Wikipedia

Talk:Arvanites/Archive 10

< Talk:Arvanites
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Vannucci in topic Citations requested: "Process of assimilation"
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arvanites. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arvanites. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This edit [1] alleges there was a copyright violation and sourcing "from an unserious site" involved in the footnote quoting various 19th-century primary sources about the Albanian inhabitation of Athens. @Alboholic:, can you please elaborate? Copyright violation of what, and sourced to what unreliable "site"? All I see is quotations from 19th-century books. This passage was inserted back in 2007 [2] by Macrakis (talk · contribs), one of the most academically well-respected editors in this field, who certainly wasn't plagiarizing anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is the contrary and this site which I mean violated actually copyright. I mean this site: [3] I had the same discussion on the German-speaking Wikipedia. There they didn't want to accept these references as sources. 19th-century authors and works shouldn't be that reliable and as Wikipedia authors we should refer to more contemporary literature. I hope you understand me and now I have to continue the discussion on the German-speaking Wikipedia ...--Alboholic (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Alboholic, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Macrakis I think the impasse can be resolved and clear up any wp:reliable and wp:secondary issues First on the travellers account a link to it in the article would clear matters [4]. Also, I just came across these academic sources (that meet requirements) on the 19th century Arvanite presence in Athens that can be added for whoever has time. ([5] Panourgia & Panourgia -p.27.); ([6] Zervas - p.52.); on the Athens suburb Plaka and Arvanite presence ([7] Clayer - p.134. "De même, le fameux quartier de « Plaka », blotti au pied de l'Acropole d'Athènes, était habité par des albanophones. Les Arvanites, ainsi qu'on les nomme et qu'ils se nomment eux-mêmes, étaient à cette époque de conscience hellénique."); for more recent times ([8], [9] Adamou - p. 60. "En ce qui concerne la répartition géographique, la population arvanite la plus dense habite au sud de la Grèce, ... dans une partie du centre d'Athènes, à Plaka, ainsi que dans certaines banlieues (Maroussi, Xalandri, Kifissia, Menidi etc.) cf."). Hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Resnjari, thank you for the more references. You can add them freely. However, I (and I think Wikipedia in general) would prefer more newer literature...Best.--Alboholic (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Alboholic, the source citing the 19th century reality (added way back by Macrakis) is Freely published in 2004. Panourgia & Panourgia is 1995; Zervas is 2017; Clayer is 2007; Adamou is 2008. Scholarship takes time to be generated, even so these academic sources are recent within the space of at least two decades or so on the topic of Arvanites which is not researched much these days. They more than qualify regarding the wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Resnjari Okay, I see. Thank you for the explanations. Kalofsh mirë.--Alboholic (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arvanites. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of "Arvanites" in old sources.

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

It seems that the article has been locked at an "Albanian" POV. Since much weight is given to early sources, like foreign travellers, it should be added that in that time "Albanian" did not necessarily mean ethnic Albanian. See Arnauts.

"Arvanites were called in the two hegemonies (Moldavia, Vlachia, early 19th c.) the mixed Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, connected by the same dogma and living by mercenarism".

"In the eithy odd years during which Naples employed light infantry from the Balkans, the troops of the regiment and its successors were known popularly under the three names in addition to the aforementioned camociotti: the seemingly national names of Greci, Macedoni and Albanesi. These, names did not, however, have their later ethnic conotations but were instead stylized terms that described the soldiers' general origins or mode of fighting..."

I am suprissed to read such missinformation in relation to arvanites issue. the ones who have thrown such information to this site, eather have done it on purpose or they are wrongly informed. they may have forgoten that arvanites are all from albanian origin as much as are members of cham community. Recently, a study from an well-known histiryan has clamed that in nowdays Greece live about 6 milion arvanites and cham altogether, which means that comprisses the halph of population of Greece today.

Disambiguation page needed

I see that this issue has been raised before, although not discussed really. The term Arvanites, in all languages (Arnauts, Albanesi, Albanois etc) had a second meaning: Soldier from the Levante, idependently of ethnicity. The sources are found above, and there are more. Shall we create an ambiguation page? Some users are erasing this info from the article as "irrelevant". Who will determine the subject of the article? Is anybody the owner? --Skylax30 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have actually never heard of Levantine soldiers being called "Albanian". This seems incredibly obscure to me...---- Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what you read. There are some sources above, and there more in bibliography. Actually it is not only about Arvanites, but also Arnauts, Albanians, Albanois, Albanesi etc. For the moment, I am waiting an explanation on why the disambiguation page was deleted.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The second meaning which you refer too still has its origins from the first on some being from an Albanian speaking background. Your disambiguation is POV and an attempt to assert that the meaning of all those word was first an primarily regarding military people. At least when you make your case use scholarship, something from the 20th and 21st century that's done an overview of even older sources and also meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary because WP:AGE MATTERS. Otherwise its a free for all and the same could be done for the word "Greek" which in the Muslim world carries different (negative) meanings as well (i.e in Turkish).Resnjari (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well said, Resnjari. "some being from an Albanian speaking background" (and the rest from other backgrounds). I dont' quite follow all the rest. Dictionaries are not usually overviewed, and they crystallize the language of their era. So, everybody can write that "Dictionary ABCD of 1800 says this". You can argue that either it doesn't say so, or that there is a source claiming that Dictionary ABCD was wrong. Your personal interpretations are irrelevant. Regarding the topic in question (Arvanites as mercenaries, Albanians as "foreigners" etc), I have 20th century sources and I will add them soon. I don't see why and how modern era people can change the language of the past.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

But Skylax something which you ignore or "don't follow the rest" as you say is that the second meaning has its origins from the first meaning. All those words have been and are still applied to people of an Albanian speaking background and or descent with the second meaning being redundant. The formation of meanings are not the other way around about it being overwhelmingly military and then applied to people of Albanian speaking heritage. Never happened that way. Your disambiguation page was pushing that POV not to mention your additions on this page and the Souliotes page. How about using tertiary sources (i.e scholarship). By the way the Albanian speaking background of the Arvanites and Souliotes is beyond refute. This article on the Arvanites like the Souliotes one is about a specific ethno-linguistic group, not a soldering class of the Stratioti where those second meanings are applicable.Resnjari (talk)
I should also note that the second meaning regarding military classes is only applied in certain contexts like regiments in Naples (what does it have to do with this article ???) as cited in one source Ivo Banac that meets wp:secondary and wp:reliable.Resnjari (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at your other sources such as the first two from the 19th century. 1) Thomas (1844), refers to mercenary units in Romania at the outset of the Greek revolution by Ypsilanti that uses the term Arnauts. 2) Trikoupis does the same thing though with the term Arvanites and once again is about the outset of the Greek revolution and mercenary units in Romania. 3) The website The free dictionary by Farlex is not a source that meets wp:secondary. Scholarship has much more on the term Arnaut as well. All three of these sources as well are not applicable and adding them to this or the Souliotes article is also wp:synthesis and wp:or.Resnjari (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If another page has to exist, what should it be named? Arvanites (disambiguation) of course is not a proper name. I agree that Trikoupis and Gordon are too old to be useful in making strong and controversial claims. Indeed, the term Arvanite has had several meanings, and all have to be reflected on the coverage offered by Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
For instance, Baltsiotis says Until the Interwar period Arvanitis (plural Arvanitēs) was the term used by Greek speakers to describe an Albanian speaker regardless of his/hers religious background.
Liakos The term "Arvanite" is the medieval equivalent of "Albanian." it is retained today for the descendants of the Albanian tribes that migrated to the Greek lands during a period covering two centuries, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth.
Other usages of the term are welcome. I added these two ones that I found on other articles, there are surely other usages that I, due to lack of knowledge of Arvanite matters, do not have heard of. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
With this whole issue it depends on the context. For instance this article, content on the origin and meaning of the word Arvanites would have to be applicable to the ethno-linguistic group living in southern Greece and scholarship reflecting that. What Skylax was intending for was to place content (by including sources that are also old and don't meet wp:secondary etc) on the word Arvanites that has to do with other groups of Albanian speakers outside Greece, hence his edits being reverted. In essence it was wp:synthesis and crossing into wp:or territory. Also we have the page Names of the Albanians and Albania and it caters for the various words and meanings that have emerged from Arbenesh/Arberesh (Albanian). We don't need a disambiguation page, otherwise it has the potential to become a WP:POVFORK stub. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This article lacks a section on the origin and evolution of the term. Victor Friedman contains some good stuff on the matter too. Resnjari, can you write a section, since you have used relevant sources on Names of the Albanians and Albania? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, i was thinking of section titled Name or Ethnonym with content (Baltsiotis, Liotta, Friedman etc) relating directly to the ethno-linguistic group. Thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

TEMPLATES

Latest comment: 5 years ago73 comments7 people in discussion

Again, the Greek template should be removed or the Albanian template will be added. Either both should be added or none of them!

You need to explained why this is necessary.Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer no templates of the sort. Its neutral that way.Resnjari (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense! I would kindly advise Resrarji to come to your mind. What even means to be neutral? The article clearly states backed with many sources such as Tsitsipis etc. that they find the characterisation Albanian as offensive. Your POV is not our concern. Othon I (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Calm down. Don't make it personal or infer things. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. My comments were made toward making the article neutral, that's all.Resnjari (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I prefer when someone supports his so-called neutral way with a decent argument, else we have yet again WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
My view is my view. Having silly edit wars over infoboxes based on ethnicity is childish. Having no infoboxes is neutral.Resnjari (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, the same happens with Chams. Babiniotis states they are ethnic Greeks. I can name one editor here who agrees with Babiniotis' views.Alexikoua (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Still with the fringe ideas. lol No one was talking about Chams here and supposed "Greek origins", only the infobox. Silly edit wars have been had over childish things on this page. One way of overcoming them is for neither infobox to be in the article.Resnjari (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is supremely childish indeed, and the quality of this "discussion" thread is abysmal. It's not as if those side bar templates are of much use anyway (why are we still using them in the first place?), but when they get used for ethnic territory-marking, it really becomes unbearable. About the underlying issue: yes, it is of course true that Arvanites in Greece today are not Albanians (because they evidently don't identify as such), so if it was only about that, the Albanian template indeed wouldn't belong. However, the article isn't just about that population group today, but also about its history. And during their history, the ancestors of today's Arvanites were, of course, Albanians. They were just as Albanian as their fellow Albanian speakers further north, and completely uncontroversially so, up until at least the early 20th century, which is when the conceptual differentiation between Albanians in a "national" sense and local Arvanites first began. As long as we are covering that history and associated historic individuals in this article, the article is of course also part of our encyclopedic coverage of the Albanians as an ethnolinguistic group, and as such a legitimate part of the series the "Albanians" sidebar refers to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The ancestors of the Arvanites are mostly medieval Albanians apart from any other ethnicity that came down that time which they are covered in the Albanians article. This article is about the Greek identifying Arvanites. Of course we have to state that they the moved to south from the area known today as Albania which is clearly stated in the Article. Putting an Albanian infobox here is like putting a Germans on the French or the English people since Franks and Saxons migrated from today Germany to the respective countries. Needless to say that it is absurd and silly. Othon I (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree with @Resnjari and @Fut.Perf. .. Me as an ARVANITE as well as my family members and friends back in Greece don't find the "characterisation Albanian as offensive" and stop making generalizations for all Arvanites, especially for those "Greek" editors who always want to hide the Albanian past in all articles, its a shame! At the end of the day: the choice is individual so there are Arvanites who feel Greek and Arvanites who feel Albanian including me and my family!--Lorik17 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Ignore serious trolling. Then we should change the article just because of your feelings...Btw I am not making up things, the article is well sourced. Othon I (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"Offensive" on an issue like this (yes, there are two sides) is kind of a cover for WP:IDLI. Anyhow there is an entire body of literature on this in fact that I could draw from -- Arvanites have been demonstrated to show multiple conflicting identity performances in different situations.--Calthinus (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus I have never been warned about calling someone troll nor I ever called someone previously except Laof above who is disrupting this article and adds dubious info without consensus. What are you banging on about? Anyway it is absurd to try to present Arvanites as Modern Albanians. This is the position of Albanian nationalist/irredentists and I would not say that it could be counted as productive. Best Othon I (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Literally nobody, even the most ardent Albanian irredentists, want to annex parts of Attica or the Pelopponese to Albania. Instead, however, empirical data shows that large numbers of Greeks harbor negative sentiments towards people of Albanian extraction. In such a scenario, denying any form of Albanian identity saves you from being associated with things that popular opinion in Greece (mis)associates Albanians with, including immorality, drug smuggling, mafia activity, lack of "culture" et cetera-- see Passing_(sociology) (in this case it doesn't apply because nobody is going to dispute that Arvanites are clearly Greek, but nevertheless there is a form of denial going on here, among a group that indeed has been historically referred to as "Albanian").--Calthinus (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand where are you coming from but you missing or better neglecting something very important here. Arvanites do not identify as Greeks just because the "despise" according to your statement Albanian people. Albanian people are very well integrated to the Greek society nowadays. We are not back in 90s when the illegal immigrants and criminals came among them. Of course there are many incidents with people from Albanian background breaking the law which gives a very bad fame to them but same happens with many other nationalities who are in Greece. Arvanites in Greece identify as Greeks because when the modern Greek nation state established, they identified with it apart from being Greek Orthodox and bilingual. At that time there was no Albanian national consciousness nor Albanian nation state. This came with the Albanian national awakening in 1912 after the first Balkan war you know the story so they couldn't identify as such. Although a distinct Arvanite (not Albanian) culture and identification has been noted by scholars along with Greek. For example my great-grandparents identified as Rhomioi (one was Venetian) but collectively as Greeks. As for Annexing Attica or Peloponnese I didn't mean that but, there are Arvanites living in Thesprotia and Epiros as well. Just saying. Othon I (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually @Othon the points that @Calthinius makes are spot on. The process of how Arvanites became modern day Greeks is a long one and began during the Greek War of independence. Prior to that they where no different from other Albanians of the time (after all they did speak Albanian and self identified as Arberesh, not Rhomioi or Hellenes). The Ottoman Empire was many things, but never derided them over speaking Albanian or negatively viewed their self identification as Arberesh. After they sided with Greek rebels and became part of the Greek state (due to shared religion i.e Orthodoxy) the long process ethno-lingusitic assimilation occurred via various means, in particular national and societal negative reinforcement regarding the Albanian language. Same negative reinforcement in Greek society toward assimilating modern Albanian immigrants (anyway article is not about modern Albanians in Greece.) This is accounted for in RS scholarship (i.e Bintliff (2003) "The Ethnoarchaeology of a "Passive" Ethnicity: The Arvanites of Central Greece etc) even if this article does not deal with the issue much (though it should). Also this article is not about the "Arvanites" living in Thesprotia and wider Epiros, or of Eastern Thrace. Separate articles about those populations who call their language Shqip exist. The infobox issue here is silly and having none makes the article neutral.Resnjari (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, negative reinforcement of the language is again not the only reason (this was only during the Metaxas regime). Most of the scholarship indicates that it was their choice to identify with the Greek ethnicity with the Greek independence. Since the Albanian nation did not exist at that time they identified with the Greek one. Assimilation by force for sure did not occur, I haven't seen that anywhere. Anyway my opinion is that the infobox should stay because Arvanites are now an integral part of the Greek ethnos since they have been assimilated and contributed many things throughout the years. Othon I (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually no it was not their choice outright. It took generations since 1821 to convince them through various means to give up their language and distinct ethno-cultural identity of Arberesh. The Metaxas regime which actually persecuted them was the tipping point that placed the Albanian dialect of Arberisht (known is Greece as "Arvanitika") into terminal decline. I am well aware of the history. I can quote to you heaps of Tsitispis who did fieldwork in the 1970s on the matter (There is heaps of Tsitsipis in the footnotes of the Albanian language version of this article [10]). What are now known as Arvanites have become part of the Greek ethos proper from the 20th century onward as loss of language and separate ethno-cultural identity disappeared. For most of their existence from when they migrated from what is today Albania into lands that are now Greece, under the Ottoman period they where Albanian. That's a period of some 400 or so years. Inclusion into Greece is less then 200 years and loss of language and other separate ethno-cultural identity markers like Arberesh around from the 20th century until now -with the process in its final stages via the death of older generations and the current youth not identifying with anything Arvanite apart in some contexts the name. Either both infoboxes go into the article or none.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Well presenting Arvanites as victims of forced assimilation is rather childish. Linguistically indeed we have events occurred such as Metaxas regime but ethnically they have not been forced to identify as Greeks. On the contrary, it was their choice, Trudgill, Tzavaras, Tsitsipis and others specifically note it. A distinct Arvanite ethnicity (noted in the article) has nothing to do with the modern Albanian ethnicity which is a product of the Albanian National Awakening occurred in 1912, before this officially there was no Albanian nation nor state, there were Albanian-speaking people. Well its an issue that you also commented [here] that the language is not necessary a defining factor of ethnic identification and in case of Albanians, everything is based on linguistics and lacking information about their origin (we only have hypothesis) were you also base your POV. I would advise to come again to your mind and stop presenting this community as Albanian diaspora because it is a tantamount endorsement of the Albanian nationalistic POV and not following the WP:NPOV guidelines. According to your logic we should place Germans to the English people because once they were Germans from Saxony. There is no problem to mention their origin but, their ethnicity is Greek. The Albanian infobox has no place here. Best Othon I (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Its not just the Metaxas regime. The assimilation of the Arvanites has been a historical process where the language and ethno-cultural identity was derided via othering coming from the state and monolingual Greek speakers (Tsitsipis deals with it at length [11]). @Future Perfect at Sunrise and @Cathnius also summed it up well in previous comments. Arvanites became part of a modern Greek ethnos due to shared religion at first and as the generations have passed via Greek language and so on. I am not here to argue a contrary point or that these people are now Albanians (or an Albanian diaspora). But they are of Albanian origin, not Greek and for a large part of their history, especially under the Ottomans they were Albanians, not Greeks (see Bintliff). And what made them distinct, what made them Arvanites was their Albanian traits i.e their language and ethno-cultural identity of Arberesh. Without these main markers they would never have existed as a separate community, as the current Arvanite youth are displaying by not identifying or keeping with elements of the older generations from this community (its language or identification of Arberesh etc). Also no need for strawman arguments about the English and Germans. The article is not about them. If you want to argue WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS you can do it at those articles relating to them. My view has not changed for the article, either both infoboxes or none. I favour the second option as its neutral.Resnjari (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Re Othon: Croatia has a centuries old Albanian diaspora from long before Albania was founded. They are called Albanians. So does Ukraine. They are called Albanians. Italy has the Arbereshe, who historically played a pivotal role in the Albanian national awakening, and continue to be active in Albanian nationalist circles (Joe DioGuardi being a good example) although some have tried to distance themselves from "ex-communist Albanians" for similar reasons as you see in Greece. That minority of Arbereshe aside, the Arvanites are the only case. When we speak of an Arvanite culture in English, we speak of something discreet -- which does not include the Albanian-speakers of Epirus or Macedonia, who speak different dialects of Albanian and have a different culture (and refer to themselves as shqiptar -- or shkjiptar in Thesprotia due to the local dialect -- when speaking their native language). Instead, the term refers solely in English to the speakers of Albanian derived idiom from the south of Greece. Many Arvanites as well as many non-Arvanite Greeks try to distance Arvanites from anything Albanian, because for them one cannot be simultaneously Greek and Albanian. But as research has shown, this can evaporate for many individuals in situations where identifying with Albanians is incentivized. That is their personal prerogative anyhow, but it means little in an Anglophone environment where English Wikipedia is situated.--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I admit that some comments are completely unhistorical: especially under the Ottomans they were Albanians, not Greeks lol yet again WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS "arguments". The Ottoman Empire classified its communities under religious criteria. For future reference the members of this community were seen as "Greeks".Alexikoua (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually no, not "unhistorical". Instead of getting into polemics with you, i'm just going to quote Bintliff on the Arvanites who is RS (pp.137-138 [12] ): First, we can explain the astonishing persistence of Albanian village culture from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries through the ethnic and religious tolerance characteristic of Islamic empires and so lacking in their Christian equivalents. Ottoman control rested upon allowing local communities to keep their religion, language, local laws, and representatives, provided that taxes were paid (the millet system). There was no pressure for Greeks and Albanians to conform to each other's language or other behavior. Bintliff goes on to refer to the change. The community known as Arvanites are of Albanian origin and under the Ottomans is what they were. Only fringe types dispute this and/or deny it altogether. Arvanites become Greeks after 1821 in a long a process that has taken many generations and accounted for in RS scholarship. Many points were also well articulated by @Fut.Perf and @Calthinius as well on these issues.Resnjari (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no source whatsoever stating that Albanian national consciousness existed before 1912 nor stating that Arvanites identified as Albanians, if you have one please bring it. Every single one of them is based on linguistics and about their origins, generally 90% of the scholarship about Albania is based in linguistics due to lack of other info. They are talking about the language and language is not a determining factor of ethnic identification. Your interpretation of of Bintliff is sooo wide of the mark. Othon I (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again about "national consciousness". Arvanites called themselves Arberesh, they spoke Albanian (Arberisht) and so on. This is not in dispute. My paraphrasing of Bintliff aint off the mark. How else is one to interpret such things as the Albanian language. There is no other in the world and it definitely is not Greek. Nor is the self appellation of Arberesh. Albanian is Albanian. Get used to it.Resnjari (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Resnjari, may I suggest it's no use engaging the likes of Othon here in debate. We've had all this junk spewed over this talkpage a hundred times by a dozen other people. It's always the same schizophrenic rubbish: Albanians before 1900 weren't a nation in a political sense; therefore there never were any Albanians before 1900; therefore nobody before 1900 should ever be called an Albanian. (The obvious fact that if we went by that logic, nobody before 1820 should ever be called a Greek, because Greeks didn't form a nation before around that time either, is of course totally lost on these people, such is the delusional force of the nationalist mode of thinking they grew up with.) It's no use debating with that mentality. Let's just stick to what counts on Wikipedia: reliable sources. There is of course no shortage of reliable sources, both historical and present-day, that call the ancestors of today's Arvanites "Albanians", up and including the early 20th century. Not "Albanian speakers", but "Albanians" pure and simple, because that's what they were. Of course that doesn't entail a claim of Albanian national consciousness (no more than calling an Aromanian an Aromanian implies an Aromanian national consciousness), and of course it doesn't preclude that they may also have had some form of Greek self-identification in certain contexts, but those are all red herrings anyway. We use ethnic identifiers for historical populations on ethnolinguistic and cultural criteria, and there's absolutely no more reason to avoid this for these Albanian groups than for Greeks, Turks, Italians and all the countless other ethnicities that became political "nation" groups only in the modern era. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur with you @Future Perfect at Sunrise:. Even when one brings RS scholarship (accessible too) to the discussion and bases comments on that, some still choose to ignore it. I don't have words for it anymore. Its not just @Othon, there are a few others as well that dabble in this POV. I guess the circus continues as much as one dislikes it (sigh).Resnjari (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Distorting my words in order to deconstruct an argument one would not say that it isn't sign of intelligence. I have never said that Albanians did not exist nor that did not exist before 1912. All I said is that Arvanites identified with the Greek ethnicity because it predates the Albanian in a national and political sense. If Albanian national consciousness took form before the greek were the Greek indeed took form in 1821 maybe a bit earlier (all in national and political sense) most probably they would have been now Albanians. Then I agreed in most of the things that Resnjari say except his OR about Arvanites identifying as Albanians before 1821 simply because we do not have sources indicating that. We have worked with Resnjari on many things together and at the end we always found the most neutral solution. My view on or collaboration here at least. You @PastPerfect have the habit to insult and harass me since I started here just because I peacefully debate my view on a matter and always accept the neutral one, I am not sure why, maybe because I hurt your feelings or something. Do it once again and I will directly report for harassment. Othon I (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari you are obviously kidding: Arvanites become Greeks after 1821. Maybe this wp:OR concert needs some serious research. Assimilation started before 1821. Ottoman social classification never considered them Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Your ignoring RS scholars like Bintiff. The reason i cite Bintliff there (apart from the work being accessible) is that the Oxford scholar accessed the archeological record + archival sources of the Ottoman period and done fieldwork among the modern day population. Three in one! My comments are based on RS scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Resnary you need to avoid OR for exapmle Arvanites become Greeks after 1821 or especially under the Ottomans they were Albanians, not Greeks (your comments) is your pesronal opinion and far from being based on RS. Try not to falsify RS scholars.Alexikoua (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Really, do i have to cite slabs of RS here. Bintliff is clear on that and so are many other scholars, its not OR (sigh).Resnjari (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't neglect that they might have self identified as Albanians but that was pre-Ottoman. I'm afraid you need to present decent scholarship which states that they opposed a Greek identity.Alexikoua (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Once again, no one claimed here that modern Arvanites are not modern Greeks and no one claimed that they formed a 'modern day Albanian minority' in Greece or are a 'Albanian diaspora' in Greece. In fact it was the opposite, including myself. There is also no scholarship that states that they opposed Greek identity. They fought with monolingual Orthodox Greeks against the Ottomans and after the independence war fused with them via shared religion (see Bintliff as well on that too). The process of fusion, of becoming one that transcended religion took much longer such as giving up the self appellation Arberesh and of course the language, the last trait that defines them as a distinct ethno-linguistic group known as Arvanites. These last processes are less then 200 years. While as Bintliff notes from the 14th century until the early 19th they were under the Ottomans and not exposed to those process, their Albanian traits existed intact and that's in a period of some 400 or so years. The Albanian aspect in a historical sense is unavoidable, its what made them Arvanites in the first place even if modern descendants find it problematic.Resnjari (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Arvanites participated in several pre-1821 Greek revolts (for example in 1770). Papas states that in the middle of the 16th century there was already a hellenization process among Albanian settlers of the Peloponess. Some of them were already fully hellenized. No need for OR.Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes some participated in pre-Greek war of independence revolts fighting against the Ottoman rule making common cause via a shared religion. I know of the Pappas source. Pappas' study is on the Stradioti. He gives evidence of an outside the Balkans Hellenisation in their new environment and also refers to Italianisation too. In regards to hellenisation in the Balkans about some Stradioti prior to leaving, he deals with it as a "perhaps" (Pappas, para 23: [13]. That's all. Pappas' study overall does not deal with Arvanites (and other Albanian groups) in the Balkans but outside of it. Bintliff deals with the Balkans , Hellenisation and Arvanites not in terms of "perhaps" and so on. Its not OR. The Hellensiation process as RS notes starts overwhelmingly from the 19th century after the Greek war of independence.Resnjari (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There is evidence that the hellenisation process started from the middle of the 16th century. The claim that Arvanites were not Greeks in 1821 is OR. Not to mention in terms of Ottoman social classification there were Greeks.15:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Outside the Balkans is not the same as inside the Balkans. "Perhaps" is also not indicative of that as well. The thing about "Ottoman social classification" and Arvanites is debunked by Bintliff. Whether or not you want to take note of it is your thing.Resnjari (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I also fail to see "perhaps" in this quote (perhaps that's yet another OR): "While the bulk of stradioti rank and file were of Albanian origin from Greece, by the middle of the 16th century there is evidence that many had become Hellenized or even Italianized. ​". By saying Albanian stratioti that time there were 2nd or 3rd generation Albanian settlers in parts of the Peloponess (Nafplion etc. and other Venetian controlled areas).Alexikoua (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, but you ignored that on paragraph 23, additional detail is given as to what is meant by that. The Helleneisation and Italianisation via evidence given by Pappas is outside, not inside the Balkans. Inside the Balkans its dealt with a "perhaps". Bintliff in the timeline given firmly places hellensiation of Arvanites within the Balkans as commencing from the 19th century. Please read up on things in detail if you fail to see them.Resnjari (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously Nauplion is located in the Peloponess a major recruitment centre in 16th century & under Venetian control. Nauplion is Balkans (one of the Venetian places where Italianisation and Hellenisation occurred). Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh people, pleeeaaaaaase, learn to use outdent in talk page threads from time to time. You're now up to 32 embedding levels. There's hardly any space left on the right of my screen. I can't help thinking that with you two, the excessive embedding is always emblematic of the obsessiveness of your arguments. Of course you've again totally gone off on a tangent. Please remember what this thread was originally about: Was the history of settlement in southern Greece and the consecutive history of these populations up to the 19th century part of the history "of the Albanians"? The answer is still, quite plainly and obviously: yes, it was. Because these people were Albanians. The issue to what extent and from what time they also had some Greek self-identification is completely, utterly, radically irrelevant to this simple fact. I know this idea is difficult to grasp for people who think in terms of ethnic essentialism, but please do give it a try, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Greece or Greeks were never main subject of my interest and because of that I avoided to join this discussion, although I noticed it long time ago because I have it on my watchlist since my first edit here (diff). I am sincerely sorry if I am wrong here, but here is what I think about this dispute. The topic of this article is a group of people who (most probably):
    • selfidentification - most if not all of Arvanites decided to declare Greek ethnicity and never Albanian ethnic identity. That is why it is completely undisputable that they should be included in Greeks template.
    • demonym - were Albanians (demonym) once because they came from Albania to southern Greece. Does it mean they were Albanians in ethnic sense? Of course not. There is scholarly consensus that lot of Greeks lived in Albania, some of them remained unassimilated even until today.
    • language - spoke both Greek and some dialect of Albanian language. Of course they were bilingual and besides Greek language also spoke some strange version of Albanian. They lived with Albanians for a couple of centuries. They had some time to learn some of their language, but obviously not enough to learn it well. Does it make them Albanians? Of course not.
    • how other people identify them - many people who emigrate from Albania to some other country are referred to as Albanians even if they are not ethnic Albanians. I have read some sources that i.e. in Serbia some people referred to Serb refugees from Kosovo or from Albania as Albanians, often in a derogatory manner. Does it mean those Serb refugees were ethnic Albanians? Of course not.

To conclude: just because someone speaks Albanian or emigrated from Albania or is referred by others as Albanian in derogatory manner, that does not make him genuine ethnic Albanian. Therefore it would be wrong to inculde this people in Albanians template. The above desparate proclamation Because these people were Albanians is not grounded in sources nor in common sense.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As you said it yourself its not something your familiar with. Firstly RS scholars do not state that the commonfolk element of the Arvanites spoke Greek (apart from some of the religious and socio-economic elite) until after the events of the Greek War of independence, a process that took many generations. Their self identification in Ottoman times was the use of the self-appellation Arberesh, being Orthodox and speaking Albanian (Arberisht). As for the other tangents, interesting personal opinions, but thats about it.Resnjari (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. This people never selfidentified themselves as Albanians. Thank you for confirming my conclusion that it would be wrong to inculde this people in Albanians template. Re your ... events of the Greek War of independence .... mantra ..... That is red herring fallacy. Even if you are right that commonfolk element of Arvanites only since 1820's started to:
  • speak Greek language
  • selfidentify themselves as Greeks
that would not change the fact that they were never ethnic Albanians. Many if not most of Greeks that remained under Otoman empire and lived with Turks or Albanians started to use Turkish or Albanian language as their first language. Does that make them less ethnic Greeks? Of course not. Even under assumption that this people never ever learned to speak Greek language, if they selfidentify as Greeks they would still be Greeks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
If one was to take that approach, for almost 400 years of Ottoman rule, Arvanites did not come out as Greeks and only made common cause with that population due to shared religion and a derision of Ottoman in the 1820s. The long process of fusion, integration and assimilation happens after. Scholarship, RS ones, not propaganda from nationalist Balkan types who claim Albanians never existed affirm the Albanian origin of the Arvanites, that the language they spoke was Albanian (or a dialect thereof) and that they used the self appellation of Arberesh (used only by people who spoke Albanian -in Italy descendants of the medieval exodus post Skanderbeg from what is now modern Albania still use it). You can have your view, but you can not rewrite history because RS scholarship (like Bintliff) does NOT back it.Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way I fail to see how such templates can be used in a purely historical way. Pardon me but they display the coat of arms of the modern states. No wonder the Greeks template is absent in Ottoman & Byzantine Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's actually a good argument for removing these emblems from the boxes. They have no function anyway. These are not infoboxes, where a flag or CoA picture would be part of the information content; they are navboxes, whose only purpose is to provide links, and thus any picture in them is purely decorative. I've long been of the opinion that political symbols on Wikipedia should never be used in places where they are have purely decorative function, because there's always the danger of implying (to the naive reader) some form of positive identification of Wikipedia itself with whatever political values/implications/overtones such political symbols carry with them (however harmless or benign such implications might seem to the average editor). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The current infobox has modern symbols of a coat of arms on a population whose identity as Arvanites spanned the bulk of the Ottoman era (some 400 or so years) and whose self identification as a group has been dwindling after incorporation into the Greek state from the 1820s. Remove the infobox then as per additional reasons given by @Alexikoua?Resnjari (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, again, to the contrary Resnjari, the current article includes modern Greek people such as the Arvanites after 1821. Thats why it is undisputed that it has to stay. I fail to see many Arberesh or Albanian identified Arvanites in the notable people section nor anywhere else. The article Albanians contain enough information about them which you personally included. Antidiscriminator has many points right especially the demonym part of Albania. You should be a bit more civil to him because he tried to help. Who says that Arvanites did not also migrate from the Venetian Albania current day Montenegro which has nothing to do with Albania, we do not have enough sources about it only info about the language. If you have sources and you want to put info about the Arvanites when they identified as Albanians (sic), the Albanians article should do otherwise create a new article focusing on their Albanian identification. This specific one is concentrated on the Greek identifying Arvanites. Additionally, the infobox is absent for Ottoman and Byzantine Greeks because they were not part of the modern Greek state whose emblem is on the infobox. I am sure that we remove emblem and we just keep it as the ethnic group it will be easier to include it. Othon I (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
But you miss the point here. For at least 400 years Arvanites did NOT identify as Greeks. @Antidiskriminator is having their usual airing of the thesis that Albanians did not exist till the late Ottoman period (or thereabouts), and as often is the case has not bothered to back themselves up with RS in the discussion but gone off in other tangents. @Othon about migrations and other matters (i.e assimilation etc) there is heaps of RS, and it can be added over time. The infobox should be absent for this article has it has caused enough bs via edit warring over silly games about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over many years.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment theoretically I'm fine with removing the decorative emblem from the Albanian template. However, @Future Perfect at Sunrise and Resnjari:, I do find it a bit curious that for all this talk of the "controversial" Albanian template, some... interesting... aspects of the Greek template are curiously not mentioned: (1) The Greek template is on the page for Griko people. (2) The Greek template includes some … surprising... supposed ethnographic groups including Thracians (they were not Greek...), Antiochians (who more often identify as Syrian) and, of course, "Northern Epirotes". --Calthinus (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Griko people and Northern Epirotes are recognised ethnic Greek minorities, Thracians or Thrakiotes are th Greeks from Thrace, administrative region in Northern Greece not th ancient ones. May I ask where is the issue on this? Same in Albanian you have Arbereshe and Arbanasi. Antiochian Greeks or Rum yes should be reviewed. Othon I (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Problem is it's not the same. Antiochians do not identity as Greeks. Arabs usuallh, or the specific country identities (Syria, Lebanon, ...). RS confirm this https://books.google.com/books?id=RjpUCLOg01IC&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q&f=false . In fact not only do they identity as Arabs, they are disproportionately represented among Arab (ultra)nationalist entities such as the Baath. Aflaq was one. On top of that they don't speak Greek, don't behave like Greeks, don't have any significant Greek ancestry that they know of (i.e. any more than a Syrian Muslim would etc etc)...... So why are they here? Probably because Syrian nationalists unlike their Greek counterparts have more pressing matters than templates on Wikipedia. --Calthinus (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes correct, you are right I just noticed it. I was referring to the Byzantine Greeks who were living in Antioch such as Saint John the Chrysostom. In modern sense Antiochian Greek Orthodox people should not be there, in my opinion, just because they are simply not Greeks. I will update in bit the template. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Othon I (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus you make interesting points. I would favour also a cleanup of other articles too that have these issues. Most glaring is Greek Muslims, no RS, not even Greek scholarship refers to this population after having converted to Islam as having used any self appellation of Rhomioi or even Ellines. Nor do they now. All the RS is in agreement that they use the Greek language and call it Romeika. But that pagename implies that this population group identified or identifies as Greeks. Lots of POV around.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Greek Muslims can be many things nowadays, as there are plenty of modern converts plus the historical people, then also Muslims who have Hellenized (immigrants, West Thrace). Imo all have a place on the template. While because I'm familiar with you I know your complaint is based on scholarship and is innocent of what I'm about to say.... the only allies you'd have in such a venture are maybe 50% chance of being Golden Dawn members. Someone can be Muslim and Greek and many are, don't try to take that away from them, especially not in these times.-Calthinus (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus, i am surprised that you would say Golden Dawn scholarship in relation to my comment. One that does not exist and thier views are based on other things, but not scholarship. Muslim immigrants for the most part have not hellenized (Egyptians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Afghanis) apart from the Muslim Albanians where the incentives in Greece was to change religion and even name post 1992 when they sought employment. Nor have ethnic Pomaks or Turks in Greece. Of Orthodox Greeks, sure there is the modern covert here or there in Greece (they are few, very few, not many), but the article is about the many geographically fragmented Greek speaking communities of old not a few people converting today. Overall Greek Muslims should not be on the Greeks template. After conversion they did not use the self appellation of Rhomioi (not even Greek scholarship refers to that, nor does RS scholarship). Today the identify as Turks (and with most that documented for some centuries too, i.e Mus. Cretans, etc). If anything Greek speaking Muslims should be on the Turks template. My point was that the article name does not reflect the content and its pushing a fringe POV. There are double standards when it comes to different ethnic groups where people saying one thing of one group say another for a different one. This article has had too many silly edit wars over infoboxes, time to retire them from the page.Resnjari (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Resnjari You come from scholarship. The only allies you'd have who have very different motives would not be halal. Disjunction. Like it or not the page Greek Muslims also is the page of modern converts-- whose Greek identity should not be in question. But there are some who would. That's how I look at that.--Calthinus (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
To be frank Calthinius i am not after allies. My point was and is about hypocrisy. Different standards apply for different groups by some of the same editors that have been pushing certain POV over the years. An admin noted here that at the very least talkpage discussion should be had based on scholarship, RS at least. Modern Greek converts in Greece are a very, very small group and do not define the bulk of the Grecophone Muslim communities that all self identify themselves as Turks, something that is accounted for in RS scholarship. Anyway for here there are editors that want the Greeks infobox. I think its the cause of silly edit wars, but i doubt it will go. At the very least the history section then should be split in two subsections. The content about modern Greece and Arvanites could have the subsection title of Arvanties in modern Greece. The infobox placed at least in this subsection would make the it appear from that part of the article onward from when this community threw their lot with the Greeks. The subsection dealing with events prior to the 1820s could be called something like Medieval migrations and Ottoman period with no infobox being within it.Resnjari (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Resnjari There are also Grecophone Muslims in Lebanon and Syria (esp in Tripoli and Al-Hamidiyah who do not identify with Turks, and identify as Cretans, often with an explicit sense of kinship with Christian Cretans. Some of these have indeed claimed a Greek identity, although on the grounds of their faith some more bigoted Greeks would prefer to exclude them. The Pontics call their language Romeyka. Which is using one word for Byzantine Christian descended peeps instead of the other. Yes it is not advisable to identify as Greek in Turkey. So the issue is much more complicated. I agree that a hypothetical editor who insists Cretan Muslims are Greek whereas Arvanites are not Albanian is hypocritical -- but I'd rather not base an editing policy around fighting hypocrisy.--Calthinus (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed there are in Lebanon and Syria (in a few small settlements) and they do not identify as Greeks, but Turks or Muslim Cretans (Giritli) apart from their civic Lebanese identity. Kinship with Orthodox Cretans has been based on past family clan ties or extended families, not a shared Greek identity. I added much content to the Greek speaking Muslims article from RS scholarship as prior it was full of OR and so on. I exhausted much in my search for data for that topic so i speak from a place of wide reading. Using a word for a language is not the same as a self appellation. No one has doubted or questioned their origins, but just like we do not speak of Orthodox Albanians in Greece but instead we say Arvanites, its a misnomer to call these communities Greeks when they use the self appellation of Turk, Orthodox Greeks themselves call them Turks or Greek speaking Muslims. As for their situation in Turkey, the state did not overall apply pressure for these specific communities to identify as Turks, that situation had begun in the Ottoman period when they converted to Islam. I pointed out the hypocrisy, because things are treated differently. Anyway as i said before i gave some kind of suggestion on this article for at least making the history section somewhat neutral. What are editors thoughts ?Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
We? You don't speak of Orthodox Albanians in Greece, and many Greek editors don't. Don't speak for everyone though. Anyhow, I want to apologize because my initial response to this topic was exceptionally badly worded and possibly offensive given the GD reference. My bad.--Calthinus (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Resnjari since you asked a question -- here's my take. Arvanites and Souliotes go on both Greeks and Albanians -- not as Arvanites (Souliotes) but "Arvanites, Souliotes". "Greek Muslims" can go as "Islam" on the Greek page (as noted, the page includes info on high profile modern Greek converts like Cat Stevens and Hamza Yusuf), while on the Turks template we can have "Cretans" and Vallahades and Yanyalar and et cetera -- but right now the Turks template does not list subgroups (probably for good reason as there would be too many). There should also be a page for native born Greek Muslims of immigrant origins -- when that is created it should go on the Greeks template too. --Calthinus (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
On Arvanites and Souliotes going on the modern day template about Albanians i gave it some thought. If it happens all it would do is encourage stupid edit wars over WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They can stay on the Greeks infobox. For this page that Greeks infobox can get shifted down a bit (as i said in above comments). On Grecophone Muslim groups they should not be on the Greeks infobox at all and it would be provocative as all communities self identify as Turks (as the RS notes) and regarded by Greeks themselves as such (not a minority view, its noted via RS in the article about these communities). The conversion from Orthodoxy to Islam was the schism that was created between both groups. Its endurance is mutual from both groups who do not see each other as Greek compatriots at all (not even prior to the events of 1923). The page has a POV name. The Turks template does need an upgrade to cater for extra groups that self identify as such. A few Greek converts like Yusuf Islam or Hamza Yusuf in the modern era don't count as being exemplary of these communities. Otherwise people like Aristeidis Kollias, Anastas Kullurioti, Vangelis Liapis and Panayotis Koupitoris who were ok with Albanian traits of Arvanite identity (language etc) would imply that this article gets called 'Orthodox Albanians in Greece' etc. Greek speaking Muslims was the former neutral pagename. Eventually that needs to be restored. Other pages about Muslims in Greece (from immigrant communities) might be worth it, but i think they can be catered for in the Islam in Greece page for now. Its a topic that does not garner much focus if at all from editors in writing about it.Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Additionally -- Antiochian Arab Christians who use Greek in their liturgy but can't speak it should be flat out removed, the modern group does not identify as Greeks in any sense except for those are immigrants in Greece, who are Greek in the same way that Bengalis in Greece are Greek. Northern Epirotes should just go under "Epirotes". North Epirus is not a subethnic division, it's a purely political one. Epirotes are a distinct group though with certain subgroups that do live in parts of North Epirus (i.e. Himariotes have a distinct identity). --Calthinus (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I prefer RS backing up commentary about decision making processes in wiki. With the Arvanites page, i am in favour of no templates due to lame edit wars over it, but there are people who will insist upon it. Modern day Arvanite descendants for at least nearly 2 centuries do identify as Greek (however those generations have interpreted it as time went on). If the Greeks infobox is going to be in there it can get shifted down a bit (as a mentioned above) to the area which discusses Arvanites and modern Greece. At least it would have a neutral appearance and be in line with historical facts.Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: Antiochians don't identify as Greeks, plenty of RS for this [14], [15] [16] : The Arab Orthodox call themselves Rum; in Lebanon, another common self-designation is Bani Ghassan [reference to a Christian Arab entity in late Antiquity in Syria]; he goes on to say that they tend to reject any theses by which they were Arabized Greeks. --Calthinus (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus I updated the Greeks template and removed the Rum people since indeed they are not Greeks nor identify as such. no need to debate it anymore. Othon I (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Arvanites as a modern community are part of the Greek nation. I don't see issues about the infobox in a modern context.Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
So then we make it go down a bit? I proposed above that the history section gets split into two subsections and the infobox starts from the period that focuses about modern Greece, so like this it maintains neutrality in the article and aligns with the realities of almost 2 centuries. Thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you @Resnjari!--Lorik17 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Demographics section is focused on modern estimations. The template can go there.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding more into the notable category

I was wondering shouldn’t we add more arvanites into the categories or no? Gjondeda 19:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjondeda (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Arjanitët, and not Arbëreshët, Arjanitët are Albanians of Greece, Arbëreshët are Albanians of Italy WizzrdLord7233 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The article says that the Arvanites call themsevles "Arbërorë" and their Albanian dialect "Arbëreshë". I think the new editor wants to change those two terms to "Arjanitë", sth that would be wrong AFAIK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Arjanitë??? Haven't heard that one before for Arvanites.Resnjari (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

English IPA?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An IPA gloss of {{IPA-en|ˌɑːrvəˈniːtɪs|}} was recently added to the lead sentence, apparently representing a somewhat anglicized rendering of the Greek singular form /arvaˈnitis/. Is this actually ever used in English? And in the plural, seriously? (Because the gloss was added to the plural headword Arvanites). I have always assumed that English speakers would pronounce this with the English -ite suffix, i.e. /ˈɑːrvənaɪts/. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! I added the original pronunciation based on the way my (British) professor pronounces the word, but I have no evidence it's the standard way English speakers pronounce it. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Opposition to recent edits

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Did the ancestors of the Arvanites migrate from the region that is now known as Albania? Yes. Was the polity they immigrated from ethnically Albanian, and speaking Albanian? Yes. The Principality of Arbanon, Kingdom of Albania, etc. that were in Albania in the Middle Ages were Albanian polities. I do not care if a user has some sort of nationalist, BS POV. This is Wikipedia, and only supported facts and sources are supposed to be stated. Arvanites are of Albanian ancestry. That is a fact. Their ancestors came from ancient Albania. This is also fact, and stated in the article. End of story. Greumaich (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Greumaich: the changes you want to make to this page (as well as changes you wanted to make to the English language page) seem to be causing controversy. This doesn't necessarily mean the information you want to add is wrong, or that you are wrong for wanting to add it, but it does mean you're going about adding it the wrong way. Given that you appear to be a new editor, that's not totally surprising, but you need to learn how Wikipedia works or you'll end up getting banned.
Wikipedia's most core principle is that of community consensus. The way all articles get written is that content continues to be added freely until some has an issue with the content added. As soon as someone has an issue with what's been added the whole process stops, the new information is removed, and discussion begins on the Talk page. Editors plead their cases for and against the addition of the new information in an attempted to bring the community to a consensus. However, until a consensus agreeing that the new information should be added is reached, the new information is not added to the article. The main issue causing tensions here seems to be your misunderstanding of that last part. Continuing to reinstate your reverted edits will only get you banned and cause other editors to assume you're not acting in good faith. Instead, what you need to do is leave the page as it was before you made your controversial edits and plead your case to the community here on the Talk page. Then when a consensus is reached you need to respect its decision. I've gone ahead and reverted your last edit to help start that process, but please understand that's not because I'm pushing any POV or even because I disagree with what you want to add. I actually haven't even looked at what information you want to add, but because it is clear there is a lack of consensus about its addition it cannot be added yet.
So, your next step should be to explain, here on the talk page, exactly what it is you want to add to the page. It could be helpful to cite any reliable sources you've used to find this information and to remember that original research is not an acceptable source here on Wikipedia. I'd also recommend changing the name of this Talk page section so that it reflects the issues you want to discuss; as it stands the title of this section makes it sound like you want to talk about why people oppose non-consensus edits.
I'll also point out that reaching consensus usually takes a lot longer than new editors imagine, a general rule of thumb when proposing a change to a page that has been disputed is to explain on the talk page why you want to make the change and then wait at least a week after a consensus has been clearly stated before acting on the proposed consensus. Also, it's perhaps worth stating explicitly: if you fail to gain a consensus agreement for adding information to an article, you simply can't do so. Wikipedia is all about what the community agrees on. So try to be patient, assume good faith, and ask the community questions before pushing so hard for what you want to see changed. Finally, seeing as you've bumped into issues with edit waring multiple times already, I'd recommend you read some of the beginner resources for editors. One relevant read might be the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page.
Cheers –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not particularly concerned about whether "from Albania" appears in that sentence in the lead paragraph. But it should certainly occur in some form in the "history" section. I just cut out some old dross that had been left there by some previous round of POV editorializing a couple of years ago and had been inserted with the evident intention of just obliterating this basic and uncontroversial fact. Of course, there's nothing problematic in calling those areas "Albania", no more so than there is in calling the other areas "Greece" – neither of these existed as a country or nation in the modern sense, but both clearly existed as ethnogeographic areas, and both terms are routinely and uncontroversially used in the modern literature (just looked up Fine's The Late Medieval Balkans for a representative reference). Same goes for the ethnonym "Albanians", which is also exactly as unproblematic and noncontentious as that of "Greeks" when applied to that period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Albanian populations during the late 13th and 14th century settled in various parts of Greece and intermixed with the local population . They were gradually assimilated and integrated into the hellenic ethnicity and are therefore an integral part of hellenism . It can also be argued that through intermixing , the albanian element was absorbed into the numerically superior greek one and eventually hellenized . Any distinguishment of the arvanites from the rest of the Greek world is therefore discouraged . Therefore , my minor edits would revolve around this . Sources : ΑΛΒΑΝΟΙ,ΑΡΒΑΝΙΤΕΣ,ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ by Σαράντος Ι. Καργάκος Christermi (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Citations requested: "Process of assimilation"

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding the following sentence:

"Arvanites today self-identify as Greeks as a result of a process of assimilation, and do not consider themselves Albanian"

There are a few things implied here about the self-identification of Arvanites:

1. That Arvanites did not always consider themselves Greek (implied: that at some point in time considered themselves Albanian)

2. That Arvanites only started considering themselves Greek after a systematic process of assimilation (implied: by the Greeks)

Are there any credible sources supporting the claims and implications of 1 and 2? If so, I request for the specific citations from those sources to be made public. Without citations, the implications of this sentence are fallacious and they should be re-written or removed. As far as I know, Arvanites never identified themselves as ethnic Albanian while the traditional songs of the Arbereshe in Sicily refer to Morea (Peloponnese) as their motherland. I would like to see some citations that prove me wrong - i.e. explicitly stating that Arvanites allegedly underwent a forceful "process of assimilation" in order to feel ethnic Greek while prior to that they allegedly felt ethnic Albanian. Raikkonen (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your "implications" are fallacious because they contain the usual false presupposition that "identifying as Greek" and "identifying as Albanian" are somehow mutually exclusive opposites (a fallacy that has persistently been at the heart of more than a decade of tendentious editing by nationalist Greek POV-pushers on this article). Of course they never were that, across most of the history of Greek–Albanian ethnic contacts. Also, nobody here has said anything about "forceful" assimilation. There are plenty of reliable sources that express the self-evident fact that the currently overwhelming identification as "Greek" is a result of assimilation – even though that fact is so blindingly obvious to any rational observer that you might expect finding explicit sources for it to be similarly hard as finding sources for the proverbial fact that the Moon is Not Made of Greek Cheese. But anyway, start with this one [17] (Although still regarded as ethnically distinct in the nineteenth century, their participation in the Greek War of Independence and the Civil War has led to increasing assimilation: in a survey conducted in the 1970s, 97 per cent of Arvanite informants, despite regularly speaking in Arvanítika, considered themselves to be Greek). This is from Jonathan M Hall (1997), Ethnic Identiy in Greek Antiquity, p.29. Some more snippets regarding "assimilation" here [18] and [19]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Where did that come from? This seems more like an attempt to bully me off rather than take me seriously. You're giving a very aggressive reply (which seems to be motivated by multiple racial/ethnic stereotypes) to a very reasonable question. I don't know where your hostility stems from but as someone who has not been around for decades and just entered this topic, I can tell you that your overtones are not painting yourself a positive portrait. I'll act as if I never read that unconstructive (and frankly a little racist) rant on the implied chauvinism of Greek Wikipedians and that other comment about Feta Cheese, and I'll stick to the essentials. First of all, I have made no implications about anything. I have clearly expressed my opinion and called into question the implications made in the article. A couple of points here:
1. I made no presupposition whatsoever on whether identifying as Greek and identifying as Albanian are mutually exclusive but I find that question completely irrelevant to the points I made earlier. For the record, I also think that you're not in position to answer that question and it would be frankly quite arrogant for anyone who isn't Greek or Albanian to try to do so (for the same obvious reason that a Dane would not be in position to tell a Croatian and a Serbian how they should feel about each other).
2. As for the "forceful" nature of assimilation - I believe this is clearly implied in the article via the word "process". Unless we're in the context of physics or mathematics, the definition of "process" is "a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end". Do you still not see how this implies something forceful? Wouldn't a simple solution be to rewrite this sentence in order to avoid misunderstandings?
3. Your sources do not answer my question at all. What is stated in your sources is the undeniable fact that Greek regimes of the 30s and 40s targeted specifically the use of the Arvanite language in Greece - albeit not the ethnic self-identification of the Arvanites which was already Greek by that time (and had been Greek for many centuries - assuming it was once a separate one). Let me bring up a similar example: In 1921, the use of Louisiana French and Louisiana Creole was banned in the state of Louisiana by constitutional law (under the delicate motto "don't speak Cajun - speak white!"). Similar to the case of Arvanites, what was being targeted by the US government was the language - not the ethnic consciousness of Cajun people which already was American. All I'm saying is that this distinction should be made explicit in the article to avoid the implication that the Greek self-identification of Arvanites was the recent product of forceful assimilation. Having said that, the exact phrasing "Arvanites today self-identify as Greeks as a result of a process of assimilation" implies something which is both untrue and unsourced. Is my point understandable here? If so, would you care to rewrite this section with me? Raikkonen (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
PS: Don't worry, I won't edit-war you. I just urge you to discuss before reverting. I have not yet seen sources claiming that the sole reason for which the Arvanites of today have a Greek ethnic consciousness is the product of forceful assimilation as the article clearly implies. Care to paste some citations here prior to edit-warring? Then I will paste some different citations, and we will decide how to rewrite this in order to reflect all points of view. Would that work? Raikkonen (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, since it doesn't imply any such thing, except in your own head, there is nothing more to discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I was actually expecting an apology but I suppose I was aiming too high. I understand by now that things such as WP:Civility and WP:AGF are very much beneath you, but would you at least be willing to respect WP:Sources and WP:NPOV by taking my requests seriously? Back to the topic: Do you agree that the sentence "Arvanites today self-identify as Greeks as a result of a process of assimilation" implies that Arvanites of today have a Greek identity because of a process of (forceful) assimilation? If not, what is the sense that you're making and what is the message that you're trying to pass in the article (assuming now that these edits are yours)? You mentioned in your last revert that the dubious process of assimilation was not just linguistic but also ethnic - would you care to quote some sources on that subject? You are obliged to be specific about the nature of the assimilation you're referring to, otherwise this is just weasel wording. As it stands, you've got me confused as well. Perhaps the sense that this sentence makes is not what you intend to communicate? On the other hand, if you can't be anymore specific than that I believe that, according to WP:Policy as well as common sense, there should a rephrasing.Raikkonen (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The source is right there. I've already quoted it above, but I'll quote it again: Although still regarded as ethnically distinct in the nineteenth century, their participation in the Greek War of Independence and the Civil War has led to increasing assimilation: in a survey conducted in the 1970s, 97 per cent of Arvanite informants, despite regularly speaking in Arvanítika, considered themselves to be Greek. So, this source clearly establishes that: (A) they were distinct in at least some, ethnic, sense up until the 19th century; (B) there was a process of assimilation during the 19th and 20th century (the text names specific historic events that are thought to have contributed to that); and (C) they today consider themselves Greek. The way (B) and (C) are linked to each other, with a colon, obviously implies that C is a piece of evidence for B; hence, C must be a result of B. Since C is about a statement about ethnic identity ("considering themselves Greek") it also obviously implies that B was related to ethnic identity. It doesn't really get any clearer than that. Now stop the pathetic sealioning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I know the source was there but I didn't (and still don't) agree with its interpretation, so thank you for breaking it down for me. First of all, I must point out that there are two different types of assimilation: ethnic and linguistic - and the sources should be interpreted with that premise in mind. Consequently, my objection is on the exact interpretation of (A) and (B). Concerning (A) - yes, it's a fact that the Arvanites were not seen as fully ethnic "Rhomaoi" by the Greek-speakers in the 19th century. However, to my knowledge, it is also a fact that the Arvanites did feel and wanted to be seen as "Rhomaioi" and never had a separate ethnic sentiment throughout recorded history (there is certainly no evidence that they considered themselves ethnic Albanian). The implication that there was an organized process of ethnic assimilation conducted by the Greek state is yet to be proven. The data shows that Arvanites felt Greek but were not seen as "fully" Greek because of their language - hence the assimilation mentioned in those sources can only be interpreted as linguistic and not ethnic. The head of the article, as it stands now, implies that the Arvanites were ethnically assimilated (as did the Slavophones and other minorities) but this is imprecise since the Arvanites already seemed to possess a Greek consciousness even prior to 1821. So (C) is not a result of (A) and (B); (C) is a completely independent event here whose answer is the topic of a different discussion (one that tries to answer "why did the Arvanites consider themselves Greek?"). What really should (C) be here is the premise: "The Arvanites are perceived as 'pure' Greeks by the Rhomaioi/Hellenophones". Do you see the logic in this? Raikkonen (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No. Nothing of what you say has any logic at all. It is not worth my time explaining this to you once more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact that you possess the status of the administrator is truly puzzling. You clearly don't want to collaborate or respect any opinion that is different to your own. Worst of all, you don't respect other editors nor the policies of the community you were set to represent. I realize now that, eventhough the data is on my side, there's not much I can do about it. Raikkonen (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise: the introduction of this article is very odd and strange, a bilingual population group..., Albanian language variety, etc. --Vannucci (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arvanites/Archive_10&oldid=1071533580"