Talk:Souliotes/Archive 11

Better balanced section on identity and lead
It seems to me that the section discussing the identity of the Souliotes is badly built, in a manner that minimizes associations with Albanians and maximizes those with Greece/Greeks. Some improvements are necessary in the lead too, but let's start with this section. I will list here the main issues.
 * - The structure of the section does not fit its purpose. A section dedicated to identity, ethnicity and language, cannot start with a description of the Ottoman millet system. It should start with what is known about the identity of the Souliotes, first how they self-identify, then how others identify them, then political elements related to identity may follow.
 * - Despite the section being clearly intended to describe ethnicity, several sentences press on the fact that nationality was not important yet, which is true but irrelevant, as that is not what is being discussed. As far as I am aware, no one has ever attempted to associate Souliotes with the Albanian nation and nationalism on this page, so such negations are unnecessary.
 * - Some Greek associations are overemphasized. In two occasions, two different authors are quoted twice for making the same or very similar points.

I will start improvements from the latter and work upwards. I welcome other contributions meanwhile. Çerçok (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That there is any kind of minimization is your own impression only. I certainly don't think anything is "minimized" or "maximized". An explanation of the Ottoman millet system is absolutely necessary. We can't just assume readers are familiar with this. Regarding self-identification, one of the first sentences is literally "they had a strong local identity", which is self-identification. The sentences you added from Mazower can be merged somewhere, I don't think there is a need for a separate section. Regarding the lede, the current version, especially the opening sentence, was agreed upon by painstaking consensus involving multiple editors. I strongly advice against any major unilateral changes without consensus first. Khirurg (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think that Mazower's observation about Souliot self-understanding in 1821-22 should be incorporated into the section discussing the participation of the Souliots in the Greek War of Independence, but could someone please point to the talk page discussion that reached an agreement regarding the formulation of first sentence of the lead (which I do not find entirely satisfactory)? Thanks in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to add this to that section, I would personally be OK with it, but it should not be removed from the section on identity. This section deals precisely with what the quote mentions. I created a separate sub-section (still within the existing section on identity) because it has an important distinction with the rest of the sources: this is self-identification, the other sources present descriptions and identification from others, be it other Albanians, Greeks or foreigners. Çerçok (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

GOC and Souliotes

 * do you have any sources suggesting that the Souliotes were not members of the Greek Orthodox Church? Your edit suggested that, by pointing to bibliography, which, however, specifies that they were members of the Greek Orthodox Church which was governed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The sources not only are indisputable about this, but there is also academic consensus about this. There are absolutely no reliable sources claiming that they were not subjects of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except the Russian propaganda sources which however the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard has discouraged the Wikipedians from using across Wikipedia especially in the recent times. Russian political revisionism which has targeted the history of Ottoman Christians and even lays claims on Mount Athos by challenging the Ecumenical Patriarchate's jurisdiction on former Ottoman lands, should have no place in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, would you explain your edit here? It eludes me how the ambiguous term "Eastern Orthodox Church" is restored to the lead of the article even though the main body of the article never used this term. The main body of the article says: "Religiously, Souliotes belonged to the Church of Constantinople, part of the larger Greek Orthodox Church." Per WP:LEAD, the information should be mentioned on the lede which already mentions the Patriarchate but not the Greek Orthodox Church whose jurisdiction was the Rum Millet.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, SR. Hope you're well. I prefer the term "Eastern Orthodox" as well for historical reasons as since the 18th and 19th centuries "Greek Orthodox" has a more specific and restricted meaning.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yous stated: "I prefer the term "Eastern Orthodox"" You prefer this, but the lede should reflect on the article, not on personal preferences. Since you asked from others to have their edits reflect on the main body of the article, then the same is true for you as well: You are asked to have your edits reflect on the main body of the article, per WP:LEDE. You stated: "as well for historical reasons as since the 18th and 19th centuries "Greek Orthodox" has a more specific and restricted meaning." which is unfortunate to hear from you because this sounds like exactly what I tried to warn about above. Sorry but no, the WP:RS about Souliotes are indisputable on this and you should not mix them with politics. The academic consensus is clear here as it was for a very long time: the Souliotes were members of the Greek Orthodox Church and the fact that the Eastern Orthodox world became slavic-majority and led by Moscow is irrelevant to this article which is about the Ottoman subjects and later Greek subjects, which remained, both in Ottoman and later in Greek times, members of the GOC. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we should be flexible in how we use terms and have as a criterion for picking them that the terms we pick should make things clearer and not more obfuscated. I think that "Eastern Orthodox" is a clearer term combined with "Albanian", but when you say "Greek Orthodox" which has a dual meaning since the 19th century, it becomes more complex for the average reader. I wouldn't be opposed to the phrasing: How does this look to you?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "My opinion is that we should be flexible in how we use terms and have as a criterion for picking them that the terms we pick should make things clearer and not more obfuscated." Be flexible? Obfuscated? Clearer? Sorry but do you realize that we are basically discussing whether we WP:OR here? I shall remind everyone that the issues with the Patriarchate and Moscow have become a very important and sensitive topic area lately. I am vehemently against edits that might suggest that the subjects of the Ottoman Empire were anything less than the Patriarchate's subjects. Any proposals based on your personal preferences and opinions to have EoC included at all costs, and exclude either the EP or the GoC, or both, is basically to deviate from the facts stated in the article. I am here to discuss based on these facts and only. That means, anything else less than that will not find me agreeing since it is WP:POV. The generic "Eastern" will have to go. Moscow may led the EoC since then, but these tribes were subjects of the GoC only. You may come and call me an anti-Russian. Maybe I am. But we really have to be precise and WP:NEUTRAL, as to avoid any problems. Now, about your proposal. I believe it is a positive step in the right direction, however a compromise is required, not a mere re-writing. The EoC has to be removed. If you allow me, I'm taking your proposal and rewriting it:




 * How it sounds? It may replace the whole following paragraph (but not the sources) which, at the time I was writing this, was in your active revision of the article:




 * Are we good? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the Eastern vs Greek Orthodox debate, I think keeping "of Albanian origin" in the first sentence is better than the second sentence you proposed here, which gets into a disputable detail about the time of settlement. Çerçok (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing this into "They were of Albanian origin originating from Albanian clans" is exactly where we are crossing the NPOV lines and this whole (pardon me) obsession of yours with the term "Albanian" is evidently becomes too WP:POVPUSHING even to the unexperienced editors. By any encyclopedic standards, it is just too redundant. But it makes me realize why you didn't want the "Greek Orthodox" in the article lede: To avoid semiological confusion with the Greek nation. Right? I think I was quite clear to you at the War of Independence's Talk page: Their Albanian origin is not disputed (at least not by me) or hidden (in the Maleschreiber's proposal here). It is there. And to make the (supposedly) clear things even more clear: Greek Orthodox here is not an ethnicity, is just how the religion was and still is called even at the times where the Greeks called themselves Romans (Rum), not Greeks. Please don't confuse Greek Orthodox with Greek. They are not the same. For example there are Greek Orthodox Americans who aren't Greek nationals. Or Greek Orthodox Germans, Turks, Australians, and more, who have nothing to do with Greece and the Greeks. I will appreciate if editors stop complicating things too much and bar themselves behind national lines. This is undermining any prospects for compromise which is required here, or else we can't move towards. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Indeed, "Greek Orthodox" and the Greek nation are two completely separate things. There are plenty of Greek Orthodox faithful that are not ethnically Greek, as Silent Resident points out. Saying they were "Greek Orthodox" does not in any way they had an ethnic Greek origin. Khirurg (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I said keeping "of Albanian origin" instead of the second sentence you wrote, so clearly "originating from Albanian clans" would be removed (as it is part of the second sentence). Once again you are quick to misunderstand (unless this is your strawman strategy?) and write the usual half a page of speculations about my motivations. Çerçok (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) The problem with "Eastern Orthodox" is that it is extremely vague. There are literally dozens of "Eastern Orthodox" churches (Antiochian, Russian, etc). Yet for the Souliotes, there is no ambiguity at all: They were under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which the Greek Orthodox Church. Referring to them as "Eastern Orthodox" just seems like a way to avoid saying the word "Greek". Khirurg (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From the institution of the millet of the Romans in the second half of the nineteenth century all Orthodox Christians subjects of the Ottoman Sultan fell under the jurisdiction of the (Greek-Orthodox) Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. This would necessarily be the case for the Souliots as well from that point in time onwards. However, this was an event that took place in the final decades that the Soulitos resided in their remote abode. Why it is so important as to mention the "Rum millet" so early in the introduction, as if the Souliots were somehow influenced by the millet-building efforts that developped in the 19th century with the Tanzimat etc? Moreover, I think it is not of no significance that in no short description of who the Souliots were in scholarly sources that I have read, in English or in Greek, they are never described in the manner that has been proposed here ("a Greek Orthodox community"). I mean, not once. Is it perhaps the case that the experience of other editors is different? If yes, could you plese point to scholarly sources that adopt such a way of presenting the Souliots? If no, and what do they make of this fact when it comes to writing the first sentence of the article's introduction?


 * My (perhaps limited) overview of the scholarship suggests that there are four elements that are usually present in introductory descriptions of the Souliots to readers: (a) their Orthodox Christianity, (b) their Albanian character due to their language (c) the tribal/clan-based character of their society and (d) their association with their place, Souli. I think that this article's introduction and especially its first sentence should reflect this. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the main reason for their notability is their contribution to the Greek War or Independence. If it wasn't for that, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Khirurg (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it is correct. The Souliots were notable and renowned as fierce warriors even in Western audiences since the time of their wars with Ali pasha and they had gained a reputation before the Greek war of independence had begun -- see, for example the info contained in this recent edit of mine. Even if this were the case, which I must confess I am not persuaded it is, I fail to see why it follows that the article's first sentence should be formulated in order to present the Soulitos as "Greek Orthodox" contrary to what is usually done in contemporary scholarship. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Added SR's latest proposal for the lead. The majority agree that the lead sentence has to summarize certain key aspects about them. Botushali (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am ok with both versions proposed by User:SilentResident. Since the second is being chosen by the others, I support it too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree as well with the second proposal. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am writing this message in order to point out that despite the fact that three editors assert above that they support "SR's latest proposal for the lead", what has been oddly restored is not SR's proposal, but the formulation that he argued against.
 * I wrote earlier that I found the previous incarnation of the first sentence of the lead "unsatisfactory". I still do. First, there is no mention of the tribal character of the Souliot society. I think this is of paramount importance and should be included in the first sentence of the introduction. Second, I do not get why the Albanian origins of the Souliots are given such prominence so as to be mentioned in the first sentence. The brief characterisations of the Souliots as "Albanians" in sources or as "Arvanites" in the eyes of their Greek-speaking contemporaries, was not done vith a view to an opinion about their origins, which could not be ascertained using the means that people had at their disposal at the time to explore the distant past. What made them "Abanians"/"Arvanites" was the fact that they spoke Albanian. It seems to me that the reference to their Albanian origins should be removed from the first sentence and included to another part of the lead, in accordance with what both Maleschreiber and SilentResident had already proposed and be substituted by a reference to their spekaing Albanian. I also don't understand why the Souliots are described as "Eastern Orthodox" and not as "Orhodox Christian", which is more common. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am OK with what you propose too. As long as the lede is easy to understand for readers and neutral, it is good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ashmedai 119, you are right. Regarding what you wrote about: "I also don't understand why the Souliots are described as "Eastern Orthodox" and not as "Orhodox Christian", which is more common", is something that finds me absolutely agreeing with you and sharing your reasoning. There is a good reason this a term, EO, was not even used in the main body of the article in the first place. Per WP:LEDE the EO has to go. As for the EP, it has to be mentioned on lede (not necessarily at beginning, anywhere is fine, or have its wikilink use a more suitable term if necessary; I am open to any compromises). These two will cover my concerns. Thank you very much. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. In my opinion a good first sentence would be "The Souliotes were a Christian Orthodox community of Albanian origin in the area of Souli, Epirus". Çerçok (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * and hey stop with reverts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ops, I think that the intro should stay stable until consensus is reached. Jingiby (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking into accounts the views expressed in this section (by Ktrimi991, SilentResident, Maleschreiber, myselt et alios) and also points raised by others, especially Alexikoua and Khirurg, in sections further down this talk page, I believe it becomes clear that there are two contrasting demands concerning the first sentence of the introductions: that it presents the identity of the article's subject matter both in respect of its Albanian origins as well its eventual assimilation in the Greek national community. I believe it is feasible to express both in a concise way that fuflills the criteria of readability and neutrality mentioned by Ktrimi above. May I dare propose a version of this myself? I am thinking of something along the following lines: "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian-speaking tribal community, settled in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 16th till the 19th century, that came to identify with the Greek nation". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect by me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the second part should sounds clearer as follows:... that during the rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, came to identify with the Greek nation" Jingiby (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All sounds good to me. Great work. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced by this proposal, the term "Albanian-speaking" does not indicate enough that the community had an Albanian origin. Furthermore, I believe that the sentence is way too long and not very clear. In this regard I would change the beginning to:  I also believe that the association with the Greek nation should not be mentioned in the first sentence as they are not only known for that and it gives a false impression that the events in-between were "skipped". Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that they fought on the Greek side of the War of Independence and enthusiastically assimilated into the Greek nation is actually far more significant than their "origins". This is what they wanted, and gave their lives for. Khirurg (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they also gave their lives for plunder, paid service, etc. You want to include pillagers and mercenaries in the first sentence? I would not. Çerçok (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I also am not persuaded with the proposal. "Albanian speaking" infers that that's were the Albanian part ends. This is absolutely not the case. They were of Albanians, with all the cultural markers that come along with that. They were not "Albanian-speaking Greeks" as has been proposed by some. I believe we can do better than this. The current version seems good enough I may say, especially when compared to its counterparts. Alltan (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Alltan, the current revision is not going to stay. It doesn't reflect on the article body and lacks consensus. Not everybody is satisfied with Ashmedai's proposal, and that's what, in my eyes, makes it successful. Because it takes alittle bit from all of us. For example I wanted the Greek Orthodox Church to be mentioned since it was the only body that had jurisdiction across the Ottoman Empire. Ashmedai's proposal drops it out completely. But you wont hear me complaining about that because I know compromises are necessary here if we are to move forward. Asking for a revision that satisfies me but leaves everyone else dissastisfied is doing the opposite. A mutual compromise is required to reach a wp:consensus that can work for us all. Thats what is what makes Ashmedai's proposal perfect given the current circumstances. Ashmedai, above, has made some very valid points backed by the bibliography and the academic consensus which none here was able to refute and his proposal is based on these indisputable facts. So, yes, their proposal is our best bet if we really care about the article's stability and achieve WP:NEUTRAL. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Albanian-speaking" must go. "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian tribal community of Albanian origin, settled in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 16th till the 19th century, that over time acculturated/assimilated into with the Greek nation". Smth like this would be better, while also being completely factual. Alltan (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course you do. But you arent the editor here. There are many editors here and everybody has to sacrifice something. You wanted something, as I did want something too. You wanted an ethnic Albanian origin to be mentioned and I wanted the Greek Orthodox church to be mentioned. We compromise, cooperate and achieve a balanced proposal. That's how Wikipedia works. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * the issue with your proposal is that the most important thing about the Souliotes is not that they gradually Hellenized. Not to mention that their identity in various periods is up to debate - fluid identities have never been unfamiliar in the Balkans. Furthermore, "Albanian-speaking" actually gives the impression that they spoke Albanian only, while they seem to have been bilingual. I would make this wording instead: The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian tribal community in the area of Souli, in Epirus. Of Albanian origin, they are known for their military prowess, their resistance to the local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha, and their contribution to the Greek cause in the Greek War of Independence. This is not the best thing one can imagine but at least it seems to satisfy everyone who has commented so far. If people do not agree, I leave up to them to make another wording or revert back to the stable version. It is much effort and time for an obscure tribe of an obscure region, tbh. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a big no, I am afraid. Its an unacceptable proposal since it gives the one side everything and at same time it ignores everything the other editors argued about. Your proposal gives the one side all they wanted (they get to keep the mention of Albanian origin and remove that of the Greek Orthodox Church). Purely one-sided proposal like that ain't going to be accepted in any way. Taking everything and dismissing the other editor's concerns is not a constructive approach and definitely not neutral. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The editors here should think about Ashmedai's proposal which seeks a mutual compromise from all editors, or else we go with my proposal which adds the information both sides wanted to be present on the article. The proposals are here, what we need is editorial will for a mutual compromise. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not be afraid. In the same sentence one has the Albanian origin and their contribution to the Greek cause. When Ashmedai omitted "Greek Orthodox" it was not a problem for you. Keep edit warring with other editors, that proposal was all I had to say. Btw instead of "local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha" it should simply be "local ruler Ali Pasha". Their conflict was not due to him being an Ottoman, let alone being an Albanian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw if "Greek Orthodox" is so important, then if we go with such details the fact that many RS in the article describe the Souliotes as Albanians, not Greeks, needs to be added. If you want many details, here they are. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best proposal yet. It addresses everything in a factual matter and is not one sided. However I would ask if it is possible to modify the part about resistance to Ali Pasha? At the end of his rule, he and the Souliotes were allied and in close cooperation with each other. Other than that I believe this is the kind of neutral, balanced and fair proposals the Balkan area desperately needs. Alltan (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am very disappointed that even today there are so many people who would argue anything just to avoid the word Albanian even where it belongs. We need to compromise among us but not against facts. We all know the truth and we are dancing around it: the Souliotes were simply Christian Albanians for centuries until 1821, then they played an important role in the Greek revolution and embraced Greek nationhood. The introduction should manipulate these simple facts. I do not understand what is the problem with "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian tribal community of Albanian origin in the area of Souli, in Epirus. They are known for..." Çerçok (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi991, you have stated: "Do not be afraid. In the same sentence one has the Albanian origin and their contribution to the Greek cause. When Ashmedai omitted "Greek Orthodox" it was not a problem for you. Keep edit warring with other editors, that proposal was all I had to say. Btw instead of "local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha" it should simply be "local ruler Ali Pasha". Their conflict was not due to him being an Ottoman, let alone being an Albanian. The history log is here and is the Albanian Topic Area's editors that keep an uncompromising attitude to my removal of EOC. Correct? I mean, The info about the Greek cause was always there. Both on the main body and the lede. The info about the Albanian ethnic origin was always there. Both on main body and lede. The info about Greek Orthodox Church was always there. Both on main body and lede. And look where we are at, now. I removed Eastern Orthodox which wasn't on the article's main body and per WP:LEDE shouldn't have a place on lead, but the editors of the Albania topic area reverted me and we went downhill from there. The Souliote contribution to the Greek cause isn't my concern here. Or my.... "fear" if that's how you put it.
 * Also, you stated: "Btw if "Greek Orthodox" is so important, then if we go with such details the fact that many RS in the article describe the Souliotes as Albanians, not Greeks, needs to be added. If you want many details, here they are." Well the difference here, Ktrimi, is that more sources support the Albanian origin, than their Albanian ethnicity. And there are disagreements among the academics about that. On the other hand, no disagreements among them for the fact that the Christian populaces of the Ottoman Empire were members of the Greek Orthodox Church. Absolutely not a single (at least non-Russian) source ever claimed such a thing. There is unanimous consensus about that. So, I will ask. We go with Ashmedai's proposal which removes Albanian ethnic origin, Greek Orthodox Church, and Eastern Orthodox Church, or we go with my proposal which keeps Albanian ethnic origin and Greek Orthodox Chuch (both of which were already in the original stable version of the article). My proposal only removes just the ambiguous EOC per WP:LEDE since it wasn't in the main body of the article. You choose, you pick.
 * Cercok, you stated "I am very disappointed that even today there are so many people who would argue anything just to avoid the word Albanian even where it belongs. We need to compromise among us but not against facts. and I wouldn't agree more. You find me absolutely agreeing with you here. You better ask the editors Maleschreiber and Ahmet Q. who removed Greek Orthodox Church from the lede, in violation of WP:LEDE, even though everybody knew that this term was there for a long time, and is precisely the term used in the article's main body. I will appreciate that instead of showing regret for our actions here, that we seek a compromise that can work for us all. I am patiently waiting for Ktrimi's input to get us past this impasse: have both ethnic origin and church (my proposal), or remove both of them (Ashmedai's)? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, just for the sake of clarity. The situation of what editors are asking for is this. Either we have in the second sentence the origin (Albanian) and the cause (Greek) and that is a good compromise and keeps things simple. Or if the church needs elaboration in the lede, the identity too needs, because many RS describe them as Albanians. In that case the lede should mention both their Greek Orthodox church and the fact that in various academic works they are described as either Greeks or Albanians. If need be, an RfC should be made. My proposal was a good faith one as it ignored many RS in the article that describe them as Albanians. If you do not want to accept my good faith proposal, up to you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with it as far as bibliography/sourcing is concerned. It is a fair and honest proposal. Alltan (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

""The Souliotes were a Greek Orthodox Albanian tribal community settled in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 16th till the 19th century."
 * Until the beginning of the 19th century Suli was a typical Albanian tribal community based on patrilineal kinship ties, tribal chiefs, code of honor/customary law, etc., constituting an ethnografic island that was surrounded by other population groups. Their Albanian cultural aspect is not limited only to the language they spoke. I propose, taking into account other editors' suggestions:


 * This is also in agreement with the wording of Peter Bartl: ("Sulioten") I think this could be the most historically accurate and encyclopaedic leading sentence. – Βατο (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi991, you stated: "Again, just for the sake of clarity. Either we have in the second sentence the origin (Albanian) and the cause (Greek) and that is a good compromise and keeps things simple. Or if the church needs elaboration in the lede, the identity too needs, because many RS describe them as Albanians.″. That's unfortunate to hear. If you are removing without consensus the Greek Orthodox Church which was already on the article and lede for a long time, and then using it as a bargaining tip into forcing other editors to accept your pre-war Identity demands? Talk then about POV disruption.
 * Sorry. That ain't working, I am afraid. You can't condition the restoration of GoC which was already in the article and lede per WP:LEDE just to have your other demands by using someone's edit who was trying to remove EoC per WP:LEDE.
 * Remember that while I myself believe the Souliotes to been a tribe of Albanian origin, (and is the reason you never saw me disputing that), I do acknowledge your concerns on adding pre-war identity to lede. But remember that the others too have expressed some very a valid points about post-war identity as well. You want the pre-war identity to be added? Then you gotta accept the very same sentence their post-war identity as well. That's how Wikipedia works.
 * You argued that pre-war identity has to be accepted on grounds that "many WP:RS support it". True. But, Ktrimi, mind you that the post-war identity isn't just supported by many WP:RS, is supported by all WP:RS. In simple words: there is an overwhelming consensus in the academic community about their post-war identity, with the scholars agreeing in that the Souliotes chose to become Greeks and assimilated into the Greek state, unlike the pre-war one for which there is no unanimous academic consensus.
 * Like how Cercok said: things have to apply evenly: You argue about us reflecting many WP:RS on lede. Including their origin and pre-war identity? Fine. Then, we ask that you do the same as well for the unanimous academic consensus about the post-war identity on the same sentence as well. Either we mention both identities in the same sentence, or none. Only then (I repeat, only then) we can really be in an agreement here and cover all sides here in this talk page.
 * Sorry Ashmedai, this talk page has lost the rare opportunity of accepting your way better and more balancing proposal. But I am hopeful that one day, Wikipedia will be better place and editors won't be focusing so much on national lines over actually improving the article.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The GOC was not in the lede until you added it yesterday or two days ago. The Albanian origin has been in the lede for years, a few days ago it got moved to the first sentence of the lede. And no, many RS just describe them as an Albanian tribe. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On the post-war identity, yes ofc they fully identified with the Greek nation. But were they Souliotes anymore, or just Greeks like many others? Maybe that is the reason why many RS call them Greeks, and many other call them simply Albanians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi, that's incorrect. In fact, the GOC was. The consensus, both academic and editorial, is that the GOC is part of the broader EOC in case you didnt know. Feel free to ask at the Noticeboards, or check your sources. All of them will confirm that GOC is part of EOC However, EOC didn't meet WP:LEDE while GOC did since it was already the term used by the article for a long time. You are reminded that WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, and where terms can be clarified, and since EOC may also cover other unrelated churches, it is recommended that editors are cautious, as to avoid implying something about the Ottoman Empire's Christians which isn't true considering the circumstances of that historical period. The GOC is the only term that is used in the article, and the only one that accurately relates to the subject of the present article, the Souliotes. As an experienced editor, you know that replacing a term which dosen't comply with WP:LEDE with a clarified one which already did for a long time while at same time is retaining its original meaning, is not against WP:CONSENSUS, but maintains it and reinforces it. You are reminded that there has never been a talk page discussion here about EOC's usage to imply something other than the GOC. I looked carefully through the entire talk page and history, and wouldn't find any such discussion or even a consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong!
 * So I will ask: are we in agreement? What will it be? Ashmedai's balanced proposal, Maleschreiber's with the balancing additions? Or the "add them all"?
 * Edit: I think I will retreat for tonight. I will refrain from posting more comments here, and give some time to the rest of the editors to get updated up to this point, and give them room to express their views. And hopefully we will reach a compromise on which proposal is best that can benefit all sides, or at least accept one where all sides make some necessary compromises for the sake of the article's quality, such as Ashmedai's. Personally, this is the one I prefer. I really hope the others give Ashmedai's proposal a chance. Is the most balanced of all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not want to give too much of my time to a tribe that existed more than a century ago. I support whatever the rest agree on. Maybe an "include all" approach would be better, but lets see what the others say. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) Since it seems one side is very keen on "Albanian origin", and another side is very keen on "Greek Orthodox", let's see if "Greek Orthodox community of Albanian tribal origin" might work as a compromise. Khirurg (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I have tried my hand at synthesizing all proposals to find some more room for consensus.Alltan (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not know why we keep going back in circles every time progress is made - their Albanian origin is integral to their history and identity, as is their Orthodox religion and their tribal structure. Why this cannot simply be included within the first line of the lead eludes me entirely. Include all 3 of these in the first sentence of the lead, and the job is done. No need to continue complicating matters. Botushali (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The ethnic origin of populations is important and is almost always mentioned in the first sentences of the lead of an article. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: From the discussion yesterday which ended here I thought we were already had agreement with this statement: "The Souliotes were a Christian Orthodox tribal community of Albanian origin in Souli, Epirus". I believe @Ashmedai 119, @SilentResident, @Ktrimi991 and myself were already OK with this version. Do we all agree with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Çerçok (talk • contribs)
 * I am ok with that, but SR is not. A note btw. One of the things that make the Souliotes notable is the Albanian tribal organization, a topic elaborated by many contemporary western authors. It made them notable as much as did their war capabilities. Hence the Albanian origin should be in the same sentence with the military fame, conflict with Ali Pasha and participation at the Greek war for independence. On the other hand, their Greek Orthodox Church did not make them famous among western authors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * He was in agreement with Ashmedai above to replace Eastern Orthodox with Orthodox Christian, and suggested the EP should be mentioned in the subsequent sentences of the lede, which I also agree with. And I don't think he has a problem with the word Albanian. Anyway, let's see what he thinks. From what I understood this was acceptable. Çerçok (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SilentResident is ok with "Orthodox Christian" as long as the Albanian origin is not in the first or second sentence. I made a new wording of the lede, is it acceptable in your opinion? Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to believe the editors are aware that each element of the Souliote identity has varying levels of notability and academic verification, and we may end up going around in circles indefinitely if we go down the path of... calculating which identity elements are more notable than others (or enjoy wider academic consensus). The editors, are reminded that this topic's section is the GoC which was removed alltogether from lede without a satisfying explanation, even though this term and not EOC, is the one used on the main body of the article and for a good reason. This means, we are not here to start disputing their ethnic origins or their religion's notability. Or even how much academic consensus these bits of information do enjoy. After all, the Souliotes are notable for their actions and struggle against Ali Pasha and the Greek War of Independence than anything else. And these are already covered on led. In our case here, we are unfortunately arguing, not about Ali Pasha or the Greek War of Independence, but for things far less notable than their struggle: their past for which there is no solid academic consensus, and their religion which is even less notable than the other, but enjoys a solid academic consensus.
 * If we are supposed to find a compromise, then I can't understand why shouldn't we choose one of the proposals and put finally an end to this debate and move on with our Wikipedic lives. There are 3 balanced proposals that either sacrifice from both sides, or add from both sides, but some of these proposals are more harmful to the article's quality than others.
 * I don't know what everybody's experiences were in Wikipedia, but personally (from past experiences) I know that the Mediators in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard would be less patient than Ashmedai or I ever were, and likely enforce a proposal that is balanced for both sides, but at same time more damaging to the article. Because, a dispute resolution mediator's concern isn't really the article's overal improvement as is about resolving disputes between different sides. That's why I am repeating my plea to all editors to sacrifice both of the less notable things about Souliotes from lede, like how the Ashmedai's proposal does, and and move on with resolving the dispute in a reasonable time while at same time making the lede better than it is now. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

All of my and everyone else's recent edits have been reverted and restored the last stable version from before the debatable changes happened. My apologies for this. But I can see no other way than waiting for the new WP:CONSENSUS to be reached in the Talk Page. So what will be about the proposals? Can we agree on including everything (include all proposal), some things (Maleschreiber's rebalanced proposal), or none (Ashmedai's proposal)? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but at this point the lines on who's proposal says what are extremely blurred. I'm going to begin with my own proposal, and we can work from there: The Souliotes were an Eastern Orthodox tribal community of Albanian origin from the area of Souli, in Epirus. Known for their military prowess, their resistance to the 18th-19th century local ruler Ali Pasha, and their contribution to the Greek cause in the Greek War of Independence, the Souliotes established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighbouring villages in the remote mountainous areas of Epirus, where they could successfully resist Ottoman rule. At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the community (also called "confederacy") is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants in about 60 villages. They spoke their own Souliotic dialect of Albanian, while they learnt Greek from the neighbouring Greek population. Those interested can speak in favour or against, we need to stop wasting time and reach a consensus. Botushali (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Nope. You disregarded all my concerns about Eastern Orthodox Church! This is unacceptable. "They spoke their own Souliotic dialect of Albanian, while they learnt Greek from the neighbouring Greek population." is more WP:POVPUSHING than the current "They spoke their own Souliotic dialect of Albanian, besides Greek." Mention of languages on infobox should remain brief, as it was always. Otherwise it deviates from the scope of the lede which is supposed to be a brief summary of the main body. Details about their identities should be left out of lede. If readers want to learn more about them, there is the main body of the article. Here we are talking about the identities we are in disagreement among us. Are you going to make a proposal that focuses on the differences expressed so far in the talk page or not?
 * A good proposal would be:
 * The Souliotes were a tribal community in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 17th to the early 19th century. They originated from Albanian clans who settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the late High Middle Ages. They were a Christian Orthodox community, known for their military prowess, their resistance to the local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha, and their contribution to the Greek cause in the Greek War of Independence. The Souliotes established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighbouring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they could successfully resist Ottoman rule. At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the community (also called "confederacy") is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants in about 60 villages. They spoke the Souliotic dialect of Albanian and Greek. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The two options: We can all just state our preference at this point. Including everything is not line with WP:LEAD, so I will put here for clarify the two options you mentioned:
 * Option 1 from Maleschreiber:The Souliotes were a tribal community in Ottoman Epirus from the 17th to the early 19th century. They originated from Albanian clans in the hilly regions of Thesprotia in the early Ottoman era. They were an Eastern Orthodox community, part of the Greek Orthodox Church
 * Option 2 from Ashmedai: "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian-speaking tribal community, settled in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 16th till the 19th century, that came to identify with the Greek nation"
 * I prefer Maleschreiber's, with a small change, the removal of "who settled", because this is an unnecessary detail which leads into an even further disputable topic. The lead would be:
 * . Can everyone state their preference please? @Ahmet Q.@Alltan@Ashmedai 119@Botushali@Jingiby@Khirurg@Ktrimi991@Maleschreiber@SilentResident Çerçok (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Çerçok, that can work. But please can you replace "Eastern Orthodox" -> "Christian Orthodox" and "hilly" -> "mountainous"? The areas of the mountains in Pindus, were more mountainous, not hilly. Souli is located on the mountains of Epirus... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording proposed by User:SilentResident is OK. The Souliotes were a tribal community in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 17th to the early 19th century. They originated from Albanian clans who settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the late High Middle Ages. They were a Christian Orthodox community, known for their military prowess, their resistance to the local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha, and their contribution to the Greek cause in the Greek War of Independence. The Souliotes established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighbouring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they could successfully resist Ottoman rule. At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the community (also called "confederacy") is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants in about 60 villages. They spoke the Souliotic dialect of Albanian and Greek. It does not have any real difference from my proposal. Idk why so much time got wasted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording of too is OK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A friendly reminder to the rest of the editors: Any proposals to keep EOC will find me vehemently opposing it. Any proposal to add pre-war identity but not the post-war one as well, will also not have my support either. Any edits that may appear to be unbalancing to the one side of the dispute but not the other, will simply find me not supporting them. I am hopeful no more changes may and that these are the final versions. Ktrimi991, I am realizing Christian Orthodox directs to the EOC which I don't want. Can't it direct to Christian Orthodox instead? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, link it to Church of Constantinopole. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this too, also taking into account SilentResident's linking suggestion. – Βατο (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also in agreement with all of this. I would only move the "who settled..." part to the article below, but I can accept this version too. If anyone wants to put the text in now (including SR's suggestion), please go ahead, otherwise I can do it in a few hours. Çerçok (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, instead of "local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha" it should be "local ruler Ali Pasha". The lede should be simple, and the Souliotes vs Ali Pasha conflict was not due to him being an Ottoman or Albanian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I am in agreement with SR's proposal with the small observation that it's better for Ali Pasha to be mentioned as "local ruler". I spent a lot of time reading Psimuli in the past days and I don't think that ethnicity, national identity, religion or any other cultural identity played any role whatsoever in the events. At most, identities were instrumentalized whenever it suited the political interests of those involved. This is not to say that Souliots weren't Orthodox or that they didn't speak Albanian as their mother tongue, but that such issues had no real influence in the events. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This thread has gotten a little hard to follow, I think what should happen now is to create a new section where we list each of the proposals in bullet form and see how things line up. Khirurg (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very clear. Here is the version agreed upon by five people so far:
 * The Souliotes were a tribal community in the area of Souli, in Epirus, from the 17th to the early 19th century. They originated from Albanian clans who settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the late High Middle Ages. They were a Christian Orthodox community, known for their military prowess, their resistance to the local ruler Ali Pasha, and their contribution to the Greek cause in the Greek War of Independence. The Souliotes established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighbouring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they could successfully resist Ottoman rule. At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the community (also called "confederacy") is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants in about 60 villages. They spoke the Souliotic dialect of Albanian and Greek. Çerçok (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this wording. Alltan (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And there are other versions supported by other editors. That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works. This will most likely need to be resolved via a formal mechanism like WP:RFC. Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lede Proposals
Sorted by chronological order:


 * 1. Maleschreiber's proposal rebalanced by SilentResident:


 * 2. Ashmedai 119's proposal: (except that the more precise CoC replaces EoC as the wikilink for Orthodox Christian )


 * 3. All-included proposal: (pending additions; I havent found how to include both the pre-war Albanian identity and post-war Greek identity without interrupting the flow of text yet)


 * 4. Botushali's proposal rebalanced by Ktrimi991:


 * 5. Khirurg's proposal: (edited by SR to fixed grammar errors and the lack of wikilink for the Ottoman Empire )


 * 6. SilentResident's proposal, based on Ashmedai 119's and Çerçok feedback:


 * 7. SilentResident's proposal, addressing Khirurg's concerns:

Lemme know if I missed anything. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (Khirurg's proposal [#5]) as nom. Main difference from the other proposals is that what "they are known for" is in the second sentence, as it should be, instead of pushed down to the third or fourth sentence. Also mentioned is that they were part of the Greek Orthodox church, which is the reason they ended up fighting on the Greek side in the war. I changed "late High Middle Ages" to Late Middle Ages, because the 14th and 15th centuries, when their ancestors settled in the area, are more correctly placed int he Late than the High Middle Ages. I also don't see why Ali Pasha should not be described as "Ottoman Albanian", as is done in the lede of many other wikipedia articles (e.g. Epirus, Pashalik of Janina) - we can't just assume that our readers are familiar with who he was (there are literally dozens of Ali Pashas). Khirurg (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident I am not sure if you noticed but the lede was already changed this last (nr.4) version. I think an overwhelming majority of editors are in agreement with this version already, and I have not seen any objection yet. @Khirurg if you have an objection please state it. Çerçok (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed. It should have not been posted without making some final adjustments on talk page first, as there is no rush. Since it is already posted, I had to make the following changes directly on the lede instead of the talk page: Restored Ottoman Empire's wikilink back to the Lede, since it was completely removed and it shouldn't have been. Removed duplicate wikilink instance of Greek War of Independence which is unnecessary. Added also a missing link to the successor statem the First Hellenic Republic. Fixed also the typo "neighbouring" -> "neighboring". Diff: . --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat lost and would like to pose a quick procedural question: What is the purpose of this section? Is it supposed to served as a place for editors to make comments on those proposals? Thanks in advance, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion has become pretty lengthy and is uncomfortable to navigate and for finding all the proposals without getting lost in it. The purpose of this section is just to have them in one spot for easier access. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)Great job SilentResident. For the record I do not support the version that was implemented without consensus, namely, it gives too much emphasis to origins, and does not mention their affiliation with the Greek Orthodox Church, which was critical to their support for Greek independence. What makes them notable is their opposition to Ali Pasha, and their contribution to the War. I would thus swap the order of the sentences: "They were known for their military prowess and the sentence "They originated", at a minimum. I don't have much time now, but will be making a more detailed proposal soon. At a minimum, "they assimilated into the Greek nation" should be restored, since no one objected, as should the mention of Markos Botsaris and Kitsos Tzavelas. Khirurg (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed changes were applied to the article rather hastily and before the editors were given enough time to make adjustments to it. Feel free to make a proposal but please be mindful that the EOC should not be restored. I am tired expressing every time my concerns over the ambiguity that characterizes this term. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @KhirurgKeep in mind what WP:LEAD states:
 * The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere. Çerçok (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cercok here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reading the policy that Çerçok referred participants in this discussion and I am startled to see that, while all proposals locate the Souliots in place and time in one way or another, most of them only provide a further identification as merely "tribal community". I wrote earlier that I was finding the way the Souliots were presented as an "Eastern Orthodox community" unsatisfactory and I hold the same opinion for this way of presenting them simply as a "tribal community". For, their Orthodox Christianity and their peculiar Albanian-ness were elements of Souliot self-understanding, both important enough to be used by other in describing them (either as Christians/Romaioi or as Albanians/Arvanites) and by thesmelves in various occasions to self-servingly present themselves to outsiders under a certain light and advance their interests. This is the reason that I think they should both be included in the first sentence of the introduction. What I disagree with is the presentation of their Albanianness in the first sentence in the manner of their being "of Albanian origin". The reason is that there is no basis for this: though they were indeed originated from an Albanian pastoralist clan that made the area of Souli their abode, the Albanianness of the Soulitos was not defined in terms of their provenance. In fact, they had no clear idea of their provenance. Psimouli notes that, being a society that was largely operating on an oral basis, their account of their past was only going back to the memories of their oldest living members, c. a century and a half. As far as their origins were concerned they only maintained a vague idea of being from a different place, with no more precision. This does not mean that I think or propose that they are presented as "Albanian-speaking Greeks", as Alltan erroneously accused me above. That it was false to ascribe this position to me is further proven by the fact that, in the proposal I had made for the first sentence, it was clearly stated that they "came to identify with the Greek nation", clearly stating that this was the result of a historical process of assimilation, not a given. Having said that, I tried to make a proposal that includes a reference to Orthodox Christianity and to Albanianness ("Orthodox Christian Albanian-speaking") and I remember that Βατο made another ("Greek Orthodox Albanian"), and perhaps another could be made. What I think important is whether we agree that a reference to both these elements (Orthodox Christianity + Albanianness) is included in the first sentence and, if we agree on that, what we should be discussing about IMHO is what is the best way to achieve their inclusion. Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai 119, very valid points. I will try to make a new proposal based on these facts you pointed. Khirurg, thank you about your proposal, and specifically for not restoring EOC with it. I appreciate that. Also if you don't mind, I fixed a grammar error in your proposal: "the religious authority Ecumenical Patriarchate" -> "the religious authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate" plus fixed the total absense of the Ottoman Empire's wikilink from it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SilentResident, I am very glad that you find the points I raised valid, but I think it might perhaps be more conducive to reaching a consensual approach to the matter were other interested editors to first express their opinion regarding those points, before trying to see exactly how to shape the introdcutory sentence of the article in accordance with them. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I posted a proposal (Proposal #6) based on Ashmedai 119's feedback, hope it is good enough and ok with all 4 sides of the debate. Ashmedai, if I misunderstood something in your feedback that you feel isn't reflected properly on the proposal, please feel free to edit the proposal (#6) directly or at least suggest edits and modifications here to be made to it, if there are any that can help the proposal reflect better on the facts you pointed so far. Including change of sentence order if that helps in any way; proposal 6 isn't final, so it is open to improvements, if editors feel like.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you@Ashmedai 119, this is the truth as I have understood it as well. In fact my initial idea was to state something like "Orthodox Christan (linking to the Patriarchate) Albanians" in the first sentence. For me the "Albanian origin" wording was only a compromise to appease editors who disagreed with it. Çerçok (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Çerçok, in Proposal #6, I kept my mind in the correct placement of the "who settled..." sentence per your recommendations too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @SilentResident. Maybe I was not very clear with it, but I argued that "who settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia" should be removed, for the same reason that Ashmedai explained very well here. Also I think you may have missed Ashmedai's main point to put Orthodox Christianity + Albanianness in the first sentence. I would say this is a good version which includes his suggestions:
 * I would prefer this to the one currently in the article. That said, since the current version was achieved after days of discussion, I would kindly ask everyone not to change it unless we can agree on an improvement. Çerçok (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Çerçok, thank you for your response. I am very glad to see other editors previously involved in this discussion respond to my thesis, which I repeat, at the risk of getting tedious, on the indispensability of mentioning in the first sentence of the article on the Souliots both "their Orthodox Christianity and their peculiar Albanian-ness". What I think should further be taken into consideration is the character of their Albanianness. I am anxious that readers of the article do not get the wrong idea that the mention of either of these two elements is meant to imply that the Souliots as such (i.e. while settled in Souli) belonged in a modern national community (Greek or Albanian). This is why in the proposal I had made earlier I had proposed presenting the Souliots as "an Orthodox Christian Albanian-speaking tribal community", which was, in my view, successful in avoiding identifying the Souliots with either the Greek or the Albanian nation. It did not mention "Greek Orthodox" which could be mistakenly read as implying their belonging to a Greek national community and I was linking not to the article on Albanians, but to the one on the Albanian tribes. Other editors, specifically Alltan, stated that ""Albanian speaking" infers that that's were the Albanian part ends. This is absolutely not the case. They were of Albanians, with all the cultural markers that come along with that." I agree that their speaking Albanian was not what solely rendered the Souliots Albanians. However, having Albanian as one's mother tongue was sufficient for someone to be rendered an "Arvanitis"/Albanian in the eyes of the Greeks, as already stated in the article. Moreover, what Alltan writes is not correct as far as my intentions are concerned. Even though my proposal was presenting the Souliots as an "Albanian-speaking tribal community", I was linking to the article to the Albanian tribes, which pointed to their mode of clan-based organization as another aspect of their Albanianness. At the same time, as a scholar notes (see Nathalie Clayer (2005), "Convergences and Divergences in Nationalism through the Albanian Example" in Detrez & Plas (eds), Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence, p. 217) "[a]s for the Albanian Orthodox, for them Albanianness has always been closely linked with Hellenism, through Orthodoxy." It seems that this was the case for the Souliots -- Orthodox by religion, living in a Greek-speaking milieu and gradually adopting the Greek language in the eighteenth century, described as "Romaioi" in Ottoman documents before the Greek war of independence. I am worried that the phrasing that you propose ("an Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community") combined with the link to the article on the Albanians (and not to the Albanian tribes) is not successful in avoiding the trap I mentioned and leaves readers with the impression that the Albanianness of the Souliots is identical with that of -let's say- the trunk of modern Albanians, which seems to me not a commonly accpeted scholarly position. Perhaps a different or more nuanced rendering of the phrasing could achieve avoiding the pitfall? I am curious to hear from other editors what they think about Βατο's proposal to present the Souliots as "a Greek Orthodox Albanian tribal community" with links to the articles on the Greek Orthodox Church and the Albanian tribes, which upon revision seems to avoid the pitfall of nationalistic anachronism that I mentioned. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, first adjustments per Ashmedai and Cercok: "that settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages" is removed. "Greek Orthodox" is replaced with "Orthodox Christian". diff of changes: . I will re-read Ashmedai's and Cercok's comments here and in earlier posts, again, to make sure I haven't missed something. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to write so in my last message, but I add this now, that, pace Cercok, I do not think that the phrase "that settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages" should be removed from the introduction and to be honest I can't understand where and when I supposedly "explained very well" the reason why the phrase should be removed. Cheers, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again I agree with your points above. I did not mean to present them as the same as modern Albanians. You idea to link Albanian to the Albanian tribes article deals with that well in my opinion, thank you for the suggestion. Regarding the "that settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages" part, I was referring what you wrote above: "This is the reason that I think they should both be included in the first sentence of the introduction. What I disagree with is the presentation of their Albanianness in the first sentence in the manner of their being "of Albanian origin". The reason is that there is no basis for this: though they were indeed originated from an Albanian pastoralist clan that made the area of Souli their abode, the Albanianness of the Soulitos was not defined in terms of their provenance. In addition to this, as far as I know, there is no historical record of specific tribes/clans they descend from and when they settled in Souli. But if such a historical record exists, I would be glad to see it in the article. Çerçok (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Çerçok, I offer my apologies for forgetting to thank you for the proposal you had made earlier today and for not being lucid enough in my writing about the Albanian origins of the Souliots. What I was trying to say relates to the fact that, when the Souliots first became an object of historical accounts, after Perraivos came to meet them and publish his History of Souli, they were not in a position to provide an exact account of their settlement in the area of Souli; they merely stated they had come to Souli from a different place and located their arrival at Souli approximately 150 years ago, the furthest the memories of those living in the 1790s could go. Psimouli notes that this is due to their society being a predominantly oral one, relying on oral tradition to construct an image of its past. They could not define themselves as Albanians because of their Albanian origin, because they did not have a fixed account of their origins. Their self-undestanding as Albanians relied on their speaking the Albanian language, living in a society organized in "fare" in a manner similar to other Albanian tribal communities. This does not mean that they were not of Albanian origin. Based on various sources (which the Souliots, of course, did not have at their disposal), Psimouli has reconstructed the various movements and the immigration of Albanian clans to Thessaly and Epirus in the late Middle Ages and early period of Ottoman rule, suggesting a time for the settlement of a pastoralist Albanian clan in the area of Souli. Maleschreiber has already edited the article adding relevant remarks from Psimouli's book and perhaps s/he could further expand on this, using the first chapter of the book or I could do so when I have the book again at my disposal at some time in the not-that-distant future. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, and thank you for the patience. I understood that you were referring to their own collective memory above, but thought the historical record was less conclusive. I am therefore not against this part being part of the article. Çerçok (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More feedback by Cercok and Ashmedai implemented, carefully: . Cercok, I fixed your "and their under leaders such as" into "and for their contribution to the revolution against the Ottoman Empire under leaders such as" and I removed "Local Ottoman" from Ali Pasha, per Ktrimi991's concerns (or it was someone else who asked for that to be removed? Cant remember). Also replaced "Greek Orthodox" with "Orthodox Christian". --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ashmedai 119, indeed, I chose the wording "a Greek Orthodox Albanian tribal community" because it takes into account the more relevant information for a description of this community in the first sentence. It is balanced as it is in agreement with mainstream scholarship, and leaves out any controversy. Also Çerçok's last wording could work with the change of the link as you proposed: It is a bit longer, but more comprehensive and remains balanced. – Βατο (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and added now the precise wikilink Albanian tribal to the first instance. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the version proposed by User:SilentResident is ok. As far as I can see Bato, Ashmedai and Çerçok support it, so it is a version that can satisfy various view points. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My only reservation concerning the first sentence of SilentResident's proposal which I see is identical with the one mentioned by Βατο is that "following their contribution to the Greek cause in the Greek War of Independence." makes the sentence way too long and the repetition of Greek three times seems to strenuously underline something that could be perhaps stated in a simpler manner. Would it be possible to try and shorten this part of the sentence? Perhaps "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 17th to the early 19th century, who came to identify with the Greek nation via their participation in the Greek War of Independence."? What would you think? Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh you re right, Ashmedai 119. Here we go! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, Proposal 6 is perfect now! Way more balanced. It subtly, and per sources, refers to their Albanian tribal origins and their later identification with the Greek nation by avoiding calling them "Albanians" or "Greeks", to maintain balance without going against the WP:RS - contrary, per Ashmedai's points, it reflects better on sources now and at same time, has positives changes for both sides, a fact I want to emphasize here, with Khirurg's and other's concerns in mind, so that I can have consensus from all the 4 parties in the dispute. My side, which wants EOC removed, is satisfied. The side of the Albania topic area editors, get to mention their tribal Albanian origins. The side of Ashmedai achieves more accurace, clarity and balance per sources, and the side of Khirurg gets the identification with the Greek nation in a balanced way which avoids calling them Greeks prior to their assimilation. Am I right? Are all 4 sides satisfied now? Please, I sincerely beg everybody to just get over with that and reach a wp:consensus finally! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I would suggest one last improvement: the Greek War of Independence is mentioned twice, in the first and second sentence. I think it would be better to merge them. But I will support it in this wording as well. Çerçok (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Çerçok that since the first sentence, with the Greek War of Independence mentioned therein, already provides an overview of the fortunes of the Souliots in history, it would be better to follow a chronological sequence in the rest of the introduction and move this reference to the Greek War of Independence towards the end of the lead. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here we go. Çerçok and Ashmedai 119, the two instances are merged: .--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 6, I am willing to support this as a consensus version that tries to do balance between editors' demands. Alltan (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 6. Çerçok (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 6. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal 6 in its current form. I could accept "Orthodox-Christian Albanian-speaking" for the first clause, but straight up "Orthodox Christian Albanian" would associate them in most readers' minds with the modern Albanian state. I would also like see mentioned that they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, part of the larger Greek Orthodox church. Khirurg (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's either "of Albanian origin" or "Orthodox Christian Albanian". Your choice. When I first made the "of Albanian origin" edit, you had no issue. You shouldn't backtrack now that you see others have gotten involved. Botushali (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my proposal I included "of Albanian origin". No "backtracking" whatsoever. Either "of Albanian origin" or "Albanian-speaking" would be fine with me, just not plain "Orthodox Christian Albanian". Khirurg (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "of Albanian origin" too as it succinctly summarises their origin as ethnic Albanians and eventual assimilation into a Greek identity, like most other ethnic groups of Greece at the time. "Albanian-speaking" implies that they simply speak Albanian but are not of Albanian origin, so I would wholeheartedly oppose that. Nonetheless, for the sake of compromise, I am willing to agree to Proposal 6 to finally settle the matter and move on. Botushali (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, did you read other editor's comments made today to reach a compromise? How could the sentence: associate them in most reader's minds with the modern Albanian state? – Βατο (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, and I just don't agree. I find the proposal a bit too direct and essentialist. Which is why I would prefer "of Albanian origin" or "Albanian-speaking". Also, since we are linking to Greek Orthodox Church, why are we omitting the "Greek" and saying "Orthodox Christian"? I could also agree to "Greek Orthodox Albanian tribal community, but I do find it odd that Greek Orthodox Church is euphemised as "Orthodox Christian". Khirurg (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 6 Proposal 6 is satisfactory enough. I would personally prefer "of Albanian origin" as I am the one who began this entire discussion by making the edit, but I am willing to concede that for the sake of goodwill towards my fellow editors, and Proposal 6 still makes good on what I wanted to get across. Just one more thing, I'd suggest the following line: "... their resistance to the local 18th-19th century ruler Ali Pasha..." just to help clarify the sentence and to help provide a contextual timeframe. Botushali (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 6 Proposal 6 is satisfactory enough. I would personally prefer "of Albanian origin" as I am the one who began this entire discussion by making the edit, but I am willing to concede that for the sake of goodwill towards my fellow editors, and Proposal 6 still makes good on what I wanted to get across. Just one more thing, I'd suggest the following line: "... their resistance to the local 18th-19th century ruler Ali Pasha..." just to help clarify the sentence and to help provide a contextual timeframe. Botushali (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Khirurg's concerns are addressed: "were a Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community" -> "were a Orthodox Christian tribal community of Albanian origin" This is the best I can do, at least without breaking the flow of text and making weird wikilinks. Hope it is satisfactory. Diff:. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You should propose a 7th version instead of changing the proposal editors already have agreed with. I support proposal 6 in its original form not in this one though. Alltan (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never agreed on your new proposal either, this is not constructive at all. Please revert yourself asap. Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * . Created Option 7 and reverted changes to Option 6. Sorry guys but this is abit too much for me. You got a problem? Discuss it, or open a RfC between Options 6 and 7. I am done here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . For Proposal 6, it should be changed to "Albanian tribal " to clearly link the Albanians. If this is done, I have no issue with Proposal 6 and will not request further changes. Is everyone in agreement? Botushali (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, I will tag the other voters of version 6. @Ahmet Q.@Çerçok@SilentResident If we agree can go through and add this. Alltan (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, Botushali, we didn't link the Albanians directly simply because some editors didn't want to link the Greeks either. So we linked to the Albanian tribes and the Greek state instead. A compromise is meant to be a compromise so that things can work where there are differing views but we want to stick with the WP:RS. I am really disappointed. Because Khirurg and Botushali had a chance to make this work. The chances of reaching a compromise will be more unlikely if certain editors here keep this uncompromising attitude. This leaves me no other option but to reach a majority consensus here, based on majority votes and not a solid consensus based on all side's votes. Or if that doesn't work, open a RfC. But beware: The RfC will just consume more time than what would be done here with a compromise from all sides. I support all versions, both 6 and 7, because the Albanian Tribal wikilink remains unchanged, the Greek state remains unchanged, (good for both of your sides) and importantly, the EOC is gone which is good for me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the link to Albanians instead of to Albanian tribes. Option 7 is also an improvement over Option 6. Also, no one has answered this question: If we are linking to Greek Orthodox Church, why are we omitting it from the text, instead just having Orthodox Christian? The two terns refer to slightly different things. Khirurg (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, Khirurg do you realize why Proposal 6 which we worked hard to get ready, is good enough for you as well? Because it links to Albanian tribes instead of to Albanians. We can't get everybody happy, but at least we can make this work. I highly recommend that you re-consider Option 6. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it is a bad question - if you put "Greek Orthodox Albanian tribal" you will most definitely confuse every single reader that comes across the article. Orthodox Christian is sufficient enough. Also, SR, I am disagreeing because it is still prancing around the whole Albanian origin aspect. There should be no issue with linking Albanians to these old Souliotes, as they were not entirely Greekified when they still retained their Suljot identity. The forefathers and bloodlines of Albanians - old and modern - and the Suljot tribesmen are one and the same. Botushali (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording and linking of the current proposal 6 was made in agreement with several editors, including Ashmedai 119. It solves many concerns made until now. IMHO it is the most balanced version, no need to change it. – Βατο (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 6 Per nom. I am strongly believing that the Souliotes have nothing to lose here today if we agree. However, if we don't reach a consensus, then it won't be only the Souliotes the ones who pay the price, but also Wikipedia. Our failure even on this dispute will show the rest of wiki community that we WP:BALKANS topic area editors are incapable of reaching mutually beneficial compromises that are in line with the WP:RS and can be good for both the editors and the article's quality. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts to reach a compromise. You have my respect for that. Just one thing, I'm thinking that this sentence:  Originating from Albanian clans, they established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighboring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they successfully resisted Ottoman rule for many years.  should include the link to Albanians. It is not in the first 2 sentences and is after the statement about their incorporation into Greece. It also addresses the concern of user Botushali about the mention of Albanian origin, since leaving it unlinked could be misunderstood by users as the region/area of modern Albania, not the ethnicity. The original lead sentence stays with the Albanian tribes link. @Ashmedai 119 what do you think? It addresses the concerns raised in your feedback about the Albanian tribes link. This revision would leave it unchanged. Alltan (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alltan, I think links to the article on the Albanians when referring to the populations that migrated in the 14th century are fine, but not when the Albanianness of those already settled in Souli is concerned, which is were the link to the article on the Albanian tribes should be used, for reasons that I stated here. So, I would not have a problem with your proposal to link to the Albanian tribes article in the first sentence, but to the one on the Albanians in a different sentence of the introduction, when presenting the Albanians that migrated to Epirus c. in the 14th century. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not referring to the first sentence. I am talking about sentence 3, right after Botsaris and Kitzos Tzavelas:  Originating from Albanian clans, they established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighboring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they successfully resisted Ottoman rule for many years.  My proposal is to simply link Albanians to Albanians and leave clans unlinked. I do not see their Albanian origin being disputed in this TP or in the Article, nor in Bibliography for that matter. PS. I also want to thank you for your level-headedness and desire to reach a solution. Alltan (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alltan: As I said, I am OK with this proposal of yours. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Botushali. I naively thought that the proposal already liked to the ethnic Albanians, but it apparently does not. For further notice, I oppose any proposal where there is no link to the Albanians. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I want to remind everybody about the wording used in WP:CONSENSUS 'Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)', nor is it the result of a vote. Since there has been more than enough discussion to eliminate the possibility of this being a simple show-of-hands, I think its time we go for what is agreed on by most, not all, as stipulated by the above policy.Alltan (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that version 6 is the best among those listed. However, I disagree with substituting "Albanian" with "of Albanian origin" for reasons that I stated here. I also strongly disagree with the proposal to link the phrase "Albanian tribal" to the article on Albanians instead for linking to the article on the Albanian tribes and I have already explained the reasons for this disagreement here. Would those proposing otherwise care to respond to the points I raised and explain their reasoning?

I also want to thank SilentResident for the attentive care that he has shown throughout this process. What follows might seem to be hair-splitting, but it is my fault that I gave the impression that I supported removing the phrase "via their participation in the Greek War of Independence" from the first sentence of the introduction. I think that this reference in the first sentence should stay where it was. It is very useful as it provides a timeframe for readers to locate in time the assimilation of the Souliots in the Greek national community. It is the reference in the second sentence (along with the whole sentence) that I think would be better to move "towards the end of the lead" so that we "follow a chronological sequence in the rest of the introduction", that is after the first sentence, which could be a stand alone paragraph. Çerçok had also expressed a worry for two references to the Greek War of Independence in two consecutive sentences and I hope s/he won't disagree with what I propose. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment As the debate about which wording about religion/ethnicity to choose, I want to highlight something else which from the perspective of trying to write a historically accurate is important: All proposals agree on this sentence The problem with this sentence is that it's entirely inaccurate:
 * Markos Botsaris and Kitsos Tzavelas never fought against Ali Pasha because a)they were very young at the time (Tzavelas just 3yo) b)the Botsaris clan was on the payroll of Ali Pasha and were his representatives in the local Ottoman hierarchy since 1793-1800 and the Tzavellas became so when they negotiated their collaboration during the siege of Souli. In western Europe during the 19th century, a narrative about the struggles of Souliotes against Ali Pasha was popularized but this narrative doesn't correspond at all to reality and it's this reality which contemporary historiography discusses. Most Souliot clans - sooner or later - collaborated with Ali Pasha and were part of the hierarchy of the Pashalik. In fact, the surrender of Souli ended for the most part with no casualties as most clans had already been bribed and given a local position somewhere from where they could collect taxes. A proposal about this part of the lead (independently of the first sentence about religion/ethnicity): My proposal is 2x the current sentences because the size of the article (100kb>) demands a quite extensive lead.  Compare your edition of Psimouli with what I've written about the role of the Botsaris clan. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber, I find your comment generally speaking correct regarding the distortive emphasis of 19th and 20th century nationalist/Romantic historiography on the circumstances and character of Souliot life and their clash with Ali, in particular about the importance of the clan-based character of their social organization. Nonetheless, my reading of the sentence that you quote is that Markos Botsaris and Kitzos Tzavellas were Souliot chieftains during the Greek War of Independence. I don't think that anyone meant to say that they fought against Ali pasha of Yannina. It is also misleading to describe the state of affairs following the surrender of Souli in 1803 as the "integration of many Souliote clans in the hierarchy of the Pashalik of Yanina." First of all, Ali turned on the Souliots after they surrendered and attacked them, including the fara of Botsaris, with the result that per Psimouli only 2/3 survived his persecution. Moreover, most sought refuge outside Ottoman territory in the Ionian islands, though some returned to Ali's service the following years. However, I agree with the general thrust of what you write, but I think it would be better to conclude discussion concerning the first sentence of the introduction and then proceed with the rest of the lead and the article in general. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Psimouli does write that in 1804 1200 Souliots and the Botsaris clan were attacked and most of them were killed and she connects it to several issues including conflict in the ranks of the armatoloi (Tzimas, Michos, Poulis) because the Botsaris had under their control some very lucrative "armatolikia" who other Christian armatoloi wanted. A conflict about armatolikia could occur only within the system. In my opinion, this turn of events and constant backstabbing doesn't imply a non-integration in the Ottoman hierarchy as this is exactly how the Ottoman system functioned. I use the term integration in the sense that Souliote clans fought for positions within the system and weren't any longer outside or on the periphery of the system. If you think that the term "integration" may have other secondary connotations we can use another wording, my maint point is to demystify romanticist narratives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It seems quite a few points were raised in the last hours, so I will try to address them all here instead of submitting many replies in separate places which would complicate the thread further. I also believe that Version 6 is the best possible lede and it was reached after days of constructive discussion and incremental improvement.
 * Ashmedai 119 I agree with everything you said. When I pointed out that the revolution was mentioned twice, what I had in mind for the first sentence was . I also think that the following sentences would look better in chronological order. However, I would accept the original version 6 wording too.
 * Maleschreiber's concern is legitimate but it can be addressed after the first sentence is agreed upon.
 * Khirurg's suggestion reverts the progress that has been achieved so far in my opinion. It has already been explained that the Albanian aspects of Souliote identity are broader than simply linguistic, but not inclusive of nationality of course. Using Albanian while linking to Albanian tribes is the optimal solution.
 * Finally, I believe we have achieved as broadly acceptable and as accurate an intro as we can, so I would ask everyone to not get stuck on less important details. Çerçok (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Final Improvements
The proposal is re-posted here from above for more inconvenience, so that editors who keep discussing about improvements, to do so without having to navigate all the way back.
 * Proposal 6 (Pending some minor improvements suggested there among the editors)

I am copy-pasting it here without changing anything myself, so that you can make the improvements/adjustments you are talking about, by yourself, (such as sorting information per chronological order etc, among other things)? When making edits to it, or amendments, please pay extra care should be paid as to not break the consensus we achieved so far, by taking in consideration the sensitivities of the other sides. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you once more, SilentResident. My four proposals for improvements are: (1) add the phrase "via their participation in the Greek War of Independence" at the end of the first sentence (2) delete or at least move towards the end of the lead the second sentence (3) insert a link to the article on Albanians in the word "Albanian" in the phrase "Albanian clans" and (4) readd the clause "that settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages". after "Originating from Albanian clans," and render it a separate sentence ("They originated etc"). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I support all four proposals. @SilentResident thank you for still following and keeping the discussion on constructive terms. Çerçok (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. However a new problem of repetition about mountainous areas arises: "They originated from Albanian clans that settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages and established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighboring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus" How do you propose that it is solved? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe use "highlands"? " They originated from Albanian clans that settled in the mountainous regions of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages and established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighboring villages in the highlands of Epirus ". Just thinking out loud. Alltan (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to me that the languages and what they were known for are in the same sentence, and that what they were known for is all the way at the end of the paragraph. The things they were known for should be in the second sentence of the paragraph, not all the way at the end. Khirurg (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it looks quite good.
 * A note to the editors: due to a good part of the disagreements in the talk page being about linking the Souliotes directly with Albanians and Greeks, we avoided doing that until now . Since this hesitation has been dropped and per your feedback now there is a wikilink to Albanians added, the editors from the Greece topic area may find it even less satisfying, considering that not the same is done for the wikilink to Greeks as well. The Souliotes were absorbed into the Greeks at the end and even though none disagrees with that, it is not mentioned at all on the lede. I wouldn't be so concerned had not for this article been part of both the Albania and the Greece topic areas of Wikipedia, and certainly not, had not been for these talk page debates on ethnic stuff. So, my question: since there is a wikilink to Albanians added, perhaps a wikilink of assimilation to Greeks is also added somewhere, perhaps in a chronologically fitting place? -- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it can be added. I do not see any issue with that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The phrase Greek nation should link to Greek nation, ie the article on the Greeks. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I have thought of that, Ashmedai 119, but I dont know how to apply the change. Thing is: the revolutionary war was about allegiance to a common cause (Greece), which wasn't solely defined by the ethnic identity of people (Greeks). So, shouldn't the "who came to identify with the Greek nation via their participation in the Greek War of Independence" remain unchanged and have the article Greeks, be added elsewhere? Perhaps chronologically more down in the paragraph? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If its added further down, i.e not the first sentence. I suggest after the end of the sentece on their Albanian origin. "they successfully resisted Ottoman rule for many years." Also if we mention their Albanian origin, we could clarify what " identify with the Greek nation " means. I suggest: " After the Greek War of Independence, they assimilated into the Greek nation, settling various parts of it". Or something like this. Alltan (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable). Alltan (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also have no problem with that. Çerçok (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about the sentence "who came to identify with the Greek nation(wikilink: Greece) via their participation in the Greek War of Independence." is updated to "who contributed to the Greek(wikilink: Greece) cause through their participation in the Greek War of Independence" and create somewhere else the following phrase: ""After the Greek War of Independence, they assimilated into the Greek nation(wikilink: Greeks), settling various parts of it." per Alltan's recommendation? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this. The last phrase should be implemented like this:  They originated from Albanian clans that settled in the highlands of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages and established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighboring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they successfully resisted Ottoman rule for many years. After the Greek War of Independence, they assimilated into the Greek nation(wikilink: Greeks), settling various parts of it".  Alltan (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly it breaks chronological order for which we worked hard to maintain. So it had to go further down. The following sentence: "At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the Souliote confederacy is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants." is changed into: "At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the Souliote confederacy is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants. After the revolution, they assimilated into the Greek nation, settling various parts of it." This maintains chronological order, keeps the great work and input by everyone else, and importantly, it doesn't interrupt the natural flow of information about populations. Everyone's good with that now? Khirurg, Cercok was right that the way you had suggested things, would break the progress we made so far. But at least, now, none may complain that the lede is one-sided or something by linking the one ethnic group but not the other. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't get why not link to "Greek nation" in the first sentence. Through their participation in the Greek Revolution, the Souliots did not just become subjects of a new state, but their identity changed as they came to understand themselves as Greeks. I cannot resist recalling a very telling letter in Greek of Ahmet Pasha from Nepravishta, who addresses Kitsos Tzavellas in 1828 and wonders "More Kitzo Tzavella, I knew you were an Arvanitis like me. Where the hell did you learn these Greek things and I don't know them?" Where, indeed? It is a sign of the new identity the Souliots were developing as a consequence of their military service amidst Greek revolutionaries. Hence, I do not think it amiss to link the phrase" Greek nation" to Greek nation. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. Now the sentences are as follows: "who came to identify with the Greek nation(wikilink: Greeks) via their participation in the Greek War of Independence." and "After the revolution, they were assimilated by settling various parts of Greece.(wikilink: Greece)"
 * Khirurg, Cercok was right that the way you had suggested things, would break the progress we made so far. But at least, now, none may complain that the lede is one-sided or something by linking the one ethnic group but not the other. Ahmet Q., would you support Proposal 6 now that it contains a link to Albanians article? (See: "They originated from Albanian(wikilink: Albanians) clans"). Both of you, please reconsider supporting Proposal 6 now that the demands of both of you have been satisfied. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is an improvement. Now, another thing: "assimilated into the Greek nation" is better than "they were assimilated by settling various parts of Greece". People assimilate into something else. "They were assimilated" leaves it unclear as what they assimilated into. Also the fact the they migrated to the newly-independent Greek state is mentioned in the second paragraph. No need to have it in the first paragraph. Khirurg (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, by the way, earlier you had complained about the sentence that made Souliotes popular: Ali Pasha and Greek revolution, being mentioned at the end of the paragraph. Right? But please see how the article of Alexander the Great has his most notable feat, ("By the age of thirty, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[2] He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered to be one of history's greatest and most successful military commanders.") being mentioned last in his leading paragraph as well! Just like how Proposal 6 done for the Souliotes too, which mentions their notable acts/strugges at the end, not necessarily near the beginning of the leading paragraph. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree to Greeks being wikilined into the first sentence only if Albanians are also. Otherwise it has to be reverted. Alltan (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Whence do you derive this equivalence? Objections to linking to the article on the Albanians in the first sentence were based on the Souliot Albanianness not being reducible to "mainstream" Albanianness. Is it so with their Greekness after their participation in the Greek War of Independence? Koliopoulos and Veremis in a passage already quoted in a footnote in the article suggest otherwise. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What is false about it? The Souliotes were as mainstream Albanian before the Greek Revolution as any other Albanian group. They had all the cultural markers of a typical tribal Albanian society. No need for an Albanian nation to exist for a community to be Albanians. Also they said Hellenised. Why yes, they did get Hellenised, and eventually totally assimilated. There is nothing historiographically wrong with calling them Albanians. Alltan (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit: done, your feedback is applied, Khirurg. However partially implemented, I am afraid. Due to the semiological confusion stemming by sharing this wording with another wikilink already present elsewhere on lede. So you gotta live with that instead: "After the revolution, they assimilated into Greece by settling various parts of it". This is the best I can think without causing semiological confusion to the readers. Edit: perhaps a better wording is needed here: "After the revolution, they assimilated into Greece by settling various parts of it.", because I don't think it is as good. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about if we switched "Greek nation" in the first sentence with "Greece" (i.e. "they came to identify with Greece"), and then we say "After the revolution, they assimilate into the Greek nation"). I think that would work. Khirurg (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree Alltan, I will not support a proposal which puts the Greeks-wiki link in the first sentence and not the Albanians- one. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Votes
I am sorry to say, but my role here is done. If editors really want to be more constructive in their attitude, then they should be done with Proposal 6 already instead of wasting our time going into circles.



Who supports and who disagrees with it? And why? Consensus won't be determined by the number of votes but by the strength of arguments. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time SR. Now my suggestions are as follows. 1) either de-link Greeks from the first sentence OR wikilink Albanians into it. 2) Add the sentence about their assimilation into the Greek nation. Personally I would remove the Greeks wikilink from the first sentence, and add it to a final line at the end: "After the Greek War of Independence, they assimilated into the Greek community." Alltan (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just realized the imbalance in the first sentence. It has been restored now. Enjoy. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you SR, just go ahead and place it in the article if you want. This is an acceptable version in itself, and if any small concerns remain, it can serve as a solid base for to build on. Çerçok (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, hope these concerns are gone, since the imbalance was unintentionally caused by trying to make the sentences be more natural in flow. Diff of the new fix: .--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you SR. It cannot t be said enough. Alltan (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I think it's fine. I am not 100% satisfied, but I think I can live with it. Compromise is when no one is 100% satisfied. Khirurg (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey just so you know I applied the changes proposed by MS. If you have other ideas on how the part on the Greek Revolution should look like please write them. Alltan (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just saw, but I have to say I cannot agree to this, per my objections below. You also cannot change text that someone has agreed to. If you want to make changes, you should make your own proposal below. Khirurg (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% satisfied either. You see, the absence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from the new lede is not making me happy, but to make things easier for you all to focus on your differences, I remained quiet about this and this alone, counts for something. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Couldn't we add a sentence: "In terms of religion, they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople"? I can't imagine why anyone would object. Right now there is nothing about religion except "Orthodox Christian" in the opening sentence. Khirurg (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict x7) This placement has some flaws in the first sentence: This event occurred 20+ years after the Souliotes had left Souli itself and the integration of the Souliotes in the Greek nation happened gradually in the decades after they permanently settled in the Greek Kingdom. Why are we discussing in the first sentence something which happened 20 years after Souliotes had left Souli in the 200y existence of this community? Historiography doesn't consider it as an event which is related to Souliotes as a community in Ottoman Epirus. I'm perfectly fine with mentioning it and not downplaying it at all but it is ahistorical to place in the first sentence an event which occurred 20 years after all major events of Souliot history had already occurred and which technically doesn't even concern Souliotes per se, but first-generation and second-generation descendants of Souliotes in other regions. I understand that there's an impression of M. Botsaris as a mountaineer warrior but it's not historically true. M. Botsaris grew up in an island and was much more of an islander than a mountaineer. I understand that everyone is tired and I truly appreciate that everyone was moderate and we maintained the calm situation of the last year, so this is a very small change which I propose to restore some chronological order:  --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone would have a problem with a sentence about the Ecumenical Patriarchate and either way there should be a small section on the lead about religion as there is extensive documentation about religious life and spirituality among Souliots, so it could also act as the beginning of a new paragraph for the lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a bit too long and clunky for a first sentence. Besides, "settlement in newly independent Greece" is mentioned further down, no need to repeat it in the same paragraph and no need for it in the first sentence. There is also nothing factually incorrect with who came to identify with the Greek nation via their participation in the Greek War of Independence - it is 100% correct and in agreement with the literature. Khirurg (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly correct to say that this happened, my comment had to do with the chronological order. I added the part about the settlement in Greece because it signifies the geographical space for the final phase of the Souliotes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points you have raised. I must say I had not thought of them before. I will add them to proposal along with a mention of the Echumenical Patrairchate. The sentence as it is now focuses on the preiod 20 years after the Souliotes were expelled, casting aside 200 years of history. Perhaps more can be written on this time period, specifically their, lets just say complicated  relationship with Ali Pasha. Alltan (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this though. It says "Came to identify with the Greek nation via their participation in the Greek War of Independence". How does this "cast aside 200 years of history"? It's precisely through their participation in the war that they came to identify with Greece. Nowhere does it say that they identified with Greece before the war. Khirurg (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MS put it best when he said: . I mean this argument speaks for itself really. The Souliots existed from about the 17th to the early 19th century. This is 200 years of history. But the first event which we mention about their history is one which didn't happen in the 200 years (when Souliots actually lived in Souli) but what happened 30 years after they left Souli and settled Greece after the Greek War of Independence. It seems we are giving undue weight to something which played no role in the history of the Souliotes. That does not look right. Alltan (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the EPC as per SR's wishes. I don't see why anyone would oppose this. Alltan (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you all, I appreciate it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 6 final version (modified)
 * . Per points made by Maleschreiber. Alltan (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Other than the issue with linking the phrase "Greek nation" to the article on the Greek nation, to which I will respond further, if time allows in the near future, I am against the addition of the phrase "and subesquent settlement in newly independent Greece". Maleschreiber, when proposing it, stated that "the integration of the Souliotes in the Greek nation happened gradually in the decades after they permanently settled in the Greek Kingdom". This is not true. First of all, their cultural Hellenisation of the Souliots had started at least when they picked up the use of the Greek language in the 18th century per Psimouli (see the section on language in the article), many of them perhaps from the early 17th per Noel Malcolm (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".). This is why they are described as "Orthodox and partly hellenised Albanian tribes" by Veremis and the late John S. Koliopoulos in their Greece: the modern sequel, p. 184. Their participation in the Greek war of Independence was the pivotal choice that made them members of the Greek national community. Per Psimouli's "Souli and Souliotes" (see the 1995 PhD version, p. 454 -- I remember that an almost verbatim version of the same passage exists also in the very last section of the book -- Maleschreiber can confirm this) "their inclusion in the cause of the Greek Revolution goes hand-in-hand with their organization in clans -- to be more precise, the remants of older clans -- whose continuing infighting will direct the choice of accession in the bands of rival chieftains or conflicting political parties. In the same period, Hellenization and incorporation in the cause of the Greek Revolution, its politico-military goals and its national vision are the two aspects of the new reality, in which the Souliots integrate." ("H ένταξη στην υπόθεση της Ελληνικής Επανάστασης θα συμπορεύεται με την οργάνωση τους σε γένη - ακριβέστερα, τα υπολείμματα των παλαιότερων γενών - των οποίων ο, μεταξύ τους, συνεχιζόμενος ανταγωνισμός θα κατευθύνει και τις επιλογές ένταξης σε σώματα αντιπάλων οπλαρχηγών ή αντιμαχόμενων πολιτικών μερίδων. Την ίδια περίοδο, εξελληνισμός και ενσωμάτωση στην υπόθεση της Ελληνικής Επανάστασης, τους πολιτικο-στρστιωτικούς στόχους και το εθνικό όραμα της αποτελούν τις δύο όψεις της νέας πραγματικότητας, στην οποία εντάσσονται οι Σουλιώτες."). In the second part of her article series that I have mentioned before she mentions that after Kapodistria's assasination (1831) Kostas Botsaris was one of the three persons elected to "go to Bavaria and declare the allegiance of the Greek nation in the person of the newly elected King Otto". ("να μεταβούν στη Βαυαρία και να δηλώσουν την αφοσίωση του ελληνικού έθνους στο πρόσωπο του νεοεκλεγέντα βασιλιά Όθωνα"). This happens not, as Maleschreiber implies, long after they settled in the Greek state but in the same year (1832) that they were appointed a permanent place to settle in Greece. As, again, Koliopoulos and Veremis put it (ibid., p. 233) concuring with Psimouli, "When most of the northern Greek fighters settled in southern Greece of refugees, none of them thought, or was made to think, of himself as less of a Greek for speaking little or nothing of the language, notwithstanding the ongoing debate on Greekness and Greek identity". It is, then, wrong to include their settlement in Greece as a factor that led to their Hellenisation, as, according to scholarly sources cited, this had already happened when they settled in newly independence Greece. On a side note, instead of constantly modifying the version at the cost of further burdening SilentResident, I think it we could consider changing at least the article's first sentence per the proposal as it is now, even though not perfect, and then continue the discussion towards resovling remaining issues and details. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as nom.Alltan (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would advise this version be published into the article, and then further changes (on points not yet discussed) be proposed in the TP. We can work on them as needed. Alltan (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the incorporation of my small change. Support --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Khirurg (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand why we are putting the assimilation of the Souliotes in the first sentence, it is absolutely not what they were known for. They were known for their participation in the Greek Revolution, not for their assimilation. However, considering that the majority agrees and that this discussion is taking way too much time, I will support this proposal as well, at least for now. I still believe that my points should be addressed in a future discussion. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai 119, the first sentence of the proposed lede does not imply that the Hellenization started with the Greek Warof Independence and relocation to other parts of Greece. It says that they mark the end of Hellenization i.e. the point when they were "fully Greeks". I do not see any issue with the first sentence of the proposed lede in that regard. On the Greek nation being linked to Greeks, IMO it is better to not do that since several editors seem to be so opposed to that. Frankly, arguing over wikilinks is a bad way of using time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi991, thanks for the reply. I only respond about the addition of the phrase "subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece". The clause "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece came to identify with the Greek nation" clearly implies that the settlement of the Souliots in independent Greece was a factor to led them to identify with the Greek nation. Maleschreiber clearly stated that the rationale for adding the phrase "and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece" was that the Soulitos supposedly became members of the Greek nation "gradually in the decades after they permanently settled in the Greek Kingdom" (added emphasis). What I am saying is that this is an opinion that is not in concurrence with scholarly sources; their integration in the Greek national community had been completed when they "settled in southern Greece" thanks to their participation in the Greek War of Independence. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai 119, I also think it does not imply that: . I think the current first sentence is a concise overview of the ethnographic evolution of this community. It also addresses Ahmet Q.'s above concerns about the relevance of mentioning their assimilation in the first sentence, because it provides information about their geographic settlement as well. Ahmet Q. I suggest you to reconsider your comment, as the current first sentence is quite balanced. – Βατο (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Βατο, the current formulation of the clause states that X (participation in the Greek Revolution) *and* Y (settlement in Greece) led to Z (Hellenisation). The sources to which I reffered above state that Z (the Souliots becoming members of the Greek nation on a par with Greek-speaking Greeks) had been completed when X (the War of Independence) ended and Y (the Souliot settlement in independent Greece) occured. Hence, the current formulation goes against scholarly sources. The first sentence loses nothing with the removal of the phrase "and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece" as far as providing "a concise overview of the ethnographic evolution of this community" is concerned. On the contrary, it gains in the sense that it does not provide information that is contrary to what scholarly sources state. If other editors want the first sentence to provide not just ethnographic information but "information about [the] geographic settlement [of the Souliots] as well" then the clause in question could be reformulated to state "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece", which is, I repeat myself, not contrary to what scholarly sources say. This would be acceptable, as it does not provide false information to the readers, but in my opinion it makes the sentence longer than it should be and I would prefer just deleting this phrase ("and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece") from the first sentence altogether. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should I reconsider my comment? I have already agreed. However, the first sentence is still not ideal in my opinion, as it puts too much undue weight to the assimilation of the Souliotes. This is definitely not worthy of being put in the very first sentence of the article. I don't believe the proposal is 100% balanced, if it was the case it would have put the assimilation case in chronological order and thus somewhere in the bottom of the lead. Anyway, the current proposal is fine with me for now. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahmet Q., you "have already agreed" but also stated that your "points should be addressed in a future discussion", on the other hand a consensus is emerging about the first sentence as it is in 'Proposal 6 final version (modified)'.
 * Ashmedai 119, I could agree with your rewording, hope other editors as well. – Βατο (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with Ashmedai's new proposal as Maleschreiber's version was better and I did not see any issue with that one. My previously mentioned concerns have not been addressed in any of the new proposals, but I still agreed with the current one as a compromise. If the lede is going to change again, I will remove my vote. Ahmet Q. (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you seem to be the only one to be opposing the wording, so you should try a bit to be less demanding. Can you and agree on this new wording The Souliotes were a Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century, who especially via their participation in the Greek War of Independence and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece came to identify with the Greek nation. It is a clunky addition but it tried to address the concernt that the primary reasons but the only ones, that contributed to the identification with the Greek nation were the participation in the war and later relocation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the wording you propose, Ktrimi991, is in accordance with the sources I presented and discussed above about their incorporation with the Greek nation having being concluded when they settled in Greece, and with regards to which sources, I note, Ahmet Q., has absolutely nothing to say. I can't help thinking that perhaps your (undoubtedly well-meaning) advice about being "less demanding" should be directed to those who "demand" without basing their claims in scholarly sources. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know the rationale of the addition of that part because the discussion has become so long. In any case, you are the only one opposing the proposed wording so far, so indeed it is you who should be less demanding. can you agree with "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * After consulting the page on the meaning of consensus, to which participants in this discussion have more than once been referred to, I find out that the numerical approach that you suggest, Ktrimi991, is not the one people ought to follow, and I am startled that I have to point this out to so much more experienced an editor than myself. And, I have to say I am surprised reading that you are writing about the desirability of this or that proposal withouth knowing the rationale supporting it. You might be interested in reading this comment by Maleschreiber and these two by myself, perhaps along with rereading this one that I had addressed to you, which included a quote about the rationale of Maleschreiber's proposal. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to side with Ashmedai here and everybody is reminded that WP:CONSENSUS isn't numerical in principle. This goes against the principle of the rule. Consensus requires strength of arguments over any other other points, including numerical strength. This is exactly why I had striven so hard to implement Ashmedai's feedback and Cerkok's. Because they were based on the WP:RS. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai 119, indeed consensus is not a numerical approach. Still, if from over 10 editors, only one or two can't agree with a proposed version, it means that that version has consensus. That is how things work. However, I am not ignoring your concern, hence I am asking Ahmet Q. to accept a wording that you wrote above. If he accepts that wording, you should withdraw from your demand to have Greeks linked in the first sentence - it does not make sense when a very strong majority are against you. Thanks for the links, I will check them and maybe will post a response to what is said there soon. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I prefer this version with SR's addition about the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  The Souliotes didn't become Greek because some clan leaders participated in the Greek War of Independence. Participation in some battles by some contingents of Souliotes didn't make Souliotes want to "identify with the Greek nation". This is not how cultural identities are formed. In 1820, Souliotes supported the Ottoman army against Ali Pasha because the Ottomans promised to resettle them in Souli. This didn't make them identify with the Ottomans. As the Ottomans didn't fulfill their part of the agreement, the Souliotes signed a deal with Ali Pasha and in the agreement the common Albanian ancestry was instrumentalized to provide a more ideological framework for the agreement. This of course has no analytical value for explaining the events, as the deal didn't happen because those who signed it were Albanians but because Ali Pasha promised to resettle them in Souli. As Souliotes saw that Ali Pasha wouldn't win, they fully joined the Greek cause as a political choice to get Souli back. The participation in the war didn't happen for any cultural or ideological reason, but because some leading clan leaders hoped to achieved specific political goals by doing so. With no other prospect, the Souliotes eventually fought to gain recognition as a constitutive population of Greece and get a good resettlement deal and specific privileges in the hierarchy of the Greek Kingdom. It is the settlement agreement and integration in the elite of the Greek Kingdom which facilitated the identification of the Souliote elite with Greece and the subsequent cultural assimilation, which is something which can't happen overnight but . The descendants of Souliotes who didn't settle in the Greek Kingdom but followed different political pathways, eventually developed radically different identities. The core of my argument is that politics dictate the conditions for cultural processes. Political choices are instant, but cultural processes only happen gradually.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Necessary final corrections per WP:VERIFY
I am sorry for having to leave this discussion for a while. I admit I have been exhausted, but since here we are discussing about not just about a new lede, but about a stable and permanent lede in accordance with the academic sources published for them, then it is crucial to reflect carefully on the WP:RS. Since the points by Ashmedai are reflecting on the WP:RS, and have not been rebuked by other editors, then I am afraid we haven't reached a consensus yet. Consensus cannot be achieved when the parties with the strongest arguments in a discussion, have their concerns brushed of, ignored, or watered down. It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to adjust the lede accordingly until it is reflected adequately on WP:RS. Now, here is Proposal 6 with the further modifications so it doesn't fail Wikipedia's guidelines:

Necessary final updates to Proposal 6 so that it doesn't violate WP:VERIFIABILITY:

Per Ashmedai's feedback, I changed "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece came to identify with the Greek nation." into: ""whose participation in the Greek War of Independence and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece indicated their identification with the Greek nation.". How is that, now? For some strange reason I feel my wording isn't as good, encyclopedically-wise. Perhaps a better wording can be found and used in the place of "indicated"? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to play the part of the curmudgeon here, but your last formulation, SilentResident, seems to imply that their affiliation with the Greek nation predates their participation in the Greek War of Independence; what scholarly sources suggest, however, is that is was the result of their experience fighting for and with the Greek revolutionaries. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * if you are referring to that source ., then yes you are right. You should have provided the quote on the talk page, in bold text actually, because the article's history has become a mess. I think there is no objection to the wording proposed by you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey you should seriously consider writing your comments in a Word document, and when ready, post them here on the talk page. You are causing so many edit conflicts to me. It is not a huge issue but still one that can avoided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oups, thank you Ashmedai for spotting this WP:OR error in my changes. It escaped me that it would suggest such a thing. My apologies. Im trying to figure now a more accurate change that doesnt contradict the RS. Any wording suggestions? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai, also that source says that some Souliotes spoke little of no Greek when they settled southern Greece. Should the lede part "They spoke the Souliote Albanian and Greek" be made sth like "They spoke the Souliote dialect of Albanian and gradually learnt Greek through their interaction with Greek-speakers"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident: I have already proposed the following rewording for the clause in question: "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece", which Ktrimi has now adopted in his proposal.
 * @Ktrimi991: I am definitely in support of rendering evident to the readers of the lead the difference between the original knowledge of Albanian by the Souliots and their learning of Greek at a later stage via a gradual process of acculturation. Your proposal seems to achieve this desideratum. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi's changes to the language are transfered to the draft above, and also tried to make a proposal based on your points in the diff you presented me (and yes, this is the diff I tried to base my previous changes too). How is this? "came to identify with the Greek nation and contributed to the Greek War of Independence." and at 4th line: "After the revolution, they settled in the newly independent Greece and were assimilated into the Greek people".
 * Ktrimi, good work! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SilentResident, I think that Ktrimi's version is preferable in that it is retaining the bit about their settlement in Greece in the first sentence, in accordance with what other users thought apt to include in the first sentence, and also indicated that for the Souliots the participation in the War of Independence served as the means of integration in the Greek nation ("via [etc]"). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I am confused. Thought one of you guys asked that the settlement part is removed from there? I will restore it asap.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Here we go. The "[...] and contributed to the Greek War of Independence" is changed into "[...] and contributed to the Greek War of Independence before settling in newly independent Greece.".--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * as per the discussion on that source with Ashmedai, change "came to identify with the Greek nation and contributed to the Greek War of Independence before settling in newly independent Greece" into "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece". Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Ktrimi991's suggestion. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the two changes we made are based on what the academic source says, IMO now the text can be counted as consensus and should be added to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, the came to identify with the Greek nation and contributed to the Greek War of Independence before settling in newly independent Greece is already on the draft version. So we all good now? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood us. That part should be The Souliotes were a Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century, who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My sinsere apologies but I thought they have already been applied? Here is Diff: . If I got it wrong, please you are more than welcome to apply them youself. After all, unlike other comments of mine which none is allowed to edit, you are allowed to edit the draft. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ⚠ Note: ⚠ I can say that we have reached a solid consensus on the new lede. Before it is posted on the article, we will wait a couple of hours and make sure that Ashmodai, Ktrimi and Cercok are given their time to apply whatever fixes we missed, and give time for the other editors to get updated with the latest talk page developments. Please, every editor is reminded that any arguments of the kind "but it is not 100% perfect" or whatever, won't suffice for changing the consensus. If someone seeks to challenge the consensus, will have to open a discussion in the talk page and discuss about the desired changes they seek to make, and present WP:RS on the matter. My personal thanks to everyone for their constructive participation and positive contributions to the discussion!--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe this version is OK. There is a section on language. Elaboration on the "Souliotic dialect" may be included there. Çerçok (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to move the part about the settlement into newly independent Greece to the sentence on assimilation further down. The current version of the first sentence is extremely long. Something like Khirurg (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was you who didn't want it to be removed from first sentence? Maybe my memory is just failing me. Done then. Your feedback is implemented (see draft at beginning of the sub-section titled "Necessary final corrections per WP:VERIFY"). Enjoy! Edit: I am sorry, it wasn't. Now it is: --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Souliotic dialect" Isn't this overstating the case for a unique vocabulary for the Souliotes? The only primary attestation is an 1809 dictionary, and most of the terms can apparently be found in other varieties of Albanian. "The Albanian variant in the text shows lexical influence from Greek, Turkish and other languages. Of 1494 Albanian words of the vocabulary, 361 are loanwords from Greek, 187 from Turkish, 21 from Italian and two from other languages.". Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I don't understand what exactly is the problem you locate. Per the section on language, Robert Elsie speaks of a "Suliot dialect of Albanian". Yochalas in his book on Botzaris's dictionary (Το ελληνο-αλβανικόν λεξικόν του Μάρκου Μπότσαρη, p. 72) speaks of the "αλβανικόν ιδίωμα του λεξικού" (Albanian dialect/idiom of the dictionary) which "ανήκει εις την τοσκική διάλεκτον" (belongs in the Tosk dialect). Psimouli 1995, p. 176 also refers to the "idiom/variety/dialect that was spoken by the Souliots" ("του ομιλουμένου, από τους Σουλιώτες, ιδιώματος"). What would you propose replacing "They spoke the Souliotic dialect of Albanian" with, and for what reason? Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) fao Dimadick. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The best known part of Souliot history is their position as a regional power in the Pashalik of Yanina and their struggles with Ali Pasha. The Greek war of Independence is the last episode of Souliot history and not even an important one in terms of the history of the Souliots. I understand that for the history of Greece this is the part which matters and for this reason we should find a way to incorporate it but it can't be done by giving undue weight to it in the first sentence even though it doesn't belong there. The consensus version requires chronological order to deal with this contradiction hence I think that we should just use the sentence which we agreed yesterday The contradiction is even bigger if you take into account that 1/2 of the article in terms of history will be just for their relations with Ali Pasha, but we agreed to not mention Ali Pasha in the first sentence in order to be more inclusive of later history. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with your proposal. However, I think its also prudent to add the additions of @Ktrimi991 regarding the language of the Souliotes: . How does that sound to you? Alltan (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * About Greek War of Revolution, if nobody disagrees, I will gladly implement your feedback.
 * About Ktrimi's Language feedback, already implemented (see draft at beginning of the sub-section titled "Necessary final corrections per WP:VERIFY"): . Enjoy!
 * Edit: I am sorry for bothering you again. But your input will be appreciated. Is the moving of Greek War of Revolution (per Maleschreiber's suggestions) down some sentences, going to contradict the WP:RS regarding how they came to identify themselves with the Greek nation? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SilentResident, I am sorry but I am a bit lost. I don't have a problem with adopting the version that I see in the beginning of the section "Necessary final corrections per WP:VERIFY" in the current version of the talk page. Are other editors, including Maleschreiber (whom I truly thank for his comment) OK with this? I thought otherwise, but if I am wrong, please go ahead with it. If I was not wrong in thinking that Maleschreiber disagrees with this formulation, I will be writing a comment explaining why a number of scholarly sources don't support his (prima facie plausible) line of thinking, though I would have to ask you to bear with me. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer this formulation The sentence  is - in my opinion - incorrect because it implies that because Souliotes participated in the war they came to identify with the Greek nation, which itself was taking its modern form at the same time. The Souliotes became Greek as a result of the war which is that they settled in Greece, were recognized as Greek citizens, given free land and their former elite was integrated in the Greek elite. If the Greek Kingdom didn't resettle the Souliotes in Greece, the Souliotes simply wouldn't become Greeks because they wouldn't become part of Greek society. I chose a "soft version" which allows room for other narratives too.  My comment is just about this part of the first sentence. I have no issue with any other proposal (SR's addition about the EP, Ktrimi's addition about language)--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Since we are going in circles over the proposal 6, here is proposal 6 beta, which includes all the previous information, but with a more concise wording and imo a better flow:


 * Let me know if you find it acceptable. – Βατο (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not again. You know some editors will be unhappy that you removed Greek identity while keeping Albanian identity from lede's first sentence. Sorry but I am not getting involved into another never-ending circle of ethnic edit warring again. The current draft will be our final consensus and editors should live with that.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident, I know, indeed it is included in the first sentence: . As I stated above, I'm ok with both Ashmedai's and Maleschreiber's proposals, but it seems that the choice between them will take more time and many other comments. – Βατο (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Βατο, I appreciate your effort in making it simpler, and you have my sincere thanks for that. The only reason it is bigger is precisely that we tried too hard to bridge the differing sides here and their valid concerns, while at same time ensuring that it won't be against the WP:RS; rather reflect on them. It was a great discussion. Sure, it evidently got most of us tired and exhausted. But I think it was worth noting that although it is not perfect, it is in line with the RS and balanced, based on some strong points made by editors, points which have not been rebutted by others.
 * Guys, I am posting it on the article now. Thank you all very much for your constructive participation and help in constructing the new lede. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the version with the wording proposed by Maleschreiber. If you are posting that, then its all good on my part. Alltan (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh you already posted it, I personally would have waited a bit. Well, then I would suggest creating a new section down below to address the issue with the Greek identification part (whatever you may call it). Alltan (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Silent Resident. The removal of "who came to identify with the Greek nation" from the first sentence. is not going to work. Khirurg (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I began writing a reply to Maleschreiber, but in the meantime I saw yet another proposal. Please, no more proposals. The only issue that I see is pending right now is whether and how to mention the settlement of the Souliots in Greece in the first sentence. Is it possible agree to *provisionally* implement the last proposal, even with the formulation suggested by Maleschreiber, with the understanding that the inclusion and wording of the "settlement-in-Greece" clause in the first sentence is provisional and agree to further discuss the issue of this "settlement" clause in response to my comments and Maleschreiber in a talk page section specifically dedicated in the effort to shape a consensus view on this matter? Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, @SR I tried making it simpler but keeping the whole information, also leaving away disputes from the first sentence. @Khirurg it already encompasses that information. I made it because editors were going in circles over the same proposal. – Βατο (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree to this. Even though I supported Maleschreiber's reasoning, I would say its best for a proper section dedicated to this discussion to be had. Alltan (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is a minor change of wording, it can be done in another dedicated section. – Βατο (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident It has been agreed to use Maleschreibers wording for now under the condition that a section related specifically to the "Greek identification" (whatever you may call it) is created and a discussion is had. I will apply the changes now. Alltan (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

✅. It has been submitted. The draft (a reminder: it is at the top one on this subsection) has been added to the article. Thank you all for your patience and contributions to this talk page discussion. Now, any new discussions, should be posted in a new talk page section at the bottom of the article for obvious reasons of practicality and convenience. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Double mention of settlement
I am really frustrated that new changes were applied on the article, without seeking a broader consensus first. Please use the talk page, ok? Now, Alltan, in your edit, is there any reason you wanted to give a double emphasis on settlement? Isn't a single mention of the settlement already enough? I simply can not understand the purpose of emphasizing this too much. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have agreed to this version for the first sentence: I'm not entirely sure how we got to consider another version as agreed while we just agreed this one yesterday.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber, both of the Souliote settlements, are now covered in chronological order: They originated from Albanian clans that settled in the highlands of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages and then After the revolution, they settled in newly-independent Greece and assimilated into the Greek people. Which is chronologically sorted in line with the timeline of events. We tried our best to sort the lede by chronological order except in first sentence where both identities are mentioned for balancing purposes. It doesn't make sense to add a third instance of settlement in a lede that has already two mentions of them already. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SR, my bad. I thought we were talking about the version I proposed yesterday, and didnt C/PE as to not delete the new language section. My version has this in mind:  The Souliotes were a Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century, who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece came to identify with the Greek nation. They originated from Albanian clans that settled in the highlands of Thesprotia in the Late Middle Ages and established an autonomous confederation dominating a large number of neighboring villages in the mountainous areas of Epirus, where they successfully resisted Ottoman rule for many years. At the height of its power, in the second half of the 18th century, the Souliote confederacy is estimated to have consisted of up to 12,000 inhabitants. After the revolution, they were assimilated into the Greek people. . I simply added the changes as Ashmedai had agreed to them. Alltan (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I am unsure if user @Ahmet Q. would agree to your revision. That would mean most editors don't agree to it, a.k.a no consensus. On the other hand Ashmedai agreed to have MS version in for now at least. That's why I said it is better. Issues like this would have been avoided.Alltan (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. I understand completely and you have my apologies. Just it is that we were very careful during this whole discussion and we didn't remove any of the settlement infos. Both are present on the lede now, just in a chronological order. The only thing we failed to sort in chronological order is the first sentence due to editorial POV concerns. I am sorry we were unable to sort that too. But thankfully the rest of the lede is sorted chronologically.
 * As for WP:CONSENSUS, editors are reminded that it doesn't work like that but by strength of arguments and WP:RS. Ashmedai's changes were applied based on strength of arguments, and if previous changes were overwritten by newer ones, it is not because we decided to ignore other editors, is because new issues and arguments arose and it would be impossible to stick to previous draft versions. Debates evolve as new information and issues are brought to our attention. And so does happen that the solution may end up different at the end.. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Alltan, am I missing something here about the WP:RS regarding settlements? I thought that per WP:RS the chronological order is correct: sources confirm unanimously that they occured after the revolutionary war, and have led to their assimilation. Both of the information is placed chronologically near the end of the lede's paragraph. And we kept for the end the most notable feats of the Souliotes (Ali Pasha and War of Independence) in line with how it was done for other articles such as Alexander the Great, whose biggest feat is the creation of a huge empire stretching from Greece to India, and is mentioned at the end of the lede paragraph. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * RS is not the issue. The problem lies in the idea that Souliotes identified with Greece via their participation in the Greek Revolution alone. As Maleschreiber has clarified, this is simply not the case. Ashmedai then agreed that MS version, the one the majority agree upon, be instated in the lead, but at the guarantee of further discussion. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, I know very well that its' not a matter of polling or votes (as that would require a lack of discussion, something which this TP is not), but I also know that the WP:CONSENSUS lead can't be the version supported by less contributing (keyword) editors. I would say it would be a show of good faith to reinstate my revision, as that's what has the most support, by contributing (not voters) editors. But if that is not done, we still have achieved a lot. Alltan (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SilentResident thank you for your efforts to build a consensus, it is really appreciated. As for the version on which several editors agreed is the one proposed by Maleschreiber, while the change in wording (not omission as it is now in the article) in the first sentence of a proposed version was made today by Ashmedai, but not agreed by other editors. I was ok with both Maleschreiber's and Ashedai's wording, but Ashmedai's proposal would have to wait other editor's comments, indeed besides Maleschreiber, Ahmet Q. and Alltan do not agree with it. Ashmedai seems to be ok to keep temporarily Maleschreiber's wording until a decision is reached in the relevant section below. – Βατο (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User:Alltan and Βατο, but I can't consent to your edit to being restored to the article lede as is, coz this will create a 3rd instance of the word "settlement". Having it mentioned three times on the lede not only gives emphasis to it, but may mislead the inexperienced readers, by contradicting the WP:RS which confirm they had settled only two twice in their history: only at Pindus prior to revolutionary war, and then at the rest of Greece after the revolutionary war. Repeating the post-war settlement twice without providing a geographical description to the readers, risks giving the false impression to the readers that there are 3 separate settlements in the Souliote history: 1 prior to war and 2 after the war. Which is not true. How about we undo Khirurg's feedback here: . instead? This will keep the total number of times the settlements are mentioned on lede to just 2. Is that ok with you? Of course the proposals for changes will need to stop finally. We can't keep constantly changing the lede forever! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an easy fix for both problems would be 1. undo Khirurgs change 2. add Mals version for which we have WP:CONSENSUS* (with the caveat of further discussion. That would mean settle is mentioned twice in the article, once for their settling in Souli, and another for the settling of Greece. Can you apply these changes? @SilentResident Alltan (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Where do the sources state that "they came to identify with the Greek nation as a result of their settlement" in Greece? We should not have "settlement" mentioned 3 times. After the War, they settled in Greece. What's wrong with that? Khirurg (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that Lede has to reflect on sources. So far, no editor has been able to present sources that refute the sources and excellent points made by Ashmedai, (See his comment on ) where they stated that it is wrong to include their settlement in Greece as a factor that led to their Hellenisation, as, according to scholarly sources cited, it had already happened when they settled in newly independence Greece. The Souliote's transition of identity was already complete when they moved and settled among the Greeks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai was ok with keeping Maleschreiber's proposal temporarily, so it should be added. Nevertheless, the version of Ashmedai agreed by other editors was this one:, which coincides with the one you initially added into the article, but you changed it without proper explanation. – Βατο (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bato, Ashmedai agreed, and is in line with both of the drafts I had added to the article myself, both the one I initially added into the article, but I changed to this: Lets see what it says: "who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation and settle in newly independent Greece." (note the placement of words "VIA" and "AND": They identified "VIA" revolution, "AND" settled).
 * However Maleschreiber agreed to this: (please note the keyword "VIA" and "AND"'s placement prior to identification, suggesting falsely, that the settlement is what contributed to their identification.) This is not what Ashmedai agreed, and not what the WP:RS support. The settlement did not contribute to their identification, the settlement is what contributed to their assimilation. Unless Maleschreiber can provide strong sources confirming that they didn't identify as Greeks already before settling among Greeks, I can't consent to Maleschreiber's demands as they constitute WP:OR. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You agreed to my suggestion yesterday. The wording allows room both for a causal or a partially causal interpretation. Whichever one you choose the reality is that the settlement of the Souliotes in Greece facilitated their identification with the specific identity which developed in the Greek Kingdom. This is something which we have already written in the articles in different ways including: I suggested the most "soft version" of this issue for the lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, ofcourse I agreed to it. That was until I kept reading the discussion and realized you aren't providing WP:RS to support your positions on this claim. Please provide me sources, or at least address/refute the points raised by other editors against your proposal, and then I will gladly apply it. As for the quote: "", it doesn't support your claim that their post-war settlement played a role to their identification. Am I missing something here? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe the proposal of so many drafts has caused some misunderstanding. Yesterday, we agreed that we will use this sentence (proposed by me) +  (proposed by SR). This was agreed by all of us - including Khirurg. How did we change this today to keep only the second part of what was agreed yesterday and move the first part into another section of the lead? Ashmedai 119 suggested that it needs some further editing and we agreed to discuss it further, but in the meantime the status quo is that we will keep it as it is. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber, I will gladly apply your requested changes only if you address adequately my WP:OR concerns just above: . I hope you can understand that I can't make changes to the lede without verifying these claims that the Souliotes  didn't identify already as Greeks when they settled in Greece. Until then, there can't be consensus for such changes to the article I am afraid. Remember that when 3 editors support something not in accordance with the WP:RS, it simply constitutes WP:POV and WP:OR and no editorial consensus may override these core rules. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone also please note that the current version ...via their participation in the Greek war of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation does not in any way imply that they identified with Greece before the war, or at the start of the war. Merely that they came to identify with Greece via their participation in the war. Which is 100% correct and in accordance with the sources.The key word is via which automatically implies that they couldn't have possibly identified with Greece before the war, or even at the start of the war. To the extent that it even implies a time frame, it implies that they only came to identify with Greece at the conclusion of the war. I have yet to see one source that contradicts this. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the version Maleschreiber is referring to, although I did agree to it initially, after reading many of the comments, I subsequently posted a different proposal that was different . And as far as I can tell, the version Maleschreiber is referring to was supported by all of 5 people, so not anywhere close to "all of us". Why so many people chose to abstain, I have no idea. Khirurg (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) How can the "Self-identification" section be reconciled with a sentence which claims that the Souliotes identified with being Greek in 1821-1827? It can't. Where in the article is it shown that the Souliotes identified with being Greek via participation in the Greek War of Independence? This is also not shown anywhere in the article. What I suggested can have many interpretations including a causal one between settlement and identity. It doesn't have to necessarily mean only that. If we can't agree to the wording, we can mention this event where it belongs chronologically. Even if we take at face value the sentence, then it can't stand as a logical statement because only a portion of Souliotes participated in the war. Cultural identities do not shift overnight, they take a long time to be formed and can only change gradually under new conditions. The Souliotes became Greeks as Greek citizens who participated in Greek political life and education in Greece where their descendants just integrated themselves in a Greek-speaking society and intermarried with other Greeks. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question, Maleschreiber. Like how you were given time to refute Ashmedai's points when he addressed your comments, I will be fair and give the others time to refute your comment and especially: "Where in the article is it shown that the Souliotes identified with being Greek via participation in the Greek War of Independence?". If they don't in a reasonable time, then I will gladly remove the Greek War of Independence from the lede. We can't have information implying something it is not supported by the WP:RS and not present in the article per WP:LEAD. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SR, I didn't ask to remove it from the WP:LEAD. I said that it should be contextualized because participation in the Greek War of Independence by itself didn't make the Souliotes join Greek society, which itself was ambivalent about them joining it. In my opinion, the defining moment is the 1827 decision to give them land to settle in Greece. This decision itself wasn't met with unanimous support in Greek society. I'm not even suggesting that we write such a thing but to simply acknowledge that two events were required for the descendants of Souliotes to join Greek society, not one.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. A friendly note: Joining the Greek society is called integration. It should not be confused with the assimilation nor the identity of people. For example there may be people who are not Greeks but joined the Greek society, or are Greeks and did not. Confusing identities of people with their integration or their assimilation in a society is a path that shouldn't be blurred. I will ask kindly all the editors to be cautious as to not confuse these 3 aspects unless their meaning is explicitly interchangeable in the sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I use the term in the sense of cultural integration and self-identification, not in the modern sense where "joining a society" may be completely unrelated to cultural identity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lafe (2014): (With the evolution of events, once torn from their native lands and dispersed in Greece, the Suliots were however assimilated to the Greek nation, born from the Revolution of 1830)--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber thank you for your patience and cooperation. I will refrain from commenting further to give room to the editors to address the points raised here. If no satisfactory explanation is provided, then the lede's first sentence will be reworded to meet WP:NPOV. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Lafe, what we currently have in the lede is After the revolution, they migrated to and settled in newly-independent Greece, and assimilated into the Greek people. Basically exactly what Lafe is saying, and it's already in the lede. However I don't see anything in Lafe that contradicts who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation.. Because "assimilated into the Greek nation" and "came to identify with the Greek nation" mean two different things. When we say "assimilated into the Greek nation", we mean (and wikilink to) the Greek people, into which the Souliotes assimilated. That process occurred after the war, and was gradual. But when we say "came to identify with the Greek nation", we mean the state of Greece, and that is why we also link to Greece, not Greeks. Assimilating into a people and identifying with a specific state are totally different things, and I could give dozens of examples (e.g. assimilated Turks in Germany identifying with Turkey). What the opening sentence does not say is: "they assimilated into the Greek people via their participation in the Greek War of Independence". That would be incorrect. But that they came to identify with Greece via their participation in the war is correct, because at the end of the war they identified with the Greek state. And that is why they migrated there. Khirurg (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, that source (Lafe) is in agreement with the sentence, however it is in disagreement with the first sentence of the lead, which now has due weight/pov issues and also so far possibly constitutes WP:OR as stated by SilentResident and Maleschreiber. Other sources need to be provided and analysed. – Βατο (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was me who via removed the bold part who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence and subsequent settlement in newly independent Greece came to identify with the Greek nation. from the lede draft. I did so based on concerns by . Now that a source is provided to support that wording, a change is needed to reflect Lafe too. Ashmedai, do you have any idea how this can be done? Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi991, thank you for tagging me. As I have written in the conclusion of my last comment, "the single source to which Maleschreiber referred does not directly support what he claims, key statements in the rationale he provided in his comments are belied by scholarly sources and, what's perhaps more important, scholarly sources (Koliopoulos/Veremis, Politis, Psimouli) explicitly contradict what Malescreiber claims about the Souliot identification with the Greek nation occurring through and after their settlement in Greece". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai 119 as stated by Maleschreiber, the process of identification/integration of an entire community is necessarily gradual and spread over time. The sources you provided state that Souliote warriors identified with the Greek nation as they fought for the Greek cause, and it is unquestionable. However the Souliote community included also other people besides warriors. Lafe states that Souliotes were integrated into the Greek nation "once torn from their native lands and dispersed in Greece", and this is reasonable from an ethnografic perspective. The wording is more inclusive of all the scholarly opinions and does not contradict them. That formulation implies that a number of Souliotes already identified during the Revolution, and another number did it afterwards in the process of assimilation (the assimilation part is also mentioned in the lead section, it is so far undisputed). On the other hand your proposal means that the whole community identified with the Greek nation since the beginning of the revolution, which according to the sources seems to be less accurate. Also the geographic context in the first sentence should not be omitted, because the first sentence is meant to provide a balanced overview of the topic of the article (some people read just the first sentence of the article, not the whole lead section, so it can't be unbalanced and possibly misleading). – Βατο (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also there is the fact that some members of the Souliote community went in other regions, not in Greece, for instance Lafe reports that families from Souli went in Dardhë (southern Albania) after Ali's desctruction of their original settlement. So the context proposed by Maleschreiber becomes even more necessary. – Βατο (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Βατο, first of all I don't undestand how "the fact that some members of the Souliote community went in other regions" (and did not, it is implied, end up identifying with the Greek nation) means that "the context proposed by Maleschreiber becomes even more necessary" (which concerns the time when the process of the Souliots identifying with the Greek nation was finalised).
 * You also suggest that there is a distinction to be drawn inside the Souliot community. This is a novel claim in this discussion and I can't see any scholar drawing such a distinction. Have I missed something? If there are scholarly sources discussing this distinction, I would be thankful to learn which are they.
 * Moreover, it is just patently not true that "[my] proposal means that the whole community [of Souliots] identified with the Greek nation since the beginning of the revolution". My proposal is to state that "via their participation in the Greek War of Independence they came to identify with the Greek nation." I could not hope to explicate its meaning in terms more lucid than those already used by Khirurg, whom I quote: My wording "does not in any way imply that [the Souliots] identified with Greece before the war, or at the start of the war. Merely that they came to identify with Greece via their participation in the war. Which is 100% correct and in accordance with the sources.The key word is via which automatically implies that they couldn't have possibly identified with Greece before the war, or even at the start of the war."
 * Having said that, there is no doubt that "the process of identification/integration of an entire community is necessarily gradual and spread over time". What I question is that the wording that you mention is a statement that can be presented to readers as reflecting scholarly consensus and especially in the article's very first sentence. You state that it is "more inclusive of all the scholarly opinions and does not contradict them." I beg to insist that this is just patently false. Politis clearly states that the Souliots "were Greeks" by 1826, Psimouli discusses their hellenisation as being contemporaneous with their participation in the War of Independence, Koliopoulos and Veremis say that "no one thought of himself" any less of a Greek compared to Greek-speaking Greeks "when [they] settled in southern Greece as refugees." To this point, there have been no scholarly sources presented that state otherwise. Lafe's quote (which btw is more of an offhand remark) locates the identification of the Souliots with the Greek nation "once torn from their natives lands and dispersed in Greece," an event which took place in 1803 and for a second and final time in 1822, not "in the decades after they permanently settled in the Greek Kingdom", as per Maleschreiber's proposal. So, there are sources that speak of the Souliots's Hellenisation being contemporaneous with the War of Independence (Psimouli) or Souliots becoming Greeks by the siege of Messolonghi (Politis) or of the Souliots considering themselves Greeks by the time they settled in Greece (Koliopoulos/Veremis) and one (Lafe) that dates their Hellenisation (in identity terms) after their expulsion from Souli (1803/1822).  Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the information that the   supported by reliable sources? If you think so, please provide them in the template kindly created by SilentResident below so other editors can read them and provide their relevant thoughts. – Βατο (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Βατο, it seems like I should explain that I did not use the template that SilentResident created, because I had *already* cited full passages from relevant sources in previous messages of mine (for example, here and here), but for the sake of clarity and as conducive to finalizing this discussion, I will be now copying the full passages in the designated area. Looking forward to those being in disagreement to also quote relevant passages that directly support their claims. Cheers, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai 119 I've already read your comments and those quotes, but I can't see how the statement that the can be inferred by them. Perhaps I missed something or could be wrong in their interpretations. So far I can say that only this sentence  can be inferred by a source, which is Lafe provided by Maleschreiber above. – Βατο (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ashmedai for your considerable hard work for providing these sources. To me, it is very clear how they support the phrase "came to identify with the Greek nation via their participation in the Greek War of Independence". Specifically, passages such as they no longer were mercenaries, eager to serve the more powerful, they were Greeks fighting for faith and fatherland, in which the Souliotes integrate, and When most of the northern Greek fighters settled in southern Greece as refugees, none of them thought, or was made to think, of himself as less of a Greek for speaking little or nothing of the language.. If even this is still not sufficient to convince some participants, it may be necessary to seek mediation from users outside the topic area, maybe via WP:RFC. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, do you understand that the could not have  because it was destroyed 20 years before the beginning of the events of the revolution? Those who participated in it were Souliote fighters belonging to the remnants of older clans (as pointed out by Psimouli 1995, but also the other sources always provide the relevant contextualization). Ashmedai 119 I wonder how you can keep ignoring this discrepancy in the first sentence. I would like to know also SilentResident's and Ktrimi991's relevant thoughts about this issue, as they seemed to agree with Ashmedai's wording. Keep in mind that we are talking about the MOS:LEADSENTENCE. – Βατο (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am exhausted... The majority of the sources do not support the claim that Souliotes did not consider themselves as Greeks when they wanted to settle among Greeks. If you do honestly believe that the alternate sentence should be used in spite the lack of an academic consensus over such a claim, then perhaps you should consider an impartial third party input, such as a RfC. If the sources in fact vindicate your position, then the RfC would favor it. However this is unlikely.
 * From personal experience, I believe a RfC may satisfly none of the parties here and rather conclude to a new, third option that can work for Wikipedia, if not for you. One which leaves the debated details out of the first sentence: "...who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation." And thus, favor having the first sentence mention the indisputable facts only, and without details: mention only religion (indisputed), pre-war origin (indisputed) and post-war identification (indisputed) but no details how they came to believe in this religion, no details about how did they originate from, and no details about how they did come to identify with: "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 16th century to the beginning of the 19th century, who came to identify with the Greek nation.." Which is way more balanced. And this option differs from both the current and the alternate sentence which you both sides fight over.
 * And from experience I can say for certain that the editors from outside the Balkans topic area are already wondering why we aren't doing that by ourselves. They wouldn't understand why you fight over these details especially from the moment they constitute an undue weight considering that this is the first lead sentence and no such details are helpful there. And if you ask me, the third party editors will support this new, 3rd option even more likely from the moment they see that both sentences are the cause for endless debates here. Why? Well, if you ask yourself: "if the first sentence doesn't go into details about religion, and it doesn't go into details about pre-war identity either, then why should it go about post-war one?". Bingo! You are getting into the way of thinking of someone from outside the Balkans topic area. So, yes, RfC would most likely make things worse for you editors, but better for the lede, by agreeing to a better version none here wants. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)