Talk:Turco-Albanian/Archive 1

Archive 1

RS

• [1] is publication of the archives of the Republic of Venice.
• [2] is a number of 18th and 19the century texts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The works are published in 20th century and mention Ali Pasha as 'Turkoalbanian'. What's the issue here? They are just lying?

Albanian authors also say that Ali Pasha was a known as Turkoalbanian, along with many other Pashas[[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

...and obviously since 'Turkoalbanian' was a widely accepted term in 19th century it should be noted as such, same way as the term 'Albanian' applied on Arvanites in 19th century.Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

About being Precise

Alexikoua, you changed the bit within the article that stated the term is a "pejorative <.ref name = Megalommatis/.>". Your reason: "(precise, in historical terms (19th and before) it wasn't a pejorative as it;s used from 20th century)" and replacement sentence was "In more recent times it has been used as a pejorative term for the Muslim Albanian communities.<.ref name = Megalommatis/.>"

I don't know what you have based this on though. There is no academic source to confirm what you have written about it being a "recent" phenomenon. Not sure if you read the sources below, but Megalommatis states apart from it being a pejorative term that "Muslim Albanians have been called “Turkalvanoi”". I am still trying to find where he said it was recent. The important word within Megalommatis' work is is "have". The meaning of the word "have" is used as a "past participle of other verbs [4]" within sentences. My point is that Megalommatis with the use of the word have was indicating that Greeks used the word Turkalvanoi in the past and that it had offensive connotations back then. Also confirming that view of the word being used in the past is Millas who states that the word for Turk in Greek (and Turk-Albanian) as a "other" for Greeks was "timeless" in its use. The meaning of the word "timeless" [5] is "Something that is timeless does not change as the years go past" and "having a value that is not limited to a particular period but will last for ever". In no way was the pejorative connotations for the word "Turk-Albanian "recent" then. As the article mentions the word began its use after the 1820s, you have not provided sources stating that the term gained its pejorative meaning some time later, which makes the claim of "in recent times" very problematic.

Moreover there are numerous sources within the article that point to a contrary formation in meaning of the word Turk gaining negative connotations, and in relation to Albanians defiantly as being long before. Hence to call it "recent" without source/s too is a misnomer, unless there is academic sources. With regards to the word Turk-Albanian(gr: Turkalvanoi) there is not even a point in time given as to when the word attained negative connotations. All the authors (Megalommatis and Millas) say is that Greeks have done so in a pejorative manner and that they "have" and it is "timeless" or in other words a very long time. Also Baltsiiotis states that in Greek, Greeks had words for Albanian speaking people of any faith which was Arvanite (plural: Arvanites.), which is in stark contrast to the meanings of Turkalvanoi, as Megalommatis but especially Millas have pointed out as meaning also something else, a Turk. If anything having Megalommatis as a citation to your new sentence is problematic to say the least, when he does not support what is said. Instead by having the word "recent" with no sources, it can been seen that you are "interpreting" the sources, which is a wikipedia, no-no. As per the Wikipedia policy on Original Research Wikipedia:No original research:

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

So i don't know what you have based this on ? And Greek sources clearly state the word Turkalvanoi has been used for a very long time now and that it has pejorative connotations. Also part of the sentence is repetitive. Within the article in the second paragraph, where the term is explained further about its evolution, it is already mentioned in similar words that "it has been used as a pejorative term for the Muslim Albanian communities". My proposal is to restore the page to as it was before you made the additions based on no sources supporting the claim of "recent" and delete the repetition. Like i said Megalommatis makes no mention of what your new sentence claims is "recent".

Anyway i am very interested on hearing your thoughts on this. I have provided much material to this article. I hope the same courtesy will be given. If you come a source that says outright that the term Turkalvanoi attained negative connotations and meaning "in recent times", then ok, if not though, as per the content and Wikipedia policy on credible research, the page should be restored to how is was, as it was based on sources. My only addition would be to also add Millas as a reference to "pejorative<.ref name = Megalommatis/.><.ref name = Millas/.>".

Best Regards

Resnjari (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The term Turk or Turkalbanian in the context of Ottoman era classification should not be confused with the modern use as a pejorative. In case you provide a decent citation that explains that this was always a pejorative then ok, but "Umut Özkırımlı, Spyros A. Sofos" (the initial inline reference) claim nothing about it. There are numerous instances where "Turkalvanoi" was clearly not used as pejorative, as in the case of Sathas [[6]], in where he clearly states that the subject of his work was composed by a Turkalbanian.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem Alexikoua. I thought you would never ask. Here is a reference pertaining to that very point (and its not about the "recent", or of the "modern" times of today):

<.ref name = Tzanelli2008.>Tzanelli, Rodanthi (2008). Nation-building and identity in Europe: The dialogics of reciprocity. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 62. “Consequently, at the beginning of the 1880s the Greek press openly incited anti-Albanian hatred, associating the Albanian irredentists with Turkish anti-Greek propaganda, and baptizing them Vlachs and ‘Turkalbanian brigands’ (Aión. 10 and 14 July 1880; Palingenesía, 3 April 1881).”<./ref.>

Here Tzanelli in her examination of Greek newspapers (1880s) states that "the Greek press openly incited anti-Albanian hatred" by associating Albanians with terms such as ‘Turkalbanian brigands’. So until the 1880s then, the word Turkalbanian wasn't used openly. As Millas pointed out, its use was "timeless". Regarding "Umut Özkırımlı, Spyros A. Sofos" (the initial inline reference)", the article is not based on them, yet they form one part of the wider picture. All the inline citation regarding them states is that the word "Turkalbanian" was used for the "Labs". They say nothing about whether it has good or bad meanings or pejorative uses though. The article is not based on them being the only source for giving details(and that would be very weird considering there is a large amount of scholarship that has touched upon this [its in the article now]) other sources, Greek too, are needed to be considered. Umut Özkırımlı, Spyros A. Sofos also does not state what you have been asserting here that the term Turkalbanian was used recently as a pejorative and so on. Now as the wikipedia article gives a very detailed and sourced examination of the word Turk and how it was also used to make other words that had pejorative connotations like "Turkalbanian brigands", clearly the word was being employed not as a friendly Ottoman era classification term. The word Turk had multiple meanings e.g. Muslim and is outlined in the article, but it also importantly as outlined(as acknowledged by academics -and the purpose of this article is to deal with the word and its (pejorative) uses towards Albanians) that at the very same time and simultaneously was a derogatory word. Hence within this context of Turk Albanians, or when the word Turk was used towards Albanians, it clearly had pejorative meanings from way back (its sourced very densely in the article many times, just in case i thought there there might be doubt).

"The term Turk or Turkalbanian in the context of Ottoman era classification should not be confused with the modern use as a pejorative."

Alexkikoua, we need sources to substantiate what your saying, as per wikipedia policy, otherwise its original research (Wikipedia:No original research). The policy does state:

"The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research"

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Which is what i have done. Umut Özkırımlı, Spyros A. Sofos only refer to the Labs. Sathas does not fall in this bracket. Like you pointed out about Hobhouse being used in a different article, that would constitute original research (and unlike i who gave a page number and paragraph from Hobhouse about the bit i was referring too), where in Sathas' book does he say that the word Turkalbanian was not pejorative in use or meanings? All your stating is that it is in use and that i am and others are to take your word (though academics have pointed and shown something different) over the academics research about it not having pejorative uses back then. For me to be swayed on the matter, you have to find something from a academic source that states what your stating about the words Turk and Turk Albanian regarding Albanians that it did not have pejorative connotations in that era, so then we can work out a better sentence, otherwise the old version stands and needs to be reverted. Tzanelli gives clear examples that the word Turk(Albanian) was used for hate speech in Greek newspapers during the 1880s.

Your thoughts ?

Resnjari (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the Kingdom of Greece wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire, where clearly the terms 'Turk' defined the rulling class. So, it's up to you to support your argument that labelling someone Turk- was a pejorative in a Turkish ruled state. By the way the term was used in literature before the outbreak of the Greek Revolution, see for example Skoulikas' work where he mentions a group of "brave Turkalbanians" (ανδρίοι Τουρκαλβανοί) as allies in a Greek uprising. Thus, obviously in the context of the Ottoman system of classification (not to be confused with latter nation-building in the Balkans) this was an ethnographic term of general use.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What is supported thus far within the scholarship is that the words "Turk" from at least the middle of the 19th century and Turco Albanian from at least the 1880s were terms that had become pejorative in meaning and where employed upon Albanians in that manner. Skoulidas does quote in his works the term "brave Turk Albanians", and i could say that Byron's mention of the word Giaour in his poem was used in a non offensive way. But it is well documented that the word Gavur is an offensive word for non Muslims. When it acquired its negative attributes can also be speculated at due to circumstance, region etc. However regarding the term Turkslbanian in Greek, Baltsiotis does state that in Greek Arvanitis seems to have been the word of choice in regular speech when designating a Albanian speaker of any religion. Also John Blintiff (2003). in "The Ethnoarchaeology of a “Passive” Ethnicity: The Arvanites of Central Greece" in K.S. Brown & Yannis Hamilakis, (eds.). The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories. Lexington Books. states on p. 138. some other reasons for the choice of even choosing the word Albanian and Arvanites in Greece when talking about Albanian speaking populations.

“While compiling my maps of village systems across the post-medieval centuries from the Ottoman sources (archives so remarkably discovered and tabulated for us by Machiel Kiel; see Kiel 1997; Bintliff 1995, 1997), I was careful to indicate in the English captions which of them were Albanian-speaking and which Greek-speaking villages. A strong supporter of the project, the Orthodox bishop of Livadhia, Hieronymus, watched over my shoulder as the maps took shape. "Very interesting," he said, looking at the symbols for ethnicity, "but what you have written here is quite wrong. You see the people in Greece who speak a language like Albanian are Arvanites, not Alvanoi, and they speak Arvanitika not Alvanika. In this seemingly innocuous, and of course technically correct, comment lies a much deeper layer of ideology, signified by the mere substitution of an "r" for an "l." The bishop was voicing the accepted modern position among those Greeks who are well aware of the persistence of indigenous Albanian-speakers in the provinces of their country: the "Albanians" are not like us at all, they are ex-Communists from outside the modern Greek state who come here for work from their backward country; as for the Arvanites (traditional inhabitants of the Greek countryside speaking Albanian)—well, they are a kind of ethnic Greek population from somewhere on the northwest borders of Greece, where the line between the Greek state and that of Albania has always been fuzzy and permeable to intermarriage. Thus the difference between an "l" and an "r" neatly allows the modern Greeks to divorce themselves and their history from that of the unpopular but widely employed, modern Gastarbeiter of post-Communist Albania. Shortly after this conversation, I saw the bishop pass across the courtyard of our project base—a converted monastery run as a research center—to talk to the genuine Albanian guestworkers who were restoring its stonework. I knew he was himself an Arvanitis, and listened with interest as he chatted fluently to them—and it wasn't in Greek! I was tempted, but wisely forbore, to ask him which language they were conversing in—Arvanitika or Alvanika?”

So to say that Turk Albanian was a warm and fuzzy word is a bit problematic considering that Arvanite seems to have been the neutral word for Albanian speakers of any religion. Turk or Albanian, both and separate in words or the words themselves have loaded meaning in Greek speech arising from a time period long ago (well especially with the word Turk).

Anyway, since being precise is important, Karpat does state this about the word Turk (bearing in mind also that Millas does state that Turkalbanian is a derivative word meaning Turk) and Albanians:

Karpat, Kemal H. (2001). The politicization of Islam: reconstructing identity, state, faith, and community in the late Ottoman state. Oxford University Press. p. 342. “After 1856, and especially after 1878, the terms Turk and Muslim became practically synonymous in the Balkans. An Albanian who did not know one word of Turkish thus was given the ethnic name of Turk and accepted it, no matter how much he might have preferred to distance himself from the ethnic Turks.”

Upon reflection, your sentence will stay because i came across this comment on a Wikipedia page and am very surprised (this was done after all the additions and sources. People still think that Turco-Albanians is the name of an "ethncity" ! (see below):

""Turkalvanoi" seems to be the slur. "Turco-Albanians" seems like the name of an ethnicity. See the second paragraph of the article."

I'll make the needed changes.

Best

Resnjari (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Thought i would outline this better here as the reason given was not extensive. Page moved because no such people as "Turco-Albanians" existed. It is a outside term used for Muslim Albanians. With such pejorative terms and their articles on Wikipedia, their titles or page names are given in the singular and not the plural. For example: nigger and not niggers etc.Resnjari (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason to move this without the "s" is completely incosistent with a wide variety of articles (ethnographic groups, even with pejorative meaning, but not exclusively pejorative in its historical context). Also in historical context there were people that were defined as such. The pejorative meaning concerns modern use as already addressed in the text. Moreover, a title like "Turk-Albanians" will be more suitable for an English reader.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont POV push. Turco Albanians is not a ethnographic group. The term is pejorative and racist. It may be your interpretation of it based on wp:fringe. You keep pushing this line i will make a complaint. There are more than enough sources that this term is racist to its core.Resnjari (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't split the article into a separate "Turk" and "Arvanites" sections. The bits you split off into a "Turk" section explain how the term came into being. I have renamed it the etymology and usage section. The Arvanites stuff explains that there was another term used by Greeks which was not racist of pejorative. If you want this article to exist, you must take extreme care, consideration and caution with its content. In Greece there still may be Islamophobic and Orientalist wp:fringe theories about Muslim Albanians being "Turks" or the so called "evil" Ottoman empire" or "evil" Turks. Wikipedia is not about giving air to such racism. I advise you that wp:neutrality must be observed as overwhelmingly the peer reviewed (and mainly Greek) sources point to a negative and pejorative meaning of this term/expression or whatever one calls it and its use in perpetuating Islamophobia and Albanophobia against Muslim Albanians in both a historical and contemporary sense. Unless you have something constructive to contribute, don't POV push fringe theories. I know my scholarship on this matter very well and don't take me for a fool.Resnjari (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First off Alexikoua, when using the Schwanders stuff, since its a edited book, you need to name the author of that particular chapter. Words such as "Turko- oriental", which are problem terms as Dr.Edward Said has written a scholarly and very influential book called Orientalism on how the Muslim world has been viewed through racist Western eyes through such terms as "Oriental" and "Turk". You must be cautious of not replicating such racism here. Secondly, Fischer's comments of "Ottoman culture" is a big issue. What does he mean by "Ottoman culture" and "Albanian civlization" ? Is he referring to Islam as being negative? Islam has been the main thing that Albanians have inherited from the Ottomans. I want you to clarify Fischer's comment beyond doubt as this > "Although official ties with the Ottomans were severed in 1912, a strong rather negative Ottoman legacy remained, elements of which were detectable in all three levels of Albanian civilization." at the moment is more than problematic. And why is it necessary for this article ? As with the term "nigger" for whites its a cosy and comfortable "ethnographic" term, but those who were on the receiving end do not think so and there is literature that says its a cosy term/expression though there are mountains of peer reviewed literature that refute that in whole.Resnjari (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the article will be named as Turco-Albanian in the singular and not Turco-Albanians in the plural. If one looks at other pejorative terms > List of ethnic slurs, almost all of the articles, bar this one and the Grekomans are given in the singular, not plural. There is more than enough precedents on Wikipedia. The term when used in Greek is in the plural. However this is English Wikipedia, not Greek Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In general when an editor kindly suggests you to follow an appropriate move request procedure this isn't called pov pushing. In historical context the term described specific groups of the Ottoman ruling class & certainly this rulling class accepted this term in very well. For example Muhammad Ali of Egypt is termed in bibliography as a Turco-Albanian ruler. And as such he is widely known [[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]]. Thus it appears that the so-called pejorative terminology is only the one side of the coin.Alexikoua (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding kindness and good faith, i would take it on board if the edits made by yourself did not have words like "Turco-oriental" (the word oriental is a loaded term which much baggage due to the colonial era, just like the word Turk) or bits referring to the "negative legacy" of the Ottomans on "Albanian civilization" considering that the main legacy is Islam. So forgive me, but that there by you did not show neither diligence or good faith. Your are a experienced editor and should know better. This term Turco-Albanian has an overwhelmingly pejorative meaning and when employed in usage and that is outlined repeatedly in scholarship. I have provided extensive inlines and peer reviewed material in case there is any doubts about it. Like with other pejorative terms, in certain contexts they may have started off with "innocent" meanings, though overtime they have acquired baggage like this one. You do cite books that use the term Turco-Albanian (interestingly in English in the singular and not the plural and the Turco spelt with a c and not a k) and they relate to Egypt. And if one has read Edward Said's Orientalism, one would be aware of such concerns that Said has extensively outlined how terms like oriental and Turk and so on were used for people in Egypt (and other places in the Middle East) in a less then respectful way. Those academics should know better and use the neutral Ottoman-Albanian instead of Turco-Albanian. However that said when peer reviewed sources do discuss the term and its (loaded) meanings, it is about it being a pejorative term. That is undisputed.

Also be aware of terms like oriental and how its deployed in literature. If there, examine the author to see how its employed so as to see if there are other issues (if there is one doozy there will be more). People from the Middle East and especially Asia take the word oriental to be very offensive due to the colonial era. As i wrote a whole honours thesis about how stereotypes form (etc in relation to Albanians) so i have read the scholarship very widely on such things. I always, when it comes to these things, stay very very vigilant. Offending someone especially regarding such terminology is borderline. Another problem word for example in the Balkans is Kaur (Albanian rendering). I have to remind some people in my company from time to time not to use that word as it is offensive for Balkan Christians. They say oh, but its some "ethnographic" term because it was used by some of the oldies and we can use it. And i tell them that it comes from the Turkish Gavur, which comes from the Arabic Kuffir meaning infidel that has loaded and racist meanings toward people of the Christian faith. My point is caution must be taken. This word Turco-Albanian on a whole is pejorative. The changes you made before had extensive issues, the separate bit now on the Arvanites word is ok in relation to the rest of the structure and topic.Resnjari (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: the term Turko-Albanians, similar to Kosovar-Albanians or Greek Muslims would relate to a group or subgroup of people. Turk or Turk-Albanian is an adjective to indicate Muslim Albanians, before any Albanian national conscience was forged between Muslims. Most of the time pejorative. And always by Christian sources. There is no Turco-Albanians subgroup. Who are they? As for Mehmmed Ali, Turco-Albanian ruler means Ottoman-Albanian ruler, for those who did not get involved in any details it serves the same purpose. Even before 20th century, the term Turc or Turk was used to indicate Osman or Ottoman. You need examples for that? --Mondiad (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mondiad keep an eye out. If they keep playing these semantic games, they will be doing it in front of the admins in arbitration. I don't know if they have bothered to read the scholarship, but it points to it being pejorative. Islamophobia will not be tolerated in Wikipedia like all racism even from Balkans where it might be part of everyday life for some peoples.Resnjari (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've said & I'm glad you agree, Turco-Albanians in a historical context means Ottoman-Albanians as a clear ethnographic term. Western (Christian) bibliography used it widely. I'm afraid Resnjari needs a good explanation about his extreme point that This word Turco-Albanian on a whole is pejorative.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Turko-Albanians is not a subgroup, as I said before as Muslim-Greeks or Kosovar-Albanians. And we have already an article for Ottoman Albania, so there is nothing new. Turco-Albanian is term, which you are pushing to show it as a group or subgroup. The fact that it is vastly used (don't pretend it is not!) in Greek history books and textbooks does not qualify here, since Greek xenophobia and racism toward Muslim is well known.--Mondiad (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you have no sources for it being a ethnographic one. If you don't provide any that give a clear indication in the next few days i will be deleting that original research from this page as it contravenes policy > wp:original. Your source must clearly say that it is ethnographic and "innocent" with a detailed inline and it must be from non-nationalistic scholarship. This article will not peddle Greek racism regarding Muslims. All sources point to Turco-Albanian being a racist and pejorative term, unless all that scholarship that is in the article already was missed by you.

@To Athenean. Don't try me on this. You move this one more time and i will go to arbitration. The term is outright racist and in English all pejorative words are given in the singular. If you think this is not that case, you can make the case and show how Turco-Albanians are a "real people" for it to be in the plural. I am no novice. This isn't some biology picnic. I know my sources very very well. Moreover the Arvanites word is there to show the reader that in Greek, the word Arvanites, a neutral and non-racist word was the word used by Greek people for Muslim Albanians. One more time Athenean. You do it and its going to arbitration. You have a long history of colourful commentary about Albanians that i have been keeping track of too.Resnjari (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Resnjari: actually you have clearly crossed wp:NPA & when co-editors kindly offer you a piece of advice to follow wp:move request there is not excuse to launch a new extreme national agenda and pretend that this is pov pushin. Needless to say that comments like Islamophobia will not be tolerated in Wikipedia like all racism even from Balkans where it might be part of everyday life for some peoples. are unacceptable.Alexikoua (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: First, the usage in the literature is always in the plural, never singular. Second, this is not a "slur" in current usage. No one uses it anymore. It's more of a historical term. So please stop move-warring and file a proper move request. And please don't threaten me with "arbitration". You of all people should know better, what with your constant veiled personal attacks and attempts to set up a tag team via e-mail ([11]). So go ahead, but be prepared to find out what WP:BOOMERANG is. Athenean (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"First, the usage in the literature is always in the plural, never singular." You have not shown this to be the case. Cite your evidence in whole. wp:original so far in your comments. Moreover, this term is not historical. I am not sure if you have read in depth the inline citations, but Greeks scholars disagree with you in whole and state that this term not just historical (Tzanelli), but instead in current usage amongst parts of society (Iraklis, Megalommatis) and even in Greek histories produced by some scholarship (Nikolopoulou). It has been identified first and foremost by Greek academics themselves as a pejorative term for Muslim Albanians. None have said it is obsolete as you are contending. You must provide peer reviewed material before making such claims as it is wp:original and if it goes to arbitration will ask for this also. I go by the sources. And the sources cannot be more clear than that. Obscuring this is playing semantic games once again. You keeping saying "personal attacks" which is your interpretation on the matter but when other editors place words like "Turco-Oriental" and sentances that borderline say Islam was negative legacy from the Ottomans, that is POV pushing in the extreme. You say wp:boomerang but i have more than a case to make regarding that particular editor and their intention to push wp:fringe if he continued in persisting with such POV. I know my scholarship when it comes to racism and i am no novice. Read the inlines in full regarding this article before making [[[mp:original]] claims about it being "historical" and "obsolete".Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is, was it historically a slur? If the answer is yes, then it should be moved. Overall I really believe this is a minor issue, though, singular plural, what is the big deal anyways? Still, I put down a move request, it may attract more editors to get us to do the right thing. --MorenaReka (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is a relatively minor point, and I don't feel too strongly about it. However, it seems that a certain editor does feel very very strongly about it. And what I really don't appreciate, is this editor trying to impose his POV by brute force move-warring and threats, instead of filing a proper move request as you have done. Athenean (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You are not taking into consideration the gravity of this term. When other editors added terms like "Turco-Oriental" to the article that clearly have racist and derogatory connotations good faith went out the window. There is more than enough peer reviewed literature that says horrendous things have been done through usage of such words as Turk for Muslim peoples in the Balkans. And in case anyone missed it, it is heavily and densely cited in the article so there is no doubt about the matter. Turco-Albanian is just one more racist incarnation of such vocabulary with serious consequences. I am more than justified in expressing such concerns. If such things continue, i am more than prepared to go arbitration. wp:boomerang applies only for those whose concerns are non-existent and without merit. I would not have come out this strongly on the matter if i felt there was no justification or if the sources were flimsly or rubbish. Because of it and that i took a very strong stand, the content of the article is now stable and no longer being tampered with with POV pushing terms like "Turco-Oriental". This word is not child's play. When it comes to racist terms like this, i will stand up. I live in a democracy called Australia. In this country we have laws that protect the rights of people from hate speech. I don't know if that is the case where you live, but such terms must be treated with extreme care and diligence. This article cannot be in the plural. There are no such people as Albanians. Nor is it the name of a people used by themselves. You have not shown in any measure how this is so for it to be Turco-Albanians with a s at the end. I also find it highly offensive and disgusting that this article too Grecomans has its title page in the plural and not the singular as there were no people who called themselves or identified themselves as Grecomans. It should be in the singular as its the explanation of a pejorative and racist word for a people by foreigners and outsiders. It is the same with Turco-Albanians. I will make my case very strongly. Racism on Wikipedia is unacceptable. You can feel all you like that it is a personal attack, but when it comes to racism i draw the line. I have worked with numerous NGO's and support groups regarding discrimination in Australia and understand full well how such words can be very damaging to people on the receiving end of what those employing the word may consider "good fun" and jovial entertainment.Resnjari (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I respect your personal experience, but in this project endless discussions that fall clearly into wp:FORUM are not constructive for this project: Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines..Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, this is absolutely not about "endless discussions". The peer reviewed material already in the article with dense in line citations leave no room for ambiguity regarding the gravity and implications such terms have had to peoples on the receiving end of such things. I ask you as one human being to another to not downplay the gravity of the matter. Please do not as certain edits you made before where anything but about scholarship like i.e "Turco-oriental" to the article. That was no way an "improvement" to the article. You can have an opinion on my commentary, but again that is your opinion. Some people some time back have said to others expressing such concerns like in the nigger article, or even the Armenian Genocide article who feel that the article or people like me to go on about this and feel very strongly (apart from backing themselves with peer reviewed material) that it is not needed or that they are overacting. Moreover your comment "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guideline"s does not suffice. I am discussing this and will not be subject to censorship by anyone. This article and term which some some editors may be of no consequence, has great bearing and trauma for others. The peer reviewed content already in the article bear this out beyond doubt.Resnjari (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Spare me the holier-than-thou attitude. I don't care where you're from or how highly you think of yourself, here on wikipedia we go according to policy. There are policies regarding naming conventions, article titles, moving pages, etc..., and we will do things according to wikipedia policy. You may have very strong feelings about this, but they do not trump wikipedia policy. And I think you know full well what happens to those that let their strong emotions get in the way of policy (Spiro Koleka ring a bell?). Btw, just so that we are perfectly clear, are you calling me a racist? Be very, very careful how you answer that. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There are polices on naming conventions you are right when it comes to that. In wp:NCET there are guidelines about derogatory terminology regarding ethnic groups and naming. I have cited this in the move discussion. My concerns about the matter have been stated in full alongside invoking the peer reviewed material. Also one wonders about why you bring up Spiro Koleka there. The editor in question was involved in personal insults towards others. You bringing this up here, is it some kind of veiled intimidation or censorship toward me?Resnjari (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, where did anybody call you racist? --MorenaReka (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"You can feel all you like that it is a personal attack, but when it comes to racism i draw the line." in one of Resnjari's posts above. Unfounded accusations of racism are grounds for a topic ban. Especially when combined with move-warring, trying to recruit editors to form a tag-team, etc...Athenean (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You can place interpretations on my comments. In no way did the comment say you are a racist. I wrote it in English and very clearly. By the way what are the other comments that are an issue for you ?Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence is meant to you personally, you are interpreting it out of context; I believe that he feels that the term "Turco-Albanians" is a racist term (we all agree it's an ethnic slur), as it denotes the Albanians as Turks. I have interacted with Resnjari in several articles and have found him to be an exquisite person to deal with. In regards to the teaming, aren't you and Alexikoua teaming up to move the page versus Resnjari? I see you moved the page [12] and [13], Alexikoua moved it as well [14], and Resnjari is moving between you two. How is Resnjari tag-teaming and you and Alexikoua are not? --MorenaReka (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for you speak for him. Let him explain his own actions. "you may take this is a personal attack" is clearly directed at me, implying I am somehow racist for not supporting his POV and heroic anti-racism. I have yet to receive an adequate explanation from Resnjari concerning this (or better yet, an apology). Evasiveness may work here but it won't work at WP:AE. Athenean (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not call you a racist and you are now placing words in my commentary. Again your interpretation and please refrain from it. In the past you have made commentary about my cognitive abilities and other things and i have sidelined them for the greater good. But if you want to have an all out discussion about it we can do it at an appropriate forum in front of the admins. And in case there is doubt, i am speaking for myself. Accusations of team tagging? People have this page on their watchlist due to the nature of the topic. Are you saying that only you or Alexikoua are privileged to edit this article while others cannot?Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Apology accepted. Regarding the tag-teaming, I am referring to your attempts to recruit people to your tag-team, such as this rather obvious attempt [15]. Btw whatever happened to "One more time Athenean. You do it and its going to arbitration."? Athenean (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

He is a newbie. I want Albanian editors to have access to peer reviewed material. Thay have none and i don't want to no copy and paste jobs from non-academic or problematic websites. I am sick and tired of gunk and having to fix it up, especially on Alb. Editors in Eng. Wikipeida think they got it tough with POV or less than reliable material on English Wikipedia, come on over to Alb Wikipedia for the ride (you know my quaility and expectations are high. i.e Upper Reka). I got access to journal numerous articles. How is that a crime. The guy is interested in bio's. I advised him regarding a certain matter to go and seek out translations at the arbitration place. He failed on that front to accumulate on that front, so no need for him to continue. Nonetheless, i am sure you have come across more than a few Albanian bio articles which are almost devoid of good content. Albanian Wikipedia is not blessed as Greek wikipedia that have many people and many article are languishing with less than good quality information. If you have time, and i take it that you like me come from a academic background like me, if its his passion, why not. I want that editor around and if he so chooses to stick around to be productive and not a nuisance. I can send him journal articles of interest and direct him toward stuff that for me has no interest but is of importance to the Albanian wikipedia project either on English or Albanian Wikipedia. His choice. I am still looking for someone who can do me a grammar check. Every Albanian editor i ask this from either says they "don't have time" or cannot be bothered or they will get to it ( i no longer buy this line anymore). I have kind of given up on the endevour. As for "one more time Athenean", a editor has placed a Move page tag. Going about it that way. There is more than enough to do about it that way after i looked at the policy about such contentious matters as this. Case is strong and so are the peer reviewed sources. You also said in the above comments about going to arbitration. Didn't go through with it. What happened to that then ?Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, right, "someone who can do me a grammar check". Like that famous "grammar check" at Permet. At least you didn't tell him to "delete this message after reading it. As for AE, any more 1) accusations of racism, 2) attempts to recruit new editors to a tag team, or 3) move-warring, and you will find out more about AE than you ever wanted to know. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Look regarding the Vjosa matter, the Admins stated to those claiming i was doing something not right in their constant pursuit of me as irrelevant. So on that front its your interpretation of something already long settled. To that new user, yes i want to send him stuff. How you take it is your view again. And as for racism regarding yourself, i did not write anything that said that. I wrote in English here and admins and others can read it all. I am now involved in the important discussion in the move page. Like i said regarding arbitration, you can place your case and i will mine, like i said in the comment just above your reply to me. If you want to make a contribution, do so, if not, i cannot do more apart from say that.Resnjari (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Turco-Albanians → Turco-Albanian – The term Turco-Albanian is the proper name, and, as an ethnic slur, should be in singular. Note that the term is properly within the template of Ethnic slurs, and should be in singular, as the other similar slurs, for instance shkije, kaur, or kafir. The move is being groundlessly refused by some editors. MorenaReka (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, as per my rationale above, as requester. I am confident that we can solve this peacefully: the move isn't controversial. --MorenaReka (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly agree: When one does a google books search on when the term is employed in literature, the word given in its English spelling Turco-Albanian or TurcoAlbanian is mainly in the singular and not plural. Se google books results: [16] and [17] and google scholar [18] and very little for [19]. Claims made by certain editors in here that the term is or was in "historical" use and "obsolete" in contemporary times is not found in peer reviewed literature and these editors have not brought any peer reviewed material indicating this in any way. The term's problematic usage has been noted by Greek academics themselves (Tzanelli, Iraklis, Megalommatis, Nikolopoulou. See article and in lines for more.) Also in Greek, the term is rendered as Turko-Alvanoi which is in the plural. This is English Wikipedia and terms regarding ethnic and racist pejorative terms are given in the singular, i.e: nigger and not niggers . And furthermore it would be inappropriate to give such a term in the plural as there is no such thing as a people who called themselves niggers, but a outside and pejorative term from people not belonging to the group being labeled as such. The same applies with the term Turco-Albanian. I also invoke Wikipedia policy: wp:NCET. In the section Self-identification it clearly states: How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. Albanian Muslims have never called themselves "Turco-Albanians" and no ethnic group called Turco-Albanians existed. And peer reviewed literature giving details about the term Turco-Albanian clearly state that it is a outside and pejorative term for Muslim Albanians (whether historical or contemporary). None state that it is used by the group themselves. Wikipedia policy should also be take into account as in the List of ethnic slurs article all pejorative words (in their historical or contemporary usage) are given in the singular and not the plural) and in the separate article pages themselves. Having it in the plural means that an actual ethnic group, (instead of outside terminology of which the word is) existed as "Turco-Albanians". That is not the case. Why should this article therefore be any different?Resnjari (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm still waiting for a decent argument that Turco-Albanians is nothing more than a pejorative term and not a generally accepted ethnographic one with some negative usage in more recent times. So far only a specific POV approach has been promoted in the arguments above. In fact the term Turkalbanians is used even by representatives of the Albanian national movement as a non-pejorative term: for example Eqrem Vlora in his memoirs (in the destruction of Sopot in 1718 Turkoalbaner). In a historical context the term appears to define Muslim Albanians or even Turkish representatives of the Ottoman administration and aristocrasy:

• Umut Özkırımlı & Spyros A. Sofos (2008). Tormented by history: nationalism in Greece and Turkey.Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-70052-8, p. 50: "...the so-called Tourkalvanoi, a composite term literally translated as 'Turkalbanians' and used to denote the Turkish and Albanian Muslim elites and military units that represented Ottoman domination in the Balkans

• Maroula, Efthymiou (2000). "Cursing with a Message: the Case of Georgios Karaiskakis in 1823". Historein (Cultural and Intellectual History Society) 2: 180."the Moslem Albanians of the Ottoman army are referred to during this time as "Turcalbanians", despite the fact that racially they have nothing to do with the Turks."

To sum up: in a historical context the reference to Turkalbanians is a general composite term to denoted ethno-religious groups. & the idea that this is nothing more than a pejorative term falls into wp:POV and UNDUE.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, why should an ethnic slur qualify as such only if it's current? With the politically correct era, almost all slurs are a thing of the past in the Western world, are they not? Also, you probably know that Eqrem Vlora was a politician, not a scholar. --MorenaReka (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, the sources you state there just talk of its historical context and the Greek war of independence (all sources are in alignment regarding the evolution of the term regarding its meanings. Tzanelli also gives its historical beginnings regarding when the term attained its pejorative meanings in an open way:

Tzanelli, Rodanthi (2008). Nation-building and identity in Europe: The dialogics of reciprocity. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 62. “Consequently, at the beginning of the 1880s the Greek press openly incited anti-Albanian hatred, associating the Albanian irredentists with Turkish anti-Greek propaganda, and baptizing them Vlachs and ‘Turkalbanian brigands’ (Aión. 10 and 14 July 1880; Palingenesía, 3 April 1881).”

These are followed by

Megalommatis, M. Cosmas (1994). Turkish-Greek Relations and the Balkans: A Historian's Evalution of Today's Problems. Cyprus Foundation. p. 28. “Muslim Albanians have been called “Turkalvanoi” in Greek, and this is pejorative.”

And by who cite its usage not in a past tense. The term has undergone a evolution.

Nikolopoulou, Kalliopi (2013). Tragically Speaking: On the Use and Abuse of Theory for Life. University of Nebraska Press. p. 299. “Instead of the term “Muslim Albanians”, nationalist Greek histories use the more known, but pejorative, term “Turkalbanians”.

Millas, Iraklis (2006). "Tourkokratia: History and the image of Turks in Greek literature." South European Society & Politics. 11. (1): 50. “The ‘timeless’ existence of the Other (and the interrelation of the Self with this Other) is secured by the name used to define him or her. Greeks often name as ‘Turks’ various states and groups—such as the Seljuks, the Ottomans, even the Albanians (Turkalvanoi)”.

From at least the 1880s, it is pejorative and that is beyond doubt. You still are to provide a peer reviewed sources that states outright that it has become obsolete in both Greek scholarship and society and rid of its pejorative connotations. Please provide these. Many a pejorative term often start off with "innocent" meanings and they evolve. From the Greek war of Independence (1820s) until the 1880s is a period of about 60 years. From the 1880s onward (when Tzanelli cited its first open usage as a hate speech term) until now (2015, Nikolopoulou published in 2013) its about 133 to 135 years of pejorative usage. Resnjari (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually from what you present you self refute your initial extreme point that is limited to a pejorative meaning. Resnjari about the argument of "counting time periods", are you sure this started in 1821? or that in 1880s the term suddenly changed to a pejorative only term as you insist? (Eqrem Vlora mentions Turkoalbanians-the ethnographic group he also belongs- in a non-pejorative way & he wrote this in 20th century) I have a strong feeling that this isn't your most powerfull argument so far.Alexikoua (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting Vlora's passage as "ethnographic group". There is no ethnographic group named Turk-Albanians or Turco-Albanians.

Looking at the opening sentence "is an ethnographic and religious term used for Muslim Albanians in the Greek War of Independence 1821-1830 and thereafter." and assuming it was added by you Alexikoua, there are many things wrong with the very first statement. First, "ethnographic term" and "religious term" - by definition these are words, part of the terminology. These do not necessary indicate groups of subgroups. As a religious term, it does not fit here since most of the Albanians are Muslims, and there have been Christians who have served high Ottomans ranks, Thanas Vaja and Pashko Vasa as an example, fought for the Ottomans, and committed atrocities. On an ethnographic point of view it is even more unsuited. How can a pejorative term that the Christians used during the Greek Revolution to describe the ethnography of the Albanians? The "ethnographic" piece was clearly and intentionally added to create the idea of subgroup, rather culturally or religiously, though none of them is correct. So what remains is just the "term", in fact it is used as a pejorative term for Albanian Muslims, military or not, and is pushed by the Greeks specifically as a countermeasure for the other term "Greeks" which they use to nominate all Eastern Orthodox Albanians. It serves a political reason.

The other part of the sentence mentions the timelime: "Greek War of Independence 1821-1830 and thereafter." - this once more confirms that is a pejorative term, blooming in time of war and hatred. Albanians have been Muslims even before 1821, and they had served (not only Muslims) in the Ottoman Army even before the 1821. If the Greeks want to split Albanians as "Turco-Albanians", "Greeks", and "Others", this is Ok for them, but can't be a wikipedia standard.--Mondiad (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources you provided state that its usage more or less started in the Greek war of Independence. None of those sources state that it was pejorative. The first cited use of it as pejorative in the 1880s (Tzanelli) -well at least that's what the peer reviewed source gives details of and she states importantly that it was done in an open manner. No academic can literally pinpoint the week, time, day hour or minute of when a word switches meaning. As Tzanelli did all she showed was that in a physical archive where it can be traced, it was used in a openly pejorative way and that was from the 1880s. I work from that. Then no one has refuted its continued use in such a capacity of pejoration. Therefore the term evolved in its meaning from the 1880s onward its pejorative, as per the peer reviewed sources. Before that, no source says its pejorative. Term evolved. Its a similar process for other such terms too. My time counts there are rough. Your Eqrem Vlora source is problematic as it is a biography and a wp:primary source for consideration. Like with such terms, sometimes a ethno-cultural group (or some members) may use a slur term in the attempt to reclaim it from those (outside the group) who have embued a derogatory meaning on the term. See Wog and especially Nigga which has much controversies around it. Its still does not take way that these terms used by the person doing the pejorative calling/labeling by an outside group (see:Stereotype or if you want i go into this and bore you out) are pejorative and that the word when uttered by people from that group carries that pejorative meaning. Also there is no peer reviewed secondary sources saying that Muslim Albanian speaking people made use of the term for themselves as a self appellation and so on.Resnjari (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. I would call on the bon sens of the potential opposers to understand that this is not about any of them, but has to do with the what the article is supposed to deliver to the readers. There are Greek Muslims, Kosovo Albanians, Albanian Americans, Volga Germans, Baltic Germans, etc for groups or subgroups in base of ethnicity, nationality, culture, religions, history, etc. For pejorative terms, we have Šiptar, Timber Nigger, Christ killer, Grecoman, etc. in singular as pejorative terms. The opening sentence says "is an ethnographic and religious term used for Muslim Albanians in the Greek War of Independence 1821-1830". An article about a ethnological group/subgroup would start differently, i.e. as per articles named above: "Greek Muslims, also known as Greek-speaking Muslims, are Muslims of Greek ethnic origin whose adoption of Islam...", "Albanians are the largest ethnic group in Kosovo....", "Albanian Americans are Americans of full or partial Albanian ancestry.", "The Volga Germans are ethnic Germans who historically lived along the River Volga", "The Baltic Germans were mostly ethnically German inhabitants of the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea,...". All of them point to an ethnological group/subgroup, not to the contempt that two enemy sides might have for each other.

The article (for what's inside) states clearly that this is a term used by the Christians during the Greek Revolution to call the Muslims on the other side of the barricade, term which survived even after in the new Greek state. As per references provided by User:Resnjari in the discussion above, Turco-Albanian or Turk-Albanian is a pejorative term, which of course has its own space within wikipedia, but it is absurd to disguise it as a "ethnological and religious" definition of an Albanian subgroup.

Wikipedia per se has an article or subentry for many pejorative terms. Assuming that the articles are neutral, no one should be insulted. So, each of us can see an article named "Nigger" or "Towelhead". With plenty of references that these terms are real. And we go in and read. But if the article tries to represent the meaning of "Niggers" and "Towelheads" as an ethnological or religious group, this is a direct insult. And as the term in discussion, (Turco-Albanian), first targets the Muslims before coming to any ethnic substance, making it a religious hazard, we should be even more careful.
The article should be renamed and edited to show clearly that it is a pejorative term. I wish we did not have to go through all this long discussions. --Mondiad (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The editing process has been done by me extensively here. Now its just the name. Wikipedia policy on ethnic name conventions is very clear as i cited it above.Resnjari (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Apart from your general personal experience (and an obsession to call an army of co-nationals), which falls clearly out of the scope of this project, your arguments are still weak and contradicting. For example you initially declare that Albanian Muslims have never called themselves "Turco-Albanians", but after realising how wrong you are you change the argument into: Albanian Muslims never called themselves in their non-primary publications. Nevertheless your conclusion that None of those sources state that it was pejorative. self refutes your so-called pejorative-only usage of the term.Alexikoua (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, Albanians have not called themselves Turco-Albanian. Muslim Albanians call themselves with the self appellation, Shqiptarë and when wanting to indicate a religious belonging, Shqiptarë Myslimanë or Muslim Albanians. You cite A primary source (Vlora was a writer, but not an acedemic) to make your case. What someone from the Ottoman Albanian elite used for themselves or others in a English or other Western texts (or what the translator's of those texts used for rendering such terms as Muslim Albanian used the era of the early twentieth century) can not be indicative that Muslim Albanians used that term. Making such a generalized claim is very problematic (especially with no wp:reliable secondary sources. Many other words that are outright known to be pejorative like nigger amongst where also used by those doing the labeling and calling in everyday practice without it being stated as such then. One will find such words in texts etc from the era) does not in anyway speak for the whole ethnic group. Reflect on this. Like i said even with other pejorative terminology such as nigger, because some rappers today employ the term for one another in the fromnigga does not mean that those people speak for the ethnic group or are representative of them as a whole. That African Americans consider it to be a pejorative word, especially when said by non-whites. You can use wp:primary to make wp:original interpretations. However Wikipedia policy clearly stipulates that is not on. Also, in proper peer reviewed and wp:reliable secondary material, nowhere does it say that Muslim Albanian speaking peoples call themselves Turco-Albanian. Do you have peer reviewed wp:secondary sources that say Muslim Albanian speaking peoples identified themselves as Turco-Albanian ? Also, Wikipedia policy on naming conventions regarding ethnic groups stipulate very clearly about use of derogatory terminology regarding ethnic groups. Having it in the plural and not the singular is offensive to Muslim Albanians as it implies that there was such a group as Turc-Albanians, which is not the case.

Your comment "Nevertheless your conclusion that None of those sources state that it was pejorative. self refutes your so-called pejorative-only usage of the term." If you noticed i pointed that out for the Greek War of independence period until the 1880s as peer the sources. From then onward peer reviewed sources point to a pejorative meaning that has continued. It is this latter meaning that this word now has. You have brought nothing here that refutes that. In the end it will be the admins who will make a final determination on the matter. Regarding this comment "(and an obsession to call an army of co-nationals)" please do not resort to accusing other editors of ill intent based on your opinion. This article is on peoples watchlist due to the complicated nature of the topic. Again this article is not the preserve of you just editing it or being privileged in doing so. You may not like the content or the peer reviewed material. However you have not been able to bring any sources to refute the wp:reliable scholarship about the term's pejroative connotations. Until i edited this article earlier in the year, most of the content on this subject matter was missing. It was not even outlined as a pejorative term. That now has been taken care of.Resnjari (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Resnjari: Do you have peer reviewed wp:secondary sources that say Muslim Albanian speaking peoples identified themselves as Turco-Albanian ? This is irrelevant with the so-called pejorative use only argument: A term used to define an X nation by non-Xs doesn't mean that it's used only as pejorative. It's also used as a non-pejorative ethnographic term as already cited. I assume you understand that the arguments you provide are too weak to sustain such ethno-POVish views.Alexikoua (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, please do not resort to wp:original. You have repeatedly claimed that Muslim Albanians have called themselves as Turco-Albanians, which is apart from offensive not based in the wp:secondary material. Please provide sources to that effect and meet Wikipedia standards. The term was ethnographic until a certain point in time. Also stop using POV pushing terms like "Turko-Oriental" in the article also. You may feel this to be the case for Albanians and Muslims in general, but such terminology is racist. I cite this wp:reliable source for you.

MacLean, Gerald M. (2007). "When West Looks East: Some Recent Studies in Early Modern Muslim Cultures." Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies. 7.(1): 97. “In all fairness to Chew, Rouillard, Vaughn, and Schwoebel, none ever claimed that they were doing more than investigate the ways that early European writers regarded those they called "Turks" and the world of Islam they inhabited, but their indifference to who and what was being represented marks a cautionary absence. All four scholars, for instance, recycled the early modern European usage of "Turk" as synonymous with both "Muslim" -regardless of origin-and with "Ottoman," while to the Ottomans themselves, the term referred disparagingly to the Anatolian peasantry over whom they had come to rule. Many continue in this habit,' one rendered even more confusing and potentially misleading since the Turkish Republic declared all inhabitants to be "Turks" in order to erase Kurds, Armenians, Laz, and other ethnicities from the national landscape. Acknowledging that the winners write history and that the very instruments of knowledge production were complicit in structures of power and authority, scholars of the Renaissance and early modern period also recognized how Said's analysis of imperial discourses was inappropriate for the era before Europe set out to rule over and colonize Eastern lands.” Resnjari (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you have not full access to the source isn't an excuse to launch accusations. If you believe that Bernt Fischer, one of the most credible authors on the subject of Albanian 20th century history doesn't meet wikipedia standarts that's your personal issue. If the reference states "Turko-oriental" then you should accept the use of such terminology here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I will get full access. I am on holidays at the moment. When i go back to university in early January to check the library, i will look into it. And if my university library does not have that text, one of the others libraries of Melbourne universities and or state library will. Since you have only put part of an inline and not a more fuller one (as i requested so the full context of Fischer can be ascertained), you too don't have access to the full text either. You have not answered my concerns in any part. This topic is a sensitive one, and very serious as are other topics on Wikipedia regarding pejorative terminology. What does Bernd Fischer mean by "three layers of Albanian civilization"? And regarding the "negative legacy" of the Ottomans, is he referring to governance (i.e kleptocracy etc? If that's the case Albania is not unique in the Balkans, and scholars like Richard Clogg have written about that legacy for Greece too). Is it food (i.e, Turkish Coffee, Baklava etc)? Is it dress (traditional and almost obsolete dress like baggy trousers i.e sharvals, headscarf i.e shamia)? Or is it architecture (i.e. traditional market places i.e Çarshia etc or Mosques which are still being built? Or is Turkish words in the Albanian language (The Albanian language is not unique in that respect also as all Balkans languages of people that where under Ottoman rule have Turkish words in them for certain items)? Or with the case of the Albanians, since Fischer mentions "Albanian civilisation", is it Islam? Is the negative legacy of the Ottomans Islam? All these things i have stated here do constitute Albanian civilisation, do they not? So my concerns are more than legitimate and its not about accusations as you state. These concerns need to be addressed, as so far the inline you provided can be subject to all sorts of interpretations. Wikipedia is not about innuendo. Also, i have cited to you why use of words such as "Turco-Oriental" are problematic and scholars such as McLean, have stated some academics still use such terminology that have pejorative and or racist connotations. Edward Said's most influential work Orientalism, which is a foundational academic text of post-colonial studies in modern times about examining how Peoples consdiered Eastern or "Oriental" where racially stereotyped that had political ramifications. Such language will not be replicated here. See wp:neutrality. Also, i don't know if you are familiar with the scholarship around Islamophobia, sterotyping, imperialism etc or not, but if words like "Oriental" are continued to be pushed in the article then i will take this to arbitration and i will use extensive scholarship to make my point about its racist connotations alongside the neutrality policy. Please read up on the matter in scholarship regarding why "oriental" is a very big and problematic issue. Wikipedia is not about regurgitating certain racist terminology born out of the imperialist era regarding Muslim people where contemporary Western scholars like McLean have noted that some scholars continue to use, though it has been shown to be racist. And words that have Turk in front of them have also been shown to have racist connotations. I cite for example the work of Kevin McCarthy here:

McCarthy, Kevin M. (1970). “The Derisive Use of Turk and Turkey”. American Speech. 45. (1/2): 157. "Among the nationalities that seem to have been disparaged throughout history, the Turks hold a prominent place. The name Turk or Turkey has long been associated with cruel, inhuman behavior and has often been used as a descriptive part of our speech in derogatory phrases."; p. 158. "As a noun in the English language Turk has meant, according to the OED, ‘a cruel, rigorous, or tyrannical man; any one behaving as a barbarian or savage; one who treats his wife hardly; a bad-tempered or unmanageable man.’"; p. 159. "Since it has such a tradition of derisive meanings, I was not surprised when I came across a recent application of turk, this time in the field of sports: turk is a nickname that professional football players have given to the bad news that they have been cut from the squad. Such an example points out the fact that, while many ethnic groups have served as the butt of jokes and the object of derision in particular periods of our history (for example, the Poles, Italians, Jews, and Irish), the Turks alone have generally been a constant target for derision and have unwillingly lent their name to many unfavorable situations."

Thus in the article i placed the somewhat neutral "eastern" in place of "oriental". Please respect this.Resnjari (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikkoua, you care to qualify what is meant by "Although official ties with the Ottomans were severed in 1912, a strong rather negative Ottoman legacy remained, elements of which were detectable in all three levels of Albanian civilization" by Fischer so this POV sentence by you > "Thus, although official ties with the Ottoman authorities were broken in 1912, a strong rather negative legacy remained." and why it needs to be in the article. The inline does not say anything more. What is meant by "negative legacy". I ask because the main legacy from the Ottomans for Albanians is Islam. Until you provide sufficient answers regarding this, it will be removed from the article.Resnjari (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is called Turkoalbanian(s), thus the cultural impact of Turkish elements on Albanian culture is essential to be stated in this article. The reference clearly states that this isn't only about Islam as B. Fischer describes.Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What does Fischer "clearly" describe? I see nothing in the inline ? Again you are resorting to wp:original. You have not given reasons what is meant by "negative Ottoman legacy" and as it stands is very problematic as the overall Ottoman legacy for Muslim Albanians is Islam. Clarify this beyond doubt that Islam is not meant by that.

• Oppose: The argument that this is a term exclusively used as a pejorative one couldn't be supported. As already stated and provided all necessary citations this is only the one-sidd of the coin and such a proposal falls clearly into wp:POV. On the other hand tag-teaming initiatives of a specific groups per [[20]] are disruptive for procedures such as this one.Alexikoua (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment. "The argument that this is a term exclusively used as a pejorative one couldn't be supported." Of course not, the sources poiint to a evolution of the term. Like with other pejorative terms (i.e: Hajji when used by outsiders), they can start of not having such meanings and later pick them up. I.e Hun etc. From the 1880s Turco-Albanian has had pejorative meanings and scholarship does not contradict this. Your comment there is once agian wp:original. As for your claim of tag teaming that does not suffice. I do not know what Mondiad has on his watchlist, and he has rarely contacted me on my talk page and discussion has been minimal at best. I do stand by my comments that i have been subjected to less than colourful commentary by other editors and that vandalism is a issues on Albanian pages due to so little editors being there. I stand by that. Regarding the admins i urge them to take into consideration Wikipedia policy wp:NCET as its states very clearly that

"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Having the article in the plural is implying that Turco-Albanians were a real people, which is not the case. This article is a explanation of a term that has evolved meanings and from at least the 1880s had a pejorative one as even outlined by Greek scholars. I urge the admins to read the article in whole, plus in lines, to look at other such contentious articles regarding pejorative terminology before making a final decision based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua. What disruption of procedures are you talking about? When Resnjari expressed his concerns to Mondiad about this article it was October 12, I started the move procedure on December 23, 2.5 months later. How could have Resnjari disrupted the move procedure, when I started it much later? You don't make any sense. --MorenaReka (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Its ok. The sources are outlined regarding this term in the article and the policy outright has guidelines about naming conventions regarding ethnic peoples. In the end Admins will go by that and especially the policy.Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to Turko-Albanians This has got to be one of THE lamest wikipedia disputes ever. The hysteria over this term is quite amusing, considering it's such a dated term. However, the rationale that it be moved because it's a slur falls flat on its face, because this term has many uses other than slur, as even a cursory literature search shows [21] (this applies to the singular also [22]). Frequency of the singular and plural in book searches seems about the same, although it is hard to say for sure because any search results that contain the plural will also always contain the singular, so this is not helpful. However I do notice that the spelling with a "k" is more frequent than the spelling with a "c". It seems that some people desperately need to make this term into a slur and only a slur, however unlike the slurs included in the List of slurs, this term has many other uses besides being a slur (e.g. it is widely used to denote the marauding bands of muslim Albanians that were the Ottoman enforcers in the Balkans prior to the 20th century). The end result is a tempest in a teacup and what is easily one of the most ridiculous and surreal disputes I have ever seen, and I have seen many. Athenean (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment:Regarding the term "Turko-Albanians" is not the most common usage of the term. A Google books search [23] shows that after the first 4 pages its use becomes scattered and instead the search pulls up words "Turko" and Albanian from different sentences in a text or one of the words in usage with another word etc [24]. So google search regarding that cannot be taken to fully show the matter to be the case. Also the comment by Athenean the term has other usage is true to a extent until the 1880s where as scholarship by both Tzanelli show it was used openly (to use the scholars words) as hate speech, while Skouladas show that some parts of Greek press avoided the term due to its problematic usage. The term has been noted to be pejorative by Megalommatis and Nikolopoulou who states that when used in Greek nationalist histories, the term's use is pejorative. Nitsiakos also notes that the term is ideological and sentimentally charged and Pettifer notes that it also has racialist and imperialist connotations. Also these academics are peer reviewed scholars and meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary and should not be sidelined or ignored. Whatever Muslim Albanians did or did not do (i.e "marauding"), it is important that names by outsiders for a ethnic group are not derogatory and that Wikipedia not repeat such vocabulary. The policy on naming conventions is very clear about this. This article is about a term for a people, and not an actual people who called themselves or acknowledged themselves as "Turco--Albanians". The article title needs to be in the singular and not the plural.Also to other editors, please do not delete my comments [25] in the talkpage even if you disagree with them. I do not do that to others. See wp:civil for more.Resnjari (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, please don't accuse other people to be hysterical. I take it you are a sensitive person, since you thought you were told to be a racist, but being hysterical is a disease, and affect especially women, and as a woman, I am highly offended. Could you please be more civil? Besides, aren't you the one who is disputing the move by moving back twice? Who's hysterical? --MorenaReka (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Its, ok now. Passions on all sides were aroused due to the nature of the topic. Anyway as long as editors now place their commentary regarding only the topic and its issues etc, things will be ok. Lets just stick to that. Otherwise all of us will need up with headaches. The editing process of Wikipedia should not be like that. Editors should only deal with the matter at hand.Resnjari (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree: To my understanding, the main arguments from the opposition are a) it wasn't/isn't exclusively used in a pejorative way b) even some Albanian self-declared as "Turco-Albanians". Similar arguments can be put forth with regards to the term "negroes". "Negroes" was used extensively among African Americans (some still identify by this term today), and there is a surplus of literature in which African Americans are referred to as "negroes", but I'm fairly certain that moving the article "Negro" to "Negroes" would cause a huge shitstorm on Wikipedia. Ultimately, the term is pejorative and with this in mind, admins should act accordingly.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Hmm I have been following these arguments in the Balkan-related articles for at least 3 years now and I have been watching them without interfering much, and I am really worried that this went too far, to the point of reaching a level in which playing with words themselves is very... necessary. Honestly, getting rid just of the letter "S" at the end of a group's name, to make it "less plural and thus, less derogatory", is not convincing, and the most important of all, this does not really serve any purpose. Personally, I don't think that the term Turco-Albanians hides something the derogatory, at least nowadays, I think the plural denotes, not derogation, but that the term is applied on a group of people and being plural is very logical and natural to happen, especially when refering to the large Turkish-Albanian population living in Turkey in the present day. The letter S was never meant to be (and is not) derogatory, at least not in my view, much like the terms Australian-Albanians, Italo-Albanians, Greco-Albanians, Serbo-Albanians etc, aren't. I could have granted my positive support for a rename if the said request was followed by another reason/argument. But for as long as the argument stays as is, I oppose. --SilentResident (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Looks to me like you were a little confused. You say "The letter S was never meant to be (and is not) derogatory, at least not in my view, much like the terms Australian-Albanians" - this is exactly why the Greek and Serbian editors (which you can verify one by one) are trying to push the "s" and make is sound like a population/subgroup related article, rather as a pejorative term. Lets rename the article Negro to "Negroes" and see what the others say then.--Mondiad (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: "Personally, I don't think that the term Turco-Albanians hides something the derogatory, at least nowadays". "Personally" is of little value here, especially when there are peer reviewed sources that conclude the opposite. "but that the term is applied on a group of people and being plural is very logical and natural to happen, especially when refering to the large Turkish-Albanian population living in Turkey in the present day". It seems you haven't paid any attention to the discussion. This is not about the term "Turkish-Albanians". Moreover, there is a naming convention on Wikipedia with regards to terms like these, and they apply even though you find them silly.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually the very title of the article concerns this very topic: populations that are known under the composite term Turkish-Albanians. What can be considered childish here is the obsession for a move based on the wrong claim that this is exclusively a pejorative (as claimed per nom), something that even editors that agreed on this move paradoxically refuted. Good note on the issue that one "S" caused such a paranoia.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment:The term has been proven in scholarship beyond doubt that from the 1880s it has been a pejorative term. As wikipedia has policies about ethnic groups and derogatory names, it is very clear. No such ethnic group moreover called Turco-Albanians existed. No one has been able to "prove" that Muslim Albanians called themselves that also. It is an outsiders word for Muslim Albanians.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously not "only used" as a slur, but as a descriptive identification of a historical population group, Turco-Albanians (or "Turko/Turk-Albanians"), extensively used in Greek scholarship. @MorenaReka: Commenting in a requested move: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."--Zoupan 09:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Comment: True, the term Turco-Albanian(s) is used in Greek scholarship. However as noted by wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholar Kalliopi Nikolopoulou (2013). Tragically Speaking: On the Use and Abuse of Theory for Life. University of Nebraska Press. p. 299. states: “Instead of the term “Muslim Albanians”, nationalist Greek histories use the more known, but pejorative, term “Turkalbanians”. In Greek scholarship, the use of the term Turco-Albanian is in a pejorative context or with such connotations. Wikipedia is not about repeating nationalist histories or replicating/repeating their pejorative connotations. Wikipedia policy on naming ethnic groups in the section Self-identification states: "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Having the title page in a plural is offensive to the group as it implies that such a group actually existed, when instead whether the source refers to pejorative or other usages, they make it clear that is a outsiders term for another group. It should be in the singular, as per other slurs and such terms. The article is about a term, not an actual people called "Turco-Albanians".Resnjari (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that in Greek scholarship, the use of the term Turco-Albanian is in a pejorative context or with such connotations, does not mean that EVERY Greek scholar used it that way (in a derogatory way), nor does this mean that this fact represents ALL the scholars. And therefore, this does not justify your request for renaming or changing the term "Turco-Albanians" citing those pejorative contexts present in a specific group or affiliations (in our case, by some Greek historians/people - not all!). And I shall remind you that his term is also used outside of Greece, but without the same pejorative contexts used by some Greek scholars. This means that the term itself is NOT derogatory, but the use of this term in certain ways by certain groups/affiliations is what make it derogatory. Dear friend Resnjari, if we have to adopt your logic in matters concerning ethnic or racial terms, then, I am afraid Wikipedia will have to rename several other ethnic/racial articles, like this one! For example, why not to rename the term "AfroAmericans" into "AfroAmerican"? I shall remind you how the term "AfroAmericans" had countless of derogatory connotation cases, especially in America, in the past centuries. If we have to go with your logic, and happen to have a group of people useing a term in a derogatory way, then then I am afraid this could require the revision of Wikipedia's naming policies and overall principles. I strongly oppose and couldn't recommend this. --SilentResident (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:There is no article called AfroAmericans. When typed in the search it redirects to the main article African Americans. The term is not considered derogatory by the group themselves and is a self appellation for the group in contemporary times. Turco-Albanian(s) is an outsiders word for a people, who do not use the term themselves. This article need to be in the singular, not plural. As for Greek academia, i cited Nikolopoulou and she is wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Other comments in here not based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary that Greek academics use the term Turco-Albanians in a different way is to misconstrue scholarship. Unless citing a primary document, the scholar as for example Skoulidas has done discusses the term in the context of that primary source. But when use of the term Turco-Albanian(s) is done throughout a scholarly work and then like Nikolou who also writes Muslim Albanian communities in addition to that term. Anyway, i am not asking anyone to adopt my logic. If articles on Wikipedia are created about terms, especially pejorative ones, they ought to be in the singular. This has been the case for most. After this whole issue gets dealt with, i will take the whole matter for a policy discussion and most likely some kind of addition to the ethnic group naming policy about when such topics are created for their article names to be in the singular, for the multiple reasons i have outlined over and over again in the talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, can you bring any source that African Americans (to which afroAmerican redirects) is a slur? I had never heard of this. It is actually the opposite: African American replaced the term negro, which was controversial and African American was accepted by the black people. No one considers that term as a slur, and that's properly in plural. What you are saying is completely news to me. --MorenaReka (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zoupan:: I would have never believed that an "s" was so important, but to me it is clear that there is enough scholarship that the term is pejorative. It seems though that Resnjari's comments are not read at all; hopefully the closing administrator will read them. --MorenaReka (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident: What's your opinion on the terms "negroes", "chinamen", "pikeys", and "kaffirs"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I only do know the word "negroes", the rest are unknown words to me... sorry... But the term "negroes", is the plural version of the term "negro" which however does not contain any derogatory connotations by itself - the connotations come from the way the word is being used. Like as in the case of TurcoAlbanians. And, like how I have repeated above, I do not disagree with the rename of TurcoAlbanians into Turco Albanian or Turkish Albanians, or something else, but for me to back this request, the following conditions have to be met: 1) sources are provided for that the word/term was and still is being used solely for derogatory purposes (as possibly implied in above comments due to the lack of clarification from other commentators) and also, 2) that there is at least another plural word/term (an alternative one) that can be used for describing this (plural) group of people, the TurcoAlbanians. If the term "TurcoAlbanians" is the sole plural term for describing the millions-strong Albanian diaspora of Turkey and without any alternate words for it, then the request for a rename should be denied as it is the only plural word we have around to describe them. It is unfortunate that there is a record of people eager to play the Game of Words with the pretext of bias/unbias, but this doesn't mean we have to ignore the facts and rush to declare a word/term as derogatory just because it happened that SOME (not all) scholars to have used it in a such way. If these conditions are met, I will gladly change my stance on the matter. Have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1) Why is it necessary to prove that it is being used solely for derogatory purposes? It's not always that simple. 2) This is not a term to describe "the millions-strong Albanian diaspora of Turkey", but rather a term that was used instead of the more neutral term "Muslim Albanians". Please read the article before making silly assertions. As for the diaspora in Turkey, "Albanian Turks", "Albanians in Turkey", or "Turkish Albanians" are all neutral terms to refer to these people. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:Regarding the word negroes, in English usage that is abstained from the 1960s onwards due to the baggage (i.e: associations with past slavery etc) and offensive connotations that word carries. Even on Wikipedia, when typing the word negroe (which is in the plural) in the search, it redirects and goes to the article whose title is "Negro" in the singular. This is so because the article is about a term used by outsiders for a people, not a self appellation of the people. There is also no need to name the article into "Turkish Albanians". That would also be contravening wp:NCET and wp:neutrality. This article is not about the Albanian community in Turkey and the article on that community has been appropriately named: Albanians in Turkey. As for your conditions, there already is scholarship in the article that states this term is used in a pejorative manner and other complicated ways that go outside the "ethnographic" contexts. No one is declaring a word derogatory. The peer reviewed wp:reliable and wp:secondary have done so. I have always made reference to that. And outsiders word for a people should be in the singular and not plural for having a article. This term has various meaning over a long period of time. But it is a term stemming form the outside for a people, not a self appellation by that group for themselves.Resnjari (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again: There is a huge difference here between the various racial/ethnic slurs posted here and the term "Turco-Albanians". While all those other slurs are used exclusively as slurs and never otherwise, this is simply not the case here. This attempt to turn this term into a "slur and only a slur" is simply not supported by the literature. For that matter, the term "Turks" has been used as a slur against Balkan Muslim populations, but clearly doing the same thing in that article makes no sense. Perhaps making this a disambiguation page, linking to two separate articles: Turk-Albanian (slur) and Turk-Albanians (historical term)? Athenean (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very misinformed. Pikey - "Slang expert Tony Thorne says "pikey" was being used as far back as the 16th Century but has only become more offensive in the mainstream in the past four or five years." Kaffir - "Now widely considered an offensive ethnic slur, it was formerly considered by whites to be a neutral term for South African blacks." Negroes - Has a complex history. Used to be politically correct, but not anymore. There is still a small minority of older generation African Americans that identify by this term today. Chinaman - From wiki: "Although the term has no negative connotations in older dictionaries,[1][2] and the usage of such parallel compound terms as Englishman, Frenchman and Irishman[3] remain unobjectionable,[4] the term Chinaman is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries." As for the term "Turco-Albanian", the sources are quite clear on the matter, the term is problematic, just like "kaffirs", "pikeys", "negroes" and "chinamen".DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:There is not attempt to "turn" this term into just a slur. My point is the term has those connotations and been cited by wp:reliable and wp:secondary. As such, and because this is a outsiders term for a people (not of the people themselves, i.e Muslim Albanians), this article need to be in the singular and the plural. Why split the article? Other terms like negro don't have that. Just because some see its historical context as being different from other times, does not mean that the word is not the same. The article negro is a case in point. Also in the Anti-Turkism article, in the section regarding sayings, the term Turk and its complicated (and pejorative) meanings are given as Turk in the singular and not Turks in the plural.Resnjari (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule about the use or not of 'S' at the end, as wrongly claimed about this case. For example Ishmaelites which was also a historical name about a group, but latter was used as an alternative for the Muslims is still in plural in this encyclopedia. (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:There is one same detail you omitted there. Ishmaelites were a ethnic group to begin with and their existence as such is noted in the historical record. The use of their name in later times as pejorative for Arabic speaking peoples came later (though not cited currently in the Wikipedia article). With the term Turco-Albanian, there was NO such thing as a people who called themselves "Turco-Albanian(s). That is the big difference here. The term Turco-Albanian(s) is an outsiders term for a people (i.e:Muslim Albanians) and not one used by the people themselves for themselves. By having it the plural, the article is inferring that there is a people in existence called Turco-Albanians which is not the case. And its pejorative connotations and usages for Muslim Albanians have been noted in wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources. This article needs to be in the singular as it is about a term, "ethnographic" and in later times pejorative. Having this article in the plural contravenes WP:NCET which very clearly states that (in the Self-identification section): How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. 'Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. The policy speaks for itself.Resnjari (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think the plural form is the most appropriate form given the context of its use - I do not see evidence presented that a specific individual has ever been described as being "Turco-Albanian", or that sources use the phrase in its singular form, it seems to be a term applied to a group. The google searches that show it being used in singular form show it as thus because in certain contexts it has to be singular, such as in "Turko-Albanian villages". Others supposed uses are actually off-topic, such as "Turco-Albanian quarrel" (which actually refers to relations between Turkey and Albania). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Comment:The form given in plural is not appropriate at all. This term is a outsiders term for a people, and not from the people themselves. Wikipedia policy states that derogatory terms for a people should be avoided. This term already in the scholarship, if read, states clearly that the term has pejorative connotations. You also say that no specific individual has never been described as being a Turco-Albanian or that sources use it in the singular form. If one goes through the google searches, there are individuals referred to in the singular. [26], [27]. When one looks at the google searches in depth, the term Turco-Albanian is also given when describing something in the plural such as Turco-Albanian army [28], [29]. Moreover, most of the search pertains to issues that relate exactly to this topic as the bulk of these are about the army, Greek war of independence and so on. And those are English sources. This is not the Greek Wikipedia project. The term in Greek is given as a plural. Terms that are pejorative such as Negroes on Wikipedia are given in the singular for their article >Negro or nigger and NOT niggers.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see the first source, but the vast majority of uses that talk about "Turco-Albanians" (rather than their villages or armies) still seem to be in the plural. And I reject the reasoning presented to support the title change, the assertion that it is automatically an "ethnic slur" or "pejorative" (the existence of that second source you have just cited actually backs up that rejection) - so I have to oppose the title change because to support it implies acceptance of the proposing argument for that change. The whole argument presented for the change actually seems to me to be off-topic. In quite a few cultures to call someone a "Turk" is certainly pejorative, and openly so, but this does not seem to be automatically the case here since the phrase Turco-Albanians / Turco-Albanian is used by sources completely unconnected to any nations or cultures that have a history of being been invaded or massacred by Turks and is used within those sources in contexts free of any hint of negative usage. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Comment: There any other words such as Negroes that were used in connection to peoples and so on by wider white societies until the 1960s, that still does not qualify for it to be as such in this encyclopedia today. The article is given in the singular as the article is about a term FOR a people, NOT by the people themselves. That certain cultures call people Turk based on certain past events or how they interpret those events, the use of the word in a pejorative sense and is ingrained within them is their issue. This is an encyclopedia discussing a term, not an actual people called "Turco-Albanian(s)". The term has been noted to carry pejorative connotations. You can interpret the matter based on wp:original claiming that "nations or cultures" usage of such words is "free of any hint of negative usage", though its usage here has more than been attested to. This is cited in whole within the article and based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary. No such people existed as Turco-Albanian(s). It is a outsiders term for a people. Having in the plural means that a people called themselves Turco-Albanians which is not based on any wp:reliable and wp:secondary. No one here has been able to prove that the people to whom this term Turco-Albanian(s) called themselves as such. It is also cited in the article that Albanians consider the term Turk and Turco-Albanian offensive. Wikipedia has clear polices regarding naming conventions about ethnic peoples. I invoke Wikipedia policy: wp:NCET. In the section Self-identification it clearly states: "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. 'Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Also the overwhelming majority of sources when using the term do not as you state have it in the plural. Go through all the search results. I have. As for my citing of the second source, playing semantic word games like that are problematic because that author uses it in the plural others to not etc. One can make the same assertions for Negroes etc. The term Turco-Albanian is pejorative and the peer reviewed sources cites this amongst others if you read the article and inlines. Wikipedia has policies regarding use of pejorative terminology toward ethnic groups. This needs to be taken into account. Do have evidence or sources to show that Albanian Muslims called themselves "Turco-Albanians" for this article to be in the plural, like say the article on the Albanians?Resnjari (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be complicit with Albanian nationalist desires to rewrite their history to whitewash out any unpleasantries they may have committed in the past or support they provided for actions by the Ottoman Empire. The fact that some sources state that usage of the Greek equivalent is intended as a slur is mentioned in the article (though I see no explanation about why it is a slur). However I think this aspect is vastly overemphasized in the article as it is currently written, leading to a biased article. The article should be about the term as it is used and explored by sources that mention the term. So, for example, [30] we have an historian describing a notable figure like Mehmet Ali as an Turco-Albanian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Wikipedia cannot be complicit with Albanian nationalist desires, and as present it is not. It can't be either with Greek or Armenian ones, or any other ethnicity. The name change is required because it passes the wrong message, even without reading the article. It describes "Turco-Albanians" as an religious/ethnic denomination, rather as a pejorative term as the very opening paragraph explains it originated from. You say: The article should be about the term as it is used and explored by sources that mention the term. This approach is wrong. The articles describe objects, people, events, or any other item which might be considered valid for the encyclopedia. The sources are searched and used to support the material, not the other way around. We don't build articles just on a certain source POV, no matter how reliable. Therefore the article is for the term used by the Greeks initially and others later (as explained in the material), not about a certain epithet that you may found online.--Mondiad (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The approach you say is wrong I think is a basic rule for Wikipedia articles - we do build articles on the pov of sources! The content of a Wikipedia article should only contain things that acceptable sources have written about the article's subject - otherwise the article strays into original research. And if some sources are given unreasonable emphasis over other sources, the article risks being biased. You seem to be choosing to ignore or dismiss sources that have used the term in a clearly non-pejorative way, and are stressing the sources that say its use is pejorative in order to argue that it is always a pejorative term. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Comment:I am sorry but the approach you outline there about Turco-Albanian being "in a clearly non-pejorative way" is wp:original. The sources that are [[[wp:original]] and wp:reliable state that this term has pejorative connotations and especially when used in Greek scholarship its use is pejorative. Once again i cite the scholar Kalliopi Nikolopoulou (2013). Tragically Speaking: On the Use and Abuse of Theory for Life. University of Nebraska Press. p. 299. who writes:“Instead of the term “Muslim Albanians”, nationalist Greek histories use the more known, but pejorative, term “Turkalbanians”. The term is a outsiders one for a people and not of the people themselves. As the article title stands now is it POV.Resnjari (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fischer (relevant to the article or not ?)

I will post the entire part from Fischer about the negative Ottoman legacy in Albanian tradition, which was repeatedly removed as OR:

"Sultan Abdul Hamid often commented that his empire depended on the Albanians and the Arabs. The Sultan's weakness for the Albanians was due largely to the fact that his bodyguard consisted of Albanians, upon whom he knew he could rely. Since most Albanians were Moslems they were offered opportunities for education and advancement. Subsequently, many Albanians served in the Turkish military and administration. Although official ties with the Ottomans were severed in 1912, a strong rather negative Ottoman legacy remained, elements of which were detectable in all three levels of Albanian civilization. A unique Weltanschauung was created and it included a strong disrust of the government and of the city as well. This suspicion coupled with a cleverness used to cheat the authorities, a practice which was considered not only completely normal but admirable. Five centuries of Ottoman domination had adversely affected the economy as well, creating non of the necessary bases for modern economic development.”

Obviously there wasn't only Islam, but a variety of features & some of them are connected with the Islamic tradition.Alexikoua (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou for the whole passage. Your comment there however concerns me though about the intent of wanting to place the passage there. You say there wasn't "only Islam, but a variety of features & some of them are connected with the Islamic tradition". Fischer states nothing of the sort in that passage about Islam being a "negative legacy". Islam was not a "negative legacy". All the negative legacy cited by Fischer there refers too is bad governance, distrust of governance (no surprise) and bad economy (the same has been said of Greece and the Ottoman legacy). There are more than enough sources to say that of the Ottomans regarding the whole Balkans. How does that Fischer passage though relate to Turco-Albanians, the pejorative word ? Whats the purpose of having it in this article. The article is not about Ottoman Albania (where this passage is more than suited), but about a outsiders word for a people. You still have not shown the connection here (wp:relevance) ?. Also, place a proposal for a sentence here, so other editors can examine what you had in mind to better determine if or how this is relevant to the article? Also next to creating in the inline there, is it none or non as it sounded a little semantically awkward ?Resnjari (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's "none". Off course I've didn't said anything about Islam being negative & I don't understand your obsession to accuse me for Islamophobia and racism (I still expect an apology for this). Fischer points to the negative tradition where a strong rather negative Ottoman legacy remained: strong distrust to state and local authorities slow economic development etc.. Actually this kind of info is essential for an article under this title regardless of the outcome of the move request.Alexikoua (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How the inline stood before you gave the whole context did not elaborate on this as is NOW done. One has to make sure especially sincee Islamophobia is quite rife these days. This sentance can only go if an additional sentence with sources is provided that in Greece and the Balkans, the Ottoman legacy is seen as negative. I want to see a sentence proposal from you here before things go forward on the matter.Resnjari (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

POV from Greek nationalist histories ?

The scholar Kalliopi Nikolopoulou (2013). Tragically Speaking: On the Use and Abuse of Theory for Life. University of Nebraska Press. p. 299. writes:

“Instead of the term “Muslim Albanians”, nationalist Greek histories use the more known, but pejorative, term “Turkalbanians”.

Your edit based on Nikoulou (offering some inlines on certain sentences and no inlines on others)[31], well from the sentences you wrote i gathered (the ones with no inlines), uses the word Turco-Albanian (and in Nikoulou uses Turco-Albanian and Muslim Albanian in a paragraph. Does he interpret these to be "two separate" peoples ????. As Nikolopoulou states outright, Greek nationalist histories use the term Turco-Albanian and it is found here in Nikoulou. Also the whole part of the paragraph based on Nikoulou there is in reference to the Greek rebellions, Thesally etc. This article is not about such things, but about the term Turco-Albanian. As Greek histories use the word Turco-Albanian, this article could become a generalized one about Muslim Albanians from a Greek perspective that use the word Turco-Albanian and can have all sorts of content from Greek nationalist histories that use the pejorative term "Turco-Albanian". I was wondering to having such content or its wp:relevance to this article. How does the edit you have provided explain the word Turco-Albanian and its usage, formation etc, or is the edits and content added by you there there just because it says Turco-Albanian in general?Resnjari (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's very relevant to the article. Sounds like just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is mainly about a term. Content going into it and the concerns i outlined need to be discussed. Your reason for reverting is irrelevant considering you based an opinion on ?????????. The case for this edit must be made especially since wp:reliable sources state that its use in Greek nationalist histories is pejorative. And also is this edit about Muslim Albanians in general or about the term which some editors in here still ignore wp:reliable is pejorative from the 1880s onwards ? I am not against edits, but especially the nature of this topic, certain edits called for need to have their explanations/justifications. Do you have anything to dispute this Athenean? Am i breaching good faith in asking for that much ? Concerns need to be addressed and are serious. You can ignore them and continue doing what you do, and then we can have this conversation elsewhere in the appropriate forums in front of impartial adjudicators.Resnjari (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all there is a credible source that meets wp:rs and is published by University of Strasburg. So, Resnjari needs to explain why this academic institution bublished "Greek nationalist histories". The period of "Albanian occupation of Greece i.e. Alvanokratia" 1770-1779 (or Turcoalbanian in contemporary terminology), although completely absent in the official "Albanian national histories" is mentioned by a couple of Albanian authors, for example [[32]] Crypto-Cristians in the Balkan Area under the Ottoman Empire by Stravro Skendi:

3 It has not been possible to find instances of Crypto-Christianity inthe Peloponnesus. Inasmuch as it changed rulers, from Ottoman to Venetian and back to Ottoman, the Porte pursued a mild policy there. Even after the Orlov revolution (1770) it expelled the Albanian irregulars who were pillaging and massacring Greeks in the countryside

My issue and concern is with the use of the word Turco-Albanian, not the events there. The author Nikolou mentions Turco Albanian and then refers to Muslim Albanian communities! Semantic confusion ???? Why not use Turco-Albanian for those communities instead, so as to be uniform? Why the need to distinguish, if both sets of populations are Muslim and Albanian speaking? And considering Nikolou is of Greek hertiage and Nikolopoulou is a wp:reliable and wp:secondary source who states that the use of Turco-Albanian in Greek nationalist histories is pejorative, Greek sources and authors who use the word Turco-Albanian will come under scrutiny. As for the Peloponnese uprising, i read Skendi and he mentions it on p.234. No where does he say as you infer that Albanian scholarship does not cite the events you refer too. As you have no knowledge of Albanian [[33]], yet claim that "Albanian national histories", as you refer to it, do not discuss the matter. Albanian histories do discuss the matter, especially those studies on the Arvanites. Not all Albanian histories of course will refer to those events that occurred in the Peloponnese, as that area does not cover today's areas of where contemporary Albanian speakers espouse a Albanian identity. Same way as say Kosovo etc features little in Greek histories apart from some specialized studies. As for Crypto-Christianity amongst Albanian speaking population, a lot has been written on that. Islam is a complicated matter for Albanians today. That's all i am going to say about that issue.Resnjari (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

To sum up if the article is titled X and we have wp:RS bibliography that Xs doing Zs then this is a perfect addition for this article. "The term Turco-Albanians is used to define the people that did...." maybe a slight rephrasing will be fine instead of a full removal which falls into wp:DISRUPTION. Alexikoua (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually what's wp:OR is the claim that the term ceased to be an ethnographic term after 1880s.Alexikoua (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I added translations of the Nikolou source so everyone can access it. Yes it is published by the University of Strassbourg. Any Greek work published in Greek and is from Greece that uses the word Turco-Albanian will be scrutinized in future when used as per Nikolopoulou who is wp:reliable. I have slightly rephrased part the sentances so wp:neutrality is maintained while still being in line with the content of the inline. This is important due to the multiple and problematic meanings of the term which is for a people by a outside group and not of the people whom the term is referred to.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We are not here to punish all those authors that used this term to describe a specific group, even if this isn't very precisely defined. However, in a strict historical context several neutral authors tend to use "Turco-Albanians" instead of "Muslim Albanians", for example Skoulidas (in ΟΙ ΣΧΕΣΕΙΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΛΒΑΝΩΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟ 19ο ΑΙΩΝΑ: ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΕΣ ΕΠΙΔΙΩΞΕΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΩΡΗΣΕΙΣ (1875-1897) in p. 23, 27 he uses the term without brackets.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nikolopoulou states that the usage is pejorative in Greek (nationalist) histories. I am not here to "punish" anyone. In the past the term "Negroes" was used extensively by whites for African Americans until the 1960s. Today none would dare use it in academia unless citing something from a primary source that uses the term. That this term Turco-Albanian is still ingrained in amongst certain sectors of Greek academia (that are nationalist) is not my issue. It has been pointed out that its use is pejorative. The Skoulidas reference already in this article is in relation to Greek media(and their avoidance of the use by some because they wanted to pursue some Greek-Albanian rapprochement. Why the avoidance by some if it was just a "friendly" term) and usage of the term. Of course in that context he uses the term there as a primary sources are cited and he discusses the term and its use. Your reference about "neutral authors" depends on who they are and how that term is used. Your Nikolou reference talks of "Turco-Albanians" and then "Muslim Albanian" communities. What the difference? Those peoples are both Muslim and Albanian speaking. Don't present the usage of the term in Greek historiography based on wp:original that its neutral. Nikolopoulou who is wp:reliable and wp:secondary is very clear about this. I will place sources that use "Turco-Albanian" under scrutiny, especially Greek. Even if the term is not "precisely defined", the term has been noted clearly to be pejorative when used for a extensive period of time now (by Greek i might add).Resnjari (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This page was mentioned at WP:Arbitration enforcement

See admin comments on an enforcement request about this article, which is now closed. Though no formal action has been taken, the discussion here is intemperate. Everyone will please watch their language on this page. Use of bad words and criticism of other editors due to their perceived nationality may fall under WP:NPA. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tampering

Resnjari insists that "Don't tamper with the footnotes. They are there toward explaining the sentences". I saw the sentence: The term has also been noted to be an unclear, ideologically and sentimentally charged, imperialist and racialist expression in the introduction, took a look at the citations and saw that three of those don't reference to this sentence, as a whole. So I moved Nitsiakos to sentimentally charged (as per ref), and removed Tzanelli and Skoulidas from the sentence, leaving Pettifer for imperialist and racialist expression (as per ref). Tzanelli and Skoulidas are both used three others times, supporting what they reference. So, am I wrong in believing that the two should not be used for that sentence? Isn't that tampering? --Zoupan 05:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

You removed the word "an unclear" from the sentence. This part is improtant as Nitsiakos notes this as a additional meaning to the word. No need to remove it. So yes, tampering with a very important part in the lede as your edit refers to synthesis of the sources. Your reason for it: Some synthesis without citations supporting sentence" does not suffice regarding that matter. Leave "an unclear" bit in there as it is cited in the wp:reliable source. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So a partial revert suffices?--Zoupan 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

The rest is ok. The unclear bit (about it being one of a multiple meanings) by Nitsikos stays.Resnjari (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several other inline citations that needs to be checked.--Zoupan 18:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Which ones Zoupan? Cite them here please.Resnjari (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)