Talk:Souliotes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The lead again

As I wrote in the Markos Botsaris talk page all this is childish. The main problem is here the "manipulation" of sources. For instance, I read in the lead that they spoke the Cham Albanian dialect. Yes, but at least two sources I found (one of them from a third party) insist that they were Greek-speaking! Is this version of the story represented in the lead (which by the way is awful, like the one in the Botsaris article)?

Now, if you follow your rationale and your insistance on mentioning ethnicity in the way you want in both articles, let's see how we'll end:

• If we take what Miller says, it is inaccurate what you say that the Souliotes were "ethnically Albanian". No! They were a mix of Hellenized Albanians and Greeks. Therefore, according to this source: During the Ottoman Empire'r rule, a part of the Souliotes had already been hellenized, and the rest of them were of Greek origin! A bit inconsistent with what you argue until now, and I read in the lead.
• According to Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, the Souliotes are of Albanian origin (Be careful! She does not say they were ethnic Albanians!), but "usually are grouped separately". Meaning? Obviously that they are not grouped with the rest of Albanians! And she also says, page 99, note 18, that the Souliotes were a "Greek-speaking" Orthodox tribe of "Albanian origin" (again not "Ethnic Albanians"). Do you say in the lead that they were Greek-speaking? No! You say they were Cham speaking (?!!) So, again the lead is inaccurate. Change it accordingly!
• According to Tsoungarakis, page 113–114 the Souliotes were already hellenized by 1821, and he agrees with Miller that they were not just Albanians, but "christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks". Tsoungarakis is probably Greek, but he provides a thorough analysis, don't you think?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, continuing this nonsentic discussion, I have to stress that the current phrasing of the lead is inconsistent with all the above sources. I remind you that the current lead is as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike ethnically Albanian community, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, whose dialect they spoke."

Unfortunately for you, the three above sources give us three different wording all of them inconsistent with the current one (and of course with the previous one of yours, which did not even mention the hellenization). More specifically:

Option 1 per source 1

Following Miller, the lead should be phrased as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike community, ethnically a mix of Hellenized Albanians and Greeks, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, whose dialect they spoke."

Option 2 per source 2

Following Fleming, the lead should be phrased as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike ethnically of Albanian origin, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, but they were Greek-speaking."

Option 3 per source 3

Following Tsoungarakis, the lead should be phrased as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike, ethnically christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, but they were Greek-speaking."

Do you want me to continue?!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• And by the way I can find no source verifying that the Souliotes belonged to the Cham branch. Can you please specify?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one of the above sources, says that they were not Albanians in 17th century e.g.? As all of them conclude that they were of Albanian origin, i.e. Albanians in 16th or 17th century, it means that they were Albanians (16th, 17th, other sources say 18th and 19th century) who became integrated into the Greek nation(maybe since the 18th century, others say on 19th century). So whats the problem in here. There is an extensive discussion on *this* wording, in order to make it NPOV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Balkan, it is your conclusion that they were Albanians on the 17th century! The sources I provided do not say that! Two of them say that they were a mix of hellenized Albanians and Greeks. They do not say that they were all Albanians in the 16th or 17th century. Now, can you please provide me further data (isbn, publisher, some url link, how did you find it so that I can search for it etc.) for your source 15, about Souliotes speaking the Cham dialect. I want to order this source (book? article?) what is it exactly?), which, as I can see by the way you cite it, it is Greek (?). I really wonder how the Academy of Athens could assert something like that. Thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it mine? First of all Miller is out of question, if we start using in this page books without bibliography and references and published in 1933, than this page is going to blow up. Lets rely in secondary recent published as is guided by WP:RS.

Unfortunately for you, Katherine Elizabeth Fleming is quite clear. On one page she states that they are of Albanian origin, but grouped separetely, and in another page she states clearly that :Katherine Elizabeth Fleming"The history of the orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap". Somebody can be Albanian and of Albanian origin. So you are misusing sources my friend, not me.

On Tsoungarakis, (putting asside that he is Greek), can you provide his reference that the *Souliotes were Hellenized*, because as of what I have read he states only that some of this communities, etc, etc. In every case, Eric Hobsbawm and NGL Hammond (of course, the greatst hestorians of the century do not conclude on your viewpoint) and a bunch of others, say that they were not hellenized at they time. So still "ethnically Albanian, which became assimilated" is the NPOV-est wording.

On your questions. We have these sources that say that they were Albanians

• Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite tribe to the north"
• Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith"
• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs. Greece: The Modern Sequel : from 1831 to the Present Edition: 2 Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2004 ISBN 185065462X, 9781850654629 p. 184 describes Souliotes as "Orthodox and partly hellenized Albanian tribes".
• Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality Edition: 2, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 0521439612, 9780521439619 p. 65
• NGL Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Published by Clarendon P., 1967, p. 31 "The Liaps held the area from Valona to Delvine and inland to Tepelene; the tsams from Delvine to Souli and inland to Ioannina and Pogoniani"
• Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142.</ref>
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming"The history of the orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"

And one source of their Greekness and Albanian origin.

• 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).

Unfortunately no single source on when they became hellenized. Of course you could have read the whole talk page, where every reference is brought and there has been a consensus for every source and the wording itself.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I asked for just one thing: can you please provide me with further data for this particular source in citation 15, because I want to find it? That simple, and thank you in advance! As you can see, I changed nothing of your wording in the lead, so don't shout! I just added the supported by specific sources assertion that they were Greek-speaking. On the other hand, I am really interested in reading the sources you cite, arguing that the Souliotes were Cham-speaking, something which is not consistent with what most sources from a simple Google-booking say. Personally, I could find no source supporting the claim that they were Cham-speaking. The source you cite seems to come from the Academy of Athens. I am thus very very interested (not only for the article, but for my personal education as well) in finding it and reading it. Can you help me?--Yannismarou (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oh! Just a related additional question: is this "Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division" source of 1944 about their belonging to the Cham branch also extensively discussed in your previous relevant threads and found in accord with WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Titos P. Jochalas: To ellino-alvanikon leksikon tou Markou Mpotsari: Filologiki ekdosis ek to aftografou. Publishing office of Acandey of Athens. Athens, 1980. pp.424.
  I do not have isbn in this book. On "Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division" go check it and dispute it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I removed Flemnig source as it was misunderstood. It is clear that she was refereing to Perevaios as in another page, she speaks about Albanian speaking Suliotes, so there is an inner dispute in it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a nonsense debate. How come the great majority of well known sources identifies them like albanians and you still want a prove that they speak Albanian?!?!?! What is that?!?! Why (just two examples of mid XIX century where they were chams [1] and they were tosk albanians by a philologu like Latham [2] ) do you think the scholars have made this classification ?!?!?! Because of their dress?! In that case even the evzonoi should be called Albanians [3] stop nonsense debate please. Aigest (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not nonsentic. The fact that they were of Albanian origin does not mean that, in the meantime, they had not adopted the Greek language. Greeks of Cappadocia were mainly Turkish speakers, and the Turks of Crete were mainly Greek speakers. So, I do not understand your furstration, and I suggest you change your tone. This source of 2006 (Gawrych page 103 also says that the Souliotes were speaking Greeks. Are you also going to discredit this source because you don't like it. And in Fleming book, where does she speak about Albanian-speaking Suliotes? I cannot find the page. In the meantime, I restore of course my sources. Your reverting of sourced material constitutes vandalism. As you can see, I reverted none of your sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You Yannismarou forget or ignore the fact that the above mentioned author (George Finlay) was talking about Greek Revolution (he did even participated along with Byron in Greek Revolution) and his mentions of Souliotes makes quite obvious that Souliotes were still speaking Albanian on that time and the other one (Robert Gordon Latham) ethnologist and philologist was talking about the same time and was still supporting that idea (apart form all the other sources mentioned by BW). Why don't you read those books before making comments? They are freely alvaiable from serious authors and there were not influenced by Albanian propaganda :)) Aigest (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not fight your sources! But, let's point out two things:

• They are both 19th century sources. Don't you have anything more modern secondary sources to cite?
• Were do this sources say that they were speaking the Cham dialect? Yes, they say that they were of Albanian origin. We agree on that! But where is it mentioned that they belonged to the Cham branch, and that they were speaking the Cham dialect in particular?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to enter into dispute here since there is an ongoing consensus but they were mentioned as belonging to Chams subdivision of Tosks in the last paragraph of page 51 at Finlay and at Latham Tchamid division of Albanian Tosks (page 7) Orthodox chamids (page 8) shows the division of Albanian tosks. They include them in Albanians section of tehir books etc. I know they are primary and not to be used it was just for showing that there were plenty of primary, secondary and tertiary sources who claim the souliotes were classified as albanians. But to return to the language If somebody is expressed that the Spartans belonged to the doric subdivision of the greeks that means that they were speaking the Dorian dialect of Greek it is self-explanatory. Remember also that the great division of Albanians in Ghegh and Tosk is based mainly on the language (albanian dialect) so for a group classified as group that belong to Albanian Tosk branch than it is understood that they speak Tosk dialect of Albanian language. Aigest (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fleming

I removed Flemnig source as it was misunderstood. When she states about "Greek-Speaking" she cites inline Perevaios, who is not a RS. In another page, she speaks about Albanian speaking Suliotes, so there is an inner dispute in it. She is off the language thing, as she states nothing herself, just gives inlines about language.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you pretend that you do not read my edit summaries or can't you properly read my citation? I also added another source. Why did you erase them all?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to misunderstand here.

The Souliotes who are of Albanian origin... [4]

the Souliotes [...] like himself, of Albanian rather than Greek, Vlach or Turkish descent. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

[Tsougnarakis] (keeping aside that is Greek) is quite clear that the "diffusion of the Greek language was widely spoken by Albanians" (i.e. that Albanian was still mother-tangue) and most of all says nothing about Souliotes, whethear they were Albanian speaking, Greek speaking, or Albanian speaking who knew foreign languages:-). It is removable, and I am going to remove it.

OK! Remove it! My God!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this. For sure the Albanian language is the original language of Souliotes (per common logic and sources). Greek was introduced later, as a lingua franca in Epirus (per fleming and Tsoungarakis, although the last does not speak about Souliotes in particular). As such I propose:

"The community originally spoke the Souliote subbranch of Cham Albanian dialect and eventually became bilingual in Albanian and Greek. After their assimilation in the Greek nation, occurred a language shift to Greek, while Souliotic became a extinct dialect."Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but is it supported by sources? You go into many linguistic details, needing an expert to check them. As far as the wording is ok with me. As far as the scientific accuracy of the assertion, this is not my field.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, lets ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who`s an expert on the field.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds of course plausible, but we can't really extrapolate this much of the linguistic development unless we had sources that described it in such detail. Of course, it's a reasonably accurate model of what must have happened, only we don't know at what pace. Also, I suspect it has nothing much to do with the issue that drives people here so much, namely what the "nation" (if any) identification was at any given point in time. For what it's worth, I seem to remember that the leading members of the Tzavelas and Botsaris clans even in the late 19th century, two generations after the war and the dispersion into Greece, continued to describe themselves as Arvanites/Albanians (the terms were still interchangeable at that time). I remember once reading an interesting document (but can't right now find a ref for it): a public manifesto calling Albanians inside and outside Greece to unite with the Greeks. It describes the stance of the Albanians within Greece as a model for those outside to follow, it is full of "we Albanians" (or "we Arvanites"; as I say, they evidently weren't making a difference), and it was signed prominently by two members of those old Souliote clans. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! Then, you provide us with two sources, which you cannot actually provide ... Mmmmm ... Anyway, as I said I have no objection for the wording Balkanian's word proposes, but I'll also ask 3rdAlcove and Giorgos Tzimas to have a look in case they are interested, just for further feedback. I can't think of anybody else with an expertise to linguistic issues. If you do, please ... Giorgos epsecially, in a coffee we had, he had impressed me with his linguistic education (as we say in Greek, he made the Varieties of Modern Greek article and some edits of mine "φύλλο και φτερό"). He is Greek (possibly 3rdAlcove as well, but I do not know), but they always attempt to remain cool, and keep a distance from POV activities.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read that too, and I think that I have seen a secondary RS in google books, about it, but I am not quite sure. I will try to find it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found it in French here [6] . Part of the text is there but I can not give a very accurate translation (I can understand french though). In the reference 206 you can see the details of the publishing. Aigest (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Giorgos gave me an excellent analysis here (just read it, in order to understand what real scientist and real linguist means, who bases his remarks on sources, and not on what "he seems to remember"). It is in Greek, but I think most of the involved users here have a quite good knowledge of the Greek language. If you have any problems in understanding, just ask me to translate. Facing the danger to misquote or misinterpretate Giogos' remarks, I'll attempt a short summary of what he wrote:

1. Souliotes were Albanians, Greek-Orthodox and basically bilingual.
2. Although the notion of "national identity" did not exist at the time, they were conscious of their origins.
3. They were also conscious of their differentiation from both the Greek populations and the real Chams, Albanians who had adopted the Islam.
4. Their real integration into the new "Greek nation" takes place gradually during the Greek War of Independence.
5. About their language in particular, Τίτος Π. Γιοχάλας in his "Greek-Albanian Lexikon of Botsaris" only mentions that the Albanian idiom (ιδίωμα) of the Lexikon belongs to the Tosk dialect of South Albania, with some archaic elements also found today in the Greek-Albanian communities of South Italy (see Βάσω Ψιμούλη, Σούλι και Σουλιώτες, Αθήνα 2005², pp213–214).

I hope that this feedback helps the editors of this article, and those involved in the debate here. Personally, and after Giorgos' remarks, I think I've completed my role here, and I am out of the article. I hope that common sence and strictly scientific critera will prevail from now. on. Good luck to all of you!

Finally, just to say that Giorgos also wrote some very interesting things about the way Arnakis is quoted or misquoted, but this belongs most to the Cham Albanians article.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of that is written in this article, except their Albanian "ethnic identity" and social "regional identity", if I understood it correctly. What do you think? As about Jochalas, he says about the Cham dialect, not only Tosk dialect (remember that Cham dialect is a subbranch of Tosk dialect) and he speaks about the simmilarities between Souliotic and Southern Cham subbranches too.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I saw from Tzimas analysys (except of my falling:-)), he is quite interesting, except of one point. There is a confusion on that analysis and maybe in the book itself, of what "being a Cham means". I have tried to include in "Cham Albanians" the definition of Chams, but it was considered as unneded by other editors, although it seems that I have to use it too much.

Being a Cham means, (1) speaker or descendant of speakres of Cham dialect (2) residing of descendant from Chameria (3) Cham lifestyle (costumes, music, dances), etc. There is a big problem, not only in Greek historography, but generally in Greek society that being a Cham is connected with being Muslim, which is not true.

Is like saying that being a Cretan you have to be Orthodox (Turkokritiki?), or something like that. But being a Cretan means just speaking the Cretan dialect, originating from Crete and having their traditions. This kind of missconseption is found widely in this case. Although its unnesescery, cause secondary RS conclude on this point.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Jochalas in order to verify what you say. Do you have any scanned version? As far as the ethnological analysis about the Chams, I listen with great interest to your remarks, but I still don't have the background to comment. As far as the language in particular, I agree with the "bilingual" part, but I am not sure about the "Cham" part. In any case, I do not intend to revert or change the wording. As I said, I offered what I had to offer in the article (if I offered anything at all!), and I'll watch from now on all your comments with great interest, but avoiding to further intervene, unless I have something concrete to offer.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chams?

This is wrong, they spoke Albanian but there are insufficient sources to label them as Chams. In fact the sources cited as supporting this don't in fact do so, only 1,2 say anything about Chams, the others all speak of Orthodox Albanians.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the talk page from Talk:Souliotes#Incorporated_discussion_about_ethnicity_from_Cham_Albanians at the end and you will see it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I read it and there is no consensus evident, if anything what emerges is you against everybody elses opinion, including the instimable Future Perfect. I have also read your sources and most speak about Albanian speakers or Albanians and use these terms synonymously. Only two speak of Chams and one of these is very old. I would go with Vickers et. al on this one and call them of Albanian descent or Albanian speakers. It is hardly likely that they considered themselves as Albnaians since NOONE did at the time.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read this page Three sources:

• Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
• Finlay:p.51: "The Souliots were a branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks"
• Titos P. Jochalas: To ellino-alvanikon leksikon tou Markou Mpotsari: Filologiki ekdosis ek to aftografou. Publishing office of Acandey of Athens. Athens, 1980. pp.424

The fact that sources say that Souliotes were Albanians does not mean that they say that they were not Cham Albanians. Because Chams are Albanians. Please read this page19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. What does the Jochals ref say? Full citation please.

2. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927‎ των William Miller - 1966 -

In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians, who won the admiration of Byron, formed a sort of military .

.

This is another old source, should we take this at face value.

3. The last argument is a sophistry. If they meant to say Chams they would have said so.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is fully-protected until you reach a consensus. If after the elapse of 12 July, no consensus is achieved and edit-warring erupts again, I'll fully-protect the article once again in the version that I'll find it.

What happened yesterday is totally unacceptable: almost 20 reverts in a row from both sides within 2 hours, during which, when one user reverted for the third time, he/she was succeeded by another one. This is the worst form of edit-warring and gaming of the system (to avoid the 3RR violation) at the same time.

Please, all of you compose yourselves and try to discuss. As I understand, two are the main main issues here: a)If the Souliotes are of Cham origin. b)If some material should be in the lead or later in the article.

I also advise all the involved parties here to read ARBMAC 1 and get knowledge of the possibilities the latter offers to sysops (revert restrictions inter allia). I have not the intention to make use of such means, but if this pattern of behavior continues I'm sure that me or some other adms will be definitely tempted to do so.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources do NOT say they were of Cham origin, just that they were Albanian/spoke Albanian.--Xenovatis (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin section

I believe that a section about the origin and the early presence of Souliotes is needed, because many books don't give a details except saying, for example: the Albanian orthodox Souliotes, or of Albanian origin, or hellenized Albanians, or mixed Albanians-Greeks etc. (no more than that) I have noticed two books that say something more about:

1. Albanian Historical Folksongs. P.J. Ruches, 1967 (the work is not a musicological research as I explained in Talk:Cham Albanians, but a volume focused on Albanian-Greek issues from ca. 1700 to 1960) p. 20:"Souli was inhabited by folk speaking both Albanian and Greek who had gathered from many parts of Epirus to this natural stronghold. Some had fled from as far north as the villages of Laberia when the area swung over to Islam. Other had come from other nearby Thesprotian villages, fleeing the harsh rule of the beys and aghas of Filates and Margariti."
2. Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization. p.248 "Most researches, whether Greeks or not, accept that the establishment of Shepard groups in the region of Souli begun from middle 16th century. The first people came from (modern) southern Albania and the plains of Thesprotia. According to Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, Souliotes where 'a mix of Greeks and hellenized Albanians' ..." (own translation from Greek, the work is written on both Greek and English and published by Ekdotike Athinon).Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Aleksi, let me tell it in your words: OK WE HAVE IT. You were part on this discussion, and you have agreed on this exact wording. Whats up now? Did Xenovatis came, and brought any new source that make you change your mind, or are you trying to disturb the page, recycling same old stories? WP:DEADHORSE.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I'm quite clear. We reached an agreement on the leading sentence. Does this forbit us to create a separate section about origin and early presence?Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, because we have discuss it and because we reached a consensus on this issue. If you have no new argument or sources, please stop it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've presented above. Thank you for your cooperating and agreeing.Alexikoua (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A section on origins seems appropriate only if we can find solid, third-party sources. The sources presented so far are not third-party, and in fact have very strong partisan positions. Paparrigopoulos is not only very very out of date, but also very very nationalistic. As for Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization, even the title makes it clear what the point of view it takes is.... --macrakis (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macrakis, the work itself is awarded by Athens Academy, (Ekdotike Athinwn publishing).Suppose what you say its just due to ignorance. Balk. has a wierd taste about sources, not to mention that he just tried to add, Albanian sources of the 60's (why dont you add Hohxa statements about Illyrian-Pelasgian ancestry?) to prove Illyrian-Albanian continueity in Illyrians article.Alexikoua (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 15 sources on that single sentence, if we remove those 2 it changes nothing.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring only to the sources mentioned above by Alexikoua. --macrakis (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What's worth noting is of all these 15 sources, only the first two refer to the Souliotes as Chams. The rest should therefore be diregarded. Of the two, one is from 1939, and the other is a publication of the Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division from 1944, hardly a reliable source on such a contentious matter. The claim that Souliotes are Chams is thus on very thin ground. --Athenean (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

15 sources does not constitute on "very thin ground." (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

Did you even read my above post? What does it say? --Athenean (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think he means, because it quite obvious if you remove your galanoleyka glasses. Two say that they were Chams, the rest that they were Albanians. Being an Albanian does not make you not to be Cham, because Chams are Albanians, a subbranch of them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said, well said, Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@Balk: Chams are a subset of Albanians, so it is entirely possible for the Souliotes to be Albanian but not Chams. Your argument that "Being an Albanian does not make you not to be Cham, because Chams are Albanians" is therefore complete nonsense. According to your logic all Albanians are Chams. Now, if you removed your red-and-black Illyrian glasses, you would realize the what you are doing it WP:SYNTH. Only two sources say they are Cham, and the rest say only Albanian, yet you insist that you have 15 sources that say they are Chams. This is ridiculous. The two sources that say they are Cham are very outdated and need to go. Alexikoua has brought two new, non-outdated sources, and the article should be changed to reflect what they say. I therefore propose that the Finley and Brit. Naval intellignece sources be replaced with the two sources Alexi brought, and the article changed accordingly. --Athenean (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the Souliotes were "Kosovan". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

At Athenean. Does this mean that Gheg Albanians are Chams? lol. Stop telling things that you know are idiotic.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just trolling and playing dumb. Your sources that claim the Souliotes are Chams are outdated and will be removed. Alexi has brought new sources and these will be included. Simple as that. Your above post is pure trolling because you have run of out of arguments. Case closed. --Athenean (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the existing sources are perfectly viable, and those brought forward by Alexikoua say nothing to contradict them. That said, the issue needs to be de-focused. This article has been edited for months by people literally obsessing over the word Cham. Sorry for being blunt, but on the one side we have an editor whose sole purpose on this project is to fill the encyclopedia with pages over pages of how glorious the Chams are, and on the other side we have a group of editors who have been fed the equation "Souliotes=good, Chams=bad" with the milk of their early patriotic indoctrination, and now suffer from unbearable cognitive dissonance on seeing "Souliotes=Chams". Knock it off already. An article that has a row of fifteen(!) footnotes behind a single word is a sign of sickness, and that sickness comes from both sides here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 28 June 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison4ever (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)