text:
Talk:Ten-Day War

Why the move?
Why was the page moved from Ten-Day War? I understand that some people call it the Slovenian War, that's why there's a redirect from that name and a mention in the first paragraph. If the idea is that Slovenian War is the most common name, then it should be called that. Having two names in the title makes no sense and is unnecessary as no other war is known as Ten-Day War. Unless someone can address these points, I'll be moving the article back. -- D.M. (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Some additional points: I've probably gone on too much about a minor point, but these naming issues on articles without general consensus have implications that I find fascinating. It is likely that the name of this article will help decide what the war is called in English. By the way, out of curiosity, what do the Slovenians and the Serbs call it? -- D.M. (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Google test shows the terms running neck and neck giving a slight edge to "Ten-Day War", 558-544. Though this may be due partly to the Wikipedia page itself.
 * One thing that most distinguishes this war from others is its length and notable brevity. There have been other Slovenian wars and perhaps will be more, but the chance of another Ten-Day war is slim. Articles should only be disambiguated if there is the risk of confusion. I suppose someone might mix it up with the Six-Day War or the Hundred Years' War, but this is unlikely.
 * "Ten-Day War" is most NPOV. I don't personally see anything wrong with "Slovenian War" on this point, but I suppose some Slovenians may object on the grounds that this implies a Yugoslav perspective and diminishes other wars fought in or by Slovenia.
 * Slovenians call it "Slovenska osamosvojitvena vojna", meaning Slovene Independence War. Serbians call it Desetodnevni rat - or Ten-Day War.

 * "Solvenian Independence War" would probably be the better choice than either "Ten-Day War" or "Solvenian War". Two decades from now, a war thats called "Ten-Day War" would be confused by the general public with the Six-Day War. Jon 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, I suspect the "Ten Day War" name is consciously derived from the Six Day War. But regardless, that is what the war is most commonly known as (albeit not by a wide margin) and it helps us to disambiguate it from all the other wars fought on Slovenian territory. -- ChrisO 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The name in other languages, for the curious
I went ahead and answered my own question about the other languages by tracking down the article in other wikipedias. The other articles are in Slovenian, Dutch, Finnish, and Japanese; none of which I speak, though one can roughly guess on the titles. The Dutch call it De Tiendaagse Oorlog which seems to mean lit. "The Ten-Day War". In Slovenian, it's Slovenska osamosvojitvena vojna which seems to mean "Slovenian Ten-Day War" (a nice compromise), but I have no way of knowing since the online translator couldn't make sense of the second word. Finnish has it Slovenian sota, most likely "Slovenian War". In Japanese it's 十日間戦争 which Google translates as "war ten". What an odd mix of languages for articles. I also found 10-Tage-Krieg which means "10-Day-War" in German, though the German Wikipedia doesn't have an article yet. Other languages seem to avoid naming the conflict. -- D.M. (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, D.M.! As I am a veteran of this war and that I speak Slovene and also a little bit worse English too, I migh say something how Slovenes call it. Slovenska osamosvojitvena vojna literary means Slovene independance war or better Slovene emancipation war or even Slovene attainment of independence war as my Slovene-English dictionary say, what osamosvojitev means. Independence means in fact neodvisnost, so I guess it is not 100 % correct term in English, because Slovenia wasn't under any dominion or something like that. It simply split off from former Yugoslavia. In Slovene this war is also known as desetnevna vojna (BTW wars and battles are in Slovene named in lower case), what really means Ten-Day War. I hope this helps. And also in Slovene wikipedia there is a timeline, day by day (based mainly on written records of a brigadier Janez J. Švajncer), and some day someone will add something here. Of course for me as a soldier this war lasted over a month in an active duty. Best regards. --xJaM 03:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * An anonymous user recently renamed the war to "Slovenian War". I reverted this back to Ten-Day War. This is the name that I have heard most commonly used. I wouldn't object to the name being changed to Slovenian War if it happens after a discussion, but since the previous discussion seems to have settled on the name Ten-Day War, I don't think it should be changed unilaterally without further debate. (Barend 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

 * It translates as the Slovenian [slovenska] war [vojna] of self liberation (osamosvojitev, from samo [self] and svojitev [liberation]). (Compare svoboda=freedom, same root.) I would not have translated neodvisnost as independence -- rather, non-dependence (not dominion, but in the sense of looking to someone or something else in making major decisions -- je odvistno na ... -- it depends on ...). Seconding the translation of desetnevna vojna.

Questions: Holmec incident, ammunition

 * Are there any documents on the shooting of surrendering YNA recruits by TO forces that was broadcast live on Austrian TV (ORF)? I distinctly remember seeing that video on TV myself back in 1991, recently saw a (very bad quality) webcast of it (apparently as part of a discussion on Serbian TV, as far as I understood one of the killed soldiers was a 19-year old from Novi Sad), and I personally know of only one printed reference in German language (Kurt Köpruner's 2001 book "Reisen in das Land der Kriege", no English translation available as of today). The video shows a small group of unarmed YNA soldiers (maybe 5) holding up a large white flag of sorts (possibly a blanket). Moments later, gunfire erupts and they fall to the ground. There are allegations that this was not an isolated incident, and that a majority of YNA casualties were the result of TO forces shooting up surrendering YNA soldiers. However, I cannot seem to find more documentation on this - I suspect most of it is not available in English. It's probably possible to request the original TV broadcast from ORF, but this may cost a bit.

 * Related question: YNA soldiers were allegedly ordered to take back control of border stations without having been issued any ammunition, at least in the initial phase of the conflict (apparently, their commanders had not expected any violent reaction at this point). Does anyone have more information on this?

83.65.242.32 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I certainly suggest you find good sources before putting that into the article. I have never come across allegations about atrocities committed by the Slovene TOs, and I did my masters dissertation on this topic. (Barend 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

 * That's why I'm asking. Problem is that most sources with fairly recent discussion of this topic are probably in Serbian and Slovene language, which I understand only in fragments. Köpruner cites Hofbauer (1999) "Balkankrieg. Zehn Jahre Zerstörung Jugoslawiens" which apparently contains a brief description of the video segment. And now I just found a bit in English, apparently this happened at Holmec: http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?&nav_category=57 "Biserko, .., said that Slovenia’s reaction to the recently released footage of war crimes being perpetrated at Holmec, shows that the region is still not prepared to deal with this question. .. The footage taken by the Austrian ORF television station, shows three Yugoslav National Army soldiers being killed after raising their hands in surrender." And another interesting piece emerges once you know what to look for: http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/199902/90211-001-trae-lju.htm - maybe others have more information. 83.65.244.198 05:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've now added a paragraph, as there seems to be enough substance (and relevance). However, the thing needs more and better references. 83.65.240.37 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * B92 TV Report showing the ORF video (or parts of it): http://www.b92.net/video/vojska_slovenija.ram - a link to the original, unedited ORF footage would be better. 83.65.241.92 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, RTV Slovenia did play the footage as well. This is direct link do RealPlayer file: http://ava.rtvslo.si/ava/media?action=play&mediaId=2895803. Jump to 00:02:00. edolen1 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Holmec incident has been investigated time and time again and never proven. The widely recognised explanation is that the gunfire wasn't coming from the slovenian soldiers and the JNA soldiers falling down was a reflex induced by it. This was even the serbian government's(at that time) opinion. But I don't think will ever know fur sure. Nerby (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

11 May edits
On 11 May, an anonymous user rewrote nearly the entire article. He deleted much of the detailed factual content, and added much text which was partially very skewed against the Slovenian side, and partially factually wrong. For instance, the "secret talks", held between Serbia and Slovenia were not in fact secret, and a communique issued after the talks can be read (in English) on the Slovenian government's website. The total effect of the re-writing was to totally ruin the article's Neutral Point Of View, and lose much factual content. I therefore reverted the entire edit. If the user who made the edits wants to contribute to the article, I would suggest he add information he thinks should be in the article which is not there, but take care to maintain a Neutral Point Of View. Calling all statements from the Slovenian side "propaganda" is not NPOV. Neither is branding all Slovenia's moves "illegal". If he wants to make claims about conspiracies with foreign intelligence services, he should provide sources to back up such claims. And he should not delete factual information already in the article. (Barend 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Rewriting???
Much of the "detailed factual content" that had been written was pure misconception and an exagaration. Things were simply blown out of proportion, and Slovenian phoney war, as many analists call it, was nothing more than a charade. Things that had been mentioned were basically glorifying little Slovenian force against fourth largest army in Europe at the time. I am sorry for not having quoted the sources the first time I rewrote the topic, but this time I certainly did so. The facts that Barend had written were right, yet the language used was not appropriate. For instance, when the TO shot down a helicopter over Ljubljana, he never mentioned that the helicopter was flying very low and was to supply the soldiers in barracks with bread and so on. He claims that Slovenia's moves were not illegal. The whole federal structure was bypassed, even the Constitutional Court of SFRJ found it unconstitutional. The point is that very foundation of Slovenia, as well as Croatia and Bosnia, become undermined and therefore their official sources cannot be quite relevant. After all, Milan Kucan's testomony at Hague Tribunal reveals a lot in regard to events that led to break-up. Kucan: 'The aggression occurred, done by the JNA.' He literally applied only 2-3 short sentences speaking of that 'aggression', stating that it happened 'right after the celebration, at 2 or 3 a.m.', that the 'units came out of barracks and headed towards the state border'. He offered a choice of descriptive nouns : 'That clash, aggression, war was ended on 7 July by the talks on the Brioni Islands, with the participation of the Ministerial EC troika, led by Van Den Bruck, who intervened in a certain way in that period between 27 June and 7 July.' So much about the 'war'. Eloquent and full of detail. Prosecutor Nice glided on through the final retreat of the JNA from Slovenia on 26 October 1991. Milosevic then turned to the reasons for the war that Slovenia fought against the Federal Government : the revenues from customs duties. Kucan denied it, saying that Slovenia was only reacting to being attacked.

Milosevic then quoted Warren Zimmerman, the former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, from his lengthy article in a foreign affairs journal where it was plainly and brutally written that 'contrary to the beliefs, the Slovenes had started the war. There were no efforts to negotiate.' Zimmerman proceeded to explain why : the customs duties revenue generated from the only border crossings towards the Western European countries, Italy and Austria, which were in Slovenia, gained up to 75% of the overall federal budget. The Slovenes simply took over the customs offices by force, changed the insignia, and started to collect, depriving the rest of the country of that revenue without negotiating first. The Federal Government had to react by sending few light JNA columns to retake the customs offices and re-establish the status quo ante. Then the JNA was attacked.

Then, Milosevic pulled out the case of a live TV show in Slovenia a few years into their independence, with illustrious guests from Croatia (Mesic, General Spegelj, Tomac), where Kucan also participated and they answered direct phone questions. Kucan tried to wiggle out, saying his memory is not that good anymore, but confirmed he was there. Milosevic proceeded to describe what happened in that show and how in a celebrative mood Mesic got too relaxed and babbled about Genscher [the then German Chancellor] and the Pope who crucially contributed to the independence of Slovenia and Croatia.

Kucan kept on with his lengthy whining of how Slovenia was always in the minority, how the principle of 'one man, one vote' in the Parliament could have been amended, but Milosevic insisted the question being about the legal rulings of the Constitutional Court, and that the Slovenes expressly said their changes will be done according to the law and Constitution, offering the Constitutional Court as a guarantee for that, and 'then you complain about your rights being violated because the Constitutional Court made his rulings'.

The next issue was illegal arms trade between Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. When first generally asked about that by Milosevic, Kucan denied it existed at all : 'No, as far as I'm aware.'

When Milosevic then produced documents, from Croatia, proving the opposite Kucan changed his tune, saying that he couldn't see anything contentious here, these were 'legal channels, with competent authorities and you spoke of illegal trade.' To that, Milosevic gently reminded him that at that time the UN arms embargo was in effect.

Kucan then claimed that this was before the international recognition of Slovenia, 'therefore it did not apply to us.' But then, he realized the mistake, saying : 'Excuse me, it was in the period when both states were recognized ; therefore, we took necessary measures to protect ourselves.' [Wow ! So, the new statelets have the right to violate the UN embargo, just because they need to be able to protect themselves. That is a creative interpretation.]

There's a lot more, Barend, but if you really want to be neutral, then there are many ways to find out the truth. If you ask any honest Slovene what happened, they will tell you the truth. And to summarize, Slovenia did get what she wanted, the JNA did get embarassed due to lack of consensus, but there's no need describing the events in a way you'd done it.

Mick

 * ChrisO has written, just below this, in a better way than I could, why your rewriting is unacceptable. I would just like to point out that it wasn't I who wrote the article the way it was, I only added a couple of sentences to it. I only reverted your changes, which I found seriously damaged the quality of the article. You obviously feel strongly about this subject, but if you cannot write objectively and neutrally about it, you shouldn't write about it on wikipedia at all. (Barend 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

"The Slovenes simply took over the customs offices by force, changed the insignia, and started to collect, depriving the rest of the country of that revenue without negotiating first. The Federal Government had to react by sending few light JNA columns to retake the customs offices and re-establish the status quo ante." - The JNA forces were massively surrendering and even disarming their own officers because of one simple reason. They were told that an outside enemy is attacking Yugoslavia. Most soldiers were actually confronted and talked to by unarmed civilians, and decided to relinquish their weapons... "The whole federal structure was bypassed, even the Constitutional Court of SFRJ found it unconstitutional." - Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know the constitution of Yugoslavia allowed any of the countries that joined in to break of at anytime. Nerby (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the latest changes
I've reverted the latest changes to the article. They were clearly biased (see WP:NPOV for why this is a bad thing) and seem to be designed to portray the JNA as hapless victims rather than as active combatants. Many of the changes seem to be intended to depict the Slovenians in a bad light, and a lot of cited and documented points were deleted without explanation. It might be useful for me to explain the specific issues:

1) The infobox inaccurately described the conflict as being between "Slovene Territorial Defence" and the JNA. This is completely wrong - the conflict was directed by state governments, not just by militaries. (Was the Second World War fought between the US Army/Red Army and the Wehrmacht?) Furthermore, the Slovene TO wasn't the only organisation involved on the Slovenian side - the state police and Ministry of the Interior (MUP) troops were also key elements.

2) Background - we don't need a lot of historical detail, as the article is about the war, not the breakup of Yugoslavia. The circumstances leading up to Slovenia's declaration of independence would be better dealt with in a separate historical article, probably History of Slovenia (which really needs some work). The question of the legality or otherwise of Slovenia's moves should be discussed there, too.

3) Conflict - the cited and sourced paragraph about the JNA's indecision about what to do in Slovenia was deleted, as was the bit on Markovic's denial that the federal government was aware of the JNA's actions. If you disagree with that, you should provide a cited counter-argument, rather than deleting a sourced section and replacing it with your own unsourced view of the matter (see WP:CITE for our citation policy and WP:NOR for our policy on original research).

4) 26 June 1991 - the point about local Slovenes setting up barricades and demonstrations is a key one, as it highlights the fact that the JNA didn't have the support of the Slovenian population. Also, the anon user's statement that "In the combat operations which immediately followed, a number of these drivers got killed" is chronologically inaccurate - the first casualties came on the next day - and is weasel wording (see Avoid weasel words). Who killed them and why?

5) 27 June 1991 - another deletion of a cited paragraph. Not a good thing.

6) 28 June 1991 - claiming that "the army made no attempt to fight back" is simply untrue; who caused the casualties on the Slovenian side? What about the well-documented missile attacks by the Yugoslav air force at Brnik and Strihovec?

7) 29 June 1991 - the claim about "human shields" at Rozna Dolina comes from a 1992 Yugoslav government report - not, I think, a particularly credible source - and doesn't seem to be supported by any other sources. Also, I can see no good reason for deleting the line "In response, the Slovenian Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a peaceful solution to the crisis that did not jeopardise Slovenian independence."

8) 30 June 1991 - "Serbia blocked such an option" - what is the source for this?

9) 1 July 1991 - as with the Rozna Dolina claim, the Ljubljana Kosede claim comes from an otherwise unsubstantiated 1992 Yugoslav government report.

10) 2 July 1991 and 3 July 1991 - why were the descriptions of the engagements largely deleted? They're documented as having happened; are you trying to claim that they didn't happen?

11) 7 July 1991 - why was the line about the Slovenian government's conditions on the withdrawal deleted?

12) Strategic aspects of the war - lots of POV edits here. "Propaganda machine" is extremely biased. There's no good reason to delete the mention of Slovenia's military strategy, nor of the Slovenian advantages, nor of the consequences of the JNA's poor performance in Slovenia and (later) Croatia. Again, this is just an unsubtle attempt to push a particular pro-JNA, anti-Slovenian POV, rather than trying to present an objective review of events. We're trying to write a military history here, not a propaganda piece.

13) Sources - don't delete valid references. This is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia and could result in you being blocked if you persist.  Many of the references added by the anon user are so vague that they're unusable, e.g. "Testimony by Dusanka Lazic, wife of a JNA officer" - where can this be found, when was it published?

I've just got hold of a CIA military history of the conflict (in the volume "Balkan Battlegrounds", which also includes the operational map in the article). This provides a lot of extra detail - I'll add some key points to the article later today. -- ChrisO 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Radio transmitter bombardment in Domžale missing
There was bombardment of Radio transmitter Domžale (radijski oddajnik Domžale) by Yugoslavian airplanes during 10 day war. That information is missing in article and missing on the map.

WP:MilHist Assessment
Great length and detail. I like the inclusion of flags in the infobox, plus it is a very complete infobox, with estimates of the casualties and strengths. The article discusses the development of the war day by day, and even includes a map. There are also a good number of references and in-line citations. Definitely tops of the B-class. LordAmeth 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Why isn't the article called SLOVENIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE or SLOVENIAN WAR OF LIBERATION? --CroDome 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It was, somebody changed it for reasons unknown. Wikingus 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've changed it back to Ten-Day War; moves like this need to be discussed, not unilateral.

 * I agree with the article's title, but I think the initial statement should be changed to "The Ten-Day War, sometimes called the Slovenian Independence War...", as there were more wars in the history of Slovenia, this would better specify which, plus I have to admit I have never heard or seen the term "Slovenian War" while the "Slovenian Independence War" or "Slovenian War for Independence" has been mentioned in the media. Of course, I still think the Ten-Day War is the most suitable as the main name. edolen1 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * A combination of the two seems a good idea. How about "Ten-Day War (Slovenian War of Independence)"NaliniL 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil war
The introductory paragraph gets it wrong: the Ten-Day War was not a "conflict between Slovenia and Yugoslavia", because Slovenia was at the time a part of Yugoslavia. The Main Page also gets it wrong ("Yugoslavia invaded Slovenia") for the same reason. It was not an international conflict; hence, it was a civil war. GregorB 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here. Slovenia declared independence a few hours before the war began, so it was basically a separate country (albeit at the time not fully recognised by the international community), the same goes for other countries who declared independence. Wikingus 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * For Republika Srpska Krajina too? For Confederate States of America too? Either it is an international conflict, or it is a civil war. I don't think there's a third option. GregorB 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't agree there was civil war. You didn't have Slovenians vs. Slovenians in general, but a "foreign" threat. Besides, Slovenia was recognized as an independent country and the countries recognize its independence day as June 25, 1991, not the day the international community recognized Slovenia. edolen1 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Proclamation of independence does not make a territory independent. Otherwise, e.g. Republika Srpska Krajina would have been a bona fide independent country, and the Croatian military intervention would actually be a war of aggression (a "foreign" threat, as you put it). It doesn't matter what happened later; one cannot fiddle with the facts retroactively. GregorB 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I did some check up on the civil war article, and while yes, you have a point, the amount of violence is not large enough to classify it as a civil war. Taking things to the level of your ordinary citizen, surely the conflict in Slovenia cannot even remotely be compared to the civil war that took place in Bosnia for example, it was simply too brief and not nearly as violent. I personally think classifying it as a civil war would not fit the situation. I also don't know of any other wars where separatism, which succesfully resulted in recognized independence being called civil wars, but wars of independence.

 * Here is another excerpt to back my view from the Croatian Independence War article: Type of war: Two conflicting views exist as to whether the war was a civil or an international war. Since neither Croatia or Yugoslavia declared war on each other, a prevailing view in Serbia was that it was a civil war between Croats and Serbs in Croatia. By contrast, the prevailing view in Croatia is that the war was a war of aggression from Yugoslavia against Croatia, supported by local Serbs. The ICTY (in its indictments) characterized the war to have been civil war until October 8, 1991, when Croatia declared independence, and international war after that date, since another country, Yugoslavia, held its troops (JNA) there.

 * As Slovenia declared independence before being invaded, it disqualifies the conflict as a civil war. edolen1 21:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was a small-scale conflict; the article name itself aptly describes it. Your quote from the Croatian Independence War is very interesting: indeed, CIW had two distinct phases, it's just that I find ICTY's line of thinking a bit nonsensical and logically self-defeating: if a self-proclamation is all that is necessary for an international conflict, and a military action against the seceding territory is in fact always an action against a foreign country, then all anti-secession efforts are wars of aggression, and hence crimes against peace. Of course, this is patently false.
 * There is no conflict between "civil war" are "war of independence"; indeed, all wars of independence (barring anti-colonialist wars, perhaps) are civil wars by definition. It's a civil war from the start; it's also a war of independence if it succeeds. GregorB 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Is it called the American War of Independence or the United Kingdom civil war? --zorxd (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is a war of secession, just like the American War Between the States. Slovenia won, the Confederacy lost, but the purpose of each war was the same.

War???
This article is funny.Nice 'war'.Slovenan cowardly scum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.201.48 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I just have to comment here. It seems some over-stressed Croat has got a problem or two :-) The truly cowardly thing of course is to leave such a statement, while hiding behind an anonymous proxy. The comment seems to have been made around the time when the verdict against the Vukovar trio was made by ICTY, and then the Croat media somehow found it appropriate to connect this with Janša's letter to the European Commission in wich he advocated for faster accession of Serbia into the EU in light of the Kosovo crisis and the weakness of Serbian democratic government. The verdict and Janša's letter have nothing in common of course, but naturally IT IS ELECTION TIME IN CROATIA! Surely, we have here one vote for Ante Djapić and then, when HSP wins, everything will be fine and well in the 'beautiful ours'. Everything, but the spirit. 195.210.237.39 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right, his only other comment under that IP was on some Croatian armored vehicle. Well, his cover is blown. Gotta love the Balkan mentality, calling others pussies just because they were luckier in avoiding war. Last I checked that was a thing to aspire to, not the other way around. Wikingus 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Territorial Defense logo
The small logo for the Territorial Defense should be changed. Right now it represents the pre-independence coat of arms that was standardised for units of each of the republics. It was NOT used during the war. Instead, a new one, representing Triglav in white, blue and red, with two crossed swords was used. It was correctly used in the article before. I just want to point it out before an edit war or something similar should break out. Wikingus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
There is a dead link in the Claims of war crimes (Holmec Incident) section. Content possibly moved here but I'm not sure what original pointed to:

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind0604&L=TWATCH-L&E=7bit&P=11726513&B=--MailBlocks_8C8378791AF29AF_1AB4_6E3_mblk-d18.sysops.aol.com&T=text%2Fplain;%20charset=us-ascii

Robi0509 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia?
What about Macedonians casualties in this war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.19.176 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NAME?
Why name is ten day war? This war is warring in nine dy.Why?--78.180.50.254 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Winter War tactics
I've read somewhere (but for the life of me can't remember the source) that the Territorial Defence Forces put Finnish tactics from the 1939/40 Winter War to good use (similiarities in the types of engagements are obvious, but still...). Anyone know more about this? 212.10.228.190 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Assistance
Is there any evidence of suport from abroad, such as the ethnic Slovenes in Austria or Italy, or migrant communities elsewhere? Noel Ellis (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Weekend war
I am curious where the naming "Weekend war" came from? Personally, I have never observed it being used anywhere and relevant results in Google all lead to this article. The cited book does not seem to be relevant material for this topic. I suggest it gets removed.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ten-Day War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426081759/http://crnvo.me/docs/biblio_eng/p10.pdf to http://crnvo.me/docs/biblio_eng/p10.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.csees.net/?page=news&news_id=51354
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617203913/http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/24459/croat-victim-in-slovenian-war-crime to http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/24459/croat-victim-in-slovenian-war-crime
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105034151/http://www.uvi.si/10years/path/war/ to http://www.uvi.si/10years/path/war/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

JNA/YPA
The article seems to use both acronyms, referring to the same organization. Apparently they are both valid, and I don't really care which one is chosen, but I suggest that one or the other be used consistently. Otherwise the casual reader can be forgiven for thinking that JNA and YPA are two different things. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ten-Day War


text:
Scout Association of Croatia

Scout Association of Croatia (Savez izviđača Hrvatske, SiH) is the Croatian national Scouting organization. As part of Yugoslavia, Croatia was a founding member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement from 1922 to 1948. Independently, Croatia has been a member of the World Organization since 1993, and joined the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts in 2023, making it a "Scout & Guide National Organization". The coeducational Savez Izviđača Hrvatske has 3,827 members as of 2011.

Early history
Prior to the origination of Scouting, Austria had the Scholar Excursion Society, established in Vinkovci in 1881. Similar to other organizations in then Austro-Hungary and which later appeared in other parts of Croatia, the Scholar Excursion Society provided experiences similar to Scouting to children as early military preparation. Scouting was first established in the region in Budapest in 1910. Scouting units spread from there, first into Istria (then under Italian control) in 1911. Scouting spreading from there into resort areas and other major cities. In 1913 German-speaking Sea Scout units were founded in Rijeka and Pula. In 1914 Egon de Lund founded the First Austria Sea Scout Corps (Erste Österreichisches Seepfadfinderkorps) in Mali Lošinj at the Nautical School (k.k.Nautische Schule). In 1918 a further Austrian Sea Scout Corps was founded in Opatija. Together with the Austrian Sea Scouts in Trieste these groups formed the geographical division Austrian Coastland (Landesverband Küstenland) of the Austrian National Scout organization Österreichischer Pfadfinderbund. In 1918 all units of this geographical division were disbanded. Scouts in these areas assisted during World War I by helping refugees and battling fires, among other wartime needs.

Scouting continued to expand after the end of the war, and in 1922 a Scout Parish was created in Osijek for Croatia and Slovenia. According to the Parish journal, Scout, in 1923 Croatia had 14 groups of Scouts. The first meetings of the World Scout Movement and WAGGGS, in 1922 and 1928 respectively, were attended by Yugoslavian Scouts.

Political interference
In Yugoslavia, the king took patronage of the Scouts in 1923, but six years later the organization was banned along with others that did not include the word 'Yugoslav' in their titles. Scouts in Croatia continued with the checkerboard pattern from the coat of arms of Croatia as their emblem and standing openly against the monarchy. Scouts were banned in Croatia in 1946, after Young Pioneers began to appear during World War II in Partisan territory.

Scouting in Yugoslavia was coopted by the Tito government in 1950, at which time WOSM membership was forfeited, but Scouts continued in conjunction with the Pioneers. The Croatian Scouts' Day, recognized on May 19, commemorates the first training of Pioneer-Scouts in camp and excursion leadership, held from May 19 to May 25, 1950. Trainees in Zagreb worked from Vožatago, a Russian manual that had been modified from the Scout handbook. These training sessions spread the Pioneer-Scouts across the region.

On November 24, 1951, the Scout Association of Yugoslavia, Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije, was established in Zagreb. The Scout movement grew and thrived until the Yugoslav breakup in 1991. Croatian Scouts again joined defense efforts, during which many were killed.

Scouting since break with Yugoslavia
On June 2, 1991, Savez Izviđača Hrvatske broke ties with the Scout Association of Yugoslavia and reorganized, returning to its earlier principles of youth education. It received recognition by numerous western nations. On July 19, 1993, World Organization of the Scout Movement voted the Savez Izviđača Hrvatske to full membership. Croatian Scouts have participated internationally in Jamborees, including the 1st and 2nd European Scout Jamboree in 1994 and 2005 respectively, the 1996 Danish Jamboree, and every World Scout Jamboree since 1995.

There were 3,865 Scouts in 1998, and as of 2005 the count was 4,068. Among the group's programs is "The Sunrise City Project", which since 1993 offers an annual summer camp intended to assist children impacted by the 1991 war in reintegration to society.

Program and ideals
There are four sections of Scouting based on age:
 * Cub Scouts-ages 8 to 11
 * Scouts-12 to 15
 * Venture Scouts-ages 16 to 20
 * Rangers and Rovers-21 on

The Scout Motto is Budi Pripravan, Be Prepared in Croatian. The membership badge of Savez izviđača Hrvatske incorporates the checkerboard pattern of the coat of arms of Croatia.

International Scout units in Croatia
In addition, there are Girl Scouts of the USA Overseas in Zagreb, serviced by way of USAGSO headquarters in New York City, as well as American Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, linked to the Horizon District of the Transatlantic Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which supports units in west-and-central Europe, the Near East and North Africa.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Scout Association of Croatia


text:
Talk:Greek War of Independence

Initial hostility and support
I think the stance of Austria, Hungary, Switzerland as well as others' should be more detailed and with more info.

Grossly imbalanced representation of Albanians
This article is in an unjustifiable state of double standards. I already brought this up several months ago, and after all this time, very disappointingly, I see that noting has changed. Albanians were involved in the revolution in both the Ottoman and the anti-Ottoman forces, and played important roles for both sides. This article mentions Albanians a total of 12 times, every single one of these times in connection to the Ottomans. This is unacceptable. I am now starting this section to discuss how to make the article more balanced. My suggestion is to include some sentences noting the role the Albanians played in some of the important battles against the Ottomans, possible in relation to Hydriots and Souliots, among others. Çerçok (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hydriots and Souliotes are mentioned several times in the article. Additionally Ottoman Albanian forces are mentioned also several times in the article since most of the Ottoman forces have been dispached from Albania or were in well known battles such us the one in Kefalovryso which they Ottoman Albanians of Mustai Pasha killed Botsaris. What do you suggest? To rename Hydriots and Souliotes to Orthodox Christian Albanians or Albanian-speaking people? I don’t know if there is any RS that can back this since these people are known by these names per WP:NOTABILITY. In any case please feel free to bring reliable and secondary RS and I will be more than happy to discuss. Best Othon I (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I suggest that ethnicity gets mentioned both ways, not only in the case of Albanians in the Ottoman army. There are many perfectly reliable sources who mention Souliotes, Hydriotes, and others as Albanians, specifically as Christian Albanians, so the same standard can be applied in both cases. But now that you mentioned this, I believe it is necessary to make an improvement to the Souliotes article first, then come back here. Çerçok (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. If you have problems with other articles, take the discussion to their respective talk pages, not here. I will kindly ask that editors refrain from ethnic flag planting of modern-day nationalist politics with historical events of the past. Heck, some heroes of the LGBT community participated in the Greek War of Independence, but I am not going down to the path of talking about their identities or asking for them to be included even though the War of Independence had some unfortunate influence upon from the Church, while the presence of LGBT elements in the War of Independence is omitted. If the identities of people have contributed somehow to the historic event, then yes, these entities may be mentioned cautiously, per WP:BALANCING. However even if that is the case, having strong sources isn't just required, they have to explicitly state that their ethnicity or origin had contributed or was WP:RELEVANT to the War of Independence. Anything less than that is just more unencyclopedic WP:BALKANS-level of ethnic flag planting serving only nationalist political agendas. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What SilentResident said. If you're thinking of changing every mention of Hydriots, Soulites, etc, to "Christian Albanians", that's not going to happen. Khirurg (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Çerçok here. Unfortunately the article is currently trying to diminish the tremendous contributions of ethnic minorities to the Greek War of Independence. This follows the Greek nationalist and fringe viewpoint that said minorities never existed and were "Greek". This is unacceptable. Many sections of the article need to be rewritten to accurately describe how the events actually happened. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What is certainly fringe is the massive contribution of the so called "Albanians" or Arvanites in the Greek War of Independence which such wasn't really massive event, apart from Souliots, some Hydriots and some Spetsiots, I do not really see any other Albanian-speaking people contributing that do worth noting them. Now if you would like to push your typical nationalist POV, good luck with that. Suggest here your edits and the community will discuss whether to include or not. PS, for the record, the article Greeks is about Greeks from the ancient times up to the point of modern times not only modern times. I noticed that you have a similar confusion about it as Botushali, I am more than happy to explain to you its scope however, an editor that edits articles of a topic that fail to understand or has a limited capability to understand should familiriase themselves with the scope of the article, or request help from the community and the community is more than happy to help for certain. Othon I (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * nice way to directly demonstrate your POV, I know you have had in the past difficulties accepting the fact that Arvanites and Souliotes are of Albanian origin. But do not worry, every single ethnic minority's contributions will be discussed in the article. As for the article about modern Greeks which some POV-pushing editors are trying to confuse with the unrelated ancient Greeks; there is no continuity between said populations. I know this might come as a shocker to POV-editors with limited knowledge about the subject, it is simply a fringe viewpoint that has no place on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I have a surprise in that regard coming. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what do you mean, I am perfectly fine with the fact that Arvanites are of Albanian origin and I have even contributed about it. As your POV of no continuity? What continuity? If you can prove the Greek culture and language does not have continuity then be my guest. Please bring reliable WP:RS and secondary sources and I am happy to discuss. PS, the "so called Albanians" goes to the fact that they have been identifiying themselves as Arvanites not Albanians. Albanians is the term used as an exonym to these people. Othon I (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Greek War of Independence isn't "Greek" because "only ethnic Greeks" fought in it as the War's name may somehow falsely suggest in the eyes of certain editors, (and thus, causing them to feel, perhaps, that their nation's contributions to it as being downplayed or unappreciated?). The War is "Greek" only in the sense that it led to the formation of the Greek state. Period. Those who fought in the War for Greece's independence are from what I know so far, even Albanians, and the Arvanites who do not identify themselves as Albanians, Italians, Slavs, Romas, Pomaks, Aromanians, and other Wallachians who do not identify themselves as Aromanians, fought for the Greek cause. Even English, French, Americans and Russians. Of all faiths. Even Catholics and Orthodox Christians, Sunni Muslims, and even Atheists. To not mention the LGBTQI people as mentioned earlier in this discussion. (My apologies if I missed any groups.) Yet, I am not hearing other groups, be it ethnic, religious or social ones, seeking to be treated with more spotlight than needed for the scope of the article just to prove a WP:POINT. Now, whoever here seeks to stir unnecessary debates of "giving more WP:UNDUE prominence" to a certain group based solely on the criteria of ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation rather than to the notability of their contributions to the War's cause, then they aren't here to improve the article but to prove that nationality does matter somehow even though this isn't the present article's concern, since the Greek War of Independence wasn't a war based on these characteristics. If the editors insist, then perhaps a discussion should open at the AE. Some of you may not be aware, so allow me to remind you that the AE has made clear one thing: that nationalist disruption in the WP:BALKANS topic area has to be monitored and tackled decisively. and I can't describe how far this discussion's goal is from the AE's goal. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am really saddened with how such a discussion has opened, because it actually hurts my own plans to add a section in the Greek war of Independence mentioning exactly all these groups. Because the Greek War of Independence was notable for the participation of multiple ethnicities, religions and social groups of different backgrounds, united by one goal. For as long as editors keep raising nationalist debates like that, it makes me wonder if I am opening a Pandora's box here. I still am trying to believe I am not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only sad part here is that even though I only said that ethnicity can be mentioned both ways, you preemptively decided that this is unacceptable without even waiting for a specific suggestion on my part (unlike Othon I who at least is willing to assess). Actually I was going to say that one option is to add a section which deals with this issue, without interfering much with the existing form of the article, while another is to add details throughout the article to adjust the current imbalance. Çerçok (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only sad part here is that your edit history and contributions log show a heavy (and non-encyclopedic if I may say) ethnicity-related edit pattern in the WP:BALKANS topic area which appears persistent at least, as is the case for more editors around here, even editors who are editing in other topic areas which too fall under wp:Balkans. At the AE, editors got (and please, remember carefully this statement of mine because the admins can attest to this) got topic-banned for less serious patterns than this. And no. I am not "threatening" as you probably go assume now, but denoting how problematic this whole thing is. An editor giving a heavy emphasis on ethnicity, is raising ethnic debates on various articles. That's not happening elsewhere in Wikipedia at the same level as it happens here. And since this is not a mere content dispute but behavioral issue damaging the Balkans Topic Area, then it is as serious as it can get. Only very few other topic areas have that frequent ethnic-based disruption except perhaps Caucasus and the Middle East topic areas, where the AE already enforced a number of topic bans to accounts doing ethnic edits with much shorter contribs logs as yours. Do you realize how problematic this is? Because I do.
 * But guess what. Some of you editors, will have realized by now, without me mentioning it, how patient I have been trying to be for not bringing this to the AE's attention already, mainly because some editors are already making tangible improvements to their editorial conduct, with some of them acting like true Wikipedians around who seek to improve the project, such as User:Ktrimi991 who I personally like alot and respect despite our heated past. I was hoping more editors from the Albania Topic Area will follow his fine example of editorial maturity but, witnessing this debate now, doesn't exactly give me alot of faith that problems are over yet. This is just one more addition of a long problematic edit pattern your account has been involved with, which won't look good in front of the AE, whose scrutiny is notorious. And trust me, I have a good reason to take things seriously here in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I invite you tell me exactly what I did wrong in this section of the talk page that I opened, because I do not know. I agree that ethnicity-related edits are an important issue in Balkan articles, and that is exactly what I am trying to address. Çerçok (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not wish to enter into the substance of the discussion or respond to some inexact points made above, but I think it would be easier to reach an agreement were all parties to it sharing some common points of reference about the matter discussed. So, I find the analogy made above between Albanians and LGBT people rather unfortunate. I hope the reason is obvious, but fwiw I quote from a recent synethetic work on the Greek revolution, Mazower's The Greek Revolution: 1821 and the Making of Modern Europe (2021), p. xxxv: "the most important thing to realize about the war of 1821 is that it was not really a two-way Greco-Turkish struggle at all: if one thing was perfectly obvious at the time, it was the exceptionally large and often decisive role played in the conflict by the Albanians, both Christian and Muslim." In this sense, I do not think it of no use to suggest to anyone interested in the matter to take into consideration scholarly writings on the importance of the actions and, perhaps more importantly, the inaction of Albanian troops for the development of the Greek uprising until Ibrahim entered the scene, such as this by Hakan Erdem or this more recent take on the matter, which is based on newly assessed Ottoman archival documents. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again Ashmedai 119 for this very interesting and useful comment. The article urgently needs some rewriting. Considering your neutral and professional approach to the article about the Macedonians, I think you would be the perfect user for doing that. Do you mind improving the article? Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashmedai, thing is, there is no analogy between Albanians and LGBT people. We are not talking about sizes there. Nationalities of people as being more significant due to numbers isn't something that can be disputed here I think. But the point here - which every editor should keep in mind - is that the actual participation in the war of independence was done for reasons that surpass the people's personal identities. Albanians and Greeks, Slavs, Romas and Pomaks didn't unite forces to fight the Ottoman Empire because of their ethnicity but because the people and groups living in the Greek peninsula tried to gain their freedom after centuries of slavery and oppression. This is not something that may be changed just because some editors around may feel that ethnicities should matter more than their actions and goals in participating in the war which are the focus and scope of the article. Just making myself clear here. Ι would rather let Ashmedai propose improvements to the article here in the talk page so we can discuss them rather than seeing someone with a heavy nationalist contribs log. In this context, Ashmedai is welcome to suggest any improvements, while Ahmet Q is reminded that the Greek War of Independence is a high profile article and editors from the Albania Topic Area are not allowed to spill over there any nationalist flag planting (like how it was done anywhere else in the WP:BALKANS topic Area, for which I am still wary and I have filled the Admins such as EdJohnston about it). Any improvements should be careful, and that means, to not deviate the focus from the scope of the article, by avoiding WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCING, WP:RELEVANT problems. For a positive WP:GOODFAITH step towards the right direction, I believe the proposals here in the talk page should mention not only Albanians but also contributions of the other ethnicities without dismissing them on faulty grounds such as "being less significant because of their small population sizes" or "their small impact to the war". When people and groups join and fight in a war, analogy-based arguments like this should have no place here at all, especially from the moment the Greek War of Independence is notable for its multi-ethnic character. Considering this, the groups should be covered adequately. I want to believe that no editor here with reasonable concerns of group representation in articles, would disagree to that basic encyclopedic principle? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand, editing is not restricted by nationality or by Topic Area editing history. I would also welcome a suggestion for improvement by Ashmedai that we can discuss here.
 * Good point, but you need to apply it evenly. The first step is to recognize that this article has been affected by the same nationalistic editing that you are criticizing, then improve it.
 * The same argument has come up before when Albanians anti-Ottomans or even just Christian Albanians in Greece were discussed. Your objection to a not yet proposed edit, reminds me of how last year I corrected a citation about the population of Athens at the start of the war which manipulated the source entirely. Suddenly, editors who had not complained about ethnicity mentioned manipulatively in the citation, intervened with the "ethnicity does not matter" argument. And indeed all mention of ethnicity was erased in that paragraph. Similar pattern, ethnicity is stated pro-Ottoman Albanians, and not stated for anti-Ottoman ones. That is flag-planting pure and simple.
 * You claim to oppose nationalistic writing, then please recognize it in this article first, then we can talk about improvements.
 * No one is talking about sizes, and I don't think anyone has any objections to other groups being mentioned adequately. Çerçok (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Good point, but you need to apply it evenly. The first step is to recognize that this article has been affected by the same nationalistic editing that you are criticizing, then improve it." Çerçok, contrary to you, I am not seeing articles from the purely WP:NATIONALIST Albanian perspective of yours. IMO the problem affects multiple groups as I have stated here about "my own plans to add a section in the Greek war of Independence mentioning exactly all these groups." Under different circumstances, I would have been a natural ally to you and support your changes to the article since I myself too have spotted room for improvements. I trust Ashmedai 119 can make some balanced proposals which we can discuss. In meantime, I will kindly ask that any editors avoid edit warring around here and that they wait for consensus here in the talk page if they don't want to end up at the AE. The mess seen in the other Balkan topic areas won't be tolerated here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is just your opinion. From what I have read in this talk page section, in my opinion you are seeing things precisely and purely through a nationalist perspective. And a very common one too, same as many others, not only here on Wikipedia. But how we see each-other is irrelevant to the improvement of the article. As we wait to see if Ashmedai would suggest an improvement, if you won't answer my questions, at least please stop threatening reactions to things that have not happened and responding to points that have not been made. Çerçok (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You had asked "what you did wrong to open this discussion", and I just pointed to your contribs log. Isn't that enough of an answer already? This exactly is what concerns me, so excuse me if I am asking that we work towards a wp:consensus on how to improve the article regarding the ethnicity. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also find the focus (some could say obsession) with ethnicity as tendentious and nationalistic. The war was very much fought on religious lines (Christians vs. Muslims). Khirurg (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only obsession I could see here are users trying, rather desperately, to not include the contributions of one ethnic group to the War of Independence. SilentResident your personal attacks against Çerçok have to stop. Your claims of Albanian nationalism against this user are unfounded and could easily get you sanctioned. Furthermore, if anyone here has a long (very long) history of disruptive editing, it is you. Since you have the habit of mentioning AE, why don't you open now a request? I think that might be really interesting and way better than making indirect threats. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't derail the discussion by personalizing it. Talkpages are discussing content, not contributors. As far as sanctionable behavior, this would be the perfect example. I have seen editors sanctioned for a lot less. Khirurg (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You came here just to accuse the other side of the dispute of having an "obsession" and a "tendentious and nationalistic" stance. So before asking other editors to not derail the discussion, make sure you are not the one who derails it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse anyone of anything. It was a general observation. I do think the focus on ethnicity in what was primarily a religious war to be tendentious. Khirurg (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole out-of-topic dispute started from projections based on my previous contributions, so again, good point, but apply it evenly. Çerçok (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You came here just to accuse the other side of the dispute of having an "obsession" and a "tendentious and nationalistic" stance. So before asking other editors to not derail the discussion, make sure you are not the one who derails it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse anyone of anything. It was a general observation. I do think the focus on ethnicity in what was primarily a religious war to be tendentious. Khirurg (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole out-of-topic dispute started from projections based on my previous contributions, so again, good point, but apply it evenly. Çerçok (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Comment Before our community of Balkan editors tackles with its expertise the issue of ethnicity will anyone bother to replace the semi-fictional Brewer, David The Greek War of Independence, London: Overlook Duckworth, 2011 with an actual academic source? Just in the last three years, at least 4 such studies have been published. The audience can read in the article the following piece from this source:
 * --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, after reading the talk section over and over, I am having the impression no one does dispute the fact that the Albanian-speaking subjects revolted against Ottoman rule, and joined the Greek-speaking subjects in the War of Independence. Nor does anyone dispute that the contributions of these groups were notable. Correct? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well not quite. Orthodox Albanian-speakers rose up together with the Greeks. Muslim Albanians overwhelmingly sided with the Ottomans and fought for the Ottomans. The religious dimension seems far more important and explanatory than the ethnic one, I'd say. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for returning to the main issue. I agree with that statement, although it is more nuanced than that. For example, Mazower (same book that was quoted above) states: "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia". And of course there are cases of Christians fighting for the Ottomans. Personally, I would like to see these details at least mentioned somewhere, but if these are deemed to insignificant to be included by a majority of editors, I will agree with that decision. My primary concern is to address the overall imbalance in the presentation of Albanians in this article (and I am not excluding other groups here). Çerçok (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the few exceptions on either side are significant, e.g. a few dozen men. Regarding your primary concern, can you give some concrete examples of the imbalance in the presentation of Albanians in the article and some suggestions on how to address it? That would be helpful. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned two options above, but since we decided to allow Ashmedai to propose an improvement, I am waiting for that. Çerçok (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Muslims fought at Greek side, and this is a fact. And from what I understand, I don't think they were too few to be meaningless for the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 * For clarification, are you preparing a text proposal to add to the article? If not, can you  do so? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to think some proposals to add to the article without creating a new section but that was not possible without rewriting of existing sections in the article to make it reasonable to mention the identities without interrupting the natural flow of text but I am lazy to do that as it will require some effort. I think it will be easier if a separate section is created instead, provided that it is balanced, considering the size of the rest of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, a separate section could work well. It could include info on Aromanians too, as some Aromanians gave a very notable contribution. Idk about Slavs/Slavic-speakers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the other groups are covered too in the proposals, if they indeed intend to make any, that will save me time and I will be grateful. Perhaps a message may be left at the relevant National Wikiprojects asking for help? I know that besides Russians, South Slavs also have contributed too, but their sub-group identification is where help will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Vasos Mavrovouniotis comes to mind, for one. But any proposed additions should be very mindful of length, because the article is already extremely long at 103 kb of prose, well over the recommended 100 kb maximum. Khirurg (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Albeit the concerns I am having about section length, for me are about analogies here: the section size compared to article length. An article about a War of independence known not its ethnic character, but mainly for being idealistic. (Idealistic, because the Christian Balkan subjects of the Empire fought for the ideals of freedom and self-determination, revolting against the tyranny of an autocratic imperial government that imposed them the notorious Blood Tax, "Devshirme" (at some point, each Greek Christian and other Christian family was obliged to sacrifice a member, and specifically donate the first male child born in the family to Ottoman authorities at a very young age, never to be seen again), plus the discrimination in the empire, on both financial and religious grounds, with Christians having to pay disproportionally higher financial taxes compared to fellow Ottoman subjects who followed the state religion, and depriving the empire's people of access to quality education and the chance to experience the process of the Renaissance the rest of the West has already been through) then the section may be informative on the matter of ethnicity but without being disproportionate to the article size, giving the impression that this revolution was about ethnicities. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Idealizing the War of Independence as a religious war is oversimplifying the events. Multiple complex factors including ethnicity played an important role during the war, it cannot simply be described as a war between Christians and Muslims. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Summarizing the academic consensus on the main factors (being treated as 2nd-class citizens, social, financial and educational discrimination, etc) and sentiments (historical, political and religious, etc) that were fueling the revolts and led to the eventual revolution against Ottoman rule isn't an attempt at "idealizing" the war I am afraid. Is a reminder to the editors, including you and me, to not turn this debate about a non-ethnic war into one where ethnicity mattered really up to the point of even creating a separate section about ethnicities in an article about an war that wasn't ethnic. As a matter of fact, in that war, Greeks fought Greeks, and Albanians fought Albanians. Facts are facts and this is indisputable. A small separate section is as much as this article can have so any information in it will have to be concise and be WP:RELEVANT and contribute to the overall scope ofthe article. This means, any mention of ethnicties should be WP:BALANCING to the rest of the article content without deviating focus from it. Got it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The length of the section will be determined by the amount of relevant content available and not by your personal preferences. So you deciding that it will be, before any content has been discussed is not constructive and doesn't portray good faith. I'll remind you that you are the one who proposed a separate section because you didn't want to change much of the current article. I would have preferred incorporating reliable sources about the subject in the different sections of the article.
 * Writing about populations other than the Greeks is not focusing the article on ethnicity, it is merely accurately describing historical events. By your logic we should remove any reference of Greek and Turkish from the article, this would obviously be absurd. Also, not all the contributions of the minorities were equal, some did more than others. This should be accurately portrayed in the sections per WP:RELEVANT. I will refer to Ashmedai's comment where they quoted a line of Mazower's brilliant work about the Greek Revolution: Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The length of the section will be determined by the amount of relevant content available that's what the essay WP:RELEVANT which I have been pointing to, does say, and I am glad you agree with me on that. "and not by your personal preferences." No personal preferences. In fact, Relevant is an assay, yes, but WP:BALANCING (another one I have been pointing you to) is far more important, is part of one of the 5 core pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV and states (copy-pasting here for everyone's convenience): An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.. Waiting for proposals. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments above and for the tag. I should say in advance that I do not consider myself possessing some kind of special expertise when it comes to the Greek War of Independence. Nevertheless, I am skeptical of the soundness of creating a separate section on Balkan non-Greek speakers who fought with the Greek side -- what would the point of such a section be? I think it would seem more like a list, as there is imo not that much connecting the course of the Slav-speaking cavalrymen of Hadji-Christos Dagovic with the Albanian-speaking Souliots. Perhaps a short paragraph should be added in the section on "Philhellenism" (now covering only Western Philhellenes)? I am thinking loudly. In any case it should be taken into consideration that Balkan Christian Slavs were at the time seen not as "Philhellenes" but as "other Greeks", in a way that Germans, for example, were not and indeed could not. The pro-Greek Muslims are of a smaller number, but perhaps worthy of a mention, if only for what they mean about the character of the revolution: a religious war for the masses of the Rhomaioi, but also one with a civic dimension, so that one could be an "Ottoman [=Muslim] by religion and a Greek by country", as somebody formulated at the time (cited in Loucatos, «Les arabes et les turcs philhellènes pendant l’insurrection pour l’indépendance de la Grèce«, Balkan Studies 1980.)

As far as the question of the Albanian-speakers/Albanians is concerned, I think the following changes could and should be made to the article: 1. add a passage describing the gradual entanglement of the Souliots in the Greek uprising (using Psimouli's book on Markos Botsaris and Tzakis's chapter from the Critical Dictionary (Kitromilides and Tsoucalas, eds) and also mention their participation in important military events, 2. clearly state that the navymen of Hydra and Spetses as well as the Souliots were Albanian-speakers 3. edit the passage concerning the employment of Albanian troops from the Ottomans until 1824 ("Short of men and money... in lieu of pay"), which is currently supported by way of reference to Brewer's questionable book, substitute references to Brewer with references to the more recent and scientific writings of Erdem and Ilıcak (linked in a previous message of mine in this discussion) and perhaps also expand it, 4. consider adding a passage on the Albanian factor during the last phase of the war and during the delimitation of the Greco-Ottoman frontier (Erdem and Gounaris, Δεν είν' ο περσινός καιρός...). I have not understood if this is the kind of changes that Çerçok had in mind, and of course I do not know what other editors think of them. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's even better. I like this. I consider your idea to be naturally more WP:BALANCING since it integrates the extra bit of info to the article without deviating from the article's scope. I admit my "proposal" for creating a separate section is merely the result of my laziness in messing with the article's existing content.Thank you very much, Ashmedai 119. Who else agrees with that? What do the others think about this? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ashmedai 119 for taking the time. I agree with these proposals, with only a few further suggestions: 1- Albanian-speakers is a pretty slippery term. Instead I would use simply Albanians, or Christian Albanians, especially for well-sourced cases such as the Souliotes. I would not be against putting that in the broader context of them gradually embracing the idea of Greek statehood and eventually nationality. 2- Since the highly politicized matter of ethnicity is being discussed, I would use Mazower, as more detached from Balkan political bias, as the main reference for these changes. Kitromilides and Tsoucalas should be consulted too of course. If we are all in agreement with such changes, I can suggest the edits here. Çerçok (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I generally agree with Ashmedai's proposals, and also think that they are better than creating a separate section, as these have a habit of growing quite large usually. I certainly don't agree that the Spetsiotes and Hydriotes should be described as "Albanians" in this article, since that is not true for all of them. For the Souliotes I am more flexible, although anyone interested in their ethnic origin can consult the Souliotes article. This article is about the war, not the ethnic origin of this and that group. I do agree regarding Mazower. On a separate note, given that there is a whole article on Serbs and Montenegrins in the Greek War of Independence, some mention of them should be made as well (e.g. Vasos Mavrovuoniotis. Khirurg (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ashmedai and Çerçok as well. @Ashmedai 119 could you make the edits you proposed? Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tag. I will be trying to do the proposed edits by Tuesday, but there is a significant probability that I will have only prepared part of them by then, and I am afraid that chances are my free time will be dwindling from then onwards for reasons beyond my volition. Regardless, there is an additional problem in the sense that this is a strange time of the year for me as I do not carry with me some of the materials that I mentioned above (Gounaris's book and Psimoulis's biography of Botsaris). However, an article version of the former is here and the main points of Psimouli's narration are included (to the best of my memory) in this, the second instalment of a two-part article series of hers in a Greek lay journal. If this does not pose a problem with other editors, I could provisionally use these digital versions for the time being and perhaps substitute the references in early to mid-September, when I will be able to.

 * Two additional notes: I do empathize with the aversion to nationalist takes on history, all too common in Balnak historiography, however, this should not be taken to mean that all historical scholarship from Balkan nationals should be automatically considered ladden with sins of such kind. I have also noted that there is a disagreement re the description of the Souliots, which is currently under discussion in the article's talk pages and which, in my view of the logic of things, means that it would be better to resolve it first before adding the material on the Souliots here. Cheers, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ashmedai 119 As the discussion on the Souliotes talk page has reached a consensus - thank you for heling there too - and is now focused on issues of indirect relevance to this article, are you able to propose improvements here? Çerçok (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Çerçok, thanks for the reminder. I can do this, though I am sorry to warn that I will be contributing here at a much slower pace than my involvement in the past few days. If this is not OK with you, perhaps another editor could assume this responsibility. With apologies and thanks once more for reminding me of this matter, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have wanted to make improvements to this article since almost a year ago, I don't mind at all if you take it more slowly than with the Souliotes article. Thank you for still being involved. Çerçok (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to call you all back to this discussion to cease the edit warring that has been occurring between you three. Please discuss here before this situation escalates even further than it already has. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 * @Therealscorp1an Thank you for participating here. You can see that the issue has been brought here since last year, but I am afraid Alexikoua, Othon and Khirurg are trying to forcefully keep the article in a distorted version.
 * The issue is very simple:
 * - There were many Albanians participating for both sides (multiple RS sources).
 * BUT
 * - Alexikoua, Othon and Khirurg insist on only mentioning Albanians fighting for the Ottoman side.
 * There can be no clearer case of POV-pushing, and I will never stop countering such distortions of verifiable truth.
 * I am personally open to any balanced proposition, and what I added is actually what Ashmedai suggested, not me. I would gladly discuss other options. Çerçok (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 * @Cercok: Albanians were a recognized group in the Ottoman administration and military and they are mentioned as such. On the other hand I fail to see the participation of various Greek revolutionary groups as separate units in the revolt. For example Psara, Hydra and Spetses are always grouped together in all naval operations. The special origin of each settlement is irrelevant under the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentioning people of Albanian origin as part of the Ottoman side every now and then while staying silent on people of Albanian origin on the Greek side is a big no-no. The author highlights the fact that people of Albanian origin played an important role on the Greek side, and that makes the content relevant for this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it a "big no-no"? The Albanian origin of these groups can be viewed by clicking on the respective article (Souliotes, Hydra). Mentioning them here as "Christian Orthodox Albanian Souliotes" reads very POV. Khirurg (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason is above, you have already read it. On the Souliotes part, I do not care much. The thing that fits with the context of the article is the part I reworte after Çerçok and Othon I disagreed with each other on the wording (the Albanian-speaking fleet members). The Souliotes being Albanian or of Albanian origin is not that important, at least in my view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, however it does appear there is strong opposition to these edits. This needs be decided by discussion and consensus, not by one side imposing its version via edit-warring. Back tot he stable version until a consensus is reached. Khirurg (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What you really want is to stall this into infinity, basically forcing your version. And you have stalled this long enough, almost a year. But the days of falsified history are over. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TRUTH, or the only thing that will be "over" is your editing privileges in this topic area. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is all you have done since I have started editing really. Not once brought a new source, engaged in discussion over content, or done anything valuable. Only pointless stalls and forceful edits and reverts against RS. But verifiable truth is inevitable. Çerçok (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you open an RfC? The discussion here is pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cercok, please do not falsely accuse me, I stated my opining in the summary of my revert. I am not trying to conspire for something, nor you know if I am a historian or not. As it happens I did not disagree with the inclusion, I disagreed with the wording. Hydra and Spetses were not exclusively Albanian-speaking. Ktrimi's wording was much better for me but indeed, an RfC might work better. Agree Ktrimi. Othon I (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood some part of what I wrote. The historian is Ashmedai, whose proposal I added to the article. If you disagree with the wording, change it, don't remove sourced content. I don't disagree with Ktrimi's wording either. Çerçok (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No I did not. I have requested from you to bring your text here and work it together and in your comment above you wrote Alexikoua, Othon and Khirurg insist on only mentioning Albanians fighting for the Ottoman side.. Please do not falsely accume me, again. Othon I (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Othon I and Çerçok, if you both agree with my wording, then I am glad my effort addressed the concerns of both of you. If others oppose the wording they need to propose another one, otherwise there is no reason to not add the content again to the article. Mentioning people of Albanian origin on the Ottoman side only is too POV to accept. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also do not see anything wrong with the version proposed by Ktrimi991. However I do have to say the Arvanite effort was not limited to just Hydra and Spetses. Beisdes, many commanders listed in this article, (Tombazis, Androutsos, Bouboulina) were also Arvanites. I think that should be mentioned in regards to them. Something like "On 22 June 1823, the Arvanite  Emmanouil Tombazis, appointed Commissioner of Crete..." could work very well. It is already done for the Phanariots, Maniots, Cypriots: "then turned to Alexander Ypsilantis, a Phanariote serving in the Russian army...", "In early July 1821, the Cypriot Archimandrite Theofylaktos Thiseas arrived..."Alltan (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see why to stress the ethnic origins of an individual in the text. If someone is interested then they can enter in the respective articles. Hydra and Spetses is a different topic. Additionally, Phanariote is not an ethnic origin but this is how the Greeks from the Phanar district were called. Othon I (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that individual person's origin should not be mentioned. A balance between the mention of the fact that people of Albanian origin were on both sides of the war is enough. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree Ktrimi, thanks. Othon I (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that much myself. To omit this could unintentionally send out the wrong message that Albanians were expressly pro-Ottoman. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the point. People of Albanian origin fought on both sides, but the article currently mentions only those who fought on the Ottoman side - and does so over 10 times. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, noted above that Mazower highlights that "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia". Muslims fighting on the side of Greeks could have a sentence in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I went for the lowest of the lowest common denominator to start with, and look at the reactions. Çerçok (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the wording agreed on by Ktrimi, Othon I and Çerçok. The POV issue should be solved and Mazower is a top quality source. Other sources like Ledia Dushku can be helpful too. Excine (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Can you add to the article a sentece based on Mazower's quote "A few Muslim men actually fought on the Greek side – mostly Albanians. Mustafa Ghekas headed a so-called ‘Ottoman’ unit of several dozen mostly Albanian Muslims from small towns in central Greece such as Thebes and Livadeia"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand what's so unacceptable about the Souliotes being labeled as Albanians. Don't remove it again without a good reason. Alltan (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be a valuable addition and I considered it, but I could not see a place in the article where it fits. Maybe if Ashmedai's idea about a small section dealing with ethnicities was implemented it would fit well there, but I cannot do that myself. Çerçok (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe that sentence could be added to the Massacres section since that section touches the religious aspect of the conflict. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fact is that ethnographic descriptions are not that simple & Souliotes were often described as Greeks that time. What I also wonder is why in the Souliotes article the fact that Ali Pasha was an Albanian is entirely hidden.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Souliotes were Albanians, it is simple and it is nothing controversial. The rest you can discuss at the Souliotes article. Alltan (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided. Potts, Jim (2014). "The Souliots in Souli and Corfu and the strange case of Photos Tzavellas". In Hirst, Anthony; Sammon, Patrick (eds.). The Ionian Islands: Aspects of Their History and Culture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. @Alltan: I've already told you, you are propagating your personal POV. That's not productive.Alexikoua (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the well known fact that Souliotes were Albanians POV? Hiding such an obvious fact like you did in your last edit is actually the only obvious POV here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * that source is a Predatory source. Do not use it again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it wasn't, it's still a case of Cherrypicking. Alltan (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua This matter has already been resolved in the Souliotes talkpage. That discussion started as a first step towards improvements on this page. All editors made their case there, including you, until a wide consensus was reached. Now respect that consensus. Çerçok (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretenting that the matter has been "solved" in the Souliotes tp isn't an argument to push this kind of POV here too. I fail to see a concensus there and You should avoid recycling this certain POV. You should follow in general wp:WHATWIKIPEDIAIS. Alexikoua (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You participated in that discussion. You have to respect it's result. Çerçok (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Çerçok need to follow wp:NPA, such comments are completely unproductive in this comment. There is no concensus on the Souliotewere portraied during the Greek Revolution, we need to be neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder, do not confuse consensus with unanimity. From the policy page: . Alltan (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another friendly reminder from me: concensus does not mean you are ready for to excercise large scale revert warring pattern here. If that's a declaration of a new edit war campaign I'll disappoint you. Labelling the Souliotes as Albanians is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This summary [] accusing Oxford University Press for publishing predatory works is not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, do not make any more POV edits on this article. The fact that the Souliotes were Albanians is very well sourced by countless reliable sources.We have been through this already at the article about the Souliotes. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Regarding Potts, the book has been published by both Cambridge Scholars Publishing (used on the Souliotes article) and Oxford University Press. Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a predatory publisher. Now since the book has 2 publishers it is unclear if it should be treated as reliable or unreliable. A RSN might be needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding Albanians in the beligerent list under Ottoman Empire
I suggest adding Albanians under the Ottoman beligerent list against the Greek rebels.

During the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) against Ottoman rule, the Albanians supported the Ottoman Empire and fought against the Greek rebels, due to loyalty to the Ottoman rulers, because they feared potential Greek dominance in the region and because of religion causes.

A surprisingly high number Albanians held positions within the Ottoman administration and military, and they were often used to suppress rebellions, including the Greek uprising

Albanian leaders and chieftains sided with the Ottomans due to perceived benefits or protection of their interests.

To support this suggestion I will refer some facts to take into consideration:

Ismail Kemal (Vlora) was an Albanian politician and statesman who is regarded as the founder of modern Albania. He served as the first prime minister of Albania from December 1912 until his resignation in January 1914. Thus he ias the best knowledge of the role of Albanians during the Ottoman rule.

He wrote several times that Albanians fully supported the Ottoman Empire:

-"We are the only Balkan people really attached to the Ottoman Empire (Since that time (the death of Skanderbeg), although the Albanians have never given up their passionate desire for independence, they have been the only Balkan people really attached to the Ottoman Empire, always ready to support it, always happy to help strengthen it and to profit by its strength". Albania and the Albanians’, reprinted in Yllii Mengjezit (from first publication in The Quarterly Review, 1917), vol. 2, no. 5 (29 September 1917), pp. 129-34, here p. 134.)

-We served the Turkish empire faithfully ("… and we are proud to feel that during the Ottoman domination, in spite of much unjust treatment from the Turkish rulers, we served the Empire faithfully". Ismail Kamal Bey, The memoirs of Ismail Kemal Bey, Constantinople, 1920, p.4)

-Albanians are the only Balkan people really attached to the Ottoman Empire (the Albanians), " they have been the only Balkan people really attached to the Ottoman Empire, always ready to support it, always happy to help strengthen it and to profit by its strength". Ismail Kamal Bey, The memoirs of Ismail Kemal Bey, Konstantinople, 1920, p.361)

-The Sultan entrusted Albanians his harem, his ministries, his military ("The person of the Sultan, his palace, and even his harem, were entrusted to Albanians. In the Ministries and in the civil and military services, Albanians occupied the highest and most distinguished positions".Isma’il Kamal Bey, The memoirs of Ismail Kemal Bey, Konstantinople, 1920, p.364)

The Albanian website memorie.al wrote “In Elbasan, Haxhi Qamil’s rebels burned the national flag, shouting ‘the crows died’. Haxhi Qamil is celebrated as a hero in Albania and several folk songs refer him ( https://shorturl.at/nqwCV )

Albanian Kosovar Revivalists Isa Boletini and Rizha Gjakova wanted Albania to remain under the Sultan. They are considered by Albanians to be important figures for their struggles for the independence of Albania and especially the Albanian uprising of the year 1912.

-In 1912, Albanian  rebels entered Skopje but left without declaring independence from the Ottoman Empire. Riza Yakova and Isa Boletini, on 12 Aug. 1912 declared "We do not want autonomy and we cannot separate from the Ottoman Empire"

Albanian friend and powerful lobbyist for the Albanian issue, British politician Aubrey Herbert confesses from meeting with Isa Boletin in Mitrovica on August 27, 2012: According to Isa Boleti «Albanians did not want autonomy.» Isa Bolettini added that «unification of north with south [of Albania] would not be favorable«, and that «Albania wanted to stay under the Sultan.» (Aubrey Herbert, ′′ Ben Kendim: A Record of Eastern Travel «, London: Hutchinson & Co., 1924, page 198-213).

-In another page British diplomat Aubrey Herbert reports about Isa Boletini(Ben Kendim: A Record of Eastern Travel, Hutchinson, 1924,p.205):

"I asked:

 'Did the Albanians want autonomy?'

'''“No,” he said, “they didn't want to. What they wanted was not to interfere."'''

"You want union," I said, "between north and south?"

"Well," he said, "we are one people," but he went on to say that the union would not be beneficial to the north, because the Toske, the southerners, were more educated and intelligent than the northerners.

Albania wanted to be under the Sultan, but the Albanians must have arms to defend their country, and those arms they had were taken from them by the foolish Turks."

Albanian Hasan Prishtina reports that Isa Boletini did not even want to hear not only about independence but not even about autonomy. In fact, he had told the Turk, Ibrahim Pasha: «We do not want autonomy, we cannot separate from the Ottomans (Hasan Bey Prishtina: Brief Memoir on the Albanian Uprising of 1912)

Professors Mithat Aydin from Pamukkale University, Turkey, Mehmet Tütüncü from SOTA Netherlands, and Ardian Muhaj from Albanian History Institute, Tirana, found, translated, and published the Ottoman document that supports the full support of Albanians to Ottomans and vice versa. (Mithat Aydin, Mehmet Tütüncü and Ardian Muhaj. Published at 20 november 2018 via  academia.edu)

In the Gallipoli campaign, there were about 35.000 Albanians from all the territories with Albanian population in the Balkans that went to Gallipoli voluntarily to fight on the side of the Turks. At least 25.000 Albanians were killed during the Gallipoli Campaign.

In 1911, when Sultan Reshat Pasha visited Kosovo , 100.000 Albanians welcomed him as leader and father.

In 1914, Albanians rebelled against the separation from the Ottoman Empire. The motto of the rebels was «Duam, duam Babën– Turqinë!» (We want, we want our father—Turkey) and they raised the flag of the Ottoman Empire and restored Ottoman Turkish as the national language.

Faik Konica wrote: "the vast majority of the people of Albania received the gift given [the independent state] with dissatisfaction." (Faik Konica, «History of Certain Changes«, Dielli newspaper, May 6, 1926) Ipapas (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Albanians should be added as belligerents on the Greek side as well in that case. The Souliotes and the Arvanites were all Albanian, including those from Hydra, for example, who made great contributions to the Greek cause. Adding “Albanians” to one side is WP:UNDUE.

 * Additionally, many of those figures you listed changed their stances from pro-independence to pro-autonomy and back to pro-independence according to what promises the Ottoman government made to them and how they acted on those promises. They participated in many pro-independence activities, and many of them were heavily involved in multiple military conflicts with the Ottomans. The independence of Albania was supported by most Albanians aside from some Muslim extremists, which culminated in the revolt which you speak of in 1914 - this revolt was mainly led by peasants in central Albania, and was heavily opposed by Albanians from the north, the south, Kosovo etc. The Albanians suffered just as much as the Greeks if not more during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. They were used as soldiers due to their prowess and reputation as warriors and fighters, that is true, but they were left behind entirely in regards to education, infrastructure, development, trade etc. The Ottomans oppressed the Albanians just as they oppressed the Greeks. I get that you are trying to make the point that Albanians were pro-Ottoman, but the countless Albanian rebellions, uprisings and general anti-Ottoman activities during the Ottoman period clearly illustrate that they did not want to be part of the Ottoman Empire and therefore under the rule of foreigners. Botushali (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Ottoman Reaction" section
The article, as of now, states P1: "The news that the Greeks had revolted sparked murderous fury all over the Ottoman Empire". It adds a reference to a source, this being Q1: "Brewer, David The Greek War of Independence, London: Overlook Duckworth, 2011 pp. 100–101."

DISCLAIMER: I don't have access to the source (Q1), so I cannot assess how P1 and Q1 are related to each other, or how Q1 warrants P1. It may be the case that Q1 solves all contentions stated below.

The statement P1 includes the wording "murderous fury all over the Ottoman Empire".

CONTENTION 1: "murderous fury" is not assessable objectively. It would require being privy to psychological states of people in the past. I am not sure such knowledge is accessible to any scientifically rigorous degree presently.

CONTENTION 2: granting that assessing "murderous fury" objectively be possible, the assessment of "fury all over the Ottoman Empire", even if it were possible, seems IMPROBABLE, given the size of the Ottoman Empire, and the amount of research that would be necessary to substantiate the claim.

CONCLUSIVE CONTENTION: P1 is not an assertion of fact, nor an objective description of an event. It is a sentence that expresses the feelings and position of the writer on the subject. Therefore, it doesn't belong in a section of the text where facts or objective descriptions are required. As the text is such, the statement should be amended for accuracy or removed. 240D:1A:DA1:500:8580:4865:E0C:124C (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Article - Nikolaos Gioulekas
Greetings, This biography for Nikolaos Gioulekas has zero references, and needs at least one incoming link to remove the Orphan tag. Asking for help here as article states that Gioulekas was a captain in the Greek War of Independence of 1821. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greek War of Independence