Talk:Souliotes/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Settlement of the Souliots in Greece in lede's first sencence

As mentioned in a previous comment of mine, I create this section to resolve the still unresolved issue of whether to include in the introduction's first sentence the phrase "and their settlement in newly independent Greece", as has been proposed by Maleschreiber. I will be writing a comment explaining why I disagree with this proposal and I hope to post it tonight, but please bear with me if I post it tomorrow, as (per an earlier notice I had given) the time I can devote here is unfortunately greatly lessened now. Thank you beforehand for your patience, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Was about to create this section. Anyways, if I may suggest writing the comment in a draft somewhere or any place different from the tp? Otherwise if it happens that there is an edit conflict, the material written would unfortunately be lost. Thanks again. Alltan (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest that the editors interested in the issue first provide all the relevant academic sources they have. Without a clear list of the relevant sources the discussion can easily become messy. Ashmedai and I discussed that source earlier today. If sources with another view exist, then a balanced wording will be needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Ashmedai 119 I think mentioning it in the first sentence is relevant because it gives a geographical context, which is different from the "tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus" that precedes the information provided. A wording on which you and Maleschreiber could agree should be found – Βατο (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For their entire 3-4 centuries of history, they were settled in Thesprotia. The migration and settlement in newly independent Greece was the final chapter of their story. It doesn't make sense that it should be in the very sentence of the lede, which is already quite long. Khirurg (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Also "they came to identify with the Greek nation" occurred in the final chapter of their history, but it is included in the first sentence. Without relevant context, the information provided by the first sentence results unbalanced and misleading. – Βατο (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How is it "unbalanced" and "misleading" exactly? Their Greek identity is mentioned in the first sentence together with their Albanian identity. Seems perfectly well balanced to me. Khirurg (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It is about the geographical context, which should be included. – Βατο (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What "geographical context"? That makes no sense whatsoever. Khirurg (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to begin with remarking that unfortunately, other than Maleschreiber himself, no editor who agrees with Maleschreiber's proposal has heeded Ktrimi's call to provide references to the scholarly sources that in their view support their opinion. For this reason, I am obliged to write taking into account mostly what has been stated in comments in this talk page without reference to scholarly sources that editors perhaps have in mind -or perhaps not-, at the risk of missing something important, but I hope I will not.

First of all, I would like to state that, in my understanding, the function of the first sentence of the introduction should be to provide the article's reader with what Βατο described as a "concise overview of the ethnographic evolution of this community". It might be that other editors wish, as Βατο stated in the same message, that the first sentence also provides "information about [the] geographic settlement [of the Souliots] as well". I do not think this is necessary. The first sentence already provides a time frame for their living in Souli, constraining it "to the beginning of the 19th century". I do not think it far-fetched to suggest that any average user of the encyclopedia will, upon reading this, fairly easily understand or deduce that from "the beginning of the 19th century" onwards the Souliots no longer lived in Souli in Epirus. In the (in my view) unlikely case that s/he doesn't, s/he will be informed about their whereabouts at a later point in the introduction. Not mentioning the settlement of the Souliots in independent Greece in the first sentence would also have the additional benefit of not overburdening it, in the sense of making it too long, with a bit of information that does not directly relate to their, per Βατο, "ethnographic evolution". But, this is where, as far as I can see, lies the rub, the crux of the disagreement. For, Maleschreiber has proposed modifying the last clause of the first sentence in the following manner: "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence *and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece* came to identify with the Greek nation". This formulation presents the "subsequent settlement [of the Souliots] in newly independent Greece" as a factor that led to the identification of the Souliots with the Greek nation. As Maleschreiber argued in the comment with which he made his proposal "the integration of the Souliotes in the Greek nation happened gradually in the decades after they permanently settled in the Greek Kingdom".

What I pointed out in reply was that Maleschreiber's contention was in direct contradiction with scholarly sources. You can re-read this comment of mine, if you wish, but I repeat that Psimouli, whose study Maleschreiber has rightly already made ample use of in enriching the article, writes that during the period of the Greek War of Independence the Soutios "integrate" "in a new reality" characterised by two aspects "(1) Hellenization and (2) incorporation in the cause of the Greek Revolution, its politico-military goals and its national vision" [my numbering]. Pace Maleschreiber, she does not place Hellenization in the period following the Greek revolution, after their settlement in the Greek Kingdom, but she describes it as a process that occurred within the same time-frame as the War of Independence. In addition, I also pointed out that Thanos Veremis and the late Yiannis Koliopoulos have written in passage of their Greece: the modern sequel, kindly cited above by Ktrimi991, that "When most of the norther Greek fighters [among whom the "Albanian-speaking Suliots" mentioned in the previous sentence] settled in southern Greece as refugees, none of them thought [...] of himself as less of a Greek [...]". They clearly state that their Hellenization had been completed at the time of their settlement in Greece.

Responding to this observations of mine, Maleschreiber wrote a comment, for which I thank him, but with which he did not provide any specific reference to a scholarly source that supports his proposal. Maleschreiber eventually provided a reference to a piece by Genc Lafe which states that "Con l’evolversi degli eventi, una volta strappati alle terre natìe e dispersi in Grecia, i Sulioti furono però assimilati alla nazione greca, nata dalla Rivoluzione del 1830." ("With the evolution of events, once torn from their native lands and dispersed in Greece, the Suliots were however assimilated to the Greek nation, born from the Revolution of 1830"). First of all, I am not a native Italian speaker, but to speak of the "Rivoluzion del 1830" ("Revolution of 1830") seems a bit off -- there was no "revolution of 1830", there was a "revolution of 1821". In any case, there is no clear indication at all that this passage supports what Maleschreiber argues (against what scholarly sources such as Psimouli, Politis, Koliopoulos/Veremis state explicitily, as will be shown below ) about the participation in the Greek War of Independence not shifting Souliot self-understanding, but this being a process that "happened gradually in the decades after they permanently settled in the Greek Kingdom". For, the Souliots were "torn from their native lands" already from 1803 until 1820 and they were forced to leave Souli for a second and final time in 1822 and were "dispersed in Greece" from then onwards, fighting mostly in various parts of Central Greece on the side of the Greek revolutionaries until 1829. There is actually no explicit mention of the Souliots "settling in newly independent Greece" in the quote Maleschreiber provided as a factor that contributed to their self-identification with the Greek nation and to so interprete it requires an interpretative leap.

Maleschreiber's view point was exposited at length in a previous comment. I would like to point out why statements contained in this analytical presentation of Maleschreiber's viewpoint about the desirability of introducing reference to the settlement of the Souliots in Greece as a factor that contributed to their identification with the Greek nation are again at variance with scholarly sources.

I am naturally in general agreement with what Maleschreiber writes about the motives that guided the choices of Souliot chieftains in 1820 and 1821 (in the part of his comment "In 1820, Souliotes ... political goals by doing so."), they were primarily interested in securing the control of their ancestral settlement, in the hope that they resume their previous way of living -- though I want to note that you tend to present the mass of Souliot warriors in a manner which downplays their agency and that there actually was a cultural reason operating absentiā suā (I mean that per Mazower, The Greek Revolution: 1821 and the Making of Modern Europe, p. 117 Muslim Albanian leaders like Taher Ambatzis reneged on their alliance with Greek revolutionaries to aid Ali, and opted to cooperate with the Sultan once they perceived anti-Muslim actions of the revolutionaries, while the Souliots, being Christians, didn't). Where I must, however, beg to disagree is Maleschreiber's (uncorroborated) claim that "It is the settlement agreement and integration in the elite of the Greek Kingdom which facilitated the identification of the Souliote elite with Greece and the subsequent cultural assimilation, which is something which can't happen overnight but gradually."

I should qualify my disagreement by stating that I don't think anybody disagrees that the integration of the Souliots did not happen "overtnight but gradually". Yet, what Maleschreiber disregards is that the assimilation of the Souliots in the Greek nation did not begin with their participation in the Greek War of Independence. Conditions that facilitaed it were long existing or long in the making.

First of all, despite being Albanian-speakers, the Souiliots were Orthodox Christians. Per Bulgarian historian Tchavdar Marinov, "until the end of the Ottoman period, it was difficult to trace an ethnic boundary between “ethnic Greeks” and Orthodox Albanians, as the latter often identified with Greek culture as well." As another scholar puts it, when it comes to "the Albanian Orthodox, for them Albanianness has always been closely linked with Hellenism, through Orthodoxy." This is the case with the Souliots as well. As Psimouli mentions in the section on the Souliot religion of her study (whose Albanian translation, I undestand, Maleschreiber has at his disposal and could confirm this), their religiosity "emerges strongly" in a letter to Ali that asks for a priest to be sent to them, "for, the Romeyi [=Romaioi] cannot do without a priest" Psimouli comments that "This expressed Christian faith will, in the course of the years, form a basic element of differentiation from the Chams, neighbours from the same stock but of a different religion, and, on the contrary, an element of convergence and ralling around their neighbouring Greek population of the same religion." May I add myself the further observation that the designation "Romaioi" is also used for the Souliots in a non-religious context in the first years of the 19th century, while they still reside in their mountainous abode. Other than their Orthodox Christianity, it is also wrong to forget that Souliots had started adopting the use of Greek language a long time before the Greek War of Independence. As stated in a previous comment of mine "they picked up the use of the Greek language in the 18th century per Psimouli (see the section on language in the article), many of them perhaps from the early 17th per Noel Malcolm . This is why they are described as "Orthodox and partly hellenised Albanian tribes" by Veremis and the late John S. Koliopoulos in their Greece: the modern sequel, p. 184. With these remarks, I do not mean to imply that the Soulitos had become Greeks before participating in the Greek War of Independence, but that, while what Maleschreiber writes in an abstract level is true ("cultural processes only happen gradually"), per the sources cited, their religious identity and (limited) cultural convergence with Greek-speakers was rendering them "partly Hellenised", in a cultural manner, so that they could be receptive to their national Hellenisation, the identity shift that occurred during the War of Independence, not overnight, but as the last stage of a process that had begun happenning gradually a long time ago.

Furthermore, Maleschreiber's account is also wrong in claiming that the Souliots "fought to gain recognition as a constitutive population of Greece". This is just not grue. For, the Souliots had been already recognized as a constitutive part of the Greenk nation, as Greeks ("Έλληνες") ever since the emergence of the Greek national movement in the 1790s. This is not a groundless opinion. I will borrow the words of:

"At the dawn of the 19th century during the formation of Greek national identity, the Souliots are already a point of reference for the revolutionary discourse.

In the Thourios, Rhigas will address in 1797 from Vienna, among others to the Souliot warriors, calling them "renowned lions". His comrade, Christophoros Perraivos, who shall meet the mountainous Souliot population and will become the first historian of Souli, will declare the Souliots, in the first edition, of 1803, of the History of SOuli and Parga fighters of equal value to their Laceademonian ancestors. Koraes will not lack in admiration, contributing, in the same year, towards publicizing their struggles, while three years later, in 1806, the Anonymous of the Hellenic Nomarchy will showcase these struggles as a model stance, which all Greeks should adopt against the tyrant".

What this means is that, pace Maleschreiber, the Souliots did not have to "fight to gain recognition" as Greeks, because the proponents of Greek nationalist ideology, per Psimouli and (I remind once more) per Koliopoulos/Veremis, were already considering them Greeks. This should be taken into account as yet another stage in their Hellenisation process (not from an emic perspective) that culminated in the Greek War of Independence.

Maleschreiber's view is generally wrong because it is based on a misunderstanding of the formative power of participation in the Greek War of Independence for the identities of those involved in it. He compares the participation of the Souliots on the side of the Greek revolutionaries with their siding against Ali side-by-side the Sultan's troops. ("In 1820, Souliotes supported the Ottoman army against Ali Pasha because the Ottomans promised to resettle them in Souli. This didn't make them identify with the Ottomans.") However, the Greek War was not similar to the conflict between Ali and the Sultan. It was, as Mazower aptly remarks in his recent opus, "a peasant uprising that turned into a revolution and created a nation", through which "the country’s numerous distinctive local and regional cultures gave way to a larger sense of national belonging", effecting the "transformation of a society, a polity and an economy." These general remarks about the impact of the Greek Revolution are also valid for the Souliots. I hope you won't mind me again lending my voice to another scholar, Alexis Politis, who vividly sums up this viewpoint in an essay he published on the relation between Ali's rebellion and the Greek Revolution. I translate:

"As long as the Souliots oscillated between defending their old enemy, Ali, and assisting in his elimination they only took into consideration local political balances and money. The Greek Revolution provided them with an entirely different framework, it proposed to them to integrate in the Greek nation, it proposed, that is, becoming on a par with the world's elite. Of course, this process had began earlier, let's say from 1801, when this narration begins. In the end of November 1809, Korais was writing from Paris to a teacher who lived close to the now exiledSouliots: "Strenthen the Souliots and give them proper advice· were there a way to teach some of their children the greek language (that is the language of freedom), you would be giving them a gift incomparably more valuable than the fire of Prometheus". But with the eruption of the revolution, or more correctly with their joining it after the destruction of Ali pasha, the Souliots became, without the least objection or disagreement Greeks and so when in the years of the renowned siege of Messologhi things got tough, salary was lacking, and death was around the corner, the Souliots did not begin the -well too known to the fare of the Arvanites- negotiations with the opponent: they no longer were mercenaries, eager to serve the more powerful, they were Greeks fighting for faith and fatherland. We are now, I think, at the heart of the matter. The greater achievement of the Greek Revolution was, exactly, the very rapid and very wide outspread of national consciousness in rural populations: in other words, the radical change of the ideological scenery."

This is another scholarly source that corroborates that, for the Souliots, the experience of partaking in the national revolution of the Greek nation was what sealed their identity-shift, their identification with the Greek nation.

To conclude the single source to which Maleschreiber referred does not directly support what he claims, key statements in the rationale he provided in his comments are belied by scholarly sources and, what's perhaps more important, scholarly sources (Koliopoulos/Veremis, Politis, Psimouli) explicitly contradict what Malescreiber claims about the Souliot identification with the Greek nation occurring through and after their settlement in Greece. For this reason, his proposal to include the phrase "and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece" in the clause "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence" should not be accepted.

If, despite this, editors wish to include a reference to the settlement of the Souliots in free Greece in the first sentence of the introduction, I have already proposed to shape the last clause of the first sentence in the following manner: who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece. This would be acceptable from my part, as it does not contradict scholarly sources, and despite the fact that I do not think a reference to the settlement of the Souliots in the Greek kingdom is necessary in the first sentence of the introduction. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

References

@Ashmedai 119: Thanks for the reply! It's always satisfying to have principled discussions which have academic depth. I will prepare a reply and post it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is an ideological idea about the Souliots as an abstraction an there is the historiography of the Souliotes, which is what the Souliotes actually did. These two concepts come into conflict. According to the lead section, the Souliotes via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and Ashmedai proposes as an alternative that who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence they came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece. There are three claims in these two sentences: a)Souliotes identified with a Greek national identity via their participation in the war b)this presupposes that all or most Souliotes chose to fight in the Greek War of Independence c)as a result of their identification with the Greek national identity, the Souliotes settled in Greece. None of these three claims is discussed in historiography and shown to be true in the historical sequence of events.
  • The Souliote clans who fought since 1822 in western Greece got there as mercenaries and even openly plundered Greek villages:Mavrokordatos with financial support from Lord Byron gathered fighters from other Souliote clans in order to create a mercenary army which he would use to gain political and military power in western Greece against the local armatoloi. The close location of western Greece to their homeland and the creation of the mercenary army of Mavrokordatos with funds from Byron led the Souliotes to move in the region. A loan between Mavrokordatos and Britain was approved to finance the creation of this armed force. The Tzavellas clan moved to western Greece from the Ionian Islands on Jun 18, 1822 and according to primary they "couldn't stand the fame of Markos Botsaris" and tried to group with his adversaries. As they were poor, they were eventually contracted by Mavrokordatos who ordered them to plunder Agrafa which was under the control of another revolutionary faction that of Georgios Karaiskakis.
  • Similarities of hiring and financing Souliotes with Ottoman practices: Tsiamalos (2007) highlights that the practice of sending troops to plunder a wealthy province when there were no funds to pay is very similar to Ottoman practices when no funds were available. As such, plundering of locals wasn't practiced just by Souliotes but by other armed groups as well. - a reply to Ashmedai's comment about the "formative power of participation in the Greek War of Independence". I'm not sure what formative power the practice of plundering Greek villages and working as mercenaries for the highest bidder had to Souliotes.
  • Only a part of the "Souliot" groups who fought were Souliotes: Especially demanding where the needs of the Souliotes (..) at the beginning of 1823. (..) It has to be noted that not all groups which presented themselves as "Souliotic" were exclusively manned by them. According to P. Gamba, Byron accepted to finance 500 Souliotes, instead of 1500 which N. Botsaris and Mavrokordatos asked for, as he knew that those who had the right to call themselves Souliotes were no more than 300-400. He had the task to tell apart the real Souliotes from those who faked a Souliot origin so that they could be hired as "genuine Souliotes". As such were missing, it was agreed to hire individuals from the regions around Souli and others who fought with them (systratiotai?)
  • Souliotes in 1824:Hiring Souliotes and supporting their families in the Ionian Islands, Mesologgi and Anatoliko was a priority since the beginning, as they were foreigners in the region, always lived as armed men, had no other means to provide for themselves other than military service. On the other hand, even members of the local government questioned this necessity with the argument that the Roumeliote commanders had hired "Bulgarians and Serbs who were even more foreign". At the beginning of 1824, the Souliotes asked for back pay of 9 months for 488 armed men. These are the same Souliotes who Lord Byron decided to pay himself, a commitment which turned out to be very difficult. The situation was aggravated by the constant disputes between the insubordinate Souliotes and the Mesologgites. In February, after a new bloody incident which had as a victim philhellene from Sweden and because of their unwillingness to continue the siege of Nafpaktos without more money, Byron who had lost all patience (apeydesei?) accepted the request of the local prokritoi and paid the Souliotes part of their wages so that they leave Mesologgi. They went to Anatoliko where they asked for new and old wages causing new disputes with the locals and the local authorities. In June, the group of Tzavellas was paid and he left from western Greece, while other Souliotes went to Nafplio looking for new hired jobs. In 1824, the Souliotes were still mercenaries who plundered the locals, refused to fight if they weren't paid and treated the entire affair as any mercenary would. Like all mercenaries they were unwanted by the locals. These events all occurred after the first two sieges of the town, so Politis (2009) is wrong for events before 1825. But maybe we should restrict his argument to the last siege of Mesologgi: (..) the Souliots became, without the least objection or disagreement Greeks and so when in the years of the renowned siege of Messologhi things got tough, salary was lacking, and death was around the corner, the Souliots did not begin the -well too known to the fare of the Arvanites- negotiations with the opponent: they no longer were mercenaries, eager to serve the more powerful, they were Greeks fighting for faith and fatherland. In this case, the identification with the Greek nation begins in 1825-1826 for Politis. Is this statement accurate?
  • Souliotes in the last phase of the siege of Mesologgi (1826): The refusal of the terms of surrender (..) has to be attributed to a sense of shame and desperation which for the guard was signalled by the surrender of weapons, by men who had no other means to sustain themselves and the possible repetition of the surrender of civilians as in the case of Anatoliko. The stance of the Souliot and the Roumeliot armed men couldn't be different in this matter, even though the former were more negative towards surrender, as the latter would occupy the same position as the homeless Souliotes after the loss of western central Greece. Souliotes by themselves had no real power to impose [their opinion] on the city. As such, the term "Souliotes" by Mauro and Greene, seems more likely to be a term which is used to represent all non-local armed men. In addition, the unity of the defenders had increased not only via their everyday cooperation which was necessary (..) but also by the common hardship they experienced in the siege. The common approach of Ottomans with their distinction between locals and foreigners shows their perception for the nature of the war, not as a revolution of armed and unarmed groups, but as an affair solely fueled by distinct special interests, Souliotes and others. satisfactory degree of coherence In reality, an acceptable/satisfactory degree of cohesion of the defenders (..) as well as the common hatred for the attackers after such a long, bloody, and destructive siege led them to make a collective decision for resistance or for abandoning the town by breaking the siege. The fact that the groups called "Souliotes" (not all of which were Souliotes) stayed until the end in the siege is attributed to a)sense of shame of desperation (military traditions) b)economic matters (mercenary occupation) c)refusal to surrender the unarmed population d)increase of local degree of cohesion created by the conditions of the long and brutal siege. This is a very different narrative than one which attributes the events to an ideological conversion to a national cause. We should also remember that only some Souliote clans participated in these events. The careful wording "satisfactory degree of cohesion" reflects the fact that disputes never ended during the siege: At a local level, the dispute became one of controntation between Souliotes again Roumeliotes (..) and also of Souliotes outside the city, after the arrival of Botsaris, against Karaiskakis and his Roumeliote supporters, even though he was popular among the besieged. The competition for the getting funds from the government deepened the gap. This contradicts the narrative of Greeks fighting for faith and fatherland of Politis (2009). The period from 1821 to 1826 certainly isn't one of identity formation for the Souliote clans which participated in the war for the most part as mercenaries.
  • Souliotes in 1827-1834: All relevant information and sources are discussed at Souliotes#Settlement in Greece and legacy. The Souliotes saw themselves and were seen by others as a particularly distinct group which in many cases was unwanted and in conflict with local communities, except for Nafpaktos.

References

• • • The conclusion is that when at some point the lead is expanded as a summary of the main sections of the article what it will discuss besides battles about the participation of Souliotes in the Greek War of Independence necessarily will mostly have to do with: mercenary activity, plundering (including Greek villages), political disputes, constant negotiations about military funds and loans, conflicts with locals. This will be in direct contradiction with the introduction: via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation. The reader will have to unify in one narrative the "identification with the Greek nation" with the plundering of Agrafa in the same period. This is an obvious problem which has to be solved. I propose this sentence to be replaced with Souliote clans particated in the Greek War of Independence and later settled in Greece. The part about assimilation in the Greek cultural identity is already discussed below.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Kahl (1999), Pappas (1982)

A section based on Kahl (1999) and Pappas (1982) will be removed:

• Kahl (1999): Von größerer Bedeutung ist die jüngere Gruppe der sogenannten Sulioten – meist albanisch-sprachige Bevölkerung aus dem Raum Súli in Zentral-Epirus – die mit dem Beginn der Abwanderung der Zagorisier für die Wirtschaft von Zagóri an Bedeutung gewannen. Viele von ihnen waren bereits bei ihrer Ankunft in Zagóri zweisprachig, da in Súli Einwohner griechischsprachiger Dörfer zugewandert waren und die albanischsprachige Bevölkerung des Súli-Tales (Lakka-Sulioten) engen Kontakt mit der griechischsprachigen Bevölkerung der weiteren Umgebung (Para-Sulioten) gehabt hatte (Vakalópulos 1992: 91).(Of greater importance is the younger group of the so-called Suliotes - mostly Albanian-speaking population from the Súli area of central Epirus - who became important to the economy of Zagóri with the beginning of the exodus of the Zagórisians. Many of them were already bilingual when they arrived in Zagóri, since residents of Greek-speaking villages had immigrated to Súli and the Albanian-speaking population of the Súli Valley (Lakka-Suliotes) had had close contact with the Greek-speaking population of the wider area (Para-Suliotes) ( Vakalópulos 1992: 91).) This section doesn't refer to the Souliotes (tribal community), but to the people from Lakka Souliou who settled in Souli when it was repopulated after 1820 and the "Para-Souliotes" who never considered themselves Souliotes, didn't live in Souli and were Greek-speakers. The term "Para-Souliotes" is given to them because in the late 18th century they were forced to pay taxes for "protection" to Souli. This population is described twice in the article as The Greek peasants who were farmers in the lands which the Souliots had acquired were distinguished by the name of the village in which they dwelt.
• Pappas (1982): One tradition maintains that the Souliotes were remnants of an Albanian contingent that fought at the Battle of Kosovo, while another tradition maintains that they were part of the last personal guard of Skanderbeg. One of the many problems with Pappas (1982) is that the author wrote before major archival research and as such is using older publications as his sources from which he's abstracting many of his claims. There is no "tradition' the Souliotes were an "Albanian contingent in the Battle of Kosovo" or that they were "part of the last personal guard of Skanderbeg". Both of these "traditions" are part of the glorification of Souliote history as attempted by Souliot writers many decades after 1821. The two "traditions" belong to works to Lambros Koutsonikas and Vasileios Goudas. They're not part of historiography, but may be re-added to the section about self-perceptions based on modern sources which discuss them in their actual context, which is that of forms of written autoethnography of Souliot history in the 19th century.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Change of lede without talkpage proposal

There has been a recent initiative to add an Albanian origin on first line. I assume that based on the same rationale we can also add that they belonged to the Greek nation also in the very first sentence (participation in the Greek revolution and struggles against their Albanian neighbours).Alexikoua (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: the participation in the Greek cause of independence is in the second sentence of the article. This is a good faith version because there are zillions of sources in the origin and identity section that describe the Souliotes as Albanians, not Greeks. If you want to insist on identity the lede will be transformed entirely. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles about groups of people start with a description of the group itself. Regarding the description of the Souliotes, keep in mind that they were a community that formed and continued to live as Albanians for centuries. Comparatively, they were "part of the Greek nation" only from the revolution onwards, when they had already lost their land, tribal organization, and very soon ceased to be a distinct group altogether. So it would be completely out of place and give undue weight to describe this group as "part of the Greek nation" in the first sentence. But I agree that it should be part of the lede. Çerçok (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate about that they continued to live as Albanians for centuries. Its somewhat weird to name them Albanians while they were primarily known as fighting against their Albanian neighbours. Actually they were quite proud to declare their Greek identity.02:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexikoua Actually they were quite proud to declare their Greek identity. Can you bring some examples?

Its somewhat weird to name them Albanians while they were primarily known as fighting against their Albanian neighbours. A ridiculous statement, and a testament to the most nationalistic and politically motivated POV-editing on wikipedia that even made it into the first sentence of the article. By this logic, almost every historical figure who the Greeks see as their heroes should be considered not Greek because they have fought against other Greeks, starting from Philip II, Pyrrhus, etc. But to return to a serious and honest discussion, yes, the Souliotes were Christian Albanians until the 19th century, that is correct. And no one here is disputing that. If you would like to dispute it, be upfront about it and present RS evidence. Çerçok (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

One more thing. @Alexikoua@Khirurg Please note what WP:LEAD requires from the first sentence:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere. Çerçok (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Whats really weird is the insistence that the Albanian origin of the Souliotes should be at 1st line, while that of Ali Pasha should stay completely hidden. You understand that this can't be neutral. By the way why both Stoppel and Nikolopoulou have been removed from lead? I assume this was some kind of error. Alexikoua (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You have spent years trying to remove the word Albanian from any association with Souliotes, Arvanites, the Peloponnese, etc, but when it comes to Ali Pasha you want it. Not surprising. But this is an article on the Souliotes, not Ali or any other non-Souliote historical figure. Ali's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Ali Pasha article. Çerçok (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually have not. The use of identity and ethnicity should be used whenever is needed and Ali's identity is not disputed. There is also no need to hide this essential information since it constitutes POV.Alexikoua (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, please spare us. I interacted with you on this site than most over the years. Save the theatrics and denials for somewhere else Resnjari (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Resnari: you might be interested to follow wp:NPA. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Claude Charles Fauriel's Greek collection of 1824

He published a collective work of Greek folk material, both inside and outside Greece (Constantinople and Greek communities from everywhere from the Balkans). Changing it to "from Greece" is wrong. The Souliotic songs he published that year also happen to be in their original Greek form as scholarship declares. Pappas also states that the Souliotic folk songs were also sung in Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Psimuli (2017) [1996]

I have added in the sources Psimuli (2017) which I own as an offline book, which itself is an Albanian translation of Psimouli (2005) in Greek which was first published as Psimouli (1996)link. If I do some edits from the Albanian translation and you need to verify them please search for them in the Greek edition of 1996. The exact pages won't match but they should be in the same chapters so the difference in page number should be small. The alternative would be for me to download the 1996 PhD, OCR it and use Google Translate so that we both use the same content. This would be impractical, it would generate automatic translation issues and it would be a mistake from a bibliographical perspective as it's better to use the latest version of a publication.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Psimouli's book is the best monograph written to date about the Souliots at least in Greek and edits to this article that add the conclusions of her research are of great value in improving its quality. I added some translated passages from the corresponding article in the Greek encyclopedia, where the 4th edition of her book of 2006 has been used, which, if memory serves well, is a corrected version of the first publication of the PhD thesis as a book from Estia in 1999 (I think -- 1996 seems to be the year her thesis was approved. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119: It's a very good work which steers away from essentialist narratives and focuses on historical archives. I've expanded the name section. Whenever you have some time, you can compare it with your version of the book.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Psimouli has been caught cheating with her bibliographical sources.[1] Her book (a Ph.D. dissertation actually) has not any scientific value, and only aims and supporting the surpassed neo-marxist theory of "modernity of nations". Her claims on "albanian origin" of Souiotes is based only on assumptions, picking of sources that she likes, excluding those that she doens't like (Perraivos, Byron etc), and not any proof on that claim can be found in there.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s not a sufficient source to discredit Psimouli, buddy. Also, Psimouli is not the only one who claims an Albanian origin for the Souliotes - which is pretty obvious when you consider the language they spoke and their cultural features. Your personal opinion on Psimouli’s work does not matter in the slightest, and I suggest you stop this incessantly disruptive outpour because it does not benefit Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. Accusations using terms like “neo-Marxist” are just laughable; if you do not like Albanians, just say that, but do not damage articles by going against consensus and removing things you don’t like. Botushali (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I am not participant in this discussion about Psimouli, but Botushali, am I missing something here? The above editor didn't suggest that they have anything against a particular ethnic group, are talking about an author's work, not on people's ethnicity. I kindly ask that you strike this "if you do not like Albanians, just say that" one asap. Obviously, racist attitudes against ethnic groups are a red line here, but clearly the other editor didn't mention anything about disliking people based on ethnicity. My interactions with both you, Botushali, and Skylax30, are very limited, with myself not being familiar with your history and whether there is anything between you two, (im too lazy to ever check what is going on with you both) but such response here is justifiable by no means and under no circumstances. I will appreciate if you retract this part of your comment. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Check Skylaxs edit contributions. He has been reported multiple times for canvassing el.wiki to "stop Turkoalbanian propaganda". Also he is removing all the hard work we have done for this article. I think you should check the users contribs yourself. His edits are usually far from constructive. Alltan (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

p.s: The same user is now adding WP:FRINGE theories on the origins of Arvanites.[2]. I am not alluding to any of his intentions, however his canvassing attempts on el.wiki doesn't inspire much confidence in me: "Μιλώντας επιστημονικά, στην υπηρεσία επιθετικών εθνικιστών τίθεται (μεταξύ άλλων) και η αναχρονιστική χρήση σύγχρονων όρων, μαζί με λαστιχοειδή ερμηνεία μιας μειοψηφίας σύγχρονων βιβλίων νεο-οθωμανικής εμπνεύσεως." Alltan (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any "canvassing" here, and the national (in general) propaganda in Wikipedia is already a subject of academic publications. Some even use the term Wikiganda, Hartmut Wessler, 'Wikiganda' : Detecting Bias in Multimodal Wikipedia Entries. Although I don't see the problem in expressing opinion about in discussion pages, and even creating an article, I didn't discussed that here. So, YOU are the one canvassing, pasting greek text from another wp. Calling an academic publication in a peer reviewed german magazine "fringe", is out of discussion.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I do not care about what you’d appreciate. Fact of the matter is that Skylax30 has been constantly disruptively editing a variety of pages, going completely against consensus, and using ridiculous sources to justify their edits. There is a trend here, because they all have to do with the presence of Albanians in Greece, and this same user has already been shown to have canvassed (as seen above) against supposed “Turkoalbanian propaganda” (doesn’t seem pretty friendly to either ethnic group, wouldn’t you say?). How would you justify such poor edits that revolve entirely around Albanians in Greece? Botushali (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If my memory doesn't fail me, the term "Turkoalbanian" is offensive, since it was used in a racist and derogatory way in the past, and still is by far-right nationalist circles in the Balkan countries. I strongly suggest that any editors both in the English Wikipedia and the other language versions of Wikipedia avoid using this term ever again. Myself, as someone who is experienced with Albanian and even more with Turkish propaganda (editors can attest that by checking my contributions log), I can reassure everybody that there are no conspiracy theories prevailing in Wikipedia. Things are not perfect, but are far from being propaganda. Of course, that doesn't mean there are no editors in the Balkan topic areas with nationalist edit patterns, but that's an entirely different thing. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place where "Turko-Albanian" or "neo-Marxist" (or whatever propagandas you may argue about), prevail. To suggest so, is merely an insult to most editors and their hard efforts in maintaining WP:NEUTRALITY based on WP:RS. If anyone here has doubts about that, they are more than welcome to open up a proper discussion at AN or AE. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Calling academic sources "rediculous", and thinking that basic wp rules can be violated because 8 users edit-war against 2 (this is the "consensus" I suppose), shows that you are claiming certain authority here. I was not involved in edits about "Albanians" in Greece, but only about Souliotes and Arvanites, and wp gives me the right to do so.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources you provided here were not academic, it was a blog post. No WP rules are being violated here by anyone but yourself. Consensus is indeed what everyone here agreed to before you came along and decided to start damaging the article, and yes, you are damaging articles about Albanians in Greece since the Arvanites and Souliotes are of ethnic Albanian origin. This is what mainstream, respected scholarly work agrees on; what Skylax30 agrees on is not relevant in the slightest, and Wikipedia does not care for your personal opinion. Wikipedia gives you a right to make sourced, appropriate additions and edits to improve articles, not mess with them. Also, as highlighted above by SR, terms like “Turcoalbanian” have very discriminatory connotations, and you using terms like this combined with the poor, inadequate edits you make to try and erase the presence of Albanians in Greece indicate a dislike for Albanians. Normal people don’t use “Turkoalvanoi/Turkoalbanian” on Wikipedia... Botushali (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, in greek bibliography the term "turkalbanian" is a common word, meaning "Muslim Albanian", which is not derrogatory at all (here is a contemporary book with this word in the title, authored by a known Greek arvanite-speaker, Mrs Dede, btw [3]). However, I can't remember using recently this complex word, but separately "Turkish" and "Albanian". Can you please give me the diff? Thanks. Playing the card of "racism" usually means lack of logical argument and good faith.--Skylax30 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I am certain that if you want to say "Muslim Albanian" then you would say just that instead of "Turkalbanian". Considering that other editors find it offensive and have expressed their discomfort about that word, then you ought to respect their sensitivities and avoid using such terms ever again, because no source can justify such a use of wording by editors. What is acceptable editorial behavior may not be dictated by historical sources. And that applies to everybody: WP:CIVILITY is a core pillar of Wikipedia, and respect for ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender identification, health issues and disabilities is obligatory. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you post here the link showing that I used the w. "turkalbanian"? Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing

I informed the ANI about an incident related to this topic. [4] Cinadon36 18:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Congrats!--Skylax30 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is that funny "info" under the picture? Who decided that the picture shows not Albanian Pallikars (as the original source says) but "Souliotes"? This is a blatant violation of the basic rules of w.p., crossing the borders to vandalism.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I admit that the picture is not the most representative in dealing with the specific community in general. I don't know how it reach the lead and especially the infobox.Alexikoua (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The legend as it is, doesn't have any net "political" point, because some will understand that "Souliotes mean Albanians" and others that "Albanians may mean Souliotes, i.e. Greeks claimed by modern Albanians". The only certainty is that we have a legend with an unsourced claim.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)