Talk:Stratioti

message: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/pedani.pdf
A picture
http://www.nobili-napoletani.it/images/ALBANESI/Maipesi.gif  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.131 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: Deucalionite, if as the source for your "Αρβανίτες Ελληνες" you mean the Ta Nea article you quoted to Matia the other day, read it carefully: it doesn't even ascribe that phrase to Barbarigo. If you know it is from Barbarigo nevertheless, quote me chapter and verse in the Sathas edition, plus the original wording in Italian or whatever language it was written in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing this back, as no confirmation of this quote has been forthcoming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah? Greeks had colonies in Albania, Dalmatia and South Italy since 7th c. BC and are still present there as ethnic or lingual minorities. "Durazzo" is the ancient Epidamnos. Romans changed name to Dyrrachium because of the "damn" in the Greek name, but we don't need to refer to Greek presence in Albania. For Greeks in Dalmatia see Epidaurus (Dalmatia) (today Cavtat), List of ancient cities in Illyria, Issa (today Vis (town)), Pharos (Hvar http://www.dalmatia.net/dalmatia-island-hvar/), and Trau (ancient Gr. Tragirion) with the nearby island of Bua. --Euzen (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The study says that 80% of names (in Marco Sanudo's archives, not in whole Europe) are of Albanian origin. This is debatable, though, or needs some interpretation. About half of the "Albanian" names are albanized Latin. For those who don't know details of that period: Many persons' names were actually the names of their landlords or toponyms. Albanian (catholic) landlords had been established since the crusades period at the expence of orthodox population.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbarigo

message: Is it certain Stradioti were "recruited" in Cyprus? I've seen references saying Arvanite stradioti units moved to Cyprus and settled there at some later stage, but was it also a recruiting area? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyprus?

message: According to the history of my ancestors many of them (Stradioti) were of Albanian extraction too. Does anyone have more information about this? One article I've read and is mentioned here in the Wikipedia article in the past is at:
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Contessa arberesh (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roberto Damiani's website  and the list of the condottieri  are quite reliable and in fact has helped scholars in their research  See comment of Pietro Bembo in his History of Venice: Books I-IV, Volume 1 [. I think it may safely be used in this article as a RS. --Sulmues (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: We'll see if they are notable once that I start articles about them. It's very disruptive of you to ignore reliable sources.--Sulmues (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure go on. Actually this was nothing more than a povish list, added by a blocked user, that didn't meet wp:n, just to monopolize the Stratioti as Albanians only. What is disruptive here is that a user supports indef blocked editors with the excuse that they are just his coethnics.Alexikoua (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Btw per MOS please don't disrupt the alphabetical arrangement in order to put one ethnicity before the other ones and don't add irrelevant terms on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems you both are completely out of topic? Alphabetical order? lol. It was just a list added by a indef blocked user, and now it's gone because non of them met wp:n (ignore nationalist advocacy)Alexikoua (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: To what is this dispute related?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To this edit. Reverted  and again Alexi's edit--Sulmues (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To sum up, Zjarri (above) said this: don't add irrelevant terms on the lead., alphabetical arrangement? I'm sorry but he must mistaken me from somewhere else. He should read again wp:what wikipedia is not. Blindly accusing is really the worst extreme way of disruption in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the state of the article and I'm not blindly accusing anyone. I don't think that common mistakes are a reason for accusing someone because people make mistakes and learn from them. Btw Sulmues seems to have asked you about something 3 times so it would be prudent if you answered and didn't IDHT him.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: So what?  Why should that be the second sentence of the article?  Like I said, only an Albanian nationalist would....Athenean (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would only an Albanian nationalist add that on the lead?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because is against wp:lead. @Zjarries: I still wait an explanation about your weird accusations here, as stated above (don't add irrelevant terms on the lead., alphabetical arrangement etc. empty accusation against me). Else I doubt if someone can take your comments serious here in general.Alexikoua (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for recognizing your mistake.Alexikoua (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to ask for full protection because you continued the edit-warring Alexikoua.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I haven't heard a single valid reason why that sentence should be the second sentence of the article.  I mean, should we make it the first sentence too?  No one is saying it should be removed from the article, but how is the fact that one single author claims that 80% of them were Albanian deserve to be the second sentence in the article?  It simply doesn't.  It's too much.  Leave where it is in the text, but it doesn't merit placement in the lede. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm asking you a simple question, and you respond with personal attacks (I hate this, I don't propose anything constructive, I don't bring decent contributions, I worry too much about ledes...).  Just try to answer my question.  "Why not" is not a valid answer.  Athenean (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You answer boils down to "why not", which is not a valid answer.  There is simply no argument that the second sentence of the article should be a sentence about ethnic distribution.  To the rest of us, ethnicity here just  isn't that important that it should go right in the second sentence of the article.  I bet if the Stratioti were 80% Greek, you would arguing the exact opposite.  Athenean (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: "I am following wp:lede" is not an argument.  Anyone can claim to do so.  Athenean (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also no argument to keep any ethnicity on the lead, so when the full protection expires I'll add that they came from the Balkans and if the reader wants to know their exact origin he can read the origins section(per wp:lead that is a summary), otherwise since we're adding ethnicities there's no reason to not be precise about the ethnicity of the majority. Btw the source didn't say that just one Greek author made such a suggestion but that Most modern, as well as a good number of early authors have indicated that the stradioti were Albanian., so this isn't a one sided approach.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian Stradioti 

message: Euzen can you please stick to the sources and not make or deductions? 
Despite the fact that you're using a 1551 source, you're not even citing it correctly because the source says as you quoted it: Gli stradiotti erano un Corpo di cavalleria, constituito principalmente da albanesi, greci, dalmati, bulgari, which means that they were mercenary units from the Balkans, but you translated that as Contemporary historians call them  Albanians (Albanesi) or  Greeks (Greci). That speaks volumes regarding or. Also you don't even know what any of the terms meant at that time, and please don't delete other references.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Zjar, there is no point in guarding articles and aggressively delete in real time. This practice has already been dealed with in the case of Sulmues. If you read carefully the references that you deleted you will see that ref. about "albanesi, greci, dalmati, bulgari" is of 2005. By "contemporary" I mean references of 16th c. If wording or syntax is wrong, we can correct it. The 1551 source is not a "research" but a well-known historical reference regarding medieval Italy. What about Enciclopedia Italiana?  If you don' like them, present your arguments.
I paste here the paragraph that your deleted. It is full of sources. You may explain what exactly YOU understand as a "source" and as "Original Research".  There are many sources, not only the ones that you select, and published in numerous secondary and tertiary sources, like the ones I refer to. 
If you claim that you know better what the terms "Albanian" and "Greek" meaned at that time, let us know. 
"They were known as stradioti from the Greek word for soldier." (Ref.: Grande Enciclopedia Italiana, ed. Treccani, article Stradioti: "dal basso greco στρατιώται").  Contemporary historians call them  Albanians (Albanesi) or  Greeks ("Greci") (Ref.:Pietro Bembo (original publication 1551), Storia Veneta, Venezia, 1780, transl. from latin to italian, pp. 154, 188, 198, 206 etc.), while modern essays recognise their mixed origin/ethnicity/language (Ref.:  Sul Tutto, p. 3: "Gli stradiotti erano un Corpo di cavalleria, constituito principalmente da albanesi, greci, dalmati, bulgari ..." (Pappas).
A study of the stradiotti names in Venezian archives showed that around 80% of the listed names were Albanian while most of the remaining ones, especially those of officers, were Greek and a small minority were of South Slavic origin. (Pappas)"
You cannot erase and re-write history.--Euzen (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Euzen read WP:OR, then read the sentence you're citing and afterwards read your deduction. Btw Bembo wasn't even a historian but that doesn't matter because the fact the vast majority were from the Balkans is already part of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need an author to claim that sentence from XVI century, not your interpretation. If you would take care to read WP:OR, you would spare to others a lot of time. This is the n-th time the other users (including me) are saying this to you. Aigest (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Evidently either you don't get the concept of OR -ing or you are trolling as usual.Aigest (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Still you don't get it. Let me put this simple. In your case first issue are the sources, they should meet WP:RS criteria. Apart other requirements for WP:RS, Bembo falls under the category of primary sources, since yourself admit that he was a contemporary of Stradioti and usually primary sources are not preferred to be used in wiki exactly for the risk of OR-ing(read more here). Second issue are how to cite them.
Though we may report the attributed opinions of reliable authors, articles should never include the opinions of Wikipedians themselves, even if you are an expert who has read any number of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Your opinions and interpretations do not belong in an article. But it is appropriate to document interpretations of events, data, or opinions, as published in reliable secondary source material. Peer-reviewed sources are especially valued. While secondary source material is most preferred, primary sources may also be used to report factual material provided the contributing editor states the fact in a manner that does not present an interpretation of the fact (original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source.
When you claim "Contemporary historians call them Albanians (Albanesi) or Greeks ("Greci")" You have interpreted a fact which is not itself explicitly contained in Bembo. If Bembo would have stated that "Historians call them Albanians or Greeks" that would have been ok up to the point of WP:RS of Bembo. But in this case that phrase is a conclusion made by you Euzen and not by any scholar. It is not important if it is right or wrong, it is your conclusion thus OR. Do you understand? Aigest (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: I created a new version. Sorry about a small mistake I made, but I was working on both this and another article--Kushtrim123 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job on the new version Kushtrim and Alexikoua your latest edit was totally OR apart from POV since the source didn't say  French drawing of Greek and Albanian stradioti..." it said French drawing of Albanian stradioti and the other source which didn't say anything about the drawing said Albanians, Greeks, Italians.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua do you have access at Oxford Journals? The page of that link says nothing about any Greek stradioti.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Zjarri: please avoid this endless campgain of disruption: the source is quite clear, and I gave the exact quote (which you removed together with all the reference and you admit that you haven't access on it).
Also if you have not access to Oxford Journals, although everyone can confirm this quote, you should better go to a library instead of blindly removing in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have access to Oxford Journals or are you again using google search without actually having access to the sources themselves? I think that you're using simple google search because if you had actual access you would be quoting whole sentences.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ignore trolling) I have. For future reference we don't remove sources just by using the hypothetical arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then bring the full quote and I mean the whole sentence not just what the rest of us can see from google if that's true. If you don't bring the full quote since you claim that you have access I will assume that you don't have and remove the pov tag as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, otherwise I'll revert myself ,bring back the source and remove the tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be a little more precise on the 'full quote'? I can give the 'entire' page.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: [] (hope it's visible).Alexikoua (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At least very kind of you restoring a url that was previously removed [] with the excuse that oxford journals isn't accessible.Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: The albanian editors grabbed the citation of Pappas about "80% of the names" and turned the names to nationality statistics. However, in other articles the same editors have showed that even if the name does not sound Albanian, they turn it so and ... voila! The person becomes Albananian (e.g. see application of this method in Gregorios Argyrokastritis (Gregory IV of Athens)).
Pappas is not "most modern historians", names do not mean nationality, and Sathas, who did the original research, does not refer to all stratioti. However this is some info for the occasional "Japanese reader", provided that he will not read anything more about Albanian language.
Selective use of sources is applied in this article, as usual. Pietro Bembo, a first-hand witness of stratioti and widely cited historiographer, who calls the stratioti mostly "Greci", is vandalously erased by the albanian editors as ... original research! Poor Bembo! Does he have to remain out of WP together with Thukydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo and other "ORs" !--Euzen (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian "statistics" 

message: I have been concerned for some time that this article is failing to develop.  Very little is being said about the service of stratioti, which is a weakly developed (coverage is noted as a weakness in the B class checklist).  Yet a huge amount of e-ink is being spilled on the supposed ethnic origin of the troops.  This seems to drift uncomfortably close to edit warring and, more disturbingly, seems to have a ethnic POV content.  Could I then suggest that, in order to attract new editors who may be able to expand the deficient areas of the article, that this dispute is settled and the article stabilised?  Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have about 100 pages of material (including some pictures) for this article but there is no point in contributing and wasting time, when some editors behave like owners and use the article to beef up their national myth. See the history of the article and you will realize that some are deleting important references on funny explanations, just because they demolish the myth of "albanian stratioti".
This small article and its links are part of an albanian project aiming at creating a medieval "albanian nation", when modern literature is clear that albanian national identity was hardly existing by the end of 19th c (e.g. Bernd J. Fischer (2005)  A Brief Historical Overview of the Development of Albanian Nationalism). 
Check for instance the link Mercurio Bua and discover that he was (what else?) "Albanian", when there are undeniable sources that he was a native Greek speaker, born in Greece and recognized by the Italians of his time as "Greco".
I will avoid edit-war. I am interested in military history and only history. If you can propose a way to bypass this electronic autarchism we can have a good war history article. --Euzen (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Euzen Monstrelet and others want to improve the article and Aigest has told you to read WP:OR about your deductions so please do that.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

text:  I have now gone through and restructured the text to help clarify where the weak points are and to make it more user friendly.  I've added no text, nor have I altered the references.Monstrelet (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about development of the article 

message: The guardians of the albanian POV are online 24 hours a day and delete references in milliseconds, as they practice in all related articles.
For the interested reader here is the list of the deletions. 
15 Nov 2010, line 39, []. They try to create an impression of temporariness around the Greek identity. The Greek city of Argos, the oldest city of Europe, being Greek since at least the Mycenean period, the source of hundreds of texts on Linear B in Greek language, has to be a "modern Greek" city. Do they know history? 
Here, [] they erased the etymology of "carabins" just because refers to a Greek word.  The erased phrase:
:This term is believed to come from the medieval Greek word "caravi" (boat, ship), since these soldiers were also seamen and were transported by ships (Sathas K. (1885) Greek stratiotai in the West and the revival of Greek tactics, in "Estia", vol. 19, No 492, p. 371, in Greek language.)
::They are affraid of the wordk "Greek" in linked articles!
Nov 6, 2010
I added: "From Laskaris family: Isaakios Laskaris, killed in the Battle of Fornovo (1495), Demetrios Laskaris, son of Isaakios, ..." and was deleted.
The fact that authors report his death just because he is "Laskaris" does not mean anything to the ruthless vandal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are affraid of the word "Greeks" in all languages!
Nov 3, 2010  
San Giorgio dei Greci is deleted and replaced by  Eastern Orthodox Church in Venice!
Zar's rules! Does anybody else know the difference between the "Greek Orthodox Church" and a "Greek Orthodox Temple"?
--Euzen (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Instantly reverted before I even think of checking the WP rules on racism.--Euzen (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: According to Pappas, most modern historians as well as a good number of early authors have indicated that the stradioti were Albanian. This is accepted by the author as true to a certain extent but which has to be qualified (Nicolas Pappas, undated, http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html). According to a 1960  study by a Greek author, around 80% of the listed names attributed to the stradioti were of Albanian origin while most of the remaining ones, especially those of officers, were of Greek origin; a small minority were of South Slavic origin. (Pappas). Subsequent works support that at least the regiment of stradioti who served Venice were recruited entirely from Greeks (Harris J., Greek Emigres in the West, 1400-1520 (Camberley: Porphyrogenitus, 1995), cited in Harris J. (2002) Byzantines in Renaissance Italy.). Venice, due to its dependence on the military services of the stradioti, granted the Greeks initially the permission to use part of the church of San Biagio and later to build their own church, the San Giorgio dei Greci (Geanakoplos D. (1966) Byzantine East & Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance. Edit. The Academy Library Harper & Row Publishers, New York, exerpts online).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Contemporary historians call them  Albanians (Albanesi) or  Greeks ("Greci") (Pietro Bembo (original publication 1551),  Storia Veneta, Venezia, 1780, transl. from latin to italian, pp. 154, 188, 198, 206 etc.), while modern essays recognise their mixed origin/ethnicity/language.--Euzen (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Euzen all the outdated Bembo says is that they were from the Balkans so please stick to the sources and don't make OR deductions about the Venetian stradioti being entirely(huge or and pov) Greek. If you want to mention that apart from Albanian stradioti in Nafplio, Argos etc. Greek stradioti also fought go ahead but please don't make or deductions. As for the church you only had to add the name for the Byzantine rite church, but instead you chose to make or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of vandalisms (info and references deleted) 

message: I thank you for complimenting my work ZjarriRrethues and hope that you continue making good faith edits. Now if I'm not mistaken, your main grievance with my contributions is the removal of certain sentences and sources. Please bear in mind that no sources were removed, but that the the majority of the sources/citations I incorporated into the entry do not fully concur with the sentences I edited. Prior to my edits, the text in the first paragraph of the 'History' section seemed to appeal to only one perspective. Technically, the history of the entry is checkered with 'conflicts of perspective' none of which have brought any benefit to the quality of the entry.
To make a long story short, the changes I made to the article are necessary for three straightforward reasons: 1) balanced content, 2) professional content, 3) simple/intelligible content. Your good faith edits may have, in actuality, decreased the quality of the entry. And since my purpose on this project is quality management, I intend to restore the article to the version containing my edits. I will perform this action only once and write the following in my edit summary: "Stable Version: If quality of entry is diminished, please restore to this version. For more details, please consult discussion page. Thank you. [Inspector] No. 108". After I restore the article, I will cease making any further edits.   
And as much as I'd love to participate in the "scintillating" debates here, I have no intention of quarreling with you or with anyone for that matter. Have a splendid day. :-) No. 108 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one source was removed. Btw please read WP:COPYVIO, because we can't quote large amounts of content from authors.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable version 

message: Euzen please don't add fringe and outdated sources from the 19th century to change the obvious etymology of words like carabins, which has the same etymology as carabiniers.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Euzen, stop personal attacks. Just explain where do you see the relation between Stratioti and Carbine?! Carbine was invented centuries after their disappearance from the battlefield and AFAIK (and we all agree I hope) Stratioti never used Carbine rifles. The terms Stratioti and Carbine are not related. Aigest (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it is worth, this is what the OED says about the origins of carabin
[a. F. carabin (16th c. in Littré), of disputed origin: Roquefort alleges an earlier calabrin, according to Diez, f. calabre an ancient engine of war, the name calabrin being transferred from the man who worked that to those who carried these fire-arms; but Littré inclines to see in it a transl. of Calabr{imac}nus Calabrian.
  Calabre, also Pr. and OSp., is regarded by Diez as repr. medL. chadabula an engine for throwing stones, earlier catabola, a. Gr. {kappa}{alpha}{tau}{alpha}{beta}{omicron}{lambda}{ghacu} overthrow, destruction.]  Monstrelet (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carabins 

message: I have reverted this  edit. The claim of an etymological connection between ancient Caria and 16th-century Spanish cavallery unit belongs to the category of "exceptional claims that require exceptional sourcing"; it is prima facie implausible. Especially since the source cited, Stephanus of Byzantium, is quite obviously irrelevant (he lived in the 6th century AD, so how could he conceivably be a source about Renaissance military?) According to Spanish etymological dictionaries , alabarderos has the obvious derivation that anybody with a scattering of Spanish could have guessed: it's from alabarda, the Spanish form of halberd (which, in turn, is probably derived from a Germanic word). Whatever it is that Sathas is saying, since we already had some rather outlandish speculation ascribed to him in the case of "carabiniers", we should be taking any further references to him with more than a grain of salt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: just to note that I've now figured out that Stephanus is indeed the author who provides the Carian gloss for the ancient place name Alabanda (); beyond that he is of course quite irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alabarderos

message: Why an albanian wiki-user deleted the Greek name version of Stratioti? --Prodebugger (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it appears to contradict the line below, which says that the article isn't about all uses of the Greek word in the Middle Ages.  I've slightly re-edited the text to take away the contradiction.  Probably could be slightly tidier but do you think this works? Monstrelet (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted greek name 

message: I don't know why you deleted the 80% of Albanian stratioti.The source says:"Most modern, as well as a good number of early authors have indicated that the stradioti were Albanian. This is true to a certain extent but has to be qualified. A Greek author made a study of the names of stradioti found in the most extensive documentary collection of materials dealing with the stradioti and found that some 80% of the names were of Albanian origin, while the rest were of Greek origin".
Also it says:" This investigation found that indeed many of the names were Albanian, but a good number of the names particularly those of officers, were of Greek origin".It doesn't say that 80% claim isn't true.Rolandi+ (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't say that 80% is false, but neither does it say that it is true. You cannot use Pappas as a source for "80% of the names were Albanian", because he does not say that. Pappas just quotes an unnamed author, but when he presents his own findings, he says "Many". --T*U (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, nothing in what he says suggests that he fundamentally disagrees with the gist of the findings of the earlier study he is quoting, so while he may not be endorsing the exact figure of "80%" (which, after all, was never claimed to be a figure valid for the totality of the population but the figure found in one particular statistical sample), he is evidently not contradicting the implication that the 80% figure is approximately representative, so to my mind "most" (rather than a mere "many") is an absolutely fair summary of what he reports. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! --T*U (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Done! --T*U (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, glad we've been able to sort this one out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello  I noticed this discussion which mentions Albanian names. I am interested to expand the article which covers this topic. You agreed that in Italy "The stradiots were for the most part Albanians" because the source says that   "80% of the names were Albanian". Does anybody know what were those Albanian names? I would really appreciate answer to this question so I could use it to expand the above mentioned corresponding article. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentage

message: As has been agreed upon long ago, there is a consensus that the stratioti were mostly Albanian (80%). The rest were slavs, italians and greek. The name stratiotes can be mentioned up front because of it being used in biblipgraphy, then albanian, greek and italian. I dont have the source but it seems Pappas gives 2 theories on the names origin, so saying that the greek one is its orgin is not neutralAlltan (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to rid ourselves of the misunderstanding that mentioning or not mentioning a non-English name in the lead of an article is somehow a symbolic badge of recognition of how important a topic is for a certain nationality or how much a certain nationality is involved in a topic. That is simply of no relevance whatsoever. The only thing that matters is, which names are important for an English-speaking reader to understand the topic? Greek and Italian, in this case, are important because they are part of the explanation of the modern term in English. They were also, presumably, the primary names under which these soldiers appear in the historical sources. Albanian isn't, because Albanian was barely used in writing at the time. We have no reason to even believe that they would have called themselves that, in their own language. It might very well be just a modern calque in Albanian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Pappas writes  There are only few Greek contemporary sources which make mention of stratiotes and outside Greek scholarship the term is considered more likely to come from Italian strada. Isn't it more WP:DUE to discuss the name at its specific section and leave only the historically relevant - regardless of etymology - Italian term on the lede? The other historically relevent term seems to be French estradiots which produced Spanish estradiotes. In Croatian, it is used as stradjot. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree with FPs statement, however Maleschreiber has a very valid point. It looks like the main source used in the article bets on Italian as the language of origin. Moving other variants into the name section seems like a very smart idea Alltan (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm, what? If by the "main source" you mean the passage from Pappas that Maleschreiber just quoted above, then he's clearly saying the opposite of what you ascribe to him:  clearly means he favors the derivation from Greek. As for the lead sentence, we need the Greek form as least as long as we're using the form with "t", Stratioti, as our article title, because that form can't be understood without it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I had this passage in mind:"Although arguments on the side of the wayfarer theory predominate...". Maybe I'm missing something but since the Name section mentions the italian version could orignate from 'strada' which means wayfarer, I thought the text meant most theories ascribe Italian strada as the origin. But idk maybe I am misunderstanding it. Alltan (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  On google scholar, Stradioti 402 results vs. Stratioti 238 (1990-2021). I think that a move discussion might be necessary.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Books: 8790 hist for "Stratioti" vs. 2070 for Stradioti. And this is for English language sources, 1990-2021. So, not a chance. Khirurg (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

text: By the way, is there a so much as a single source that "Stratiotët" is a native term and not just a modern calque? Khirurg (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books is not a reliable search engine. "Stratioti" results ends in the 12th page. The total results are 12X7=84, not 8790. Some of the results are engine errors. I'll start a discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ? First time I see that one. Do you have a source to base this on, or are we supposed to just accept this bare assertion? Google Books and Google Scholar are products of the same company, so what holds for one, holds for the other. Btw it looks like you "forgot" to mention that "Stradioti" stops after page 7 (), so even if we take your claim about "stratioti stopping at page 12 at face value (you haven't provided any evidence for this, but let's pretend), that's still 2 to 1 in favor of stratioti. Khirurg (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Btw, your Google Scholar search is flawed because you did not filter for language, and many of the results are Italian language publications, which naturally would use "stradioti" . You cannot use non-English language sources to establish common usage in English. Khirurg (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name order 

message: Considering the nationality of various Stratioti added here [][] the issue remains highly controversial as its displayed in several correspondent biographies. It is POV to label various personalities as Greek or Albanian while their ancestors migrated 2, 3, or 4 centuries earlier to western Europe. The addition of red links is another controversial issue. We can't conclude if a personality passes wp:N threshold without even the existence of a correspondent article.18:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Giovanni Renesi, Theodore Bua, Demetrio Capuzzimati all are described as Albanians and were first or second generation migrants. They didn't migrate  earlier to western Europe and they didn't have a different identity. Side comment: The Bua, Renesi, Capuzzimati in Italy still speak Albanian today. It's not a long forgotten identity which contemporary bibliography is putting forward as a historical classification. It's the living history of hundreds of families.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, only a part of those can be considered Albanians. Naming them Albanians altogether is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored one part to the stable version. Mercurio Bua was born in Nauplia belonging to the Albanian family of Bua, this is uncontroversial and you need consensus to change it. – Βατο (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  this edit needs consensus. Discuss it here, please. – Βατο (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial addition