This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. 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 articles
The mention of the subject's father as Albanian predates the Albanian ethnogenesis. At this point Albanian speakers divided into at least two ethnoreligious groups. Unmodified "Albanian" usually refers to Muslims, which seems highly unlikely. The new citation provides no extra information, and doesn't support any other claim in the previous sentence other than Theodoros Mexis being the subject's father. Who was this person? What does "Albanian" mean? --Antondimak (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely clear that the author is referring to Albanians. Durraz0 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the subject's father as Albanian predates the Albanian ethnogenesis. Albanian ethnogenesis happened in Late Antiquity or the early Middle Ages, more than 1000 years before Mexis lived. Unmodified "Albanian" usually refers to Muslims Only in fringe nationalist narratives like those of Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. In mainstream scholarship one does not need to be a Muslim to be called "Albanian". What does "Albanian" mean? What does Greek, German or Chinese mean? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about but Albanian ethnogenesis happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. You can read about a related issue here: Albanian National Awakening.
As an Albanian nation in the modern sense didn't exist in the Ottoman era (same for pretty much all ethnicities in the empire), unmodified "Albanian" at that times was, and still is in historiography, used to refer to Muslim Albanians. Christian Albanian speakers weren't at that time considered especially related to Muslim Albanian speakers, with the idea of language linked to ethnicity being foreign to the widely multilingual and religious-minded population of the Ottoman Empire, only to be introduced later through Western European influence.
"Albanian", with no extra information, at this specific point in time, means incredibly little. If I am to assume anything, it probably means that the person spoke a dialect of the Albanian language as at least one of his native languages, something quite meaningless on its own considering the era.
Where have you found out about the native language of this person and does this source include any other more important information, like religion? --Antondimak (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian National Awakening does not concern the Albanian ethnogenesis. Learn what ethnogenesis is before talking about it. The 19th century was the period of the birth of modern nationalism and the idea of national states, not of Albanian ethnogensis. Albanians, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, Romanians etc existed as ethnic groups way before the 19th century. There were changes in self-perception and collective identities but that is another thing, not ethnogenesis. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it is, and especially in the case of Albanians it is exactly that. The ancestors of Albanians have probably been speaking Albanian in roughly that area for a couple of millennia, but that isn't an identity or an ethnicity in the modern sense. The main issue, and the one in this case, is the lack of a unified identity centered around the language. Calling someone plainly "Albanian" because of a language in a multilingual environment in that time period and area isn't very useful, and I don't know what the sources on this person are (since nothing useful is mentioned in the article) to actually understand what the situation. --Antondimak (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian national awakening pertains to the concept of nation, not ethnicity. Nation is " a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and/or society." Ethnicity is " An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. " Yes, the Albanian nation wasn't exactly a thing yet, but the Albanian ethnicity was. The ethnic nationalism which drove the Rilindje would necessarily have to evolve from the ethnicity. Alltan (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms don't have a solid definition and Wikipedia definitely isn't an authoritative source on them. They are essentially synonyms with some authors treating them differently for specific reasons. A modern custom is to tie nationality to citizenship and ethnicity to identity, or origin in multicultural immigrant-heavy countries.
Taking one of the definitions used in the article you mentioned, the ethnicity didn't exist because Albanians didn't identify with each other on the basis of language. Scrolling just below on the page, you will see the phrase "Depending on which source of group identity is emphasized to define membership, the following types of (often mutually overlapping) groups can be identified:". You are inventing an ethnolinguistic group where none practically existed in the pre-Modern Ottoman Empire. Ethnic groups were ethnoreligious, with Muslim Albanian speakers identifying as Turks, as did Muslim Greek speakers, Bulgarian speakers, etc.. Language wasn't necessarily maintained between generations, most were at least on some degree multilingual, and Christian Albanians felt no affinity with Muslim Albanians. Muslim Albanian speakers would regularly marry Muslim Greek speakers and it was considered a Turkish in-group marriage. Likewise Orthodox people would to the same. Tribal affiliation and a more collective idea on the basis of the besa weren't unheard of, but it doesn't directly correlate with the Albanian language or the modern Albanian nation.
Instead of hopping around different definitions because apparently some nationalist sensibilities were hurt, does anyone know where this particular information in the article comes from, so we can move forward constructively? Because otherwise it will unfortunately all have to be removed due to Wikipedia's guidelines. --Antondimak (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respond to your comment, though first I would like for you to clarify this part of it " apparently some nationalist sensibilities were hurt ". Please elaborate. Alltan (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think this is the important part? Do you want to turn this into a fight that much? Antondimak (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things you say have ramifications, if you didn't want me to ask about it, you shouldn't have said it. Now I am asking you again to further elaborate on that point of yours. Alltan (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you want to talk about this I will answer. I have been gone for a time and it seems to me that there is a group of editors motivated by a mix of nationalism and misunderstanding of history that have gone on an edit war around such topics, and am trying to start an actual discussion on a not-so-important area, asking a question about an edit that at least on some levels seems to me to contain some implicit modern bias in understanding the era, so that the editors can be informed and we can reach an actual consensus that actually corresponds with academic understanding. --Antondimak (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The following paper discusses how ethnic solidarity between Albanian elite groups functioned in Ottoman Wallachia and Moldova: Wasiucionek, Michal (2012). "Ethnic solidary in the wider Ottoman Empire revisited: cins and local political elites in 17th century Moldavia and Wallachia". In Sariyannis, Marinos (ed.). New Trends in Ottoman Studies: Papers presented at the 20th CIĂPO Symposium Rethymno, 27 June â 1 July 2012. University of Crete â Department of History and Archaeology. It is clear that Albanian ethnic identity - like many other ethnic identities - played a key role in how elite and non-elite groups perceived themselves and were perceived by others in the Ottoman Empire and beyond. Venice, 1513: Nel veronese, per controllare i movimenti degli avversari. Con Mercurio Bua (80 stradiotti e 100 cavalli leggeri coadiuvati da molti contadini) sconfigge a Frassine 100 cavalli; cattura Alfonso di Carvajal con 40 cavalli spagnoli. Si reca a Venezia con lettere del capitano generale Bartolomeo dâAlviano e dei provveditori generali; in Collegio dichiara che gli stradiotti greci non sono affatto inferiori a quelli di etnia albanese comandati da Mercurio Bua e che i suoi stradiotti vogliono una provvigione. Il doge Leonardo Loredan è largo di promesse e lo rimanda a Padova per la rassegna. Andrea Mauresi, a Greek stradioti captain, in 1513, complained to the Venetian administration about the wages of the Greek stradioti who were paid less although they were in no way inferior to the Albanian stradioti [di etnia Albanese] commanded by Mercurio Bua. Hence, not only did Albanians perceive themselves differently from other groups by they were also perceived differently by them - including Greek-speaking people.
In Ottoman archival research, there is a distinction between religion and ethnicity. Nobody thought that a Bulgarian Muslim and an Arab Muslim belonged to the same collective Muslim group and nobody thought that Christian Orthodox Albanians and Greek Cypriots belonged to the same Christian Orthodox group. Sometimes common interests meant that elite groups of common religion allied with each other, but more often than not alliances were formed between elites of common ethnic origin. The idea that people in the Ottoman Empire saw themselves as having religion as their main identity is a modern nationalist concept which developed in nation-states of the Balkans where nationalism and group identity was defined by common religion but it doesn't correspond to historical reality. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There actually is an entire article dedicated to the Meksi family. The article itself mentions the branch which moved to Spetses. Alltan (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This may help. Antondimak (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are nuances, and I did mention that, but to state that language-based identity was significant, or even stronger than religious identity, in the Ottoman Empire, and even that religious identity is a modern concept (the exact opposite happening with language-based nationalism being imported from Western Europe mainly in the 19th century) is false.
The whole structure of Ottoman society was based around religious groups. All censuses counted solely religious groups, before slowly adding language-based identity near the end of the empire. Collective punishment worked on religious grounds. Local communication with different levels of administration took place through religious communities.
I think you are also confusing language-based affiliation with local affiliation. After religion, people associated with their geographical area, as is very common globally. Yes, a person from Bosnia was "different" compared to a person from Cyprus. A mainly Greek speaking Orthodox person from Epirus was "different" when compared to a Greek from Cyprus, as was the mainly Albanian speaking Orthodox person in your example. Both the Greek and Albanian speaking Orthodox people would consider each other closer kin when compared to the Cypriot, which sort of even enforces my point.
Reading the abstract of the paper you cited after writing the previous paragraph, it seems I have a similar understanding to that of the authors. They use the term "Ethnic-Regional" and juxtapose it with "Ethnic-Religious". So they aren't referring to "ethnicity" in the Western European linguistic sense, but in the more general sense I mentioned above, and add local/region-based identity to the more commonly studied religious identity.
You also can't take words used centuries ago and assign a 1 to 1 correspondence with the modern meanings. "Albanian" in this instance may even refer to a Muslim religious identity, as was common for texts of the era (though I am also speculating on this specific instance and if it's not your spontaneous interpretation and it is interpreted by researchers as a linguistic identity, I of course will not object to it in the context of a Wikipedia discussion). Reading documents from the Ottoman era you would often see mentions of "Turks" throughout the empire, often referring to people that are very loosely connected with the modern idea of the Turkish nation, mostly not speaking Turkish for example. Similarly, you would see Orthodox Albanian people mainly referred to as Romans, Greeks after the terminology shift in the early 19th century, before becoming Albanians in the modern sense.
Anyway, this is an interesting discussion but I think we are kind of overgeneralising, I was just looking for a specific piece of information when it comes to this article and mentioned the contemporary ethnic situation as a motivator for why I found it important. --Antondimak (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After writing walls of text without a single RS but only your own conclusions and being opposed by several editors, read WP:DROPTHESTICK. If nobody responds to you again, that is bc your edit and arguments are pointless. The consensus is clear that your edit brought no benefit to the article. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not your personal opinions and "clarification requests". If you do not understand what "Albanian" means, better find other topics to edit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proper way to address this would be to remove the entire unsourced sentence. I tried to be as considerate as possible because this is a sensitive topic but it seams the reaction of the nationalist hordes is always the same. The burden of providing sources is one the one making the claims. --Antondimak (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
