanians! Maybe that is a nationalistic fight! Suliotes were Albanians there is NO doubt about that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They had Albanian "blood", therefore they were Albanians? This isn't the 19th century. Greek fighters fight for USA these days??? What on earth does that even mean (not that I'm interested or anything). And a strong warning to stop using insulting edit summaries like these [1]. One more such instance and I am taking you to WP:AE. Enough. Athenean (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please do report me. I think chances are I am going to do the same thing for you. And I never said they have Albanian blood. Please do not try to confuse me. I said they have spoken Albanian language, they belonged to an Albanian clan. Saying they are not Albanian is similar to other Anti-albanian claims: Albanians do not exist as a nation, or that Albanians came from Caucasus. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna claiming ethnic purity about everything in wikipedia is something we should avoid. Also please respect Dbachmann's very precise instructions.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua when did Anna claim ethnic purity?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming ethnic purity. You are putting words in my mouth. But removing they are Albanian whatsoever is also not realistic. You can say they were Albanian, fought for the Greek War of Independence and assimilated. It is this simple. Or, if there is anything confusing about their nationality, we can say. There is a dispute about Suliotes nationality: some sources say they were Greek, some Albanian. But then we would have to agree that most sources claim them as Albanian. Also we will have to put Byron into consideration, he has much material about them. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this 100 times, we're not going to go over it again. Read the talkpage history, where a consensus was reached to keep ethnicity out of the lede. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have never seen a consensus on this. You may not use WP:Lede, because Greece did not exist when the Souliotes were doing their wars. And besides consensus may change according to arguments presented. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to read the talkpage a bit more. And 2 editors (you and Anna) are not "consensus may change." Athenean (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for that matter consensus might change only because 1 editor only brings better arguments than 100 others who are not as enlightened. --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually we have not a single argumement apart from trolling. Please be more precise in general instead of saying that Greece didn't existed so they should be termed Albanians (?).Alexikoua (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern Albania as a state had to build its own history and so they try to paint everything Albanian oriented to build a concience among their people. This way they place Alexander the Great, Pyrros of Epirus, Skanderbeg, Karaiskakis, Ali Pasha, Markos Botsaris, Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad Ali, Kemal Atatürk, Fan Noli, Sulejman Demollari, George Tenet, Hakan Sükur, Eliza Dushku and many others as members of the same "Albanian" nation.

But very few modern-day Albanians can claim they descend from the Souliotes, instead a considerable portion of modern Greeks can, as Souliotes are listed among the subgroups of the modern Hellenic nation (based mainly upon a geographical and cultural position).

Unfortunately modern Greek historians also need to make everything sound Hellenic to prove a racial purity and continuity from Antiquity to Byzantine Greece unto now-a-days. This way they tend to forgett that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic state, with Hellenism as the cultural cohesive pattern, which not necessarily reflects being Greek.

As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.

Since neighbour states have always been Greece's foes, the Greeks tried to hide and get rid of every sort of alien compound that may be found in Greek history, this way they denny the existance of "minorities" inside their borders.

I think this article should not try to reflect modern nationalist point of views, because it will otherwise be biased either it leans towards Albania or towards Greece. Certainly a Byzantine context or even an Ottoman context are the suitable, pointing out these people's local identities and that the remnants of the Souliotes and Arvanites are today integrated in the populations of Greece, the same way the Arbereshe are in present Italy.Periptero (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. However, I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia. Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy, that is for sure. But it seems there are no Italian editors with inferiority complexes editing around! —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that staunch nationalist POV's totally attempt against WP spirit, no matter where they come from. When chauvinistic fanatism is induced in articles they distort the scope of this project. Personally I do not seek any sort of "albanophobia", but a necessity about setting things right and true. Placing Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes within a whole and same "modern" Albanian nation is not only nonsence but deliverately against these people's feelings and beliefs. I also consider that trying to understand ancestral behaviours with a XXI Century view (what is mostly happening throughout this Talk page) is a complete distortion. And regarding inferiority complexes, there is no way possible (in terms of history, culture, civilization) in which Greeks can feel themselves inferior to Albanians, as a matter of fact it is just the opposite-which by the way is not a good attitude-. As per Albanians, although they are the Greeks' poor and under-developped neighbour they shouldn't feel inferior neither, because they have also many glorious aspects in their own history where to rely their pride on. I come from a very mixed background (watch my user page) so I really believe in the understanding of peoples, and much more when they are neighbours and share very much in common.Periptero (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy" it probably helps that the souliotes and arvanites got to know what it means to be a tourkalbanos first hand and stayed far away.. "I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia" no its just the fact that your country hasnt gotten over hoxhaist propaganda where you are living illyrians, the arvanites are your "brothers", you are always helping out the poor greeks in some way etc...85.75.248.252 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"to prove a racial purity" periptero...you are wrong, the greek 'national historian' PAR EXCELLENCE..Paparrigopoulos completely disregarded any racial theories (he wrote that all modern day peoples are a mix so claiming purity in any case is wrong) and that was the path even the most chauvinist greek historians followed with few exceptions (as Mackridge writes no Greek really thought in racial terms when talking of ethnos and genos in the 18th - early 19th century..it was Fallmerayers excesses that brought that kind of discourse into Greece)..btw what you wrote about the 'pure' sphakiots and maniots belongs to a certain stream of outdated greek anthropology that tended to find ancient 'remnants'so its a bit odd that you bring it up in a discussion supposedly trying to AVOID 'racial' implications..anyone who wants to know what the souliotes 'were' and how they changed throughout their history should read Vaso Psimouli's 'Souli kai Souliotes' where the subject is treated seriously without albanian and greek nationalist interference (why is Karaiskakis in the pantheon...? do albanians claim the Sarakatsani as albanian too now..?)85.75.248.252 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Chap, if you happen to read the whole story then you would find that it all started when I was changing words with some Albanian writers explaing why in my humble view placing Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes inside the same "Albanian" context was wrong. But in the other hand, I must be honest and accept that staunch Greek nationalists fall into the same sin that the Albos. Regarding what you wrote I can answer that:

a) Paparigopoulos is the modern Greek historian para excellence, I agree. But the fact that he has been excellent does not necesarily mean that this was the only offical story told in Greece. Just take school history books (Istoria tis Byzantinis Autokratorias tou Zervou or Istoria ton Neoteron Chronon tou Kafentzi both of the OEDB) and try to find if minorities other than Greeks are mentioned. It's all Greek to them ! (Pun intended). Fallmerayer's assertion that "not a single drop of pure Ancient Hellenic blood runs through the veins of modern Greeks" is in fact the counterpart about the previously stated and I agree that it was the spark that light the fire. What I want to point out is that fanatism always distorts the truth.

b)The tale about the Maniots being called "i katharotati fili ton ellinon" is not that outdated. I was constantly congratulated by my mates and superiors in my military in Greece some 15 years ago just for the simple fact of having a Maniot grandfather. Anyhow I quote myslef: As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.. I am nothing more than trying to show that the whole above discussion in this talk page (if they were either from Albanian or Greek origin) is irrelevant and the important thing -according to me - should be the fact that Souliotes and Arvanites identify with Greece the same way Arbereshe do with Italy.

c) Anyway, I personally believe that racial continuity or discontinuity within nations is a matter which is becoming irrelevant in the XXI Century. Plus, with the development of Genetics many barriers that used to divide people will be falling. Try reading some very interst stuff in Dienekes' Pontikos Genetics blog.

d) I think it would be really useful for this article and WP in general that you quote and cite important statements from the Psimouli's book. Periptero (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

we agree on most serious matters (my comment about Paparrigopoulos being a defining historian of the greek national narrative was only about racialism never amounting to much other than fringe writers IMO..i cant say i really remember my, relatively recent, schoolbooks though lol but in my place we had plenty of non greek speaking greeks too so..) though of course i still dont agree about any such 'ancient' group like the sphakiots, maniots etc..its an overall outdated mode of thinking that was abandoned by serious scholars..if it lingers in the minds of some people like you said it doesnt mean anything as many such stereotypes do obviously...indeed its the same with the shqiptars-arvanites-arbereshe where i also agree with you and im sure if slightly more reasonable albanian (and greek..) users joined in things would be much easier for all of wiki..take care87.202.140.189 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that in that period the nationality was a matter of religion. One could not know for sure what the souliotes were. But one thing I know for sure, my grandmother name is Geavela(Tsavela in greek) and we are latinophone farsherots from Epirus, we are not greeks, nor albanians and I think the souliotes were not. Not to mention the actions of greek monks like Cosma who threaten the orthodox from Epirus with anatheme if not speak in greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerculetu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC) --Cerculetu (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

greek was not a nationality back then, but a religious matter, otoman officials didn t recognize a nation not to mention that they were vlachs, my grandmother name is Geavela(Tzsavellas in Greece) and we are latinophone vlachs from Epirus, and now we are living in Romania--Cerculetu (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a remarkable article about those people, but there is a non-consulting. Souliotes never identify themselves as Albanians, but Greeks, so I don't find appropriate the category Albanians that I have abstract it. --MaxisExis (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC).

I find it highly proper as a position on this topic.--Tsaousvastic (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave a solution. Because it is a sensitive social matter having in our minds that it determines Greek heroes, we will add the category as General Souliotes and overall as we add to the texts what we think is more logical. I find it as the most appropriate. --Tsaousvastic (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

---

In the Toskerishte dialect of Suli there is a socio-philosophic sentence: Pirdh Pirdh se do lironesh.

I paste here the text on the language of Souliotes, which obviously contradicts the Albanian national mythology and is daily deleted by a certain username. I call them again to add any original source supporting that Souliotes were speaking of feeling Albanians. Secondary "reliable" sources claiming so, are supposed to have relevant footnotes and bibliography. Don't they?

On the language spoken by Souliotes there are very few primary sources, and some secondary sources.

• Primary sources

• J. Rizo Neroulo, a Greek Phanariote, high official in Wallacia and Moldavia etc, reports in early 19th c. that their maternal language was Greek, but they knew also Albanian which was familiar to all Epirotes^[1]
• Lord Byron who visited Epirus and Albania reports that the Souliotes “speak little Illyric” (Albanian). ^[2]
• Evidence on the language of Souliotes is drawn from the Greek-Albanian dictionary by Markos Botsaris and his elders, composed in 1809. T. Yochalas who studied the dictionary concluded that either the mother tongue of the authors was the Greek or the Greek language had a very strong influence on the Albanian, if the latter was possibly spoken in Souli.^[3]
• Apart from the lexicon of M. Botsaris, the only long text written by a Souliote before 1820’s is the Fotos Tzavellas’s diary of his captivity by Ali Pasha. Fotos with his father Lambros Tzavellas, heading 70 Souliotes, were deceived by Ali Pasha who arrested them and held the first as a hostage from February 1792 till April 1793. This diary is written by F. Tzavellas himshelf in simple Greek with several spelling and punctuation mistakes. ^[4] By studying the subdialect of this diary, Emm. Protopsaltes concluded that Souliotes were Greek speakers originating from the area of Argyrkokastro or Chimara. ^[5]

• Secondary sources

Some secondary sources claim that Souliotes were of Albanian origin (Albanian: Suliotët), while the dialect they initially spoke is classified as one of Cham Albanian dialects^[6] However, it is recognized that speaking Albanian in that region is not a predictor with respect to other matters of identity (Hart, p. 199).

Religiously they belonged to the Church of Constantinople, part of the larger Greek Orthodox Church. The patron Saint was St. Donatus, locally called "Aidonat".^[7]

Nobody is trying to hide anything Euzen and please read WP:BRD. That being said don't insert your OR based on outdated sources, which you seem to pick per WP:CHERRY (as the vast majority of them say the exact opposite of what you're trying to POV-push). You're quoting Leake (a primary source, which you shouldn't quote at all) regarding religion but you avoid to quote him regarding language/origin etc. and that just shows your POV approach.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice Leake's ref to language. Please add it or indicate here the page.

The use of 19th century stuff as a reference is unacceptable here. On the other hand the additon of Yochalas about lignuistics is constructive and sheds light to a couple of issues.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why unacceptable? The material is clearly defined as "primary sources" and is perfectly OK with WP rules. It's up to the reader to accept on not accept them. On the other hand, Protopsaltes is not a 19th c. author and Byron is a classic. But if we are talking about 19th c. sources, let us reconsider Finley.

Let us be more explicit and not waste time: Most modern readers know that "something" is happening here and suspect the motivations behind modern anglo-saxon authors who claim to know what happened in the Balkans of the 17th c but do not provide references. None takes them seriously unless they support their work on primary sources (archives etc). I'm still waiting for this kind of sources on the assumed Albanian origin or language of Souliotes.

You have misinterpreted every source and deleted each one that you didn't like. That being said conspiracy theories about the motivation of Ango-Saxon authors (?!) will be reported. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are there, have being taged for completion and you have been invited to add as many sources as you can. The article is not going back to the pro-Albanian POV.

I would invite all editors of this article to kindly read talk page before making any edit. Aigest (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to clarify what exactly do you have in mind?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the section about "Identity" there is a series of references supposedly saying that Souliotes were speaking the Albanian language. I checked some of them and I found a massive falsehood. For example, there was this ref:

Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991.

With some googling I found the book, not online readable but searcheable with snippets. Searching for "Souliotes" I found only this: "... to counter the Russian-sponsored movement of Souliotes and Chamerian beys against Ali Pasha." [2] Does anybody conclude from this passage anything about the language of Souliotes?

Obviously some users are cheating with false references. It seems that they attempt to use the following trick: First, they draw the arbitrary equation Cham = ethnic Albanian. Second, they search the bibliography for texts that associate (even remotely) Chameria or Chams with Souliotes, and third, they claim that "this source says that Souliotes were Albanians". I don't think this case is worth discussing. I only remind that Chameria was a geographical term, and everybody living is Chameria is a "Cham" by definition. In this view Souliotes may be Chams. In the article Chameria/Modern history is made clear that "Cham" is not an ethnonym.
Therefore, all the references to the language or ethnic identity of Souliotes must be checked and cleared. Users who think they have credible references on this subject, are requested to provide the exact quotation and, if possible, snippet. Crude pro-albanian references, like Sandra Vickers, are good only for a laugh.--Euzen (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The scholar against whom you're making BLP violation comments is Miranda Vickers(at least try to get the names right).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? Since she is a "scholar", I suppose that in her books provides the original sources proving that Souliotes were speaking Albanian as first language (e.g. letters), which you are requested to copy here.

@ZjarriRrethues: Is every comment about the neutrality of some living scholar (i.e. like this comment your wrote recently) in fact BLP violation?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's take those references one by one.
Does Pappas claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian? Quote please.--Euzen (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
From the same list of references:

• Arnakis George, The role of religion ... , p. 141. [3]: " ... a common language was not sufficient to cement an alliance between Muslim Albanians and Albanian-speaking Greeks, such as the Souliotes, ..."
  

Does this ref. supports the text claiming that Souliotes were of Albanian descent? It refers only to the language. Searching the book for "Souliotes" does not provide any relevant snippet on pp. 118-119 as the ref. claims. Please quote the author if the ref. is relevant.--Euzen (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Unjust accusation", eh?

• Hammond: "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".
  

Does this say anything about Souliotes' identity?

• Koliopoulos: "Partly hellenized Albanian tribes".
  

Does "partly hellenized" mean that the "other part" was Albanian? What if it was Vlach, Serbian, Gypsy, Bulgarian, Italian, Turkish etc? Albania was (and is) inhabited by many ethnicities.

• Hellen Angelomatis: Can someone cite the page and quote the author. The title is "Traveller's Perceptions ..." (and I suppose includes Byron's perception, which certain users delete).
  

In the above paragraph, user:Euzen is accusing other editors of falsehood. He brings up the example of the work of Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991 as an example of source falsification. This is strange because when we take a look at the article Pappas is used as reference in two cases 3a and 3b take a look. In the first one 3a Pappas is used as a reference for the sentence "The name Souli is of uncertain origin." look and in the other case of reference 3b it is used as a reference of anothere sentence "It has been suggested that it derives from the ancient Greek region of Selaida. Another view claims that it derives from the name of a Turk that was killed there. Yet another opinion based on etymology claims that the word derives from the Albanian term sul, which can be idiomatically interpreted as 'watchpost', 'lookout' or 'mountain summit'" look. The editor who used Pappas as a reference in both cases, also linked the google book snippet here. If we take a look at the snippets we can see tah in the first case 1 the sentence says "Christophoros Perraivos, who knew the Souliotcs at firsthand, said that the name came from a Turk who was killed there. Yet another opinion, based on etymology, claims that Souli comes from the Albanian term sul, which literally means ..." and in the second 2 "Yet another opinion, based on etymology, claims that Souli comes from the Albanian term sul, which literally means "tree trunk" or "pole" and idiomatically means "watch post" or "look out"".

we can see that there is no source falsification by anyone. This is a case of defamation and an administrator should intervene Aigest (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The ref in question is in the list under No 25, referring to Souliotes speaking Tosk Albanian. I might be mistaken, so, provide the relevant quotation and page.

In the stable version the book of Pappas is listed as reference 3 and 14 and speaks nothing of "Souliotes speaking Tosk Albanian". In the stable version the reference 25 is the book of Hart "Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. Laurie Kain Hart. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. (article consists of 25 pages). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association "To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian.""

In the current version again the reference 25 is not Pappas but a German scholar "Nußberger Angelika, Wolfgang Stoppel (2001) (in German), Minderheitenschutz im östlichen Europa (Albanien), Universität Köln". You have blindly amputated valid references and made serious defamations of previous editors' work. 217.24.242.5 (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Struth! I paste here the reference in question (now No 29), attached to line "... the dialect they initially spoke .... Tosk Albanian".

29: Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. Laurie Kain Hart. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. (article consists of 25 pages). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association "To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian."

• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1-86064-541-0, ISBN 978-1-86064-541-9 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to that 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 0-691-00194-4, ISBN 978-0-691-00194-4 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
• 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 963-7326-60-X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith"
• Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality Edition: 2, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 0-521-43961-2, ISBN 978-0-521-43961-9 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"
• Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, The Eve of the Greek Revival: British Travellers' Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-century Greece, Published by Taylor & Francis, 1990, ISBN 0-415-03482-5, ISBN 978-0-415-03482-1
• William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, Published by Routledge, 1966, ISBN 0-7146-1974-4, ISBN 978-0-7146-1974-3
• 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 0-88033-006-6, p. 142.
  

What is all this list? Do they claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian some time in the past? Can we have the quotations on that issue? For example, this Balázs Trencsényi says (I hope, but good faith has been lost here) "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith". How this comes to mean "they were speaking the Tosk Albanian dialect"? Does any of those authors refer to evidences that they were speaking Albnian as mother-tongue? If so, the user who posted (or pasted) these refs, can possibly post the sources of those sources.
Because we don't play with the national sentiments: Soon this section will be divided to two sub-sections, with primary and secondary sources respectively. Let us see if Mrs Vickers (and her institute in Britain) has access to voice recordings of Souliotes speaking Albanian.--Euzen (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't avoid what I was talking about. You said above "In the section about "Identity" there is a series of references supposedly saying that Souliotes were speaking the Albanian language. I checked some of them and I found a massive falsehood. For example, there was this ref: Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991. With some googling I found the book, not online readable but searcheable with snippets. Searching for "Souliotes" I found only this: "... to counter the Russian-sponsored movement of Souliotes and Chamerian beys against Ali Pasha." [3] Does anybody conclude from this passage anything about the language of Souliotes? So you were cleraly referring to Nicholas Charles Pappas book and not to Laurie Kain Hart book. You have made wrong accusations and defamated other editors and you behaviour now enforces my opinion. Aigest (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Euzen's misrepresentation of sources as well as cherry-picking of outdated 19th century accounts of travellers is disruptive. Flemming's massive work on Ali Pasha was reduced to according to a work that supports the Albanian origin .... Nationalist interpretations of sources are unacceptable, not to mention the massive misrepresentation and deletion of source Euzen doesn't like. That being said the full quote from Pappas that triggered the issue is It originated some time before 1600, when Christian Albanians settled a mountainous area north of Preveza and east of Parga. The precise origin of these settlers is unknown. One tradition maintains that they were the remnants of an Albanian contingent that fought at the battle of Kossovo in 1389 and escaped the Christian defeat there, while another holds that they were part of the last personal guard of Skenderbeg (page 35). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bypassing that about "nationalistic interpretations", since we know each other from other Albaniads, thanks for the quotation of Pappas. If this really refers to Souliotes (which is not obvious in this passage) it refers to a tradition and this has to be clear in the article, as all the other historians agree that the earliest traces of S. are dated to 17th c. No need to commend on the assumption that "Skanderbeg's personal guard" were more "Albanians" than Skanderbeg himshelf. :)
There is no problem with citing all existing references, but since there are many who claim that S. were Greeks or mixture of Greeks, Albanians and Vlachs, it is provocative to present a ref. (e.g. Flemming) as THE Gospel on the Souliote's history. Maybe we'd better group the ref's to those who claim Albanian, Greek or other origin accordingly.
Since you appear to have the more scholar approach of the other pro-Albanian users, you probably noticed the pseudo-references produced on the trickery "Source XXX says they are Albanians, so (I conclude) they were speaking Albanian, and (you bet) that since they were speaking Albanian they were Albanians". This is why I will separate the primary from the secondary sources on the language alone.
Finally, by erasing the list of references inside other reference, I don't mean they have to be excluded. Simply, it seems that most of them are irrelevant to the statement on the language and, besides, refs in other refs is a questionable practice. Each one of them has to be linked to the proper text. For examble, does Hobsbaum claim that Souliotes were speaking Albanian, and if yes, can we have the reference he bases this claim upon? --Euzen (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Flemming's work is a biography of Ali Pasha and as such it contains some details on the Suliotic clans. That being said stick to reliable sources (and by that I mean no outdated traveller accounts, no polemic works that were written basically to target and defame other scholars and their views etc.)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are free to add as many reliable sources as you like. Each one must refer to the relevant phrase of the article (this is a WP rule). Primary sources referring to Souliotes speaking Albanian will be a great contribution to the article.

The Albanian Regiment in the French army was created in 1807 and consisted mainly of Albanians:

The Albanians were enrolled as the Regiment Albanais and the Greeks as the Bataillon de Chasseurs a Pied Grecs. In the 1809 the Greek Battalion was put into the Albanian Regiment, probably in the hope of introducing a stabilizing element. For the Albanians were described as a French regiment minus its uniforms, training and discipline. They acknowledged no authority but that of their clan leaders and brawled constantly with the more or less Christian Greek inhabitants of the island. Swords Around A Throne Author John R. Elting Edition illustrated Publisher Da Capo Press, 1997 ISBN 0306807572, 9780306807572 page 371-372

One of the most complete works on that regiment is that of Auguste Boppe "Le Régiment albanais (1807-1814)" [http://books.google.com/books?id=kGitQwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Auguste+Boppe%22&source=bl&ots=nUsItjCAI3&sig=g-gRtnyPm4MYnn4bWScz5m05ro8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g qAWUPmAAtH74QS1xYDYCA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg here's] the link Aigest (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice piece of info, but I fail to see the word 'Souliotes' in there, or more precisily the view you try to push that Souliotes were part of an ethnically pure military unit in French army (something that's already contradicted by Pappas).Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you're not disputing that Suliots were part of the regiment then it's irrelevant whether or not they're specifically mentioned in sources that generally refer to it. That being said it's WP:COATRACK to mention details regarding ethnicity stats of the regiment on such a marginally related article to the subject. Btw Boppe is the source of Pappas[4] regarding the regiment, so if an article is written it should be used. Btw what does Pappas mention that other sources don't(precise quote)?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pappas explains that terms like Albanais, Macedoni etc. in terms of military units of that time, did not have their later ethnic connotations, on the other hand this edit summary [[5]] supports a diferrent view (that the Albanian reg. has to do exclusively with Albanians, however without a reference that claims that).Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll need a precise quote, however, it wouldn't contradict The Albanians were enrolled as the Regiment Albanais and the Greeks as the Bataillon de Chasseurs a Pied Grecs as no source connects the names of the regiments with their ethnic composition. The sources mention that "X group was enrolled in/as Y, but not that Y owes its name to its recruits being part of X group.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)From Armies of the Napoleonic Wars: an illustrated history(2009):[6]: On 12 October 1797 Napoleon approved the recruitment of about 3,000 Albanians, most of whom were refugees from the harsh rule of the local Ottoman governor of the Albanian coast, Ali-pasha of Janina. The combined forced was organized as the Regiment Albanais (Albanian Regiment) on 12 December 1807 ... Despite additional recruitment among local Greeks, Italians and Dalmatian communities, it never reached its official establishment of 3,254. A battalion of Chasseurs a pied Grecs (Greek Foot Chasseurs), also known as Pandours de Albanie was raised by the French under an order of 10 March 1808 from Albanian and Greek refugees .. Its 951 men were combined into a singled Albanian Regiment.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems we all agree that this Albanian regiment consisted of ethnically heterogenous elements.Alexikoua (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is the right description. The Albanian regiment when it was created in 1807 had some 3000 Albanians (no greeks, no macedonians, no croats or whatever else nationality). Later in 1809 to this regiment was attached the unit of 951 Albanian and Greeks. Make the math yourself. Aigest (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the Albanian regiment was purely Albanian from start (1807), is clearly wp:pov, escpecially if we consider that Souliotes and Cheimarriotes were part of this unit. In general, neither the Greci nor the Albanaisi named military units were ethnically homogeneous:

Nation and ideology: Ivo Banac. East European Monographs, 1981, p. 42 [[7]]: In the eithy odd years during which Naples employed light infantry from the Balkans, the troops of the regiment and its successors were known popularly under the three names in addition to the aforementioned camociotti: the seemingly national names of Greci, Macedoni and Albanesi. These, names did not, however, have their later ethnic conotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting...

(p. 41-42)[[8]] The Napoleonic wars brought about a proliferation of Greek units serving European powers which included veterans of the Neapolitan armed forces. During their occupation of the Ionian islands, the Russians organized units of Greek mainlanders, either under the sovereignty of the Septinsular Republic (Pichetti Albanesi, Corpo Macedone), or under direct Russian control (Legion legkikh strelkov, Osobyi grecheskii korpus). During the French occupation of the Ionian islands, these units were transformed into Le Regiment Albanaise and Les Chasseurs a pied Greces. (i.e. both these units included Greeks).Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was impossible to gather 100% pure 3,000 ethnic homogenous people at that time. In this case the term Albanian probably means demonym.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly relevant: We are still waiting the results of the last year's Albanian census concerning the ethnicities in today's Albania. Why they delay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.169.16 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriosly guys I don't want to loose time with wp:or. The source says specifically "On 12 October 1797 Napoleon approved the recruitment of about 3,000 Albanians, most of whom were refugees from the harsh rule of the local Ottoman governor of the Albanian coast, Ali-pasha of Janina. The combined forced was organized as the Regiment Albanais (Albanian Regiment) on 12 December 1807 .." So originally they were ethnic Albanians and this is not an error of the author. Later on he adds "..Despite additional recruitment among local Greeks, Italians and Dalmatian communities, it never reached its official establishment of 3,254..." The source says clearly additional recruitments among other ethnic groups Greeks, Italians and whatever. So they were later on enrolled end theri number was not more than 200 since the regiment never reached its official force of 3254. So in the beginning they were like 3000 Albanians and later on some 200 Greeks Italians and Dalmatian were enrolled. User:Alex and user :Antid positions are personal ones. Was that possible or not possible is not ours to decide. What source says should be entered into article, everything else is WP:OR. Aigest (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that they were ethnic Albanians? There is a detailed description by Pappas about who joined the Albanaisi unit, what's the meaning of Albanaise, Greci etc.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some archival material of the "Albanian Regiment" are in Greek libraries and have been already published in Greece. Includes names of conscripts and pay-rolls. Aigest, if you insist why don't you create an article on that?

I don't have access on such articles and it is not my job to interpret archives. According to wiki policies, our obligation is to report here what is written by scholars not to interpret archives. As per the above statement brought by user:ZR and repeated by me, the author is very clear on ethnicity. When he intended Albanian recruits (people) he used the term Albanian, when he intended Greek recruits (people) he used the term Greek. He is also aware of minor differences. He used Dalmatians and Italians differently although they might look similar (Dalmatian being a descended of a Latin language just like Italian and very similar to it). So yes the author is conscious about ethnicity and its various local flavors. It should be quoted verbatim. Aigest (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The author is very clear on ethnicity? I dont thing so. We have tons of references that prove that these 18th century terminologies do not coincide with their later ethnic connotations (Greek Albanian etc).Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, in this work: Le Régiment albanais (1807-1814): par Auguste Boppe Author Auguste Boppe Publisher Berger-Levrault, 1902, there is nowhere to claim that it consisted of ethnic Albanians. Actually it says that part of the regiment was eager to join the Greek national struggle.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tons of references actually mean nothing. If you try to combine them here (try to implement them by yourself in this specific case like someone tried in this case with Banac) you go WP:SYNTH. You have to find a source which says specifically that the Albanian regiment since the beginning was composed of people with different ethnicity. Since this is not the case you have to put it like the source says. Arguments like "he probably means" etc are also WP:OR. So we will not put neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR here, just what author says verbatim. Note that this is a 2009 source and as I explained above the author is well aware of ethnicity issues. Aigest (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are completely out of the topic here. This article is about Souliotes and the specific source you provide doesn't mention them at all.

And Banac clearly states that: "the seemingly national names of Greci, Albanesi, and Macedoni. These names did not, however, haver their later ethnic connotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting.".

Actually you should find something which claims that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, so, according to what you try to prove, the 'Albanian regiment' consisted from ethnic Albanians only. Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that these units were ethnically pure is really an extreme point. Apart from the above references, which clearly define their mixed composition, it's interesting that the commander of the 3rd battalion of the Albanian regiment, one named 'Christakis Kalogeros', was replaced and transeferred, in February 1808, to command the Greek Chasseurs... seven months before the merging. Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove anything of pureness or not pureness. The original sentence was about the fact that Suliotes were enrolled in the Albanian Regiment (Regiment Albanais) and this is a proven fact. Someone tried to add (or "clarify") the ethnicity of Regiment Albanais (which does not belong here as discussion anyway) and I was dragged into this. The sentence in the article should be "..Suliotes were enrolled in the Albanian Regiment (Regiment Albanais).." and that's it the sentence ends there, because this is the main and relevant fact. The supposed "clarification" (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR) should not even exist, not only here but not even in the Albanian Regiment article because specialized (on the subject) and very recent (as of 2009) sources speak very clearly:

1. "The Albanians were enrolled as the Regiment Albanais and the Greeks as the Bataillon de Chasseurs a Pied Grecs. In the 1809 the Greek Battalion was put into the Albanian Regiment, probably in the hope of introducing a stabilizing element. For the Albanians were described as a French regiment minus its uniforms, training and discipline. They acknowledged no authority but that of their clan leaders and brawled constantly with the more or less Christian Greek inhabitants of the island." Swords Around A Throne Author John R. Elting Edition illustrated Publisher Da Capo Press, 1997 ISBN 0306807572, 9780306807572 page 371-372
2. "On 12 October 1797 Napoleon approved the recruitment of about 3,000 Albanians, most of whom were refugees from the harsh rule of the local Ottoman governor of the Albanian coast, Ali-pasha of Janina. The combined forced was organized as the Regiment Albanais (Albanian Regiment) on 12 December 1807 ... Despite additional recruitment among local Greeks, Italians and Dalmatian communities, it never reached its official establishment of 3,254. A battalion of Chasseurs a pied Grecs (Greek Foot Chasseurs), also known as Pandours de Albanie was raised by the French under an order of 10 March 1808 from Albanian and Greek refugees .. Its 951 men were combined into a singled Albanian Regiment" Armies of the Napoleonic Wars: an illustrated history (2009):[9]

That should normally be the end of discussion. Aigest (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No wonder there is no word about Souli and Souliotes in the above quotes. It doesn't help how many times you recycle the same bibliography, but I'm afraid you are in the wrong discussion.

Not to mention the extreme nationalistic view to indirectly prove that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians in modern terms.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The references above were for Regiment Albanais. The reference for Souliotes enrolled there is another one and already used. I've already expressed my opinion. Souliotes were enrolled in the Regiment Albanaise, that is a fact and should enter in the article. Regiment Albanaise should have his own article which should deal with these details. "The extreme nationalistic view to indirectly prove that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians sentence does not belong to the fact but to the one POV. Another POV would be that "The extreme nationalistic view, adds some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the direct reference, to indirectly prove that Souliotes were not ethnic Albanians. Funny isn't it? That's why a simple sentence "Souliotes were enrolled in the Regiment Albanaise" is much better. Who is interested in Regiment Albanaise might follow the link. This is as much neutral as it should be. Aigest (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article to expand, if we are permitted to.--Euzen (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You can edit any article you want to Euzen, but you must stick to WP:RS and don't get into WP:OR or attribute a dispute to source that doesn't mention it. Why don't you start by introducing some of your sources on this talkpage and explain how you mean to use them?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's move to that article, then.--Euzen (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the article "In some sources Souliotes are characterized as "Albanian-speaking Greeks" which has been taken out of context. That sentence continues with a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH sentences out of 19th century traveler books. As such they should be removed. Aigest (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the paragraph Nonetheless, a common language was not sufficient to cement an alliance etc. was taken completely out of context. The only thing it can be used for is to provide a further explanation as to why the Pashalik-Suliot alliance broke off i.e. the religious context of the situation. It seems that I've added expanded that aspect in the past, although it'd be probably better to cover it in a separate article about Tahir Abazi rather than add it here.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Both parties should explain why they initiated a long term revert war campaign:

@Aigest: why the information about the diary of F.Tzavellas is completely removed? Suppose the argument about wp:or & synth is problematic, since this is well sourced.

@Euzen: This thing about 'Albanian speaking-Greeks' doesn't help the situation for the reader (sourced by 19th century material), which was already described in detail in the identity section.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule against 19th c. sources. Btw, go to artilce Voisava Tripalda and see that 16th c. sources are used. Notice also the false refs supposedly supporting the "albanian Souliotes", which sources I challenged in this talk page and received no reply. --Euzen (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you start another section for a topic that Aigest tried to discuss (no reply, WP:BRD) with Euzen since he first made those edits? Euzen has been causing disruption and as in the two previous cases I'll be forced to report him again if he continues misrepresenting the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The above section doesn't deal with the edit war in general, i.e. with the complete removals of F. Tzavelas' diary. So, disruption isn't only caused by one user, and especially when a user removes well sourced parts as or and synth without any further explanation is also defined as disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

At least now any discussion can be conducted properly.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Blind reverting isn't a sound strategy, especially if reliable material is multiple times removed in this case (T. Yochalas). Aigest also needs to explain what's the meaning of adding this [[10]] and especially this edtsummary [[11]]: using poorly cited and outdated material as a reference to prove that Soulotes belonged to a specific ethnic group, just the same strategy as Euzen.Alexikoua (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very important to understand that being Albanian can have two different meanings, ethnic Albanian or demonym.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I'll report the latest the block evasion. Btw in a unit known as the Albanian Regiment (Régiment Albanais), a term attributed to mercenaries from the Balkans, independently of ethnicity. is ungrammatical and wasn't even part of Euzen's intentions. He was quoting sources about the use of the term Arnauts if I'm not mistaken. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess you need to report it in wiki and not in irc, suppose there isn't something to hide this time.

Also if a sentence is grammatically incorrect, this doesn't mean that someone should remove only a part of it, in order to promote a ethnically pure version that 'regiment Albanaise' consisted of ethnic Albanians only.Alexikoua (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is for all Greek editors. I fully understand the importance of Suliotes in Greek history, but shifting their origin from Albanian to Greek does not make their contribution more valid, actually it is offensive to their sacrifices. They were who they were. All contemporary sources, i.e. counsels or ambassadors cite them as Albanian. I do not see any reference by you guys beside nowadays Greek historians. Moreover, by the end of the section there are references from Rizos, Arnakis, Protopsaltes. How neutral are they? Why Katsaros in not mentioned?
Incredible how can you pretend they were Greeks but somehow learned Albanian on the way. Where did they learn Albanian? At church? At school? Where?
Mondiad (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453–1821, Victor Roudometof.
• Balkan cultural commonality and ethnic diversity. Raymond Detrez (Ghent University, Belgium).
• Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans, Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, ISBN 0313319499.
• Citizenship and Identity in Turkey: From Atatürk's Republic to the Present Day, Basak Ince, I.B.Tauris, 2012, ISBN 1780760264.
• Political Islam in Turkey, Gareth Jenkins, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, ISBN 0230612458. Jingiby (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This article's section Identity contradicts somewhere itself. It contains the following sentences: In Ottoman-ruled Epirus, national identity did not play a role to the social classification of the local society; while religion was the key factor of classification of the local communities. The Orthodox congregation was included in a specific ethno-religious community under Graeco-Byzantine domination called Rum millet. Its name was derived from the Byzantine (Roman) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Christians were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language. According to this, the Muslim communities in Epirus were classified as Turks, while the Orthodox (Rum), like the Souliotes, were classified as Greeks.

How could the national identity did not play any role in the society and the religion to be the key factor of classification of the local communities but they to be classified as Greeks and Turks, i.e. by ethnicity not by religion? The used here source Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece is at a whole reliable but is not specialized in Ottoman social structure and contains some inaccuracies right there. In general in the Ottoman empire the people were bound to their millets by their religious affiliations rather than their ethnic origins, according to the millet concept. The Muslim millet united different populations regardless of ethnic and linguistic distinctions: Turkish, Arab, Kurdish, Albanian and so on. The Orthodox Christians were included in the Rum Millet, or the "Roman nation" conquered by Islam but enjoying a certain autonomy. Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Vlachs, Georgians, Arabs, Romanians and Serbs were all considered part of the same millet despite their differences in ethnicity and language. There were not Turkish or Greek millets in ethnic sense. However, under Ottoman rule ethnonyms never disappeared, which indicates that some form of ethnic awareness must have been preserved. In the nineteenth century, with the emergence of nationalism, the things radically changed and the relations between religious and ethnic self-identification were actually turned upside down. By the way, the word Turk was used only referring to common Anatolian villagers back in the 19th century. The Ottoman elite identified themselves as Ottomans in ethnic sense, but as Muslims in millet aspect. Ottoman law did not recognize notions such as ethnicity or citizenship; thus, a Muslims of any ethnic background enjoyed precisely the same rights and privileges under the Muslim millet.

As a conclusion: the people in classical Ottoman society identified themseves under the Millet system simply as Christians and Muslims not as Greeks and Turks.

The terms Greeks and Turks had not their modern meaning, they were indicating the religion of the subject and the cultural background, the recent paper of Nußberger Angelika, Wolfgang Stoppel, gives detailed explanation why Orthodox were called Greeks and Muslims Turks in Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I sharply disagree with you. We need a third neutral opinion. The statement above is nonsensic. Jingiby (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nußberger and Stoppel from Uni. Cologne are a third & neutral opinion. I don't see a reason why they should be wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have thought you didnt read any of provided bellow a lot of Academic sources written by University's Professors. You continue to stick to the only source provided by you, but this position is very subjective, i.e. not neutral but nearly POV. Jingiby (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a second academic source, which states that too: the ethnonyms 'Greek and 'Orthodox Christian' were largely synonymous. This doesn't mean that all Orthodox by religion were ethnic Greeks based on the modern view of ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the sources you provided seem to be against you. Roudometof: Both the peasantry and the literate and urban Greek-Orthodox groups were “Greek” in the sense of being Orthodox. and During the eighteenth century, the geographical dispersion and the urban nature of the Greek ethnie in the Balkan peninsula transformed the “Greeks” into a Balkan urban class (Svoronos 1981:58). Hence, “Greeks” were not only ethnic Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As per Roudometof p. 19: In the late 1790s, Balkan Orthodox Christians routinely referred to themselves as “Christians” and referred to Catholics as either “Latins” or, more commonly, “Franks” (Arnakis 1963:131). Within the Ottoman Empire, these Greek Orthodox urban and mercantile strata were referred to by the Ottomans, the Church, and themselves as Rayah, Christians, or “Romans”—that is, members of the Rum millet.4 And then under line remak # 4 as follows: The name Roman was a legacy of history, not a factual identification of race or ethnicity... The term Roman originally designated a citizen of the Eastern Roman Empire (since the Western part had collapsed in the fifth century). Since Charlemagne’s reconstitution of the Western Roman Empire in 800, Western Europeans began employing the term Greek to denote the Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire, causing in the process the outrage of the Eastern Romans (i.e. “Byzantines”) (Gill 1980:68; Romanidis 1975:281). The Ottomans employed the term reaya to imply all land cultivators regardless of religion; but in practice, in the Ottoman Balkans, this term meant the Orthodox Christians. In European cartography of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries,“Grecia” included Dalmatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, the coastal area of Asia Minor, Albania, and the Aegean islands (Karathanasis 1991:9). For the Western audience in Germany, Austria, and Hungary, Greek Orthodox was synonymous with Orthodoxy (Stoianovich 1960:290).Jingiby (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but this isn't an argument against the thesis that Greek was synonymous to Orthodox in Epirus, which so far is verbaly taken from two academic papers.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No such entity as Epirus existed during Ottoman times. This is a nonsense. Jingiby (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a widespread geographic term for that period, see Epirus. But this is also not an argument against the social classification that time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The geographic term Epirus may be used at that time as well the term Greek, however the official Ottoman administration and the local population used customaryly the Vilayet-system administrative designations, i.e. Janina vilajet and the Rum millet designation, i.e. Rum, which meant de yure Orthodox and de facto (Eastern) Roman. From today point of view these both (object and subject) may be called Epirus and Greek, but these terms are not historically precise. Jingiby (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should we care how the official Ottoman administration called it? In wikipedia we have precise guidelines and per wp:rs, this can't be more clear, per Roudometov, Stoppel, De Rapper, who verbally confirm this part. By the way it appears that Ottoman era bibliography offers a mountain of bibliography on "Epirus" [[12]] (according to the same rational we have no Macedonia, Thrace too...)Alexikoua (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

By the was since you questioned the neutrality of highly graded academic institutes I can do nothing more than suggest you to fill a case in wp:ani/rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The part in question which was recently removed (yet without explanation) may concern a past talkpage section Talk:Souliotes/Archive_5#A_claim_not_supported_by_the_source_used. Off course the reference to Greece points to the latter Greek state where this community became famous indeed due to the armed struggle and participation in the Greek revolution.Alexikoua (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from fussing about dialects and place names, this article completely lacks any discussion of anything but what Souliot men did in war. Where is the discussion of Souliot society? What happened to the Souliot women and children when the population was driven into exile? What was the nature of the Souliot domestic economy? What was the family structure? What was Souliot life like in peacetime? What contributions have been made to culture in Souliot society? And so forth?

Poihths (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. But all I do with this article is to try and nurse the bleeding ulcer that essentially any article on the Balkans becomes. So; if sources exist, go ahead and edit. But I don't, and I'm sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a major WP:SYNTH problem with the Identity section. For example, the claim that their dialect was Cham Albanian or Tosk, and that they spoke it until the late 18th c. is not present in any of the references. I will edit the sentences based on what the references really say.--Zoupan 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

According to The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, K. E. Fleming, Princeton University Press, 2014, ISBN 1400864976, p. 62, the Souliotes were of Albanian descent. As per The Shepherds of Shadows, Harry Mark Petrakis, Southern Illinois University Press, 2008, ISBN 0809328631, p. 124, Although Suliot soldier spoke in Greek, their snarling Albanian dialect left incidental observers unable to comprehend what they were saying. Robert Elsie, who is an expert of that issue claims the same in his Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History, I.B.Tauris, 2012, ISBN 1780764316, p. 44. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not answer the problem with synth. Fleming is already used in the section. Petrakis is a novel and not historical work. Robert Elsie is an Albanologist and not a expert in this issue, interestinlgy, he uses "Marko Boçari". I added Elsie's comment to the section.--Zoupan 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Elsie is worldwide recognised as an Albanian language specialist. He claims Souliotic is an extinct Albanian dialect. In the article is controversy on that issue in support of the Greek view. That is dubious. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Elsie has only been recognized in Albania. I find no sources about a Souliotic dialect, so this remains a theory. If the Souliotes were indeed Arvanites, there should be contemporary sources claiming such (that they came from Albania and primarily spoke Albanian). Also, the fact that the Souliote clans have origin in various places does not suggest that they have one general Albanian origin.--Zoupan 18:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? After learning the Albanian language in the 1980s, he resolved to devote himself to Albanian Studies as an academic discipline and later became a leading expert in the field. He is now the author of over sixty books and countless articles, mostly devoted to Albanian Studies. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you? I said Albanologist, you said "Albanian language specialist". Now that you've searched for him on google, you came up with the same conclusion, Albanologist. He is recognized in Albania. Does this automatically mean that he has some expertise in Souliote history? No.--Zoupan 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What about an old History of Greece, by George Finlay and H. F. Tozer, published by Cambridge University Press in 2014; ISBN 108078389, that maintains the Albanian origins of the Souliotes on pp. 43- 46? 78.159.147.70 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That reference with quote is already in the article (Finlay 1939, p. 42).--Zoupan 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, i have been looking into the matter regarding Robert Elsie's qualifications and i have yet to come across any academic source that says "He is recognized in Albania" only. Please no personal POV pushing or personal interpretation of a academic source. Also he has worked for a number of reputable academic institutions and also with the United Nations (see:http://www.elsie.de/en/bio.html). Have you come across a source (a credible one) that has importantly referred to Elsie's works as "pro-Albanian") like Miranda Vickers' have? He has been referred to a Albanologist, but that is not some kind of smear (you have to explain per credible sources that Albanologist somehow means "pro-Albanian"). People that are referred to as Albanologists usually are those who are deeply involved in Albanian studies and has great expertise in the area. Elsie for that very fact and as a non-Balkan outsider regarding his works is thus very important here. Hence your comment "I find no sources about a Souliotic dialect, so this remains a theory. If the Souliotes were indeed Arvanites, there should be contemporary sources claiming such (that they came from Albania and primarily spoke Albanian). Also, the fact that the Souliote clans have origin in various places does not suggest that they have one general Albanian origin." Dr. Thede Kahl (please do Google him. Because of his expertise he as also been referred to as a Vlachologist)for one refers to the Souliotes as Albanian speaking and Arvanites and also discusses how they became bilingual. You need to look more in depth at the material Zoupan before making grand pronouncements like that. Resnjari (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the introduction does not adequately summarize the Identity, ethnicity and language section. --Zoupan 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the second paragraph as it does not correspond to the references (or historical facts).--Zoupan 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits will be deleted as there is no consensus about them .The "ottoman greek" will be deleted as there is no consensus about that. Rolandi+ (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)