Talk:Markos Botsaris#rfc BE67E0E

There is an issue here with people failing to understand the difference between ethnicities and nationalities. Ethnically, Marko Boçari was an Arvanite, Christian albanophone Albanian. This was well documented by many authors of the time as well as today's historians. Ethnicities existed way before nations. The modern Greek nation consists of more than one ethnicity. One of those ethnicities is clearly Albanian-Arvanite to which Marko Boçari belonged to. He even created an Albanian-Greek dictionary due to lack of knowledge of Greek by Arvanites in the region at the time. It is true Marko Bocari fought against the Ottoman Empire for Greek independence for the newly established Greek state, however he was an Albanophone. Hiding this would be doing a great disservice to the truth and I don't believe wikipedia articles should be affected by Balkan politics. It is not all black and white. Please see contemporary "Tribes of Albania" by Robert Elsie p.225 where Marko Bocari's ethnic identity is clearly noted. JoeTBA (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

:The dictionary is already mentioned. No one is trying to hide anything. However your claim that he identified as "Albanian" will not be included, because he did not identify as such. Khirurg (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

::But he also did not identify as Greek.--Lorik17 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid that he did identified as Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

:::: We dont know as Marko Boqari claim herself politically, but we all know he were Albanian, had Albanian Costume, lived in a albanian socio-cultural clans, had the albanian kanun, wear Albanian national Costumes and spoke Albanien what the dictionary clearly prove, like all new history books.--178.197.225.244 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::Who gives a shit about his ethnic identity. Please stop. People like Botsaris did not want to identify as Albanians, just like the rest of the Souliotes and Arvanites. They made thier choice. No need to rant about garbage like that. Devote your time to something better. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

::::::Please show us what term they used back then to refer to what today you call "Albanians", if you can answer truthfully you will find out the ethnicity he self identified as! Also the term Greek back then used to have a similar meaning to Christian not to ethnic Hellen ;) Aleks1912 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

:Please understand the term albanophone back then would be a paradox since Albanian language back then was taught only by the family not in school while Greek could be taught in school so in case there was a person speaking Albanian and later during his life Greek then he was grekophone either way claiming the heroes of 1821 were albanophones you wrongfully refute their real ethnicity! Aleks1912 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{u|JoeTBA}} On the one hand I can sympathize with your viewpoint to a degree -- yes, whether dead people personally identified as X or Y is not verifiable, and yes, how you feel does not determine what you are. Sure Botsaris/Bocari/whatever had Albanian descent, he and other Souliotes also fought alongside Greek-speaking Greeks for what became Greece, he's not around to be interviewed, one can legitimately call him either/both Greek or/and Albanian and not be totally wrong. But while it's fine to talk about Napoleon's Corsican/Italian heritage (we do), the same does not apply in Balkan topics. It's a slippery slope from "Markos Botsaris" to the resumption of fights over whether Skanderbeg should be renamed to Ivan/Ioannis/Cthulhu Kastriotic/Kastriotis/2020, plus other similar disputes (Dushan, Ataturk, Obilic, literally anyone from N-Macedonia 1800-1945, how could I forget Tesla, etc).

I'd recommend you move on to content creation (with reliable sources of course) on something that interests you, it'll be much more pleasant. --Calthinus (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

:Since you are trying to make a point on an irrelevant topic, have you found any letter where Castriotis signs as anything other than Ioannes or Jiovanni? Thanks for the answers. Oh, I almost forgot the point: Souliotes declared they are Greeks in the official documents regarded as the first Greek Constitution, 1/1/1822. Greek text available in wikisource. Here is a translation of the first lines:

thumb " In the Name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity. The Greek Nation, under the horrible ottoman rule, unable to carry the heaviest ... yoke ...". Co-signed by the Souli representatives Fotos Bomporis and Zois Panou (Ζώης Πάνου) [https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CE%84_%CE%95%CE%B8%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B7_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B1%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85]. Have a nice day.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• The man identified himself as a Greek. What seems to be the problem here? Make it clear, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• :HE WAS GREEK GeorgiaApollonia (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• ::Let me cite you the claim of Bocaris
• ::"Jam grek" he never claimed like you dream "Eimai Ellhnas" if you cant distinct the difference there you are brainwashed! Aleks1912 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems that somebody doesn't like this part, or, why is it deleted?

The original manuscript of the dictionary is at the National Library in Paris (Supplément Grec 251). Botsaris titled his dictionary “Lexicon of the simple Romaic and Arbanitic language” (Λεξικόν της Ρωμαϊκοις και Αρβανητηκής Απλής (sic)). The Greek terms are in columns on the left of the pages, not in alphabetical order, and the Albanian words on the right, written in Greek letters. Apart from single words, the dictionary includes complexes of words or short phrases. The Greek entries are in total 1701 and the Albanian 1494.

On the first page there is a hand-written notice by Pouqueville: “Ce lexique est écrit de la main de Marc Botzari à Corfou 1809 devant moi.” This manuscript, which includes also a kind of Greek–Albanian self-teaching method with dialogues written by Ioannes Vilaras and a French-Albanian glossary by Pouqueville, was donated by the latter to the Library in 1819. The dictionary was dictated to the young M. Botsaris by his father Kitsos (1754–1813), his uncle Notis (1759–1841) and his father-in-law Christakis Kalogerou from Preveza. Titos Yochalas, a Greek historian who studied and edited the manuscript, noticing that some Greek words are translated into Albanian in more than one way, believes that M. Botsaris was writing the Greek words and the elders were translating into Albanian. As many of the entries seem unlikely to be useful either for the Suliots or the Albanians of that time and circumstances, Yochalas believes that the dictionary was composed after Pouqueville's initiative, possibly as a source for a future French-Albanian dictionary. He also observes that the Albanian phrases are syntaxed as if were Greek, concluding that either the mother tongue of the authors was the Greek or the Greek language had a very strong influence on the Albanian, if the latter was possibly spoken in Souli (Yochalas, p. 53). The Albanian idiom of the dictionary belongs to the Tosk dialect of south Albanian and retains many archaic elements, found also in the dialect spoken by the Greco-Albanian communities of South Italy and Sicily. In the Albanian entries there are many loans from Greek (approx. 510), as well as from Turkish (approx. 190) and Italian (21). [https://www.scribd.com/doc/47759686/%CE%A4%CE%BF-%CE%95%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%BF-%CE%91%CE%BB%CE%B2%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD-%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BE%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%9C%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%9C%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%84%CF%83%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B7-%CE%93%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%82-%CE%A4%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82 Yochalas Titos (editor, 1980) The Greek-Albanian Dictionary of Markos Botsaris. Academy of Greece, Athens 1980] (in Greek), Γιοχάλας Π. Τίτος, Το ελληνο-αλβανικόν λεξικόν του Μάρκου Μπότσαρη (φιλολογική έκδοσις εκ του αυτογράφου), Ακαδημία Αθηνών, 1980.]

{{closed rfc top|result= No open dispute at the moment. Jtrrs0 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) }}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715000469}}

As this talk page shows, there has been an intractable debate on whether the subject should be described as Greek (or Albanian etc) and what spelling his name should have and connected questions. This RfC hopes to solve this issue. The issues are as follows:

• How should the subject of the article be named?

:* Is the Albanian-language version of his name necessary or appropriate?

:* What prominence should be given to the Albanian-language version of his name?

• Is it appropriate to describe him in the lead as Greek?

Jtrrs0 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: at the moment the lead does not describe him as Greek. Also, we are supposed to follow the sources. What do the RSs say? Is he described as Greek in them? Similarly re the earlier queries, our opinions count for nothing; only our opinions of what the RSs say. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• He lived his entire life as a subject of the Ottoman Empire. This would be the primary way to identify him, but the country he was a subject or national of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::I suspect that a closer is likely to pretty much ignore that unless you can cite sources backing your OR. (I am not saying that I disagree, just that neither your nor my OR counts for anything.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::@John Pack Lambert: You write that Marko "lived his entire life as a subject of the Ottoman Empire." This is factually not true. He also lived as a subject of the Septinsular Republic, a subject of French rule and towards the end of his life he chose to become a citizen of the newly-founded Provisional Administration of Greece and died defending it, having been awarded the rank of a general in the revolutionary armies. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::: Provisional, unrecognized governments that seek to overthrow existing ones that have not successfully been removed do not negate the fact that people under such movements are usually seen as subjects of the power that be. On the issue of the Septimsular Republic, was he actually a subject/national of it, or was he a subject of the Ottoman Empire who happened to reside in that area, or is his exact status there clear?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::: Digging deeper, per our article the Septinsular Republic was a Republic that existed from 1800-1807 under nominal Ottoman and Russian soveignty. It replaced the two years of rule in that area by the French Republic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Jtrrs0 was a little fast to open an Rfc here, which is understandable considering that they are not familiar with these articles and their history. As someone who has a little background knowledge, I can say that there was essentially no open dispute at the moment, and the questions largely recycle previous and tedious discussions. The edit warring by a new editor with less than 50 edits is extremely common in articles like this; that alone does not warrant an Rfc. The editor was unaware of any previous discussions or consensus and was merely edit warring. The name in the lead reflects the standard version of the individual's name in historiography and the one that is historically attested (it has nothing to do with assumed original research etymologies, which are discussed above). Also, the person's notability is based entirely on his participation in the Greek war of independence. In any case, yesterday's incident was merely a typical edit-war that occurs every now and then in these articles. Based on that alone, an rfc was far from needed rn. Piccco (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• :Apologies if the RfC was hasty! To me it appeared the dispute was a live one but in retrospect I can see you’re probably right. As you say, this isn’t really my area. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• ::Yeah, I understand that you acted in good faith. I personally didn't pay much attention to those edits, besides reverting them, since the lead name couldn't change anyway, per wp:commonname, among others. That's why I wasn't sure what could come out of this. The subject is generally particularly niche, as Ashmedai mentioned below. Piccco (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• :* Close with no action, as there was no open dispute at the moment. As the editor admitted, this was not really their area, so the rfc short of opened by misunderstanding. Per comment, the current version is the result of long discussions made by people who actually have some knowledge on the region's history. The rfc raises previously non existent issues, like the use of the erroneous appellation "Ottoman", which is used exclusively for Turkish individuals, and does not apply to other subjects of the Ottoman Empire.
• :Piccco (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Jtrrs0}} Somebody who has deep knowledge of the sources, in particular of Psimouli is {{ping|Maleschreiber}} who worked extensively with other Wikipedia editors when writing up the Souliots page.Resnjari (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::I am happy for this to close with no action. Personally, I am now quite convinced there is no dispute here. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Jtrrs0}}, its been a few years since i engaged with the Souliots topic area -as i've only done seldom edits here and there on English wiki in that time. After your ping, i had some time now and read through some of these articles, a lot of improvement has been made. It has the Albanian name for the said individual which to be frank is a shock for me as last decade any attempt was met with derision and so on. Some brave editing must have taken to get it to even that point. Up to you if you want to close this RFC, im ok with the present situation in the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I am truly content to see persons who have not been previously involved in discussions about the Souliots and Marko Botsaris take an interest in this article, but I am afraid that the variety of issues upon which discussions hitherto conducted in this talk page have touched obliges an editor who has previously engaged with them and is -for whatever reason- still eager to provide his/her opinion in response to the questions cited above by Jtrrs0 to point out that the first two questions have received different answers by the same editors depending on the intended range of their answer's application. This means that more precise questions would be conducive to an orderly and successful process. However, I am honestly not entirely sure that sufficient reasons presently exist to open up this whole range of questions, as Picco notes. It seems to me that any proposed specific change to the lead or infobox (with neither of which I am perfectly in agreement for reasons that I would be happy to indicate, if required) would be best dealt with if, as Jtrrs0 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markos_Botsaris&diff=prev&oldid=1216566744 suggested], the editor proposing it "addressed the issues and arguments that others have (fairly recently) discussed". Regardless, I would like to ask all participants in this discussion who are perhaps not acquainted with secondary bibliography on the Souliots and Marko Botsaris to please devote the time necessary to familiarize themselves with it, reading the books cited in the article or at least a [https://booksjournal.gr/paremvaseis/3508-souliotes-apo-anypotaktoi-oresivioi-maxites-tis-ellinikis-epanastasis-a-meros two]-[https://booksjournal.gr/paremvaseis/3606-souliotes-apo-anypotaktoi-oresivioi-maxites-tis-ellinikis-epanastasis-b-meros part] introductory article intended for a general audience written in Greek by Vasso Psimouli, an expert on the Souliots, concerning the Souliots and their involvement in the Greek revolution. Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• :Just to say that if you think other questions/statements would be more helpful to channel discussion I am 100% happy to see them change. I don’t really have a view one way or the other; this isn’t a subject I really know anything about. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• ::Jtrrs0, as indicated by the title of the current section, there are two areas of concern that caused the creation of this RfC. The first (that of "ethnic identity" [sic]) is dealth with in MOS:NATIONALITY, which states that "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable." Pace John Pack Lambert and as Piccco states, the usefulness of identifying Botzaris in the first sentence of the article's introduction as an "Ottoman" instead of a Souliot is highly doubtful and not corresponding to what is customary in secondary literature -- I would be happy to be proved wrong by someone with a more firm grasp of the bigliography than me.
• ::As far as the name is concerned, I think that there are three specific areas that could be discussed, if this RfC proceeds, all three relating to the inclusion of the modern Greek and modern Albanian versions of his name. Namely, should the modern Greek or / and Albanian version of the person's name be stated (a) in the parenthesis following the rendering of his name in English in the first sentence of the article's introduction, (b) in the field "name" and (c) the field "native name" of the infobox? It is currently displayed in Greek in (a) and (b) and in Albanian in (b) and (c). I have previously expressed my opinion on these specific matters in this very talk page, so I just note that with regards to (a) I had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markos_Botsaris&diff=prev&oldid=1167260530 written] at the time of the inclusion of Botzaris's name in modern Albanian that "The name of Botsaris himself in Albanian seems to be stated unambiguously in a number of reliable secondary sources (though there are other forms to be found -- I see Yannis Kotsonis including the variants Bozzari and Botzari, but not Boçari) and Maleschreiber was IMHO not in the wrong in adding it in the first sentence of the article's introduction". This is the reason that it should also be included in (c), Albanian being Botzaris's mother tongue, but alongside his name in Greek. As I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markos_Botsaris&diff=prev&oldid=1170967948 reminded participants] in this discussion before "The infobox template states that this field should state "the person's name in their own language". [add.: not "in their mother tongue"] and given that "Marko had learnt Greek already before the age of 13, when he made a note about Souli (in Greek) per Psimouli's monograph on him. Even if one disagrees with Jochalas's intepretation that Marko and his family members had Greek as their mother tongue, the fact that (1) he had learnt Greek before adolescence (2) to such an extent that influenced the way he structured Albanian and (3) that continued to use it later in life seems to me sufficient to consider Greek as his "own language" and include the Greek version of his name in the "native name" field of the infobox.". I iterated the point later on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markos_Botsaris&diff=prev&oldid=1172782098 pointing out] that "This makes sense as there are bilingual individuals: the relative infobox in Joseph Stalin's article, e.g., does state two forms of his name in Georgian and Russian in the "native name" field of the infobox, despite the fact that, per the article, "[e]thnically Georgian, Stalin grew up speaking the Georgian language, and did not begin learning Russian until the age of eight or nine"." Having said that about (c), that is the "native name" field of the infobox, I must insist that, with regards to (b), as I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markos_Botsaris&diff=prev&oldid=1168182016 written] in the past, "I don't understand why Markos's name in its modern Albanian form and in Greek should be written in the field "name" of the infobox and not just in the field "native name". Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• When we classify people based on nationality we go based on countries with stable recognized status that have international recognition. That is the Ottoman Empire. Short bursts of occupation during a war, republics that existed for less than 10 years, or Provisional revolutionary governments may be used as ways to cliassify someone based on the exact nature of their connection with such things, but they are not normally used to determine a person's nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• :This is why I highly questioned the necessity of an Rfc like this at a moment when no dispute existed; it attracts the attention of editors who comment in good faith, but may not have sufficient understanding of that region's history. Eventhoug it is, in fact, generally true that we follow countries when we label someone's nationality, that doesn't apply for multi-national empires, I think it's mostly for modern nation-states. Anyway, Non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman Empire are never labelled as "Ottoman" in wikipedia, neither in bibliography. Evidently, this Rfc can open new, previously non-existent, disputes. Piccco (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• I have added Botsaris to the People from the Ottoman Empire category. this clearly applies. He may well fit in a more specific category, but it is not fully clear to me what exactly that category would be. I have no opinion on the Greek/Albanian dispute per se, other than to say this illustrates why it is important to primarily categorize people based on nation they were a subject of. Their own ethnic identify can often be very hard to determine and often leads to protracted disputes. The issue with using the term "Ottoman" is exactly why we do not have in general categories that designate people as "Ottoman". We have categories that identify people as "from the Ottoman Empire".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• We have 14 sub-categories of people from the Ottoman Empire by ethnicity. These include "Albanian people from the Ottoman Empire" and "Greek people from the Ottoman Empire" (also Arab, Kurdish and 10 others). One should keep in mind that per ERGS rules a person placed in one of these 14 categories needs to also be placed in a non-ethnicity specific category under the People from the Ottoman Empire tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, yes his Albanian name should be added under lang template just like Greek, and as mentioned above his nationality should be listed as Ottoman and not Greek/Albanian per MOS:ETHNICITY.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The Albanian language name be placed at the top of each Wikipedia article about a Souliot individual, especially if they are born in the 19th century and before, as the Albanian language was a core component of the Souliot community. Apart from scholar Vaso Psimouli, i bring to attention the study of Greek historian Lambros Baltsiotis. He did extensive fieldwork and research during the 2000s on the Albanian speaking population still present in Thesprotia and the wider area from where the Souliots originated from. Writing about the speech of the region, Baltsiotis states in direct relation to the Souliots that p.43 [https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/48195]: "{{tq|Παρόλο που οι παραπάνω επισημάνσεις σε μεγάλο βαθμό απηχούν πολιτικές θέσεις των συντακτών, η γλωσσική μετατόπιση προς τα ελληνικά σε χριστιανικούς αλλά ακόμη και μουσουλμανικούς πληθυσμούς, ισχύει όπως είδαμε τόσο στην περιφέρεια της αλβανόφωνης περιοχής όσο και σε μερικές κωμοπόλεις και πόλεις. Αντίθετα, το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα του αλβανόφωνου πληθυσμού, χριστιανικού και μουσουλμανικού, μιλούσε και κατανοούσε μόνο αλβανικά σε όλη τη διάρκεια του 19ου αιώνα. Η πραγματικότητα αυτή, που άλλωστε επιβεβαιώνεται από προσεκτικούς περιηγητές, συσκοτίζεται με αφορμή την υποτιθέμενη διγλωσσία των Σουλιωτών. Έτσι, παρά το γεγονός ότι η Ψιμούλη αναφέρεται εξαντλητικά στην αλβανοφωνία των Σουλιωτών, υπερτονίζει τη γνώση της ελληνικής από τους Σουλιώτες βασισμένη στα συμπεράσματα του Τίτου Γιοχάλα σε σχέση με το «δίγλωσσο λεξικό» του Μάρκου Μπότσαρη. Όπως έχει όμως αποδειχθεί, τα συμπεράσματα αυτά εδράζονται σε εντελώς λανθασμένη βάση.}}" In essence Baltsiotis writes that throughout the 19th century most of the Muslim and Christian Albanian speaking population of the area spoke and understood only Albanian, a reality confirmed carefully by travellers of the day. Baltsiotis says that Psimouli has exhaustively referred to the Albanian language of the Souliots, and that the Souliots knowledge of Greek has been overemphasised by Psimouli who cites Tito Yochalas conclusion on Marko Botsaris' bilingual dictionary. Within the wider context, in sum Baltsiotis writes that such conclusions about Greek speech and the Souliots are based on a completely wrong basis. Hope it helps. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• :I might be worth noting that Baltsiotis has made some rather extreme claims regarding aspects of Greek history, some of which were seen with skepticism by other historians, and even diverged from the historiographic consensus. Nevertheless, I'm not at all interested in discussing these topics right now. I only wanted to point out that all of the questions that are brought up now in this rfc have already been discussed in detail and there has been a somewhat long period when things were generally quite in this article. This is why I preferred not to answer the questions and instead supported closure (as you may have seen above) because important changes would certainly be met with reactions and would re-open those large disputes. Seeing that prior to the rfc none of the major editors who specialize in the region's history showed interest in editing this article, closure appeared the best solution to me now. Best Piccco (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Baltsiotis has extensively done archival research and field work regarding the topic of Albanian speaking people in what is now modern Greece for more than 2 decades. He has worked with other Greek scholars on the topic and has been cited in various academic works, both Greek and in Western academia. He also teaches at Panteion University as an assistant professor. His scholarly works fit the parameters of WP:RELIABLE. Its best to avoid what could be interpreted as insinuations, unless there is backing via reliable sources that question Baltisotis' scholarship. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

::::It is true that Baltsiotis enjoys the bonam fidem of someone who has conducted his scholarly work in a manner that is not tainted with unprofessional methods, and this includes his yet unpublished doctoral dissertation to which Rensjari refers us. Of course, the same stands for Psimouli and her writings. I am wondering if Resnjari has read the work to which Baltsiotis refers his dissertation's readers concerning the "entirely erroneous basis" of Jochalas's conclusions. The reason I am asking is that the main finding of the piece that Baltsiotis refers his readers is that the Romaic/Greek entries in Botzaris's Romaic[Greek]-Arvanitic[Albanian] dictionary were not produced by himself at will, but match [and derive from] the entries of another dictionary in Italian. Unfortunately, Baltsiotis does not refer to the speficic claims that (in his view) Psimouli erroneously extracts from Jochalas's ignorance of this piece of information concerning the origin of the entries of Botzaris's dictionary. Could someone please explain how s/he understands it? Moreover, even though I do not have Psimouli's works at my side right now, I cannot remember her basing her remarks on the bilingualism of the Souliots from the 18th century onwards on Jochalas's edition of Botzaris's dictionary -- or at least not exclusively on it, as I am quite sure in my recollection that in the relevant section of her book (about the language of the Souliots) she also discusses William Martin Leake's remarks on the Souliots knowing Greek, private contracts made by/for the use of Souliots in Greek and Foto Tzavellas's personal diary, written in Greek, while in Marko Botzaris's biography she presents his personal remembrance note he made about the siege of Souli in Greek in 1803 (already cited in this article). Those with the book(s) at hand can check the veracity of what I write themselves. I would also like to remind that the existence of Albanian-Greek bilingualism among the Souliots is not supported only by Psimouli but also by other scholars, among whom Noel Malcolm, who -- as, I suppose, Resnjari and other editors who have edited articles about Albania-related subjects already know -- has been notoriously accused of displaying a pro-Albanian bias in his historical writings and postulates that this state of linguistic affairs existed back in the early 17th century (see his Rebels, Believers, Survivors: Studies in the History of the Albanians, p. 99: "Historic local place-names suggest that the Souliots were originally Albanian-speaking; in this period many were probably bilingual in Albanian and Greek", written relating to Angela, the "last Albanian to appear in the Sicilian [Inquisition] records" in 1611). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::I bring up Baltsiotis because of nearly everyone in the field, he has done the most extensive research in (and on) the region, not only of the archives, and of other scholars works (whether they be Albanian or Greek) to see if their content stacks up, but also fieldwork about Albanian speaking people in Thesprotia and the surrounding area. His conclusions are based upon that. Neither Yochalas, Psimouli, nor Malcolm has come close (mainly doing only archival, focusing on certain aspects) to doing both ends (archival and fieldwork). What is not in dispute is that the Albanian language was core to the Souliot community until their forced departure from Souli in the early 1800s. The area of contention is only when Greek began being used by them and what circumstances caused it or how wide its range was among the community at various points in time. As for calling a academic "pro" this group or that, i can only go by what reputable academics have said through examinations/critiques of their fellow colleagues and their works. If they have come to those conclusions and used such terms (and explained why), i would only use it if there was need within the discussion like this and cite the source. Otherwise its off topic and again veering into insinuation territory.Resnjari (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::I do not mean to insinuate anything other than what I clearly stated in my previous message, i.e. that Souliot bilingualism is not a position only held by Vaso Psimouli, but by other scholars, including Noel Malcolm, who cannot be accused as harboring a bias disfavouring Albanian national historiography -- on the accusations I mentioned it would suffice to check the article about him in this very encyclopedia. Moreover, while there is indeed no dispute about the Souliots being Albanian-speakers, it is not true that, when it comes to the Souliots, Baltsiotis "has done the most extensive research", because, as one can confirm by checking his [https://freader.ekt.gr/eadd/index.php?doc=48195 doctoral dissertation] on the Muslim Cham Albanians, which contains scant references to the Souliots (13 in total), he has not researched any 18th century archives that Psimouli has (naturally) used in her work, most importantly, the (at the time still unpublished) Ali Pasha paper, lying at the Gennadius, for which Baltsiotis refers to Psimouli's monograph. Besides, fieldwork (in the anthropological sense) in Thesprotia is relatively unimportant with regards to the Souliots, given that they left the area in 1822 never to return again (and I can see no point where Baltsiotis refers to fieldwork as proof of any of the scant references about the Souliots). In any case, I remind that, as I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markos_Botsaris&diff=prev&oldid=1172782098 have written above], Psimouli's book has been described "the best monograph to date" on the Souliots and I repeat that Psimouli's statement about the use of Greek by the Souliots from the late eighteenth century onward is not relying only on the Botzaris dictionary, but also on "relative reports" (including the one by William Martin Leake) and "extensive written Souliot texts, such as the diary of Foto Tzavellas" (Σούλι και Σουλιώτες (Αθήνα: Εστία, 2006), p. 216) and in the case of Marko Bozzaris, may I add, once again, his continued use of Greek as evidenced in his autographs written in Greek from when he was 13 years old until the last years of his life. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Among those scholars there no denial that the Souliots had bilingualism. What Baltsiotis notes is that Psimouli refers to the Souliots using the Albanian language extensively, and that their use of Greek is mainly reliant on what Yochalas concludes. He said that Psimoulis overemphasised the part about Souliots knowledge of Greek, in lieu of his research on the Orthodox Albanian speaking element in Thesprotia and surrounding region and their use of Greek which was minimal to near absent until becoming part of Greece (apart from those that underwent language shift in the Tsarkovitsa zone – and that was due in part to the departure of the Souliots and repopulation of Souli with Greek speakers which geographically wedged Albanian speakers). Baltsiotis spends over 70 pages discussing the language and geography and late Ottoman era situation before the rest of the PHD discusses the interwar period. Hence why i cited Baltsiotis for the basis of my position. I still stand by Baltsiotis without discounting Psimoulis (which I never did). My point for this discussion is that there is a case that can be made for the Albanian name to have equal standing with the Greek form at the top of the article for Souliot individuals. If it becomes a proper RFC that would be my stance. On Malcolm, those critiques are to do with Kosovo (which is not part of this discussion). In general, if you think there are concerns/problems with a particular scholar i wouldn't invoke them as a source for this discussion.Resnjari (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

{{Edit semi-protected|Markos Botsaris|answered=yes}}

2A02:1388:414F:5860:8DA5:1CCA:4D5F:447 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Markos Bocaris was a Greek Hero fought against Ottomans . And you say no vandalism ? You have already vandalized it 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

:MARKOS BOCARIS WAS AND STILL IS A GREEK HERO . STOP GeorgiaApollonia (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. [[User:CanonNi]] (talk|contribs) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

::@CanonNi

::CHANGE HIS ETHINCITY HE WASN'T ALBANIAN HE WAS GREEK ARVANITE . HE FOUGHT AGAINST ALBANIANS GeorgiaApollonia (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Markos bocaris was Greek not Albanian 79.103.211.106 (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I think we need to be very hestiant about categorizing by ethnicity, and give priority to categorizing by the country or countries someone was a subject of. Ethnicity is often highly disputed. We should place people in categories that are clear, agreed upon, unambiguous and undisputed. Not in ones that are ambiguous and disputed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

:::I want to ask the anonymous user -or those earnestly responding to his comment-, which is the part of the article in which Bozzaris presented as belonging to the Albanian ethnic group. In the first sentence of the lead he is presented as a Souliot and a participant in/hero of the Greek War of Independence. Both his being one of the Souliots and his participation in the Greek Revolution along with his glorification for it are related to his notability (see WP:MOSBIO) and are also "clear, agreed upon, unambiguous and undisputed", as Johnpacklambert suggests. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• The ethnicity of the Souliots is a matter of dispute. Participating in the fight to seperate Greece politically from the Ottoman Empire does not make one Greek. There were lots of non-Greek participants in this fight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• :The ethnicity of the Souliots aren't a matter of dispute,most contemporary sources like Psalidas or Ali Pasha for locals or William Eton's a survey of the Ottoman empire in 1790 clearly describes them as Greeks not Albanians.As for Markos contemporary Greek sources refer him as Greek. 2A02:587:550E:100:FCAA:7DE1:90AC:9528 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Johnpacklambert}} The ethnic origins of the Souliotes are not a matter of dispute. There is a very strong consensus in all relevant academic fields about their origin (Albanian) and all current versions in articles about them were established via consensus-building discussions based on bibliography which involved many active editors - including Ashmedai and me. This article itself doesn't even claim that the figure was Albanian, hence there's not even an active dispute because the article doesn't categorize him as Albanian or Greek, but simply as Souliot. --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

:::Besides some national POV I have to agree with Johnpacklambert, the ethnicity of the Souliotes is a matter of despute in mainstream scholarship. This is quite clear.Alexikoua (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

::::We've mapped the most extensive review of bibliography about them in the relevant discussions which formed the consensus version. You couldn't argue that there is such a dispute because no such dispute shows up in relevant bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::There is plenty of WP:RS on the topic, and going by the extensive discussions and eventual editing over that content, i fail to see where the dispute is. IP's or others who might not have read the scholarship may hold that stance. I strongly encourage fellow editors to read and engage with the scholarship, and allow that to guide them through sensative elements in relation to editing or the discussion in topics such as this. Kind regards.Resnjari (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Markos Botsaris|answered=yes}}

Αντώνης Τζούλης (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Native name of Markos Botsaris is: Μάρκος Μπότσαρης (Greek) and definitely not Albanian, he used also Marko Botsari in arvanite language and not in Albanian.

File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The form "Marko-Botsari" is not "arvanite" but common in Greek, when two names are combined in one. Ask Mitso-Takis (Mitsos+Takis). If Georgios Zoitakis (Zois+Takis) was alive, he would tell you the same.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:There is no common Greek form for the surname "Botsari" because it's not Greek. Its Greek variant is Botsaris, which became more common in 19th century Greece.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

You can see in the article how he signs in 1820: "Μάρκο Μπότζαρις". The name is a latin loan to post-medieval greek, from botsa = a vessel for water of wine. Do you know any pre-19th century text with that name in any form?