Talk:Souliotes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This article provides some accurate information about the historical dates and battles fought. However, even these historical facts are shrouded in chauvinistic Greek propaganda about the origins of Suliots, their involvement in the Greek war of independence, and most outrageously the alleged "liberation" by Greece. Also, the outside links from this article refer to hate-filled propaganda pages raving about how Greeks are better than anybody else.

My grandfather - an Albanian-speaking Suliot - was born in Suli and lived in what is now Northern Greece until his mid twenties. After the alleged "liberation" his family was forced by the Greek governemnt to give up all their property in Suli and move to Janina - Ioannina - because they refused to convert to the Greek Orthodox Church. After WWII, my grandfather narrowly managed to escape to Canada from the massacre and forced deportation of the Albanian population of what is now Northern Greece - massacre orchestrated by the Greek government.

Suli had an Albanian and Greek population who more anything else where fighting together against the Turks.

Anyhow, the article is into the making, please be patient....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montreal2004 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave the Souliots Alone

It would be best if you left this article alone. It is already sad to see Albanians claiming things left and right. First it is the Arvanites. Then, it is the Pelasgians. Then, it is the defeat of Mussolini in 1940 that was not a Greek victory against the Axis Powers, but an Albanian victory. Alexander the Great was half Epirotian and being that Epirus supposedly belonged to the Illyrians, that makes Alexander the Great Illyrian. Aristotle was Illyrian, Constantine the Great was Illyrian, Diocletian was Illyrian, Odysseus was Illyrian, etc. making all of these Greeks, Albanians.

You state that what is provided in this article is propagandistic. Yet, you Albanians have not come clean after being told for 45 years under Enver Hoxha's communist regime what to think and not to think. Everything that the Albanians claim must be Albanian otherwise it is "hate-filled propaganda." Since Alexander was in fact Greek, Albanians will be the first to scream and shout how he is not Greek alongside the Skopjeans of "Macedonia."

Go ahead. Make your changes. However, this does not change the fact that the Souliots were Greeks. They may have spoken a Greek-Albanian dialect, but it does not change the fact that they were Greeks. If the Albanians were so helpful toward the Greeks against the Ottomans, then why did nearly all Albanians help the Ottomans and were deemed by the Greeks as "turkalvani?" Of course, when one uses the word "turkalvani" to depict the Ottoman-supporting Albanians, it is "unbiased." Yet, the Bulgarians are trying to push for Greece to change its history books and remove the title of "Bulgarslayer" from the name of the Eastern Roman Emperor, Basil II.

I really do not care if you accuse me (or anyone who states that the Souliots were Greek) of pushing a Greek agenda. However, I (and many other Greeks) grow vexed by Albanian claims to things that rightfully belong to Greek history and identity. Don't let me stop you from making your "changes" to the article. God forbid though when a Greek corrects an Albanian when it comes to the history of the Haimos Peninsula, it is considered "hate-filled propaganda."

It would be best if you and the rest of your people do a little soul-searching first before making claims to things that do not belong to you. You may hate me for my harsh words, but I have no time for lying, cheap shots, and curses when it is the dissemination of honest information that is on the line. Just because you do not like something that is truthful, it doesn't make the truth any less truthful. Again, do some soul-searching before making any "changes" to the article.

I know Wikipedia demands neutrality and that all sides be presented fairly. However, there should be limits to allowing people to lie all the time and make outrageous claims. Honesty should always precede over neutrality. Deucalionite 8/11/05 6:12 P.M. EST (Revisions 8/11/05 6:51 P.M. EST; Revisions 8/12/05 6:08 P.M. EST).

Greek or Albanian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:OR and WP:V issues

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

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

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

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

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

"Selloi"

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

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

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

Once more, what's wrong with it?

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

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

How to call the language

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

Dionysius the Philosopher's uprising

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

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

Here is the paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

Fangridas and the rest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arvanitic?

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

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

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

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

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

Hectorian, you recently reverted

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some relevant quotes:

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

A New York Times article about the Souliotes. Published on February 8, 1880.

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

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

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

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

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

View the full article to read what i have quoted.

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

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

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

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

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

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