Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:48, 5 March 2010

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

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

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

Archives

Archive 1 (2006—2008) Archive 2 (Feb—March 2009) Archive 3 (April—July 2009) Archive 4 (September 2009)

History Of The Greek Revolution by George Finlay. Volume I. 1861

George Finlay’s History of the Greek Revolution. Vol. I. 1861. ]

. In two volumes. Volume I. William Blackwood and Sons; Edinburgh and London; 1861.

Chapter II. The Albanians

The Suliots the most remarkable tribe of orthodox Albanians (p. 51); Their rise and social condition (p. 53); Repeatedly attacked by Ali Pasha, etc. (p. 55).

N. B. Bolds are mine. Guildenrich 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please this copy-paste job from Finlay has no sense. A link is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoya, this is the last time you touch my stuff. If you do it again, I'm going to report you! Guildenrich (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Capodistria: the founder of Greek independence‎- page 33

• Christopher Montague Woodhouse, Oxford University Press, 1973

"Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had lived an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries.."

--Factuarius (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please don't make a copy-paste job too, a link is jusy enough.Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

this tugowar doesnt help...different authors highlighted different aspects of the suliots..they were clearly of albanian origin and christian they were the local mafia irrespective of religion and language later threw their lot with hellenism..etc the sooner everyone accepts the different aspects of their career the sooner a decent intro can be put in place...i dont see whats wrong with accepting that the suliots were of albanian origin anyway87.202.33.38 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Suliots?

Suliots ? what is this , it should have been a redirect to this.Megistias (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is just Guildenrich's today's new article. Failing to push his POV here decided to write his own article. Now nobody will dare to touch it. Nice. --Factuarius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Souliotes and Al Capone: their hidden link

What is not helping 87.202.33.38 is your contribution in the discussion. Until now nobody had called Souliotes "local mafia". Such a "decent intro" would just ruin the article. As for their "clearly albanian origin" well, since you are so sure why not write a book about it? Maybe Oxford University Press would be interested in correcting the Christopher Woodhouse's errors, so to regain its academic reliability. --Factuarius (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point you are all being disruptive

And I mean it. The lot of you just managed to mess up a perfectly good lede again to fight over something that nobody other than yourselves actually cares about, using lousy 19th-century primary and secondary sources to "prove" what are essentially unverifiable conclusions. Stop squabbling over petty shit. Do you think anyone who reads this article will care? Try to look at this from the perspective of someone who is not a juvenile nationalist by persuasion. Any more and I will start handing out bans. Moreschi (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for anyone who creates any more WP:POVFORKs. There is actually a policy against that, and per WP:ARBMAC I can and will enforce it. Moreschi (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you just rv the last version can you be more specific on what you mean sane and where the previous version was insane to your opinion? --Factuarius (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It just didn't make sense. Bilingual stock? That's a linguistic reference in a sentence that is, however stupidly, trying to discuss their racial origin. Plus, in the first sentence the article asserts their origin, and then lower down points out that it is "disputed". And "clearly Greek"? WTF did that from? Yes, clearly this is up for debate, but all the modern (not 19th century) sources we have seen point to a community of Albanian-speakers (and they were originally Albanian-speaking, this can't be ducked) who become Hellenized over the years. What their precise racial origin was we'll never know, insofar as such terms have any relevance or meaning - very little. Moreschi (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• "clearly Greek. WTF did that from?" I putted the ref in the txt and I mention it also here: is from the C.M. Woodhouse's book of Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192111965 p.33. And there are more saying exactly the same.
• "Lousy 19th-century sources" No as for this particular book is of 1973.
• "linguistic reference in relate to racial origin" Since it's impossible to make genetic studies to be sure about their origin and the sources are conflicted about, the only way to approach their origin is by their language. Most of the sources agreed they were bilingual so the most possible origin was mixed Greek-Albanian. This is Balkans nearly all are mixed.
• To me the only neutral way to end permanently the issue is to mention both three sourced opinions about their origin, Albanian, Greek and mixed, together with their sources and get over with it.
• You are admin and you can enforce your opinion about, but to my opinion that will end the issue only temporarily, not to mention that is not elegant to omit neutral sources even if they are conflicted with others. --Factuarius (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • While I thoroughly agree that genetics is irrelevant here, your point about language unfortunately doesn't work: by your line of argument, all our sources agree that they originally spoke a sub-dialect of Albanian, ergo they must have been Albanian in origin. That they later became bilingual is of course undisputed. Note that I am not arguing that they must have been of Albanian origin simply because they originally spoke Albanian, but that is what follows from your line of argument.

• • What, exactly, does Woodhouse say? And what time is he referring to? If he is talking about a relatively late period in their history his referring to them as Greek means nothing more than the cultural and linguistic shift to Greece was completed by that stage. If he was talking about a point in time when our other available sources still attribute to the Soulioties Albanian language and culture - at least in part - then we have something worth discussing. Moreschi (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi this is exactly the point: The sources doesn't agree on what they spoke and what their origin was. C.M. Woodhouse in p.33 says about them that "the refugees consisted mainly of Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had lived an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries". William Miller in his 1966 book The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927‎- Σελίδα 23 says "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians.." and other sources says that they were of Albanian origin. That's the issue and that's why the only solution is to mention both three opinions. How we can omit the other two? --Factuarius (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, fine, now we are getting somewhere. In which case we can do a rewrite in accord with WP:UNDUE, along the lines of their precise racial origin is unknown, but was very likely at least partially Albanian. Woodhouse should get a mention but it should also be mentioned that his opinion is very much in the minority.

• I have still not seen a single source that contradicts the view, however, that they originally spoke a dialect of Albanian and then wound up bilingual. Moreschi (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If they were Greek for a two centuries, back in 1821 how they could spoke Albanian? As for Woodhouse's opinion being a minority I can bring more sources about their Greek origin, many Greek and some non-Greek. Woodhouse's book is just the more prestigious due to his titles and his editor. Also there are many documents of their numerous letters to Ali pasha, all of them are in Greeks although they supposedly being Albanians or bilingual spoken to an Albanian-Turk ruler. Even the Ali's letters to them were all in Greeks. Both could use at least Turk language since both knew it also and that was the official language in the Ottoman Empire. --Factuarius (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes, changes, changes

I’m going to change the names of the villages to Kiafa, Navariko and Samoniva, as Christoforos Perraivos wrote them in his book, published in Athens (1857). Αιγοβοσκοί τινες εκ των πέριξ χωρίων ανέβαινον βόσκοντες τα κτήνη των εις τα βουνά, όπου σήμερον υπάρχουσι το Σούλλιον, η Κιάφα, ο Ναβαρίκος, και η Σαμωνίβα... (ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ, συγγ. παρά ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΥ ΠΕΡΡΑΙΒΟΥ. 1857. p. 2) Guildenrich 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. Stop spamming the talkpage with random quotations from old literature. Moreschi (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As you know, in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better! -- Guildenrich (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"The older, the better"

As for Guildenrich's motto and since "in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better": "The Souliots, the other Greek fugitives of the continent, together with the Chimariots..." Guillaume De Vaudoncourt, Memoirs. 1816 p.417. Since that's the older ref until now, and according to your motto, do we have a deal about their origin "Guildenrich"? --Factuarius (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We can go on and on with this discussion. I think it's better to outline in a paragraph their disputed origin as:

1. Cham Albanians;

2. Greeks; and

3. Hellenized; giving respective sources.

"I was here first" or the Right of the First Occupant, in Balkan Nationalism is more of a disease, than a political statement.--Guildenrich (talk)17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean

Albanians

Greeks

And mixed Albanian-Greek

Since these are the three known positions according to the presenting in the article and the talk pages refs. The Albanian and Hellenized Albanian is the same and there are at least two refs about their mixed origin that we cannot omit. If so I am making the changing in the article giving both three views about their origin with their related refs.

As for the disease of the "Right of the First Occupant", I believe your comment is irrelevant with the current discussion because what we discuss here is about the possible significance of the old sources not who was the older occupant. You are who claiming that Souliotes were at first of Albanian origin, not Greeks. Also you are who told that "in history the older source the better source". Now that I gave an older source about their origin you are answering the irrelevant: "I was here first" or the Right of the First Occupant, in Balkan Nationalism is more of a disease" What I only trying here is to follow you and respond to your standards in order to have a good discussion and end the matter.--Factuarius (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"The older the better" is a ridiculous criterion for evaluating sources. By that criterion, we should throw out all modern scholarship and rely on the Vedas, the Hebrew Bible, and Herodotus in preference to modern historians. All sources, old or new, primary or secondary, must be evaluated critically and read intelligently in the context of their times. --macrakis (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As per wp:rs, secondaries are preferred.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I prefer a modern study from Oxford University Press like Woodhouse's; but serious and neutral eye witnesses like Guillaume De Vaudoncourt who lived for years in the area has a value. Also the Albanian literature of the 19th Century, (thus well before the emerge of the Albanian nationalism) is by default NPOV, is reflecting the Albanian people's position about Souliotes' origin and thus, also worth a look. --Factuarius (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1857

"ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ" is dated 1857.Megistias (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating the obvious! Cool! --Guildenrich 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

About the refs in being of Albanian origin presenting in the article

• 1. The crescent and the eagle: Ottoman rule, Islam and the Albanians, 1874-1913 By George Walter Gawrych as a ref: Although an article's ref. about Souliotes being of Albanian origin, in fact the ref's text says exactly the opposite mentioning an Albanian novel written in the 19th century by the Ahmed Midhat (an Albanian) about “the love between a Muslim Albanian man (Rustem Bey) and a Greek woman (Eftimi)” from Souli. The source is in fact a remarkable finding about a 19th century's Albanian source openly admitting Souliotes Greek-ness, falsely presented saying the opposite about Souliotes's origin.
• 2. Albanian literature: a short history by Robert Elsie as a ref: The page mentioning (17 or 171) is not present in the Google Books (in fact unlike what is mentioning in the ref the book has no preview at all) and the GoogleBook word search tool on that book doesn't giving any paragraph in where the word “Souliotes” or “Souliots” is present.
• To my opinion more (than one) and more reliable refs in being of Albanian origin are needed in the article in order to present the Albanian origin view of Souliotes more convincing. --Factuarius (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to make my objections. The "Eftimi" chick... are you f*ucking kidding me? The source says only that Eftimi (Euthymia?) was a Greek woman from Suli. Nowhere it says that the Souliotes were Greeks. I think you should consider revising the whole papargaph, on their Greek, Greek and Hellenized-Albanians, and the mix of Greeks and Greek Albanians. Better luck next time. Guildenrich 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cannot understand what you say, since Eftimi was a Greek woman from Souli according to the text, then that's a 19th century's Albanian source about Souliotes being Greek not Albanian, as was falsely presented before. How you can use such a story as a ref for Souliotes being of Albanian origin? The very point of the story, the heart of the novel, its essential element was exactly the oddity of a love between an Albanian outside Souli and a Greek from Souli. Can you clear your thoughts and upgrade your civility? The current paragraph isn't about "Greek, Greek and Hellenized-Albanians, and mix of Greeks and Greek Albanians", is about 1)Greek, 2)mixed Greek and Hellenized Albanian and 3)Albanian (I changed the IP's edit). Which is what the currently presented references say for their origin, have you any objections about? --Factuarius (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius, it is clear you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here if you are trying to infer from a "Greek woman from Souli" (which is reliable how anyway?) that "all the Souliotes were Greek". That's just ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't noticed that post before. This was not mine ref, it was here before, but as a ref indicating Souliotes being of Albanian origin, so its not me who scraping the bottom of the barrel. I only pointed out that if this old Albanian ref suggest something, that's the opponent of what was originally used to (see above). I do believe that if it is ridiculous as a ref of Souliotes being of Greek origin it was double ridiculous as a ref of being of Albanian since the text said clearly that the Souliot girl was Greek not Albanian, that's all. --Factuarius (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't ave a consensus lede here. Guildenrich 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Because? --Factuarius (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't have a consensus, at least one (Me) doesn't agree. You should better revert the article to "09:55, 8 October 2009". Or else I will.Guildenrich 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Origin section is for sure needed since things are complicated on the topic. It's better to improve this section than to make massive reverts to a past, less detailed version.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guildenrich can you start talk? I asked you twice why you don't agree and you answered nothing ("no consensus", "no consensus" without stating why). My opinion is that since their origin cannot be given in a few words due to the conflicting refs, it cannot be in the lede. Must have a section for that, wherein all three views with their related refs will be mentioned and logically we cannot split it in two (a part in the lede and a part in the origin section). Be a little more constructive by reasoning your position about and improve the origin section instead of just reverting. --Factuarius (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also you putted back the Robert Elsie's ref in were the Souliotes are not mentioned at all and George Walter's ref in which the author says exactly the opposite. --Factuarius (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<bashes head against a brick wall>-2009-10-30T00:15:00.000Z">

guys, this is just not acceptable. We had consensus previously to mention that they originally spoke an albanian dialect and later became hellenized, and leave it at that. Now we have an enormously tendentious and argumentative "origins" section that flagrantly ignores the language fact (which no one has seriously disputed). Come on. This may be petty but it matters. You don't just get to cherry-pick like this, and rely on archaic sources. Moreschi (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)"> ">

The basic point is that we DO NOT NEED this ridiculous section. The precise ethnic origin of the Souliotes is unlikely ever to be definitively settled, but the basic point is that NOBODY EFFING CARES apart from you bunch of nationalist flamers. This is not a matter for NOTABLE controversy outside whatever google groups you guys hang out in. Hence we don't need an entire argumentative section on it, synthesized out of a bunch of crap.

Seriously, children, please grow up. This is an encyclopedia devoted to encyclopedicity. Have a long, careful think about what that means. Sorry for shouting, but FFS, stop pissing around over this irrelevant shit. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But you told the last time "Ok, fine, now we are getting somewhere. In which case we can do a rewrite in accord with WP:UNDUE, along the lines of their precise racial origin is unknown, but was very likely at least partially Albanian. Woodhouse should get a mention but it should also be mentioned that his opinion is very much in the minority." --Factuarius (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And you took that and completely and utterly distorted it, proving in the process you are completely unfit to be editing such a topic under any pretence of neutrality. Back to the last sane version until you manage to come up with something vaguely in accordance with policy. For that matter, I'm still unclear as to how you are going to manage to source the notability of this controversy. Is this controversial among academics? No, just among nationalist blogs. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be at the academic level, not the blog level. Moreschi (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What you propose to do with the those 8 refs saying being Albanians, Greek and mixed? --Factuarius (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discard most of them as archaic junk that you have scraped out of the bottom of some barrel somewhere. Point out that, as far as substantial references are concerned, no one seems to have researched this closely or be particularly certain, so we'd be better off sticking to facts (originally Albanophone, later Greek-speaking). You people badly need to get out of the mentality that dictates accuracy by number of references. Good faith, not pseudo-scholarlyness, is the key. Quality of references matters more than quantity. Moreschi (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) I agree with Moreschi. If you want to write about a dispute, you need proof that the dispute exists. I see no indication of this. I am not even sure that there are contradictions in the obsolete (19th century) sources: It wouldn't be a contradiction to say that the Souliotes were Albanian by origin but are among the most authentic ethnic Greeks now. It's all a matter of self-identification and how they are seen by their neighbours, which may well have shifted. Hans Adler 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank the lord. Another voice of sanity. On a page like this, they don't arrive very often. Moreschi (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Other pages like this aren't related to the most beautiful spot in the world (the Acherontas valley). ;-) I have been watching this article for ages because of that connection. Hans Adler 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand your point, but one of the ref you putted back says nothing at all about Souliotes, another says the opposite and I cannot see why Vickers's is academic but Woodhouse is not. The language you are mentioning is in reality an indication of their origin, so either with your view, what we are really talking is about their origin. Why we must omit refs (even modern) speaking directly about their origin? --Factuarius (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)"> ">

If you really think that the language a group speaks is a necessary indicator of their ethnic origin then there's something badly wrong. When we speak of language we are not necessarily speaking of ethnicity: the two are related but not mutually inclusive, and history provides plenty of examples a people speaking a language alien to their background. Moreschi (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus: well, yes, it's obvious that up to a point it's perfectly valid to call them "Greek": they doubtless self-identified as Hellenes and were identified as such by their neighbours after a certain time. Unfortunately for you boys, some kind of Albanian origin seems very hard to deny and this origin remained part of their culture for quite a while as well. Thus this makes applying a precise label to their ethnicity a very knotty problem, so we had best skip over it and stick with linguistic fact, give that there is absolutely no notable controversy here at all. Moreschi (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What you say is right and sound but not the rule, believe me I am not totally ignorant in Balkans history and must trust me: for the period we discuss it was totally impossible to start as a Greek population but who spoke Albanian. The mixed origin is a good argument that is a good explanation, that's why must include it, but together with the other two. To me that's the only NPOV presentation of the issue and let the reader decide (if he gives a penny as you told). --Factuarius (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned users editing-2009-10-30T07:14:00.000Z">

Just to note here that 96.225.107.10 and related IPs are evidently banned user Deucalionite (talk · contribs) again. Any edits from that source will be immediately reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you semi-protect (again) the article to end with the IP edits since they are not participating in the discussion, and since what we are trying is to achieve a final consensus in the issue? --Factuarius (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind semi-protection, but I can't do that myself right now, as I'm currently not supposed to be taking admin actions on Greece-related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<bashes wall against a brick head>-2009-11-03T02:56:00.000Z">

Consensus, anyone? Somebody please check one or two stocking-puppets involved in the discussion. Don't want to mention any names. Guildenrich 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Agree, it seems that too many new usernames created at the end of august decided that their only interest was to edit the Epirus-related articles. And too many old (in)famous accounts carrying multiple blocks in their backs are mysteriously still missing; some of those "new" accounts are already banned as stocking, some not. As for me I don't have A SINGLE edit without sigh it by my user name IN MY ENTIRE WP life, which is THE ONLY USER NAME I EVER HAD. I say: not even one edit. Hard to believe? why "Guildenrich"?. Now go and ask for a check. Do it now, else you are accusing people without believing your own words just to discredit them. --Factuarius (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)"> ">

About consensus: Let me explain what is happening here to give you the answer. In this article you are free to give as much refs you want saying that Souliotes spoke Albanian but you are not free to give any ref about their actual origin. You can include a ref about a 19th century's Albanian novel as a confirmation of their Albanian origin and the ref will stay here for months, but when is found that the ref says actually the opposite the ref have to be deleted as old. You cannot give any modern ref about Souliotes' origin (i.e.from Oxford University Press), because the object of the books are not Souliotes' origin. You can say that the rulers of the area were Albanians but you cannot say that they wrote poems saying that Souliotes were not. And you can then ask if we now have a consensus. Got it? Accordingly, the current situation in the article is the following: All six refs about their non-Albanian origin are by now deleted (two old and four modern) and the article has the only ref saying they spoke Albanian, supported by another possibly saying not a word about Souliotes. So about the consensus, the answer is sure, why not, as I understand it everyone here has to pick his decision: either he agrees that the Souliotes spoke Albanian, or he is out. Who am I to continue bashing the wall when less brick-headed Greek nationalists than me like Miller, Woodhouse, Hatzidimitriou, Lydekker, Vaudoncourt, Fauriel (and who knows how many others) failed so evidently to recognize their mistake? --Factuarius (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this Misplaced Pages, The 💕, or Misplaced Pages, the Factuarius encyclopedia? I think I'm going to report you somewhere, for ungentlemanly behaviour. Guildenrich (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Moreschi

Will you please have a look at the history page? Someone is doctoring it. Thanks in advance. Guildenrich (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Warlike community or Albanian community?

The article starts with saying that the Souliotes are a "warlike community". Now what is exactly a "warlike community"? A community that likes wars? I never heard of such communities. Perhaps someone wants to explain a little better or open a new article to explain what the warlike communities are?

Can we mention what nation this community belonged to? Or is it too controversial to say that they were Albanian? A community that fights back against the aggressor might be warlike but that doesn't mean we should say that they were a "warlike community".

I suggest that we remove "warlike community" and substitute with "Arvanite community".user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no one could answer me in two weeks, I made the change. user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have made a big mistake by making this edit, you are all to familiar with the objections to that wording. Concerning the proposal "Arvanite community", I'm not sure. They were Arvanite only according to certain definitions, the name "Arvanite" is often taken to refer only to the Arvanites of central and southern Greece and these definitions exclude the Suliotes.

I don't like the word "community" either. I propose something along the lines of "the Suliotes were a group of clans from the village of Souli and the surrounding area who became famous...".--Ptolion (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I like your wording better too. --Athenean (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds better to me too. Bring the battle to Suli now, :-). sulmues

Made the change as suggested by Ptolion, and agreed by Athenean.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, why are you reverting me if you say above that you like the wording?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ali Pasha a brigand?

On the top, we're saying: "Ali Pasha, an Albanian brigand". If the English user gets curious about this character and he makes the mistake to click on Ali Pasha he is going to find that not only was he not a brigand, but he was the ruler of the Pashalik of Janina (its pasha). As a result the word needs to be removed. Either we say nothing about him, because the reader can go ahead and see who he was or we say that he was the ruler of the vilayet which included Souli. Even Adolf Hitler is referred to as a politician and leader of a parti, why should a Pasha be brigand? I need the community comments in order to make the change. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Brigand" is obviously in reference to his relations with the central government, I'm not sure it's the most appropriate word though. I agree with you, change it.--Ptolion (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Athenean reverted through his usual edit warring without first writing in the talk page.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you clicked on the two sources given, they both say "brigand". We go by what the sources say, not what you like. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually he was famous as such, the massacres of Hormovo, Lekli, Himara, Souli, Preveza, Moscopole was the work of a brigand leader. The 'ruler' or 'Pasha' term is too generic. Imagine for example calling A. Hitler simply 'ruler' or 'Fuehrer' of Germany, instead of 'dictator', 'tottalitarian ruler' or 'war criminal'.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the word "brigand" on its own means very little. Even the two sources cited don't use that word on its own to refer to him but merely use it to qualify the word leader or warlord. It also needs to be considered whether it is relevant to his relations with the Souliotes. Did the Souliotes oppose him out of loyalty to the sultan for example?--Ptolion (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually they didn't recognize his authority at all. So you suggest 'brigand leader' suits better, since 'brigand' means very little?Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

clever, isn`t it?

As, I saw, the consensus that was long ago (before I leave) is changed to a new one, putting out anything that has to do with ethnicity. Thus, no mention about it, thus putting out the sources in general and the Albanian ones in paticular (which were the majority), clever isn`t it?
Nevertheless, I propose two things:
1. To put out from the lead the ethnicity of Ali Pasha, and his soldiers (isn`t this part of defocusing from ethnicity? otherwise, we should put Souliotes` ethnicity first of all, the article is about them.
2. To create a section about their ethnicity. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Soulites' ethnicity is debate and a section is a good idea. I would prefer the title 'identity' instead of ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Souliotes be renamed and moved to Suliotes. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Souliotes → Suliotes — Suliotes is the name that is most used by sources, as such it should be the name of the article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I request the move of this page from Souliotes to Suliotes. Valuing the various sources used in this page about the Suliotes, the name used by the majority of historians is Suliotes and not Souliotes.

Secondly, after doing a google test, in scholar and google books (not in google.com, because of the patronym Souliotes, which is popular in Greece), the result was:

1. Google books:
   

• Suliotes: 905 hits
  
• Souliotes: 636 hits
  
  

1. Google scholar:
   

• Suliotes: 432 hits
  
• Souliotes: 62 hits
  
  

For this three reasons, as per WP:NC, Suli and Suliotes ought to be the actual name of this article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Update While I did the google test, I was actually wrong. I reendered the data from the google test, using only those pages that are in English per WP:ENG. The difference is quite clear now! Secondly, I removed the references about Souli and Suli, because as is said below, they are not representing the geographical location of Souli. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support move per evidence provided--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Support move per Balkanian`s word's reasoning. An Albanian settlement has to go with its Albanian name. --sulmues (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as nationalist nonsense. I note that virtually all the results for "Suli" and "Souli" have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual Souli. As for "Souliotes" vs. "Suliotes", the difference in the number of hits is not sufficiently significant to establish which one is common usage, but I note that "Souliotes" has been the stable article name for years (since the beginning in fact). Athenean (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment 1. Please be polite. 2. That it has been in a wrong name since the begining is not an argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: My comment is not impolite and I stand by it. It is nationalism, because only a nationalist would call "Souliotes" the wrong name. You just want to replace "Souliotes" with "Suliotes" because "Suliotes" is the more "Albanian" spelling. So this is just a frivolous nationalist crusade to "right" a historical "wrong". It also is nonsense because virtually all the 20000+ hits for "Souli" and "Suli" have nothing to do with the actual Souli as anyone who clicks on the link can tell. So either you do not know what you are doing or else are trying to deceive the community (which is it?). I also note that virtually all the hits for "Suliotes" refer to a particular poem by Lord Byron. He uses "Suliotes" in his poem, so it is natural to expect the sources discussing the poem to use "Suliotes". However, this is hardly representative of common usage. Athenean (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: As it is quite obvious, the wrong name in what I said is "wrong" as per wiki-policies, not "wrong" as per good or bad. You first said that this is nationalism, and than I said that this is the "wrong" name, so you even knew what would I answer to you, thats why you wrote about a nationalistic view, isnt it right? Nevertheles, about the real argument, as it seems both Souli and Suli are irrelevant in the search, but clearly Suliotes and Souliotes are relevant. Lord Byron`s Suliotes poem is not 1000 times in google books, is just ones, as such one down, from the 923 hits, still is more used. Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Nationalist nonsense" is but one man's opinion. Nominator seems to know what he's talking about. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Did you see that virtually all the 20000+ hits for "Suli" and "Souli" have nothing to do the actual Souli? Evidently the nominator doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he knows *exactly* what he's doing). Athenean (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Athenean --Factuarius (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: the evidence isn't strong enough for this move. Actually: google search: Souliotes 103,000 hits ], Suliotes 34,000 ].

Comment This is not the case, as most of them are Demetres Souliotes, George Souliotes, Janis Souliotes, and whoever-greek-uses-this-name Souliotes. We are talking about a population group, not about persons.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: I already told you to avoid trolling comments, since you are still under civility supervision. This has nothing to do with racial purity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: its pretty clear Megistias (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment This is not a vote poll, this is argumentation based on wikipolicy, so please be more clear than "pretty clear".Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: When you type Suliotes in Googlescholar it shows the msg 'Did you mean Souliotes?' . Moreover the vast majority (if not all) of the hits in Suliotes are either irrelevant or 19th century works.Alexikoua (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment It is not the case again, per my first and main argument that most of the sources that used to and are in this page do mention Suliotes and not Souliotes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. The dubious Google results aren't good enough from this one, especially when the population concerned are named after a settlement in Greece with a clear official spelling. Yet another case of Albanian irredentism.--Ptolion (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Ten Pound Hammer Aigest (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I still wait to see a clear argument for this move. The google books hits actually is a counter-argument for this move since the results are completely irrelevant.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• First, a comment: what exactly is the fuss about? Both "Suliotes" and "Souliotes" are essentially the same, English transliterations of Σουλιώτες, hinging on the different ways used for transliterating the Greek ου into English. I really find it odd that we have to be divided along national lines in a vote which does not have any implications whatsoever. There is no "correct" form per se; per WP:ENG we could also follow the English form, which is "Suliots", but which does not meet the most common in use criterion. As Balkanian said, a search in Google Scholar (IMO the best indicator for the more recent trends & scholarly usage) comes up with 482 hits for "Suliotes" and 239 hits for "Souliotes", with many of the latter being transliterations from Greek or from French articles. Per common use, Support for "Suliotes". Constantine ✍ 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced the move is a good idea. There are redirects in place for the alternative spellings, so I don't see any compelling reason to move; the alternatives are equally balanced at gbooks or gscholar on alternating sides. What's to gain? Even if it were a clear win (which I don't see it is), readers using the "right" names will get redirected to the "wrong" names and the matching article. Josh Parris 12:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That is actually a good question. There is nothing to be gained, indeed. As I said, there is no "right" or "wrong" version of the name, it is merely a matter of semantics. This move proposal is in itself rather redundant, but it is in place and per the guidelines for naming things, it has a sound footing. Other than that, IMO the proposal is of no consequence. Constantine ✍ 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The mere fact that the nominator says one of the names is "wrong" speaks volumes about his motivation. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not speak on my behalf, I can do it myself. In this case with "wrong" I clearly ment, wrong as per wikipolicies, not wrong per good or evil. Thank you for being so nice.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The nominator has been assiduously canvassing every Albanian user he knows: . Athenean (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: This is not a vote poll, this is an wiki-policy debate, as such no votes may be counted, just arguments. And a note to Athenean, I have asked the opinions even of other users: like this one, but as I said this is not voting ;). Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also this ] additional canvassing attempt.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be canvassing if it was a vote poll, but this is not a vote poll, this is a move request and as such the closing admin will not take into account the votes but WP:ENG and WP:NC.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the definition of canvassing since you addressed the message only to the Albanian users and about your argument in not being a vote, the expression "I need your opinion" adding to the fact that you called only Albanians, makes it more of a trumpet calling for a campaign for arguments than an innocent informative message. But I am sure that you will not repeat that unnecessary move in the future. To me (and I believe to everyone older than 7 months in the Balkan-related articles) your reappearance in WP will soon transform the articles again into a large battleground through canvassing, edit warring, and tagteaming. I may be wrong but I am afraid it's only a matter of time. But time will tell. --Factuarius (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I note that since Balkanian's fellow SPAs have failed to make any intelligent arguments and just cast !votes, I guess by his own words their !votes should be ignored. On the other hand, since this article falls within the scope of WP:GREECE, it is appropriate that I post a notice there. Athenean (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Ottoman military history articles
• Ottoman military history task force articles
• Start-Class Europe articles
• High-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• B-Class Greek articles
• High-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Old requests for peer review
• Requested moves