Talk:Arvanites/Archive 12

Ethnic identity section
Given the discrepancy that already exists about their origins wouldn't it be more appropriate to remove the references to ethnic origins and simply keep the geographic origins? The issue of their original ethnic identity should be presented in a different section where the reader can see all arguments. So for example replace the phrase Arvanites in Greece originate from Albanian settlers who moved south from areas in what is today southern Albania during the Middle Ages with Arvanites in Greece originate from settlers who moved south from areas in what is today southern Albania during the Middle Ages and These Albanian movements into Greece are recorded for the first time in the late 13th and early 14th century with These migrations into Greece are recorded for the first time in the late 13th and early 14th century. It clearly hasn't been definitely resolved what the original population at the time was called or identified as so it's misleading to clearly label them as Albanian. Multiple sources of the time refer to that specific group of settlers as Arvanites and nothing more while there have also been studies that show the words Arvanites and Albanians where used interchangeably. This should be presented in detail in a different section. Same goes for the intro where they are described as having Albanian origin. When there is so much discrepancy it's not appropriate to clearly define them like that but rather present all arguments to the reader. Nassis13 (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * They were Albanians, as indicated by RS bibliography. It is shown in the language they spoke, their customs, their traditions, their societal structures, their costumes etc, and even recently in genetic tests of the population. This change would not be an improvement to the article whatsoever. There is no discrepancy, they were Albanians. Botushali (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing what they were or not. Anyone that has done a bit of reading on the subject will agree that for every one person that shares your view there is another who disagrees and there are studies who support both. The point is that an outsider should be presented with evidence and make an informed decision. And they should be aware that depending on who they ask they might get a different response. If you are in Albania you will get a different truth than if you are in Greece. The international reader needs to know that. 141.255.20.102 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no discrepancy in bibliography or in archival sources and you won't get a different answer depending on who you ask. There is an absolute agreement that the Arvanites are descendants of an ethnic Albanian population, which even in Greece until 1945 was unambiguously considered to be an ethnic Albanian population without any nationalist revisionism of historical reality. Most of them arrived in Greece between the late 14th and early 16th century as mercenaries who were given land in depopulated areas of southern Greece in exchange for military service against the Ottomans. Hence, the "international reader" reads exactly what bibliography - including reliable Greek bibliography - discusses. The only different response exists in some segments of popular opinion from Greece and what these readers from Greece need to do is to first read bibliography and then form an opinion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely wrong. There is lots of bibliography that gives a different view. A few notable examples are Ducellier, Berard and Vasiliev and there are lots more. The fact that this bibliography isn't properly used in this article doesn't make it wrong and definitely not just a segment of popular opinion. So yes, you will most certainly get a different answer depending on who you ask and this should be reflected in this article. Nassis13 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources are in the article and readers can review them. There is no such debate in bibliography. You shouldn't claim that authors like Ducellier have such opinions. Ducellier is cited in countless studies about the subject. You should also read modern Greek historians who are considered to be reliable sources on the subject. There are plenty of them and they've produced some remarkable studies, which you should read if you want to have an informed opinion on this subject. This is a great study which was published last year by a Greek historian who has produced some truly fascinating studies during the last years, Georgios Liakopoulos: : This is the standard consensus in major bibliography about the subject. This is your starting point if you want to be seriously involved in research. If you think that there is a debate about it, then you either don't have a full understanding of what bibliography discusses or you have chosen to not engage with bibliography and it falls under the scope of WP:FRINGE in the context of wikipedia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Nassis13, if you want to propose that there is "a different view", based on "Ducellier, Berard and Vasiliev", you will need to show exactly what these authors are saying and what that "different view" is, and what other "view" it differs from. You are talking about the same Ducellier who wrote a whole book about Οι Αλβανοί στην Ελλάδα (13ος-15ος αι.)? And you want us to accept that this author proposes the view that the people he was calling "Albanians" in his title actually shouldn't be called "Albanians"? You are talking about the same Vasiliev who wrote a History of the Byzantine Empire, in which he describes the migrations of the 14th and 15th centuries as a "powerful stream of Albanian colonization" (Vol. II, p.614), and you want us to accept that this Vasiliev proposes the view that this Albanian colonization didn't consist of Albanians? If you want to provide evidence that there is any hint of doubt as to the appropriateness of that description anywhere in the literature, any hint at all, then you have so far failed at doing so just as dismally as a couple dozen other editors have failed before you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You have clearly researched the subject. Yet you pick and choose the information that suits you, present it as absolute, and then try to lecture others on how to do research. It also seems you have misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not arguing whether Arvanites were/are Albanian or Greek or anything else. I'm proposing that there are different views on their original ethnic identity and that should be reflected in the article ideally in a specific section. In any case there is loads of literature presenting a different view to what is shown in this article so here we go. It's interesting that you refer to these 2 books. I think the book you mentioned Οι Αλβανοί στην Ελλάδα (13ος-15ος αι.) is Les Albanais en Grèce aux XIIIème-XVème siècles: Une migration communautaire. If it is, then have a look at page 15 in combination with Vasiliev's History of the Byzantine Empire page 762. The inhabitants of the area of Arvanon were Romioi, frontier soldiers of the Theme of Dyrrhachium. In regards to the Arvanites that migrated to Southern Greece and were hired by Venice as soldiers Philippe de Comynes in Memoires de Philippe de Comynes p. 473-474 mentions They were all Greek, coming from Venetian holdings in Greece, some from Nafplio in the Peloponeese and others from Albania from Dyrrhachium. Vladislav Skaric in L' attitude des peuples balkaniques a l' egard des Turcs page 583 mentions It is worth mentioning separately the Albanians who had formerly emigrated to the south, in the Greek areas. These Albanians of Orthodox religion participated actively in all Greek national movements, not as Albanians but as Greeks. In regards to Arvanites who migrated to southern Italy there is a useful mention in the scientific journal Neo Greek memoirs (Νέος Ελληνομνήμων) 20, 1926, page 181 which says Michael Buas and Alexander Mosholeon in 1597 at the Greek church in Naples, Italy were not satisfied with their titles, Magistri Capellani, so they added their ethnic identity, nationis grecae In the 19th century lots of travellers in Southern Albania highlighted how the area still had a very strong Greek element. Victor Berard in his Historiography of Greece page 47 mentions One could name the Tosk area -south of the Genessus‎ (Shkumbin) river- Greek inhabited by Greek Arvanites. In all cafes you could see hanging portraits of the Kings of Greece and the prime minister Tricoupis. This is a small sample of bibliography which contradicts lines in the article that refer to their Albanian origin such as Arvanites in Greece originate from Albanian settlers. Let me know why you think this view shouldn't be included and please try to be less condescending going forward. Oh and there are contradictions even within the wikipedia article itself the way it currently is. Arvanites in Greece originate from Albanian settlers implies that Arvanites evolved into a new population from Albanian settlers but only a few lines above it is mentioned that Byzantine sources of the 11th and 12th centuries already referred to them as Arvanites way before the migrations happened. One more reason why it should stick to geographic origins. Nassis13 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from the first source, which you are taking out of context (the quote does not discuss the Arvanites themselves or the migrations of their ancestors), the other sources you quoted are very old, 16th century-early 20th century. Such old sources date before modern, critical and in-depth scholarship. In newer scholarship there is a clear consensus that Arvanites stem from Albanians; some such sources are in the article if you want to take a look at them. Wikipedia does not care about old, outdated and semi-academic sources if they counter with the consensus held by much newer sources. Oh and there are contradictions even within the wikipedia article itself the way it currently is. Arvanites in Greece originate from Albanian settlers implies that Arvanites evolved into a new population from Albanian settlers but only a few lines above it is mentioned that Byzantine sources of the 11th and 12th centuries already referred to them as Arvanites way before the migrations happened. There is no "contradiction". "Arvanites" was used in Medieval Greek documents to refer to all Albanians. The first documented Albanian principality is known as Arbanon and Arvanon and so on. This discussion has been made many times through the years, and nobody has given any policy-based argument why the Albanian origin of Arvanites shouod be put into doubt. Hence this discussion is pointless. If nobody responds to you again, do not take that as you brought any good arguments. Take it as nobody is willing to waste time discussing an issue that is never brought up in serious scholarship. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good arguments :) It is remarkable that an individual who wants to prove that Vasiliev doesn't consider the Arvanites to be of Albanian origin, simply posted a random quote about Albanians being part of the Byzantine Empire. Of course, if he actually read what Vasiliev has to say about the subject he will not find a single validation of what Nassis13 seems to think about this work: Vasiliev (History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453, Volume II, p. 615)  It is even more remarkable that Nassis13 didn't post a single source which contradicts anything in historiography but for some reason they think that a source which records that Albanians who had been living in Greece for 400-500 years and fought for the creation of a Greek state as part of the emerging nation-state of Greece contradicts the fact that these are the same people who descend from Albanians who settled in Greece. I don't know what more can be explained to this individual who really should read historiography without picking random quotes which don't even contradict it. The father of Anastas Kullurioti died as a fighter during the Greek War of Independence. This didn't stop Kullurioti from writing a book titled Albanian primer based on the Albanian dialect spoken in Greece.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber Vasiliev's and Ducellier's observations on the ethnic makeup of the region prior to the migrations is what I was referring to. After the migrations began the terms 'Arvanites' and 'Albanians' were used interchangeably by many for better or for worse until recently so it's not surprising that Vasiliev and others did too. ..didn't post a single source which contradicts anything in historiography.. Could you please clarify that? The sources I have posted directly or indirectly infer a different opinion to what is stated in the article. This didn't stop Kullurioti from writing a book titled Albanian primer based on the Albanian dialect spoken in Greece. I don't think anyone disputes that Arvanitika are a Tosk Albanian dialect or that many Arvanites identify closely with Albanians. The majority though don't. The family of Theodoros Kolokotronis actually had an Arvanite last name which they changed to disassociate themselves with anything Albanian. So did many Arvanites during and after the Greek War of Independence. Partly because they had fought against Albanians in the Turkish army in the war so they wanted nothing to do with them and partly because of stigma in Greek society. I'm only talking about their origins though so this somewhat irrelevant. Nassis13 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from the first source, which you are taking out of context (the quote does not discuss the Arvanites themselves or the migrations of their ancestors).. It discusses the ethnic makeup of the region where they came from just before the migrations happened. the other sources you quoted are very old, 16th century-early 20th century. Such old sources date before modern, critical and in-depth scholarship. These old sources you refer to can be found in modern, critical and in-depth scholarship. Do you imply that modern historical research doesn't or shouldn't take into account contemporary written historical records and oral tradition? What about international observers from the 19th-early 20th centuries? Should their writings be dismissed? My issue is that there is a range of sources which when taken into account form a different narrative in contrast to the 'consensus' which you talk about. Wikipedia does care about not being one-sided. "Arvanites" was used in Medieval Greek documents to refer to all Albanians "Arvanites" was initially (11th and 12th centuries) used to describe a very specific population and and it hasn't been definitely resolved whether the two terms were interchangeable at the time. Even if they were interchangeable during the middle ages, then by definition phrases like Arvanites are a bilingual population group in Greece of Albanian origin are an oxymoron e.g. I am Arvanitis of Arvanites origin.. The first documented Albanian principality is known as Arbanon and Arvanon and so on. This is not really relevant. What is more relevant is the cultural and linguistic distinction within that geographic area between Tosks (who the Arvanites originate from) and the Ghegs and how during the invasions from the Normans, Franks, Venetians, Serbians and the Ottomans many of the Tosk Arvanites chose to migrate to Greece to maintain their language, culture and Greek Orthodox religion in contrast to the Ghegs who largely stayed. So yes, there is an argument to be made that Tosk Arvanites that moved to Greece and southern Italy actually originated from Greek or mixed populations in southern Albania and they are not of 'Albanian origin'. This is indirectly supported by Novembre, J., Johnson, T., Bryc, K. et al. Genes mirror geography within Europe. Nature 456, 98–101 (2008). This genetic study shows that Southern Albanians are very close to Greeks genetically. In fact closer than they are to Northern Albanians. This discussion has been made many times through the years, and nobody has given any policy-based argument why the Albanian origin of Arvanites shouod be put into doubt. Hence this discussion is pointless. If nobody responds to you again, do not take that as you brought any good arguments. Take it as nobody is willing to waste time discussing an issue that is never brought up in serious scholarship. Loads of scholars, contemporary and modern, have provided evidence to support a non-Albanian origin for the Arvanites. I provided a couple of samples. Anyone who looks it up will find hundreds of studies and books on the subject. In any case, I am not arguing for one side or the other. This argument is often brought up in serious scholarship and very often in casual discussion so it should be presented here. Dismissing it and refusing to engage is your right. Good day. Nassis13 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nassis13 is posting narratives which have nothing to do with bibliography. They were asked to highlight where exactly these "different narratives" exist and they falsely claimed that historians like Ducellier and Vasilier support a "different narrative". Nassis13 posted another long WP:FORUM post without sources which contained ahistorical narratives which exist nowhere in bibliography e.g. . Not a single Albanian group migrated to Greece in the Middle Ages to "maintain their language, culture and Greek Orthodox religion". Albanian language and culture were not "threatened" by any Norman or Venetian invasion and almost all Albanian migrations in Greece occurred because they were invited by regional powers like the Venetians or the Catalans to settle as mercernaries in depopulated lands - the same powers which Nassis13 seems to think that Arvanites were running away from. Northern and southern Albanian lineages are in fact the same and they branch out mostly during the Middle Ages. There is also a clear distinction in genetic geneaology between lineages which were spread by Albanians and lineages which may have existed among medieval Greeks - there is no such overlapping as the one Nassis13 wants to claim. Nassis13 doesn't seem to want to engage with bibliography, hence there's nothing more that can be done in the context of wikipedia. Bibliography doesn't support their views and they shouldn't use the talkpage any longer as a personal WP:FORUM, nor should they claim that historians which clearly don't support their views do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber The Christian Orthodox population of Arvanon was under pressure from Venice and the local aristocracy to convert to Catholicism, but they refused. This pressure however forced many of them to move south. Another major reason for the move was the establishment of a feudal system by the Franks and Venice which turned free farmers and soldiers into subjects of feudal lords. Again this can be found in Ducellier. Les Albanais en Grèce aux XIIIème-XVème siècles: Une migration communautaire. Has anyone actually read the thing? The geographic, cultural and ethnical separation between north and south Albania is already mentioned in ancient times in Strabo Geographica, Procopius History of the Wars, books V and VI and more recently by George Stanford in Ethnology-European-Greece-Turkey, p.8, Alfred Gillieron in Greek-Turkish Ethnology, p.38 and other sources already mentioned in a previous post. This is not a personal forum. It started out as a request to add a new section to the article that explores an issue which actually exists. Every claim I have made here is backed up by sources. Whether old or new, these sources are cited in current bibliography published within the last 30 years and there for all to see. It didn't just materialise in my head. On the contrary I haven't seen a constructive response from anyone. All I see is bland dismissals without any backing up. Based on this experience I am certain I have engaged with bibliography more than any other user who has posted here so far. It doesn't seem like this discussion will lead anywhere and unfortunately it confirms the widely known fact that anything on wikipedia should be taken with a pinch of salt. Nassis13 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nassis13, you came here to this discussion with a very specific request: that we should avoid calling the medieval settlers "Albanians". It should be obvious to yourself that if you want to support this suggestion with sources, you can't do that by pointing to sources which, all of them, are doing exactly what you want us not to do: call the medieval settlers Albanians. It doesn't matter how many other things you cite from sources, about Ghegs or Tosks or Venice or Franks or whatnot, you need sources that support this one specific point. And it won't be enough to point to sources that might themselves scrape by without explicitly calling them Albanians, or sources that "indirectly" (as you claimed) suggested what you perceive of as some "other view" – you need sources that explicitly and openly argue for the view that they weren't Albanians, and shouldn't be called that. Not that some of their later descendants weren't, but that the medieval settlers themselves weren't. Not that they were (also) Greeks, because that is not a contradiction to (also) being Albanians. Not that they were then called by some other historical name, but that they shouldn't be called by that name now. You need sources – multiple, high-quality source – that explicitly say: the people who settled in the south and became the ancestors of today's Arvanites weren't Albanians but something else. You haven't got such sources? No, of course you don't. Debate over. It ended just like a couple dozen similar discussions have ended here in the past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I originally said, remove the references to ethnic origins and simply keep the geographic origins? The issue of their original ethnic identity should be presented in a different section where the reader can see all arguments. So no I didn't come here with a very specific request: that we should avoid calling the medieval settlers "Albanians". Please don't take my words out of context.
 * You need sources – multiple, high-quality source – that explicitly say: the people who settled in the south and became the ancestors of today's Arvanites weren't Albanians but something else. You haven't got such sources? There are no sources saying that they were not Albanians just like there are no sources saying they were not Greeks, or leprechauns who came to Greece on flying horses. I have provided sources that infer directly that the original Arvanites homeland was ethnically Greek and this should be in the article. You keep saying I don't provide quality sources and yet here they are. Yet the sources in the article and the ones here in this talk that support an Albanian origin simply refer to them as Albanians and barely dig into the ethnic makeup of the region where they came from at the times before they left. You can call me Albanian because I sound like one or dress like one but if I came from Chile maybe you should dig a bit more.
 * You responses are dismissive and aggressive and it's a pain talking to you. I'm done. Hopefully someone with an open mind will look at this talk in the future and judge for themselves. Nassis13 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for when future, more open-minded editors acknowledge the Arvanites of Chile. Alltan (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for at least putting up the effort to create this thread against this dismissive and aggressive culture of Wikipedia that seems to have appeared in this article. Lmagoutas (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I have removed Biris (1960) (the 1998 edition is a republication). The book titled Arvanites: the Dorians of New Hellenism is - obviously - not a reliable source written by an amateur folklorist and it has no academic value. The other two books are primary sources from the 19th century which should be discussed via modern sources to the extent that modern sources consider them significant enough. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Age alone does not make a source unreliable. Johann Georg von Hahn is a very well-known source, used throughout wikipedia, and cited by Vasiliev, an eminent scholar. There is also nothing wrong with using the 1893 Greek census. I also note that Philippson's 19th century map (another "19th century source") doesn't seem to bother you. Why is that? Not that I mind having Alfred Philippson in there, as he is another eminent scholar and a fine source. Anyway, these are major changes and need to be discussed in the talkpage in accordance with WP:BRD, and not the usual edit-warring tactics. Khirurg (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Vassiliev can stay, although a more modern source would be better. A random Greek author from the 19th century is not RS and neither is Biris. Nishjan (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not want to get involved but, you realise that there is a fair number of petty random albanian authors included in the project that fall under RS? A random author does not necessary mean that is not RS. Othon I (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No random Albanian authors from the 19th century are cited in any article. If you find any, remove them. And I didn't remove any information which someone can't add back by using modern sources. My original edit is exclusively about the need to not use 19th century sources in a direct manner. If they had any impact in research can only be examined via modern sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Biris is not RS in any way, shape or form and this source cannot be included in any article. It's just a fringe publication which is not academic. If such a source is RS or not cannot be made a subject of debate. It's not a "major change". I literally just removed a book calling Arvanites "Dorians of New Hellenism" and 19th century publications which shouldn't be discussed directly but via a critical and modern examination.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * (in Vakalopoulos 1970) This is the source which considered reliable enough to revert twice back to the article. If he considers it RS, I suggest that he add this part of the source in the article as well.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Biris reliable in any way, and I have no objection to his removal. I very much object to removing Philippson's data, but keeping his map. That is highly dishonest. Khirurg (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't even say that I object the inclusion of Philippson's data. I clarified that anyone can add back any information discussed by a 19th century source but via a modern source. If anyone is willing to search for it, I'm certain that they will be able to find at least one modern source which discusses the subject. The map is used as a historical map from the relevant period as is done in all articles. It's not meant to be used in the same context as the article's bibliography - none of the historical maps has such a use.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Mention of their Greek ethnic identity, addition to history and clarification regarding their language
I have just edited the article with some changes I discussed at length previously. Keeping in mind suggestions from other users and Wikipedia's rules, proper citations have been provided for all changes and no piece of the article that was already there has been removed. These changes do not contradict any of Wikipedia's rules or best practices therefore I expect all the changes I made to remain there. However, if there are any suggestions for improvement or if someone thinks there are errors then these please present your view here. Nassis13 (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See:WP:NPOV and WP:RSHISTORY. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Demetrios1993
 * Partial rv; including content that is extraordinary, and for which there was no consensus in the previous discussion. There is nothing extraordinary about this content. It's content that is already widely known and purposefully ignored in this article. Previously discussed at length here and brushed aside. Abadzi (2011) is a psychologist. Keep in mind the source is a published paper in a peer reviewed journal and you deleted it because the author is a psychologist. Some of the best anthropologists come from a psychology background. Athanasopoulos (2005) is a non-academic author. He cites and discusses previously published research. His book looks directly into the subject of their origins rather than many other sources cited here which discuss other topics and might make a mention of their origins which is then it's quoted here as fact. Also, as per WP:RSHISTORY This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement. Skarić (1935) is too old for such a controversial statement. There are multiple old sources in this article and plenty from the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s which don't seem to bother anyone. Besides there is no reason why older research shouldn't be quoted especially if it has also been used in modern publications. Furthermore, most citations are either unreliable, old,. No more unreliable or older than other citations already existing in this article. Also it's interesting how bits where removed while others were kept even though the authors are are either unreliable, old. In any case as per WP:VRUM If there is a source that you believe to be misrepresented, or not reliable, or invalid for any other reason, the matter should be raised on the article's talk page. Nassis13 (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources you are either inappropriate for the claims you are making, or else misquoted or misused (as in the case of the memoirs). Strong claims, such as the ones you are making, require strong sources, which is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are extraordinary claims made by non-specialists or old sources. WP:VRUM is an essay, not a policy; so is WP:HISTRS. On the other hand, WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:UNDUE are actual policies. You already know that there is no consensus for what you are trying to add, as was explained to you in the previous discussion; nothing was brushed aside, and per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Furthermore, the reliability of a source can be affected by either the type of the work, its creator, or the publisher; per WP:SOURCEDEF. A source being published in a journal doesn't automatically mean it is reliable, and in the case of Abadzi's (2011) article, i seriously doubt the quality of the so-called peer-review process; a footnote at the end of the article's first page reads:
 * p. 41: Helen Abadzi is a Greek educational psychologist and an employee of the World Bank. This essay represents only the author's views.
 * Abadzi's (2011) analysis and commentary cannot be deemed reliable because she is not a specialist in the subject. Athanasopoulos (2005) didn't even go to a university. He worked as a senior executive at the Skaramangas and Elefsina shipyards, and was active as a trade unionist; he is not a reliable author when it comes to historical matters, and this is even more important because he is one of the sources that is cited by Abadzi for the statement that, at least since the 15th century, the Arvanites seemed to consider themselves Greek. She also cites Koroneos' (1519) poem on the deeds of Mercurio Bua, who was a stratioti captain from Nafplio. Something that the aforementioned non-specialists seem to be ignorant of, is that the Albanian/Arvanite stratioti of Nafplio not only didn't consider themselves Greek, but they had insisted to serve under Albanian captains, and even had a different priest from the Greeks; though, both communities were Orthodox Christian. A feeling shared by the Greeks as well. Here is what academic historian Katerina Korre (2017) [2015] wrote:
 * p. 108: Στο Ναύπλιο, μέχρι και τη δεύτερη δεκαετία του 1500, μνημονεύεται η ύπαρξη πρωτοπαπά των Ελλήνων και πρωτοπαπά των Αλβανών, που ήταν ορθόδοξοι και οι δύο – κάτι που δεν είχε προκύψει σε καμιά άλλη βενετική κτήση. Επίσης, ενώ παλαιότεροι stradioti, προερχόμενοι από περιοχές του Μοριά, βρίσκονταν σε κοινές ομάδες ιππέων με Έλληνες, ντόπιους ή Μοραΐτες, οι νεότεροι stradioti αρνούνταν κατά κανόνα να υπηρετήσουν υπό Έλληνα αρχηγό. Κάτι αντίστοιχο απαίτησαν και πολλοί Έλληνες μισθοφόροι.
 * Andrea Gramaticopolo (2016), another academic historian, similarly writes that the rivalry between the two ethnic groups was a constant concern for Venice:
 * p. 8: La rivalità fra l'elemento greco e quello albanese, sfociata spesso in atti di insubordinazione, specialmente nei confronti di comandanti appartenenti alla nazionalità rivale, costituì un elemento di costante preoccupazione per Venezia.
 * It should be noted that after some time of cohabitation these rivalries were mitigated; but still, the above statements contradict the claim that 15th/16th century Albanians viewed themselves as Greeks. You also cited Kolokotronis' memoirs to support your claim that his father, Konstantinos Kolokotronis, was a Greek Arvanite, which is a total misreprestantion of the source, and constitutes original research. Kolokotronis clearly identified only as a Greek in his memoirs; neither as an Arvanite, nor as a Greek Arvanite. For example, among other similar quotes:
 * The prayer of a father for his sons was that he might become a Klepht. The Klephtship afterwards lost its authority. In my father's time it was a sacred thing for a Greek to undertake.
 * When I entered Tripolitsa they showed me a plane tree in the market-place where the Greeks had always been hung. I sighed. "Alas!" I said, "how many of my own stock—of my own race—have been hung there!" And I ordered it to be cut down. I felt some consolation then from the slaughter of the Turks.
 * I saw by the style of his conversation that Cockrane had some ideas of his own, and therefore I answered him as a Greek, who also had ideas of his own too.
 * If i judge from a quote of yours in the previous discussion (diff), it is apparent that you base your claim on improper editorial synthesis. The so-called surname you refer to was never a surname; it was a nickname (μπιθεκούρας) given to his grandfather Giannis, which was then translated by him into his mother tongue (Greek), and thence passed on to the descendants as a surname. On top of that, this wasn't even the original surname; we know members of the family going back to the 1500s. Furthermore, here is what John Milios (2023), who was cited in the article a couple of weeks ago, had to say about Konstantinos Kolokotronis:
 * pp. 79–80: The revolt in the Peloponnese was quashed by armed bands of Albanian-speaking Mohammedans. Yet these forces went on to engage in systematic slaughter and pillaging throughout the region, which resulted in the Ottoman army turning against them. In fact, during this stage, the Greek-speaking klephts and armatoloi, amongst who was Constantinos Kolokotrones, father of the pre-eminent leader of the 1821 Revolution, Theodoros Kolokotrones, fought alongside the Ottoman army against the armed Albanian bands. Theodoros Kolokotrones describes the events in his memoirs as follows:...
 * I could add more, but it doesn't matter. The point is that the claim you made in the article about Konstantinos, is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS; a policy. As for some non-controversial statements that were removed regarding the group's history and language, i am sure that if we look around a little, we will find a more reliable source than Athanasopoulos (2005), to support them. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of what I would add to the discussion, has already been mentioned by Demetrios. I don't think that Nassis should add again content which doesn't have consensus and doesn't correspond to what relevant bibliography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You do raise good points. If anything I respect how, rather than disregarding everything I claimed like some other users did, you removed the content you feel was wrongly added and kept what you think is appropriate. I still find it funny that the vey first sentence of the article which refers to their 'Albanian origins' is quoted from a study which doesn't explore these origins but simply refers to them without looking at the makeup of the area where they originated from and goes on to examine a different subject. As does the rest of the article where their ethnicity is only examined in the period after the migrations. Also noted in the article is the fact that the words Arvanite and Albanian were used interchangeably which complicates claims that one originated from the other. In any case, I will revert with more appropriate sources as I feel there are still some gaps and misconceptions.
 * Also, It should be noted that after some time of cohabitation these rivalries were mitigated; but still, the above statements contradict the claim that 15th/16th century Albanians viewed themselves as Greeks. Rivalries can exist within subgroups of a population for various reasons. Regardless, this is not proof that they viewed themselves as a different ethnic group.
 * they had insisted to serve under Albanian captains, and even had a different priest from the Greeks. They had insisted to serve under one of their own. Again, Arvanite and Albanian were used interchangeably at the time as mentioned in the article. I still maintain that Skaric's quote is valid whether it contradicts other citations or not. Nassis13 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)