Talk:Greek War of Independence/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Greek War of Independence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Grossly imbalanced representation of Albanians
This article is in an unjustifiable state of double standards. I already brought this up several months ago, and after all this time, very disappointingly, I see that noting has changed. Albanians were involved in the revolution in both the Ottoman and the anti-Ottoman forces, and played important roles for both sides. This article mentions Albanians a total of 12 times, every single one of these times in connection to the Ottomans. This is unacceptable. I am now starting this section to discuss how to make the article more balanced. My suggestion is to include some sentences noting the role the Albanians played in some of the important battles against the Ottomans, possible in relation to Hydriots and Souliots, among others. Çerçok (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hydriots and Souliotes are mentioned several times in the article. Additionally Ottoman Albanian forces are mentioned also several times in the article since most of the Ottoman forces have been dispached from Albania or were in well known battles such us the one in Kefalovryso which they Ottoman Albanians of Mustai Pasha killed Botsaris. What do you suggest? To rename Hydriots and Souliotes to Orthodox Christian Albanians or Albanian-speaking people? I don’t know if there is any RS that can back this since these people are known by these names per WP:NOTABILITY. In any case please feel free to bring reliable and secondary RS and I will be more than happy to discuss. Best Othon I (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I suggest that ethnicity gets mentioned both ways, not only in the case of Albanians in the Ottoman army. There are many perfectly reliable sources who mention Souliotes, Hydriotes, and others as Albanians, specifically as Christian Albanians, so the same standard can be applied in both cases. But now that you mentioned this, I believe it is necessary to make an improvement to the Souliotes article first, then come back here. Çerçok (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. If you have problems with other articles, take the discussion to their respective talk pages, not here. I will kindly ask that editors refrain from ethnic flag planting of modern-day nationalist politics with historical events of the past. Heck, some heroes of the LGBT community participated in the Greek War of Independence, but I am not going down to the path of talking about their identities or asking for them to be included even though the War of Independence had some unfortunate influence upon from the Church, while the presence of LGBT elements in the War of Independence is omitted. If the identities of people have contributed somehow to the historic event, then yes, these entities may be mentioned cautiously, per WP:BALANCING. However even if that is the case, having strong sources isn't just required, they have to explicitly state that their ethnicity or origin had contributed or was WP:RELEVANT to the War of Independence. Anything less than that is just more unencyclopedic WP:BALKANS-level of ethnic flag planting serving only nationalist political agendas. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- What SilentResident said. If you're thinking of changing every mention of Hydriots, Soulites, etc, to "Christian Albanians", that's not going to happen. Khirurg (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Çerçok here. Unfortunately the article is currently trying to diminish the tremendous contributions of ethnic minorities to the Greek War of Independence. This follows the Greek nationalist and fringe viewpoint that said minorities never existed and were "Greek". This is unacceptable. Many sections of the article need to be rewritten to accurately describe how the events actually happened. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is certainly fringe is the massive contribution of the so called "Albanians" or Arvanites in the Greek War of Independence which such wasn't really massive event, apart from Souliots, some Hydriots and some Spetsiots, I do not really see any other Albanian-speaking people contributing that do worth noting them. Now if you would like to push your typical nationalist POV, good luck with that. Suggest here your edits and the community will discuss whether to include or not. PS, for the record, the article Greeks is about Greeks from the ancient times up to the point of modern times not only modern times. I noticed that you have a similar confusion about it as Botushali, I am more than happy to explain to you its scope however, an editor that edits articles of a topic that fail to understand or has a limited capability to understand should familiriase themselves with the scope of the article, or request help from the community and the community is more than happy to help for certain. Othon I (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
so called "Albanians"
nice way to directly demonstrate your POV, I know you have had in the past difficulties accepting the fact that Arvanites and Souliotes are of Albanian origin. But do not worry, every single ethnic minority's contributions will be discussed in the article. As for the article about modern Greeks which some POV-pushing editors are trying to confuse with the unrelated ancient Greeks; there is no continuity between said populations. I know this might come as a shocker to POV-editors with limited knowledge about the subject, it is simply a fringe viewpoint that has no place on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I have a surprise in that regard coming. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)- I am not sure what do you mean, I am perfectly fine with the fact that Arvanites are of Albanian origin and I have even contributed about it. As your POV of no continuity? What continuity? If you can prove the Greek culture and language does not have continuity then be my guest. Please bring reliable WP:RS and secondary sources and I am happy to discuss. PS, the "so called Albanians" goes to the fact that they have been identifiying themselves as Arvanites not Albanians. Albanians is the term used as an exonym to these people. Othon I (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Greek War of Independence isn't "Greek" because "only ethnic Greeks" fought in it as the War's name may somehow falsely suggest in the eyes of certain editors, (and thus, causing them to feel, perhaps, that their nation's contributions to it as being downplayed or unappreciated?). The War is "Greek" only in the sense that it led to the formation of the Greek state. Period. Those who fought in the War for Greece's independence are from what I know so far, even Albanians, and the Arvanites who do not identify themselves as Albanians, Italians, Slavs, Romas, Pomaks, Aromanians, and other Wallachians who do not identify themselves as Aromanians, fought for the Greek cause. Even English, French, Americans and Russians. Of all faiths. Even Catholics and Orthodox Christians, Sunni Muslims, and even Atheists. To not mention the LGBTQI people as mentioned earlier in this discussion. (My apologies if I missed any groups.) Yet, I am not hearing other groups, be it ethnic, religious or social ones, seeking to be treated with more spotlight than needed for the scope of the article just to prove a WP:POINT. Now, whoever here seeks to stir unnecessary debates of "giving more WP:UNDUE prominence" to a certain group based solely on the criteria of ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation rather than to the notability of their contributions to the War's cause, then they aren't here to improve the article but to prove that nationality does matter somehow even though this isn't the present article's concern, since the Greek War of Independence wasn't a war based on these characteristics. If the editors insist, then perhaps a discussion should open at the AE. Some of you may not be aware, so allow me to remind you that the AE has made clear one thing: that nationalist disruption in the WP:BALKANS topic area has to be monitored and tackled decisively. and I can't describe how far this discussion's goal is from the AE's goal. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I am really saddened with how such a discussion has opened, because it actually hurts my own plans to add a section in the Greek war of Independence mentioning exactly all these groups. Because the Greek War of Independence was notable for the participation of multiple ethnicities, religions and social groups of different backgrounds, united by one goal. For as long as editors keep raising nationalist debates like that, it makes me wonder if I am opening a Pandora's box here. I still am trying to believe I am not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only sad part here is that even though I only said that ethnicity can be mentioned both ways, you preemptively decided that this is unacceptable without even waiting for a specific suggestion on my part (unlike Othon I who at least is willing to assess). Actually I was going to say that one option is to add a section which deals with this issue, without interfering much with the existing form of the article, while another is to add details throughout the article to adjust the current imbalance. Çerçok (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only sad part here is that your edit history and contributions log show a heavy (and non-encyclopedic if I may say) ethnicity-related edit pattern in the WP:BALKANS topic area which appears persistent at least, as is the case for more editors around here, even editors who are editing in other topic areas which too fall under wp:Balkans. At the AE, editors got (and please, remember carefully this statement of mine because the admins can attest to this) got topic-banned for less serious patterns than this. And no. I am not "threatening" as you probably go assume now, but denoting how problematic this whole thing is. An editor giving a heavy emphasis on ethnicity, is raising ethnic debates on various articles. That's not happening elsewhere in Wikipedia at the same level as it happens here. And since this is not a mere content dispute but behavioral issue damaging the Balkans Topic Area, then it is as serious as it can get. Only very few other topic areas have that frequent ethnic-based disruption except perhaps Caucasus and the Middle East topic areas, where the AE already enforced a number of topic bans to accounts doing ethnic edits with much shorter contribs logs as yours. Do you realize how problematic this is? Because I do.
- But guess what. Some of you editors, will have realized by now, without me mentioning it, how patient I have been trying to be for not bringing this to the AE's attention already, mainly because some editors are already making tangible improvements to their editorial conduct, with some of them acting like true Wikipedians around who seek to improve the project, such as User:Ktrimi991 who I personally like alot and respect despite our heated past. I was hoping more editors from the Albania Topic Area will follow his fine example of editorial maturity but, witnessing this debate now, doesn't exactly give me alot of faith that problems are over yet. This is just one more addition of a long problematic edit pattern your account has been involved with, which won't look good in front of the AE, whose scrutiny is notorious. And trust me, I have a good reason to take things seriously here in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I invite you tell me exactly what I did wrong in this section of the talk page that I opened, because I do not know. I agree that ethnicity-related edits are an important issue in Balkan articles, and that is exactly what I am trying to address. Çerçok (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only sad part here is that even though I only said that ethnicity can be mentioned both ways, you preemptively decided that this is unacceptable without even waiting for a specific suggestion on my part (unlike Othon I who at least is willing to assess). Actually I was going to say that one option is to add a section which deals with this issue, without interfering much with the existing form of the article, while another is to add details throughout the article to adjust the current imbalance. Çerçok (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure what do you mean, I am perfectly fine with the fact that Arvanites are of Albanian origin and I have even contributed about it. As your POV of no continuity? What continuity? If you can prove the Greek culture and language does not have continuity then be my guest. Please bring reliable WP:RS and secondary sources and I am happy to discuss. PS, the "so called Albanians" goes to the fact that they have been identifiying themselves as Arvanites not Albanians. Albanians is the term used as an exonym to these people. Othon I (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is certainly fringe is the massive contribution of the so called "Albanians" or Arvanites in the Greek War of Independence which such wasn't really massive event, apart from Souliots, some Hydriots and some Spetsiots, I do not really see any other Albanian-speaking people contributing that do worth noting them. Now if you would like to push your typical nationalist POV, good luck with that. Suggest here your edits and the community will discuss whether to include or not. PS, for the record, the article Greeks is about Greeks from the ancient times up to the point of modern times not only modern times. I noticed that you have a similar confusion about it as Botushali, I am more than happy to explain to you its scope however, an editor that edits articles of a topic that fail to understand or has a limited capability to understand should familiriase themselves with the scope of the article, or request help from the community and the community is more than happy to help for certain. Othon I (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. If you have problems with other articles, take the discussion to their respective talk pages, not here. I will kindly ask that editors refrain from ethnic flag planting of modern-day nationalist politics with historical events of the past. Heck, some heroes of the LGBT community participated in the Greek War of Independence, but I am not going down to the path of talking about their identities or asking for them to be included even though the War of Independence had some unfortunate influence upon from the Church, while the presence of LGBT elements in the War of Independence is omitted. If the identities of people have contributed somehow to the historic event, then yes, these entities may be mentioned cautiously, per WP:BALANCING. However even if that is the case, having strong sources isn't just required, they have to explicitly state that their ethnicity or origin had contributed or was WP:RELEVANT to the War of Independence. Anything less than that is just more unencyclopedic WP:BALKANS-level of ethnic flag planting serving only nationalist political agendas. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I suggest that ethnicity gets mentioned both ways, not only in the case of Albanians in the Ottoman army. There are many perfectly reliable sources who mention Souliotes, Hydriotes, and others as Albanians, specifically as Christian Albanians, so the same standard can be applied in both cases. But now that you mentioned this, I believe it is necessary to make an improvement to the Souliotes article first, then come back here. Çerçok (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not wish to enter into the substance of the discussion or respond to some inexact points made above, but I think it would be easier to reach an agreement were all parties to it sharing some common points of reference about the matter discussed. So, I find the analogy made above between Albanians and LGBT people rather unfortunate. I hope the reason is obvious, but fwiw I quote from a recent synethetic work on the Greek revolution, Mazower's The Greek Revolution: 1821 and the Making of Modern Europe (2021), p. xxxv: "the most important thing to realize about the war of 1821 is that it was not really a two-way Greco-Turkish struggle at all: if one thing was perfectly obvious at the time, it was the exceptionally large and often decisive role played in the conflict by the Albanians, both Christian and Muslim." In this sense, I do not think it of no use to suggest to anyone interested in the matter to take into consideration scholarly writings on the importance of the actions and, perhaps more importantly, the inaction of Albanian troops for the development of the Greek uprising until Ibrahim entered the scene, such as this by Hakan Erdem or this more recent take on the matter, which is based on newly assessed Ottoman archival documents. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you again Ashmedai 119 for this very interesting and useful comment. The article urgently needs some rewriting. Considering your neutral and professional approach to the article about the Macedonians, I think you would be the perfect user for doing that. Do you mind improving the article? Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ashmedai, thing is, there is no analogy between Albanians and LGBT people. We are not talking about sizes there. Nationalities of people as being more significant due to numbers isn't something that can be disputed here I think. But the point here - which every editor should keep in mind - is that the actual participation in the war of independence was done for reasons that surpass the people's personal identities. Albanians and Greeks, Slavs, Romas and Pomaks didn't unite forces to fight the Ottoman Empire because of their ethnicity but because the people and groups living in the Greek peninsula tried to gain their freedom after centuries of slavery and oppression. This is not something that may be changed just because some editors around may feel that ethnicities should matter more than their actions and goals in participating in the war which are the focus and scope of the article. Just making myself clear here. Ι would rather let Ashmedai propose improvements to the article here in the talk page so we can discuss them rather than seeing someone with a heavy nationalist contribs log. In this context, Ashmedai is welcome to suggest any improvements, while Ahmet Q is reminded that the Greek War of Independence is a high profile article and editors from the Albania Topic Area are not allowed to spill over there any nationalist flag planting (like how it was done anywhere else in the WP:BALKANS topic Area, for which I am still wary and I have filled the Admins such as EdJohnston about it). Any improvements should be careful, and that means, to not deviate the focus from the scope of the article, by avoiding WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCING, WP:RELEVANT problems. For a positive WP:GOODFAITH step towards the right direction, I believe the proposals here in the talk page should mention not only Albanians but also contributions of the other ethnicities without dismissing them on faulty grounds such as "being less significant because of their small population sizes" or "their small impact to the war". When people and groups join and fight in a war, analogy-based arguments like this should have no place here at all, especially from the moment the Greek War of Independence is notable for its multi-ethnic character. Considering this, the groups should be covered adequately. I want to believe that no editor here with reasonable concerns of group representation in articles, would disagree to that basic encyclopedic principle? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Ι would rather let Ashmedai propose improvements to the article here in the talk page so we can discuss them rather than seeing someone with a heavy nationalist contribs log. In this context, Ashmedai is welcome to suggest any improvements, while Ahmet Q is reminded that the Greek War of Independence is a high profile article and editors from the Albania Topic Area are not allowed to spill over there any nationalist flag planting
- As I understand, editing is not restricted by nationality or by Topic Area editing history. I would also welcome a suggestion for improvement by Ashmedai that we can discuss here.
But the point here - which every editor should keep in mind - is that the actual participation in the war of independence was done for reasons that surpass the people's personal identities. Albanians and Greeks, Slavs, Romas and Pomaks didn't unite forces to fight the Ottoman Empire because of their ethnicity but because the people and groups living in the Greek peninsula tried to gain their freedom after centuries of slavery and oppression. This is not something that may be changed just because some editors around may feel that ethnicities should matter more than their actions and goals in participating in the war which are the focus and scope of the article.
- Good point, but you need to apply it evenly. The first step is to recognize that this article has been affected by the same nationalistic editing that you are criticizing, then improve it.
- The same argument has come up before when Albanians anti-Ottomans or even just Christian Albanians in Greece were discussed. Your objection to a not yet proposed edit, reminds me of how last year I corrected a citation about the population of Athens at the start of the war which manipulated the source entirely. Suddenly, editors who had not complained about ethnicity mentioned manipulatively in the citation, intervened with the "ethnicity does not matter" argument. And indeed all mention of ethnicity was erased in that paragraph. Similar pattern, ethnicity is stated pro-Ottoman Albanians, and not stated for anti-Ottoman ones. That is flag-planting pure and simple.
- You claim to oppose nationalistic writing, then please recognize it in this article first, then we can talk about improvements.
We are not talking about sizes there... ...For a positive WP:GOODFAITH step towards the right direction, I believe the proposals here in the talk page should mention not only Albanians but also contributions of the other ethnicities without dismissing them on faulty grounds such as "being less significant because of their small population sizes" or "their small impact to the war".
- No one is talking about sizes, and I don't think anyone has any objections to other groups being mentioned adequately. Çerçok (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "
Good point, but you need to apply it evenly. The first step is to recognize that this article has been affected by the same nationalistic editing that you are criticizing, then improve it.
" Çerçok, contrary to you, I am not seeing articles from the purely WP:NATIONALIST Albanian perspective of yours. IMO the problem affects multiple groups as I have stated here about "my own plans to add a section in the Greek war of Independence mentioning exactly all these groups
." Under different circumstances, I would have been a natural ally to you and support your changes to the article since I myself too have spotted room for improvements. I trust Ashmedai 119 can make some balanced proposals which we can discuss. In meantime, I will kindly ask that any editors avoid edit warring around here and that they wait for consensus here in the talk page if they don't want to end up at the AE. The mess seen in the other Balkan topic areas won't be tolerated here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)- That is just your opinion. From what I have read in this talk page section, in my opinion you are seeing things precisely and purely through a nationalist perspective. And a very common one too, same as many others, not only here on Wikipedia. But how we see each-other is irrelevant to the improvement of the article. As we wait to see if Ashmedai would suggest an improvement, if you won't answer my questions, at least please stop threatening reactions to things that have not happened and responding to points that have not been made. Çerçok (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- You had asked "what you did wrong to open this discussion", and I just pointed to your contribs log. Isn't that enough of an answer already? This exactly is what concerns me, so excuse me if I am asking that we work towards a wp:consensus on how to improve the article regarding the ethnicity. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also find the focus (some could say obsession) with ethnicity as tendentious and nationalistic. The war was very much fought on religious lines (Christians vs. Muslims). Khirurg (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only obsession I could see here are users trying, rather desperately, to not include the contributions of one ethnic group to the War of Independence. SilentResident your personal attacks against Çerçok have to stop. Your claims of Albanian nationalism against this user are unfounded and could easily get you sanctioned. Furthermore, if anyone here has a long (very long) history of disruptive editing, it is you. Since you have the habit of mentioning AE, why don't you open now a request? I think that might be really interesting and way better than making indirect threats. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't derail the discussion by personalizing it. Talkpages are discussing content, not contributors. As far as sanctionable behavior, this [1] would be the perfect example. I have seen editors sanctioned for a lot less. Khirurg (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- You came here just to accuse the other side of the dispute of having an "obsession" and a "tendentious and nationalistic" stance. So before asking other editors to not derail the discussion, make sure you are not the one who derails it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse anyone of anything. It was a general observation. I do think the focus on ethnicity in what was primarily a religious war to be tendentious. Khirurg (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This whole out-of-topic dispute started from projections based on my previous contributions, so again, good point, but apply it evenly. Çerçok (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- You came here just to accuse the other side of the dispute of having an "obsession" and a "tendentious and nationalistic" stance. So before asking other editors to not derail the discussion, make sure you are not the one who derails it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't derail the discussion by personalizing it. Talkpages are discussing content, not contributors. As far as sanctionable behavior, this [1] would be the perfect example. I have seen editors sanctioned for a lot less. Khirurg (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only obsession I could see here are users trying, rather desperately, to not include the contributions of one ethnic group to the War of Independence. SilentResident your personal attacks against Çerçok have to stop. Your claims of Albanian nationalism against this user are unfounded and could easily get you sanctioned. Furthermore, if anyone here has a long (very long) history of disruptive editing, it is you. Since you have the habit of mentioning AE, why don't you open now a request? I think that might be really interesting and way better than making indirect threats. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also find the focus (some could say obsession) with ethnicity as tendentious and nationalistic. The war was very much fought on religious lines (Christians vs. Muslims). Khirurg (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- You had asked "what you did wrong to open this discussion", and I just pointed to your contribs log. Isn't that enough of an answer already? This exactly is what concerns me, so excuse me if I am asking that we work towards a wp:consensus on how to improve the article regarding the ethnicity. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is just your opinion. From what I have read in this talk page section, in my opinion you are seeing things precisely and purely through a nationalist perspective. And a very common one too, same as many others, not only here on Wikipedia. But how we see each-other is irrelevant to the improvement of the article. As we wait to see if Ashmedai would suggest an improvement, if you won't answer my questions, at least please stop threatening reactions to things that have not happened and responding to points that have not been made. Çerçok (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "
- Ashmedai, thing is, there is no analogy between Albanians and LGBT people. We are not talking about sizes there. Nationalities of people as being more significant due to numbers isn't something that can be disputed here I think. But the point here - which every editor should keep in mind - is that the actual participation in the war of independence was done for reasons that surpass the people's personal identities. Albanians and Greeks, Slavs, Romas and Pomaks didn't unite forces to fight the Ottoman Empire because of their ethnicity but because the people and groups living in the Greek peninsula tried to gain their freedom after centuries of slavery and oppression. This is not something that may be changed just because some editors around may feel that ethnicities should matter more than their actions and goals in participating in the war which are the focus and scope of the article. Just making myself clear here. Ι would rather let Ashmedai propose improvements to the article here in the talk page so we can discuss them rather than seeing someone with a heavy nationalist contribs log. In this context, Ashmedai is welcome to suggest any improvements, while Ahmet Q is reminded that the Greek War of Independence is a high profile article and editors from the Albania Topic Area are not allowed to spill over there any nationalist flag planting (like how it was done anywhere else in the WP:BALKANS topic Area, for which I am still wary and I have filled the Admins such as EdJohnston about it). Any improvements should be careful, and that means, to not deviate the focus from the scope of the article, by avoiding WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCING, WP:RELEVANT problems. For a positive WP:GOODFAITH step towards the right direction, I believe the proposals here in the talk page should mention not only Albanians but also contributions of the other ethnicities without dismissing them on faulty grounds such as "being less significant because of their small population sizes" or "their small impact to the war". When people and groups join and fight in a war, analogy-based arguments like this should have no place here at all, especially from the moment the Greek War of Independence is notable for its multi-ethnic character. Considering this, the groups should be covered adequately. I want to believe that no editor here with reasonable concerns of group representation in articles, would disagree to that basic encyclopedic principle? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Before our community of Balkan editors tackles with its expertise the issue of ethnicity will anyone bother to replace the semi-fictional Brewer, David The Greek War of Independence, London: Overlook Duckworth, 2011 with an actual academic source? Just in the last three years, at least 4 such studies have been published. The audience can read in the article the following piece from this source:
The Greeks had not expected Ibrahim Pasha to land during the stormy winter weather, and were taken by surprise. The Greeks initially laughed at the Egyptian soldiers, who were short, skinny fallāḥīn (peasant) conscripts, many of them blind in one eye owing to the prevalence of parasitic worms that attacked the eye in the Nile, wearing cheap red uniforms comprising a jacket, trousers and a skull-cap. However, the Greeks soon learned that the Egyptians, who were trained by French officers recruited by Mohammed Ali, were tough and hardy soldiers who, unlike the Turkish and Albanian units that the Greeks had been fighting until then, stood their ground in combat.
--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, after reading the talk section over and over, I am having the impression no one does dispute the fact that the Albanian-speaking subjects revolted against Ottoman rule, and joined the Greek-speaking subjects in the War of Independence. Nor does anyone dispute that the contributions of these groups were notable. Correct? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well not quite. Orthodox Albanian-speakers rose up together with the Greeks. Muslim Albanians overwhelmingly sided with the Ottomans and fought for the Ottomans. The religious dimension seems far more important and explanatory than the ethnic one, I'd say. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for returning to the main issue. I agree with that statement, although it is more nuanced than that. For example, Mazower (same book that was quoted above) states: "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia". And of course there are cases of Christians fighting for the Ottomans. Personally, I would like to see these details at least mentioned somewhere, but if these are deemed to insignificant to be included by a majority of editors, I will agree with that decision. My primary concern is to address the overall imbalance in the presentation of Albanians in this article (and I am not excluding other groups here). Çerçok (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that the few exceptions on either side are significant, e.g. a few dozen men. Regarding your primary concern, can you give some concrete examples of the imbalance in the presentation of Albanians in the article and some suggestions on how to address it? That would be helpful. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I already mentioned two options above, but since we decided to allow Ashmedai to propose an improvement, I am waiting for that. Çerçok (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Muslims fought at Greek side, and this is a fact. And from what I understand, I don't think they were too few to be meaningless for the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I already mentioned two options above, but since we decided to allow Ashmedai to propose an improvement, I am waiting for that. Çerçok (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that the few exceptions on either side are significant, e.g. a few dozen men. Regarding your primary concern, can you give some concrete examples of the imbalance in the presentation of Albanians in the article and some suggestions on how to address it? That would be helpful. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- For clarification, @Ashmedai 119: are you preparing a text proposal to add to the article? If not, can you @Çerçok: do so? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to think some proposals to add to the article without creating a new section but that was not possible without rewriting of existing sections in the article to make it reasonable to mention the identities without interrupting the natural flow of text but I am lazy to do that as it will require some effort. I think it will be easier if a separate section is created instead, provided that it is balanced, considering the size of the rest of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a separate section could work well. It could include info on Aromanians too, as some Aromanians gave a very notable contribution. Idk about Slavs/Slavic-speakers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the other groups are covered too in the proposals, if they indeed intend to make any, that will save me time and I will be grateful. Perhaps a message may be left at the relevant National Wikiprojects asking for help? I know that besides Russians, South Slavs also have contributed too, but their sub-group identification is where help will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Vasos Mavrovouniotis comes to mind, for one. But any proposed additions should be very mindful of length, because the article is already extremely long at 103 kb of prose, well over the recommended 100 kb maximum. Khirurg (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Albeit the concerns I am having about section length, for me are about analogies here: the section size compared to article length. An article about a War of independence known not its ethnic character, but mainly for being idealistic. (Idealistic, because the Christian Balkan subjects of the Empire fought for the ideals of freedom and self-determination, revolting against the tyranny of an autocratic imperial government that imposed them the notorious Blood Tax, "Devshirme" (at some point, each Greek Christian and other Christian family was obliged to sacrifice a member, and specifically donate the first male child born in the family to Ottoman authorities at a very young age, never to be seen again), plus the discrimination in the empire, on both financial and religious grounds, with Christians having to pay disproportionally higher financial taxes compared to fellow Ottoman subjects who followed the state religion, and depriving the empire's people of access to quality education and the chance to experience the process of the Renaissance the rest of the West has already been through) then the section may be informative on the matter of ethnicity but without being disproportionate to the article size, giving the impression that this revolution was about ethnicities. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Idealizing the War of Independence as a religious war is oversimplifying the events. Multiple complex factors including ethnicity played an important role during the war, it cannot simply be described as a war between Christians and Muslims. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Summarizing the academic consensus on the main factors (being treated as 2nd-class citizens, social, financial and educational discrimination, etc) and sentiments (historical, political and religious, etc) that were fueling the revolts and led to the eventual revolution against Ottoman rule isn't an attempt at "idealizing" the war I am afraid. Is a reminder to the editors, including you and me, to not turn this debate about a non-ethnic war into one where ethnicity mattered really up to the point of even creating a separate section about ethnicities in an article about an war that wasn't ethnic. As a matter of fact, in that war, Greeks fought Greeks, and Albanians fought Albanians. Facts are facts and this is indisputable. A small separate section is as much as this article can have so any information in it will have to be concise and be WP:RELEVANT and contribute to the overall scope ofthe article. This means, any mention of ethnicties should be WP:BALANCING to the rest of the article content without deviating focus from it. Got it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The length of the section will be determined by the amount of relevant content available and not by your personal preferences. So you deciding that it will be
small
, before any content has been discussed is not constructive and doesn't portray good faith. I'll remind you that you are the one who proposed a separate section because you didn't want to change much of the current article. I would have preferred incorporating reliable sources about the subject in the different sections of the article. - Writing about populations other than the Greeks is not focusing the article on ethnicity, it is merely accurately describing historical events. By your logic we should remove any reference of Greek and Turkish from the article, this would obviously be absurd. Also, not all the contributions of the minorities were equal, some did more than others. This should be accurately portrayed in the sections per WP:RELEVANT. I will refer to Ashmedai's comment where they quoted a line of Mazower's brilliant work about the Greek Revolution:
the most important thing to realize about the war of 1821 is that it was not really a two-way Greco-Turkish struggle at all: if one thing was perfectly obvious at the time, it was the exceptionally large and often decisive role played in the conflict by the Albanians, both Christian and Muslim.
Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)- "
The length of the section will be determined by the amount of relevant content available
that's what the essay WP:RELEVANT which I have been pointing to, does say, and I am glad you agree with me on that. "and not by your personal preferences.
" No personal preferences. In fact, Relevant is an assay, yes, but WP:BALANCING (another one I have been pointing you to) is far more important, is part of one of the 5 core pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV and states (copy-pasting here for everyone's convenience):An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
. Waiting for proposals. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- "
- The length of the section will be determined by the amount of relevant content available and not by your personal preferences. So you deciding that it will be
- Summarizing the academic consensus on the main factors (being treated as 2nd-class citizens, social, financial and educational discrimination, etc) and sentiments (historical, political and religious, etc) that were fueling the revolts and led to the eventual revolution against Ottoman rule isn't an attempt at "idealizing" the war I am afraid. Is a reminder to the editors, including you and me, to not turn this debate about a non-ethnic war into one where ethnicity mattered really up to the point of even creating a separate section about ethnicities in an article about an war that wasn't ethnic. As a matter of fact, in that war, Greeks fought Greeks, and Albanians fought Albanians. Facts are facts and this is indisputable. A small separate section is as much as this article can have so any information in it will have to be concise and be WP:RELEVANT and contribute to the overall scope ofthe article. This means, any mention of ethnicties should be WP:BALANCING to the rest of the article content without deviating focus from it. Got it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Idealizing the War of Independence as a religious war is oversimplifying the events. Multiple complex factors including ethnicity played an important role during the war, it cannot simply be described as a war between Christians and Muslims. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Albeit the concerns I am having about section length, for me are about analogies here: the section size compared to article length. An article about a War of independence known not its ethnic character, but mainly for being idealistic. (Idealistic, because the Christian Balkan subjects of the Empire fought for the ideals of freedom and self-determination, revolting against the tyranny of an autocratic imperial government that imposed them the notorious Blood Tax, "Devshirme" (at some point, each Greek Christian and other Christian family was obliged to sacrifice a member, and specifically donate the first male child born in the family to Ottoman authorities at a very young age, never to be seen again), plus the discrimination in the empire, on both financial and religious grounds, with Christians having to pay disproportionally higher financial taxes compared to fellow Ottoman subjects who followed the state religion, and depriving the empire's people of access to quality education and the chance to experience the process of the Renaissance the rest of the West has already been through) then the section may be informative on the matter of ethnicity but without being disproportionate to the article size, giving the impression that this revolution was about ethnicities. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Vasos Mavrovouniotis comes to mind, for one. But any proposed additions should be very mindful of length, because the article is already extremely long at 103 kb of prose, well over the recommended 100 kb maximum. Khirurg (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the other groups are covered too in the proposals, if they indeed intend to make any, that will save me time and I will be grateful. Perhaps a message may be left at the relevant National Wikiprojects asking for help? I know that besides Russians, South Slavs also have contributed too, but their sub-group identification is where help will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a separate section could work well. It could include info on Aromanians too, as some Aromanians gave a very notable contribution. Idk about Slavs/Slavic-speakers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to think some proposals to add to the article without creating a new section but that was not possible without rewriting of existing sections in the article to make it reasonable to mention the identities without interrupting the natural flow of text but I am lazy to do that as it will require some effort. I think it will be easier if a separate section is created instead, provided that it is balanced, considering the size of the rest of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comments above and for the tag. I should say in advance that I do not consider myself possessing some kind of special expertise when it comes to the Greek War of Independence. Nevertheless, I am skeptical of the soundness of creating a separate section on Balkan non-Greek speakers who fought with the Greek side -- what would the point of such a section be? I think it would seem more like a list, as there is imo not that much connecting the course of the Slav-speaking cavalrymen of Hadji-Christos Dagovic with the Albanian-speaking Souliots. Perhaps a short paragraph should be added in the section on "Philhellenism" (now covering only Western Philhellenes)? I am thinking loudly. In any case it should be taken into consideration that Balkan Christian Slavs were at the time seen not as "Philhellenes" but as "other Greeks", in a way that Germans, for example, were not and indeed could not. The pro-Greek Muslims are of a smaller number, but perhaps worthy of a mention, if only for what they mean about the character of the revolution: a religious war for the masses of the Rhomaioi, but also one with a civic dimension, so that one could be an "Ottoman [=Muslim] by religion and a Greek by country", as somebody formulated at the time (cited in Loucatos, «Les arabes et les turcs philhellènes pendant l’insurrection pour l’indépendance de la Grèce«, Balkan Studies 1980.)
As far as the question of the Albanian-speakers/Albanians is concerned, I think the following changes could and should be made to the article: 1. add a passage describing the gradual entanglement of the Souliots in the Greek uprising (using Psimouli's book on Markos Botsaris and Tzakis's chapter from the Critical Dictionary (Kitromilides and Tsoucalas, eds) and also mention their participation in important military events, 2. clearly state that the navymen of Hydra and Spetses as well as the Souliots were Albanian-speakers 3. edit the passage concerning the employment of Albanian troops from the Ottomans until 1824 ("Short of men and money... in lieu of pay"), which is currently supported by way of reference to Brewer's questionable book, substitute references to Brewer with references to the more recent and scientific writings of Erdem and Ilıcak (linked in a previous message of mine in this discussion) and perhaps also expand it, 4. consider adding a passage on the Albanian factor during the last phase of the war and during the delimitation of the Greco-Ottoman frontier (Erdem and Gounaris, Δεν είν' ο περσινός καιρός...). I have not understood if this is the kind of changes that Çerçok had in mind, and of course I do not know what other editors think of them. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's even better. I like this. I consider your idea to be naturally more WP:BALANCING since it integrates the extra bit of info to the article without deviating from the article's scope. I admit my "proposal" for creating a separate section is merely the result of my laziness in messing with the article's existing content.Thank you very much, Ashmedai 119. Who else agrees with that? What do the others think about this? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Ashmedai 119 for taking the time. I agree with these proposals, with only a few further suggestions: 1- Albanian-speakers is a pretty slippery term. Instead I would use simply Albanians, or Christian Albanians, especially for well-sourced cases such as the Souliotes. I would not be against putting that in the broader context of them gradually embracing the idea of Greek statehood and eventually nationality. 2- Since the highly politicized matter of ethnicity is being discussed, I would use Mazower, as more detached from Balkan political bias, as the main reference for these changes. Kitromilides and Tsoucalas should be consulted too of course. If we are all in agreement with such changes, I can suggest the edits here. Çerçok (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Ashmedai's proposals, and also think that they are better than creating a separate section, as these have a habit of growing quite large usually. I certainly don't agree that the Spetsiotes and Hydriotes should be described as "Albanians" in this article, since that is not true for all of them. For the Souliotes I am more flexible, although anyone interested in their ethnic origin can consult the Souliotes article. This article is about the war, not the ethnic origin of this and that group. I do agree regarding Mazower. On a separate note, given that there is a whole article on Serbs and Montenegrins in the Greek War of Independence, some mention of them should be made as well (e.g. Vasos Mavrovuoniotis. Khirurg (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Ashmedai and Çerçok as well. @Ashmedai 119 could you make the edits you proposed? Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tag. I will be trying to do the proposed edits by Tuesday, but there is a significant probability that I will have only prepared part of them by then, and I am afraid that chances are my free time will be dwindling from then onwards for reasons beyond my volition. Regardless, there is an additional problem in the sense that this is a strange time of the year for me as I do not carry with me some of the materials that I mentioned above (Gounaris's book and Psimoulis's biography of Botsaris). However, an article version of the former is here and the main points of Psimouli's narration are included (to the best of my memory) in this, the second instalment of a two-part article series of hers in a Greek lay journal. If this does not pose a problem with other editors, I could provisionally use these digital versions for the time being and perhaps substitute the references in early to mid-September, when I will be able to.
- Two additional notes: I do empathize with the aversion to nationalist takes on history, all too common in Balnak historiography, however, this should not be taken to mean that all historical scholarship from Balkan nationals should be automatically considered ladden with sins of such kind. I have also noted that there is a disagreement re the description of the Souliots, which is currently under discussion in the article's talk pages and which, in my view of the logic of things, means that it would be better to resolve it first before adding the material on the Souliots here. Cheers, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ashmedai 119 As the discussion on the Souliotes talk page has reached a consensus - thank you for heling there too - and is now focused on issues of indirect relevance to this article, are you able to propose improvements here? Çerçok (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Çerçok, thanks for the reminder. I can do this, though I am sorry to warn that I will be contributing here at a much slower pace than my involvement in the past few days. If this is not OK with you, perhaps another editor could assume this responsibility. With apologies and thanks once more for reminding me of this matter, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have wanted to make improvements to this article since almost a year ago, I don't mind at all if you take it more slowly than with the Souliotes article. Thank you for still being involved. Çerçok (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Çerçok, thanks for the reminder. I can do this, though I am sorry to warn that I will be contributing here at a much slower pace than my involvement in the past few days. If this is not OK with you, perhaps another editor could assume this responsibility. With apologies and thanks once more for reminding me of this matter, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ashmedai 119 As the discussion on the Souliotes talk page has reached a consensus - thank you for heling there too - and is now focused on issues of indirect relevance to this article, are you able to propose improvements here? Çerçok (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two additional notes: I do empathize with the aversion to nationalist takes on history, all too common in Balnak historiography, however, this should not be taken to mean that all historical scholarship from Balkan nationals should be automatically considered ladden with sins of such kind. I have also noted that there is a disagreement re the description of the Souliots, which is currently under discussion in the article's talk pages and which, in my view of the logic of things, means that it would be better to resolve it first before adding the material on the Souliots here. Cheers, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Çerçok, Alexikoua, and Othon I: I would like to call you all back to this discussion to cease the edit warring that has been occurring between you three. Please discuss here before this situation escalates even further than it already has. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Therealscorp1an Thank you for participating here. You can see that the issue has been brought here since last year, but I am afraid Alexikoua, Othon and Khirurg are trying to forcefully keep the article in a distorted version.
- The issue is very simple:
- - There were many Albanians participating for both sides (multiple RS sources).
- BUT
- - Alexikoua, Othon and Khirurg insist on only mentioning Albanians fighting for the Ottoman side.
- There can be no clearer case of POV-pushing, and I will never stop countering such distortions of verifiable truth.
- I am personally open to any balanced proposition, and what I added is actually what Ashmedai suggested, not me. I would gladly discuss other options. Çerçok (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Cercok: Albanians were a recognized group in the Ottoman administration and military and they are mentioned as such. On the other hand I fail to see the participation of various Greek revolutionary groups as separate units in the revolt. For example Psara, Hydra and Spetses are always grouped together in all naval operations. The special origin of each settlement is irrelevant under the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Mentioning people of Albanian origin as part of the Ottoman side every now and then while staying silent on people of Albanian origin on the Greek side is a big no-no. The author highlights the fact that people of Albanian origin played an important role on the Greek side, and that makes the content relevant for this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why is it a "big no-no"? The Albanian origin of these groups can be viewed by clicking on the respective article (Souliotes, Hydra). Mentioning them here as "Christian Orthodox Albanian Souliotes" reads very POV. Khirurg (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- The reason is above, you have already read it. On the Souliotes part, I do not care much. The thing that fits with the context of the article is the part I reworte after Çerçok and Othon I disagreed with each other on the wording (the Albanian-speaking fleet members). The Souliotes being Albanian or of Albanian origin is not that important, at least in my view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see your point, however it does appear there is strong opposition to these edits. This needs be decided by discussion and consensus, not by one side imposing its version via edit-warring. Back tot he stable version until a consensus is reached. Khirurg (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- What you really want is to stall this into infinity, basically forcing your version. And you have stalled this long enough, almost a year. But the days of falsified history are over. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TRUTH, or the only thing that will be "over" is your editing privileges in this topic area. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is all you have done since I have started editing really. Not once brought a new source, engaged in discussion over content, or done anything valuable. Only pointless stalls and forceful edits and reverts against RS. But verifiable truth is inevitable. Çerçok (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Çerçok: Can you open an RfC? The discussion here is pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Cercok, please do not falsely accuse me, I stated my opining in the summary of my revert. I am not trying to conspire for something, nor you know if I am a historian or not. As it happens I did not disagree with the inclusion, I disagreed with the wording. Hydra and Spetses were not exclusively Albanian-speaking. Ktrimi's wording was much better for me but indeed, an RfC might work better. Agree Ktrimi. Othon I (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood some part of what I wrote. The historian is Ashmedai, whose proposal I added to the article. If you disagree with the wording, change it, don't remove sourced content. I don't disagree with Ktrimi's wording either. Çerçok (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- No I did not. I have requested from you to bring your text here and work it together and in your comment above you wrote
Alexikoua, Othon and Khirurg insist on only mentioning Albanians fighting for the Ottoman side.
. Please do not falsely accume me, again. Othon I (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)- Othon I and Çerçok, if you both agree with my wording, then I am glad my effort addressed the concerns of both of you. If others oppose the wording they need to propose another one, otherwise there is no reason to not add the content again to the article. Mentioning people of Albanian origin on the Ottoman side only is too POV to accept. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I also do not see anything wrong with the version proposed by Ktrimi991. However I do have to say the Arvanite effort was not limited to just Hydra and Spetses. Beisdes, many commanders listed in this article, (Tombazis, Androutsos, Bouboulina) were also Arvanites. I think that should be mentioned in regards to them. Something like "On 22 June 1823, the Arvanite Emmanouil Tombazis, appointed Commissioner of Crete..." could work very well. It is already done for the Phanariots, Maniots, Cypriots: "then turned to Alexander Ypsilantis, a Phanariote serving in the Russian army...", "In early July 1821, the Cypriot Archimandrite Theofylaktos Thiseas arrived..."Alltan (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see why to stress the ethnic origins of an individual in the text. If someone is interested then they can enter in the respective articles. Hydra and Spetses is a different topic. Additionally, Phanariote is not an ethnic origin but this is how the Greeks from the Phanar district were called. Othon I (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that individual person's origin should not be mentioned. A balance between the mention of the fact that people of Albanian origin were on both sides of the war is enough. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree Ktrimi, thanks. Othon I (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see why to stress the ethnic origins of an individual in the text. If someone is interested then they can enter in the respective articles. Hydra and Spetses is a different topic. Additionally, Phanariote is not an ethnic origin but this is how the Greeks from the Phanar district were called. Othon I (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I also do not see anything wrong with the version proposed by Ktrimi991. However I do have to say the Arvanite effort was not limited to just Hydra and Spetses. Beisdes, many commanders listed in this article, (Tombazis, Androutsos, Bouboulina) were also Arvanites. I think that should be mentioned in regards to them. Something like "On 22 June 1823, the Arvanite Emmanouil Tombazis, appointed Commissioner of Crete..." could work very well. It is already done for the Phanariots, Maniots, Cypriots: "then turned to Alexander Ypsilantis, a Phanariote serving in the Russian army...", "In early July 1821, the Cypriot Archimandrite Theofylaktos Thiseas arrived..."Alltan (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Othon I and Çerçok, if you both agree with my wording, then I am glad my effort addressed the concerns of both of you. If others oppose the wording they need to propose another one, otherwise there is no reason to not add the content again to the article. Mentioning people of Albanian origin on the Ottoman side only is too POV to accept. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- No I did not. I have requested from you to bring your text here and work it together and in your comment above you wrote
- I think you misunderstood some part of what I wrote. The historian is Ashmedai, whose proposal I added to the article. If you disagree with the wording, change it, don't remove sourced content. I don't disagree with Ktrimi's wording either. Çerçok (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Cercok, please do not falsely accuse me, I stated my opining in the summary of my revert. I am not trying to conspire for something, nor you know if I am a historian or not. As it happens I did not disagree with the inclusion, I disagreed with the wording. Hydra and Spetses were not exclusively Albanian-speaking. Ktrimi's wording was much better for me but indeed, an RfC might work better. Agree Ktrimi. Othon I (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Çerçok: Can you open an RfC? The discussion here is pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is all you have done since I have started editing really. Not once brought a new source, engaged in discussion over content, or done anything valuable. Only pointless stalls and forceful edits and reverts against RS. But verifiable truth is inevitable. Çerçok (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TRUTH, or the only thing that will be "over" is your editing privileges in this topic area. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- What you really want is to stall this into infinity, basically forcing your version. And you have stalled this long enough, almost a year. But the days of falsified history are over. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see your point, however it does appear there is strong opposition to these edits. This needs be decided by discussion and consensus, not by one side imposing its version via edit-warring. Back tot he stable version until a consensus is reached. Khirurg (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- The reason is above, you have already read it. On the Souliotes part, I do not care much. The thing that fits with the context of the article is the part I reworte after Çerçok and Othon I disagreed with each other on the wording (the Albanian-speaking fleet members). The Souliotes being Albanian or of Albanian origin is not that important, at least in my view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why is it a "big no-no"? The Albanian origin of these groups can be viewed by clicking on the respective article (Souliotes, Hydra). Mentioning them here as "Christian Orthodox Albanian Souliotes" reads very POV. Khirurg (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Mentioning people of Albanian origin as part of the Ottoman side every now and then while staying silent on people of Albanian origin on the Greek side is a big no-no. The author highlights the fact that people of Albanian origin played an important role on the Greek side, and that makes the content relevant for this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Cercok: Albanians were a recognized group in the Ottoman administration and military and they are mentioned as such. On the other hand I fail to see the participation of various Greek revolutionary groups as separate units in the revolt. For example Psara, Hydra and Spetses are always grouped together in all naval operations. The special origin of each settlement is irrelevant under the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that much myself. To omit this could unintentionally send out the wrong message that Albanians were expressly pro-Ottoman. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is the point. People of Albanian origin fought on both sides, but the article currently mentions only those who fought on the Ottoman side - and does so over 10 times. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, @Çerçok: noted above that Mazower highlights that "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia". Muslims fighting on the side of Greeks could have a sentence in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I went for the lowest of the lowest common denominator to start with, and look at the reactions. Çerçok (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the wording agreed on by Ktrimi, Othon I and Çerçok. The POV issue should be solved and Mazower is a top quality source. Other sources like Ledia Dushku can be helpful too. Excine (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, @Çerçok: noted above that Mazower highlights that "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia". Muslims fighting on the side of Greeks could have a sentence in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Çerçok: Can you add to the article a sentece based on Mazower's quote "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to understand what's so unacceptable about the Souliotes being labeled as Albanians. Don't remove it again without a good reason. Alltan (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a valuable addition and I considered it, but I could not see a place in the article where it fits. Maybe if Ashmedai's idea about a small section dealing with ethnicities was implemented it would fit well there, but I cannot do that myself. Çerçok (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Çerçok: maybe that sentence could be added to the Massacres section since that section touches the religious aspect of the conflict. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Fact is that ethnographic descriptions are not that simple & Souliotes were often described as Greeks that time. What I also wonder is why in the Souliotes article the fact that Ali Pasha was an Albanian is entirely hidden.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Souliotes were Albanians, it is simple and it is nothing controversial. The rest you can discuss at the Souliotes article. Alltan (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided. Potts, Jim (2014). "The Souliots in Souli and Corfu and the strange case of Photos Tzavellas". In Hirst, Anthony; Sammon, Patrick (eds.). The Ionian Islands: Aspects of Their History and Culture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. @Alltan: I've already told you, you are propagating your personal POV. That's not productive.Alexikoua (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is the well known fact that Souliotes were Albanians POV? Hiding such an obvious fact like you did in your last edit is actually the only obvious POV here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua: that source is a Predatory source. Do not use it again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Even if it wasn't, it's still a case of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Alltan (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua: that source is a Predatory source. Do not use it again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua This matter has already been resolved in the Souliotes talkpage. That discussion started as a first step towards improvements on this page. All editors made their case there, including you, until a wide consensus was reached. Now respect that consensus. Çerçok (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Çerçok:: Pretenting that the matter has been "solved" in the Souliotes tp isn't an argument to push this kind of POV here too. I fail to see a concensus there and You should avoid recycling this certain POV. You should follow in general wp:WHATWIKIPEDIAIS. Alexikoua (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- You participated in that discussion. You have to respect it's result. Çerçok (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Çerçok need to follow wp:NPA, such comments are completely unproductive in this comment. There is no concensus on the Souliotewere portraied during the Greek Revolution, we need to be neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Friendly reminder, do not confuse consensus with unanimity. From the policy page:
(Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity)
. Alltan (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)- Another friendly reminder from me: concensus does not mean you are ready for to excercise large scale revert warring pattern here. If that's a declaration of a new edit war campaign I'll disappoint you. Labelling the Souliotes as Albanians is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- This summary [[2]] accusing Oxford University Press for publishing predatory works is not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please, do not make any more POV edits on this article. The fact that the Souliotes were Albanians is very well sourced by countless reliable sources.We have been through this already at the article about the Souliotes. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- This summary [[2]] accusing Oxford University Press for publishing predatory works is not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Another friendly reminder from me: concensus does not mean you are ready for to excercise large scale revert warring pattern here. If that's a declaration of a new edit war campaign I'll disappoint you. Labelling the Souliotes as Albanians is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Friendly reminder, do not confuse consensus with unanimity. From the policy page:
- @Çerçok need to follow wp:NPA, such comments are completely unproductive in this comment. There is no concensus on the Souliotewere portraied during the Greek Revolution, we need to be neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- You participated in that discussion. You have to respect it's result. Çerçok (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is the well known fact that Souliotes were Albanians POV? Hiding such an obvious fact like you did in your last edit is actually the only obvious POV here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided. Potts, Jim (2014). "The Souliots in Souli and Corfu and the strange case of Photos Tzavellas". In Hirst, Anthony; Sammon, Patrick (eds.). The Ionian Islands: Aspects of Their History and Culture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. @Alltan: I've already told you, you are propagating your personal POV. That's not productive.Alexikoua (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Souliotes were Albanians, it is simple and it is nothing controversial. The rest you can discuss at the Souliotes article. Alltan (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding Potts, the book has been published by both Cambridge Scholars Publishing (used on the Souliotes article) and Oxford University Press. Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a predatory publisher. Now since the book has 2 publishers it is unclear if it should be treated as reliable or unreliable. A RSN might be needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)