Talk:Arvanites/Archive 3

Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussion at the Archive 1 and 2.

Consensus draft?

Based on the previous discussion, I've drafted the following to document what I think might become a consensus, with a few open questions at the end:

1. The article should clearly reflect the self-identification of Arvanites as ethnically Greek.
   1. It should not label Arvanites as an "ethnic minority" or an "Albanian minority".
   2. It may describe other views, including that of some Albanians who regard Arvanites as ethnic Albanians, and it shouldn't label such a view as inherently wrong or bad-faithed (though in conflict with the group's self-identification).
   3. It should not take over the claim that Epirus Arvanites (as opposed to the southern ones) "are regarded" as nationally Albanians, because that claim is poorly sourced and we don't have evidence that it is shared by the group in question.
   4. It should generally refrain from making absolute statements about people's stances, hedging statements where appropriate ("most Arvanites" etc.)
2. The article should clearly reflect the scholarly consensus that linguistic affiliation and ethnic affiliation are different things.
   1. It should reflect the scholarly consensus that Arvanitic is a "form of Albanian". The formulation may leave open whether that means:
      1. "a separate Arvanitic language, side by side with Standard Albanian, within an "Albanian" language family",
      2. "a separate Arvanitic language, as an emergent Ausbausprache".
      3. "an Arvanitic dialect group within a single Albanian language".
   2. It should mention that many Arvanites object to seeing their language linked to Albanian, and it should mention that Arvanites do not regard Standard Albanian as their Dachsprache.
   3. In the absence of sources to the contrary, the article should mention the self-designation of Epirus Arvanites as "Shqip(-tarë)", but it should not be worded so as to imply the claim that this means national identification with Albania.
3. The article should reflect the scholarly consensus about the historical/geographical origins of the Arvanites from territories of Epirus and modern Albania.
   1. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the only serious theory we can report on is that the ancestors of the Arvanites came out of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors of modern Albanians.
   2. Other hypotheses (Non-Albanian Epirotic origins; separate Thraco-Illyrian origin; autochthonous "Pelasgian" southern Greek origin etc.) may be mentioned, but must be evaluated strictly in light of the Reliable Sources policy; if necessary treating them according to Wikipedia's policies on non-scientific fringe theories.
4. The article should reflect the scholarly debate about the etymological origin of the name "Arvanites".
   1. It should mention that both name stems "Αρβα-(νίτης)" and "Αλβα-(νός)" have been attested since antiquity, and have been used more or less indistinguishably over a long time, with reflexes of "Αρβα-" also being used as an endonym of Albanians.
   2. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the article should present as a strong majority position in international scholarship that both name forms are cognate.
   3. Other hypotheses, about "Arvan-" etymologies independent of "Alban-", can be mentioned as a serious minority position insofar as they have been proposed by prominent linguists (Babiniotis, apparently?)
5. Not yet determined: Should the group be characterized as a "linguistic minority" in the first sentence? (If not, what else?)
6. Not yet determined: Should the first sentence enumerate all the names (including "Shqip" and the Albanian names?) Alternative: Only use "Arvanites (Greek: Αρβανίτες)", and leave the discussion of all the different exonyms and endonyms to a separate paragraph.
7. Not yet determined: Should further editing, based on these guidelines, proceed from Zogu's version (closer to the previous versions), or from Lukas' version (rewritten parts), or from Matia's preferred older version from December?

If we can agree on something along these lines, I suggest we archive this talk page, put a version of these guidelines (updated where necessary) in a prominent, permanent place on the new talk page as a document for later editors, and request unprotecting. We should also put a Template:Controversial sign up in the article to point to this discussion. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comments by MATIA

Good job Lukas. We could use Template:ActiveDiscussion perhaps that'll save us from the reverts. I'm willing to work towards a better article, that will satisfy some of Zogu's concerns. talk to +MATIA 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd now say we can safely request unprotecting, then as a first thing (for practical reasons) make it provisionally identical to Zogu's temporal page (which lacks most of the really contentious bits), and then gradually start working in whatever bits are needed from my draft and from the pre-edit-war version, or new material, in the light of the principles above. The remaining editorial issues can be worked out in the process, that's just a question of how to arrange stuff within the article structure. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are paragraphs missing from Zogu's version, and he haven't provided reasoning for that (as he didn't provide reasons for the revert-war he participated). I understand that these (long ago before edit war material) won't be cut. talk to +MATIA 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If they don't contain anything contrary to the consensus, of course not. If in doubt, I'd say it's sometimes safer to just write a paragraph from scratch than to cut-and-paste old material. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna leave a message to the various editors, hoping that we'll hear their opinion here. talk to +MATIA 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, let's wait for input before we ask for unprotection. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope so but I must also notice that most of the editors involved didn't participate in the conversation the days the article was protected. talk to +MATIA 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

input from Zogu

I am skeptical of unprotection. Somehow I have feeling that revert war start again, when they start revert back to anti Albanian version. Much better agree on one version as soon as possible and then have page unprotected and use that version. Someone should make proposal version and we can amend that until is good. Matia has not yet makbe proposal. She criticice my proposal, but make none herself. Zogu 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to read again all my previous comments, if you believe this is needed, Zogu. talk to +MATIA 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Unlike Matia claims, no paragraphs have been deleted in my versionthat have not bee explained (apart from a incoherent list of words). I make that proposal and think that it would be better not to unprotect page until a version is agreed on. I also encourage you to read again all my previous comments, if you believe this is needed, matia. Zogu 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To get back to point, as I am actualy interested in finishing this, I think that Arvanites are a linguistic minority as helisnki report say that Arvanites are those whose mother tounge is Arvanitika. It refers to the people of Arvanit families who can not speak the language as people of Arvanit ancestry. As the language is characteristic of these people, they are linguistic minority and as the language is characteristec of these people, then what they call themselves in their own language should go first in forst paragraph. Zogu 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand that the current version, which contradicts the books I've mentioned in the article, cannot stay protected forever - the Arvanites are not an ethnic Albanian minority. If you are interested about Arvanites I 'd suggest Biris book for start. I will bring later quotes from books (unless someone else does this first) which show that the language doesn't make someone an Arvanitis - you may want to read what I've written in phara (this paragraph is summaries from Biris and Kollias). I'll also add (when I can) details about the demography from Moraitis, the position of the woman in an Arvanitic society etc. talk to +MATIA 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Matia, all your assertations are baseless. How do I know that you tell the truth about what is written in those books. I not speak Greek. The point is that me must agree on a version that is acceptable before unlocking. That way we avoid revert wars. What happen if page is unlocked? You (or someone else) revert back to anti Albanian version (which you have yet to explain why you were reverting to - you say I not explain my one revert, but you complain that I do something that you do two times) and then revert war continues. How is that helpful? We shuld agree on acceptable version (without anti Albanian remarks and without the "ethnic Albanian") and then you can improve. I have given proposal which you reject with straw man, you give no real reason. You say I remove paragraph, you not specify what paragraph. I would be happy to unprotect page not and add my proposal but you say no. Tell me, if page is unlocked, to which version will it be reverted? The anti Albanian version? Why you reject my proposal? Zogu 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read again the above draft. Can you please tell me how have I written the article if not based on those books? Could you also tell me which books specialised on Arvanites have you read? talk to +MATIA 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read helsinki report. Very accurate and verivyable resource. I just find it very strage that you [1] revert to version which say "linguistic minority" and now you say that your sources say that they are not a "linguistic minority". I see four possibilitys here. Either you are falsifying what is written in those books, or you had not reached that section at that time (and you conviniently found it now :)), or you are anti Albanian and are you disagreeing with everything I say, or you are making blind reverts (like you say I was :)). The helsinki say that arvanites are those whose mother tongoues is arvanitika. I am not insisting on this and we can just call them a "people". That is true too. However, we still use their name in their own language in first paragraph with Albanian and Greek for comparing. I still you should make proposal version at say /test2. It is not that hard work. Zogu 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zogu if you can't understand those books because you don't speak Greek then that's your problem. You express an opinion about the Arvanites but you're not even able to speak their vernacular language. Your only motive is blind nationalism, plain and simple. Miskin 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

comments by Macrakis

Lukas, thank you for your synthesis. I agree about "the scholarly consensus that linguistic affiliation and ethnic affiliation are different things" but I think you should add "political loyalty". I believe part of the issue here is that Greece defines itself as a nation-state, fusing the question of ethnic identity with the question of political loyalty. This is exacerbated by the confusion between the English word "ethnic" and the Greek word "εθνικό" (national). Clearly, Arvanites who are loyal Greek citizens do not want to be viewed as members of a different "nation" in the political sense, and so the term "ethnic group" becomes unusable. --Macrakis 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not call them "people"? Zogu 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "people" is just as problematic a term as "nation", because it has political implications. Personally, I think "ethnic group" is just fine, but as I say above, because of its ambiguity in a Greek-language setting, and because of the political history of the notion of "ethnic minority" in Greece, it is difficult to use it in that context. --Macrakis 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because like most of your claims, that would be a POV, Zogu. The article will be reverted to its previous version, based on the sources written by Arvanites. If you still have a point to make on status of the language then take it to Arvanitic language but don't edit here. Miskin 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the article will not be written solely based on sources written by Arvanites. It will give prominent and preferential treatment to self-identification of Arvanites, but it will be based also on international scholarly literature where that exists. - That said, I do share Macrakis' concerns that "people" is not a very good choice. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: To make that more precise: I'm not sure whether Zogu meant "a people" or just "people" (given the fact his English isn't perfect). "A people" would be wrong, because it would imply separateness in ethnic terms. "People" is of course possible, but useless without some qualifying attribute. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

input from Bomac

Well, as I know, Arvanites were always declared themselves as related to Albanians... Bomac 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, that statement isn't helpful as long as you can't source it. Question is, as long as the reference situation is as it is, would you accept an article along the lines set out above? Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is why on earth did those people edit(war)ed that article without one reliable source. Neither these are a matter of compromise with these editors nor WP:NPOV and the rest WP principles. talk to +MATIA 12:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is why on earth did matia edit(war)ed that article without one reliable source and the rest of WP principles. Matia add anti Albanian dada without resource and say that Arvanitika is not albanian dialect. She also say that arvanites are linguistic minority and now she say they are not. I have source, helsinki and unesco. What a pity matia accuse others of same thing she do :) Zogu 12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is why you two guys keep bickering about past edits instead of discussing the facts. :-) - By the way, for some reason I always thought Matia was a "he". Care to enlighten us? Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

more comments by Zogu, MATIA and Lukas

Reliable sources

I have noticed that Matia always link with WP:RS in an atempt to say that unesco and helsinki are not reliable sources but hers are. I can tell that Matia has not even glance at that page because if she did then she would have noticed that gidlines and what that page says about sources in other languages. I can not find any reason in that page why helsinki and unesco are not reliable sources, but that page reises serious questions over wether matias sources can be used. As far as I can see, when matia quote forein sources she must include original text next to it. So matia is in violation of this policy because she not do that. According to policy online sources in english (like helsinki and unesco) are to be given preference and we can do in this case because they are written by expert linguists (like Banfi). I also think that matias sources may not be able to be used because they may are partisan sources as they may reflect the pov of the arvanits of south greece (that probably what authors are). Zogu 13:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Specialised sources by experts are needed for specialised topics, and non-English sources are used all the time for such topics. Do read what you cite more carefully please. talk to +MATIA 14:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, they should include next to it the original-language quotation, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. :) Zogu 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Matia, I don't agree with Zogu in his interpretation of WP:RS as forbidding the use of non-English references. English language material is to be preferred where there is a choice. But if a particular claim or POV is documented only in sources in some other language, then the absence of English material is no reason to ignore that position. That goes for Greek as well as for Albanian material (if anybody wants to quote Albanian sources.) O yes, and the clause about quoting the original wording is meant for cases where a translation of a literal quote is to be included in a text, not for cases where a foreign source is just used as a reference.

Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Venetian historical records are in Italian and those of Byzantium (χρυσόβουλα) in Greek, they are cited in the Greek books I've mentioned and if one finds a good book in English I'll be interested. talk to +MATIA 14:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

unlocking?

Have we agreed on version yet? I think that my proposal should be used as it is the same as matias (unsourced) version except the unsourced infomation has been taken out and the agreed points above have been used. If matia waznts to propos more changes do it now, please so that we can fix it get the page unlocked and use that version. This is taking so long. Zogu 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A single version should be agreed before unlocking so we can use that and avoid the edit wars that wuld certenly follow if the page is unlocked without a version being agreed. Zogu 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Omitted passages

I think Matia was disputing that any of the passages you omitted had been unsourced. For technical reasons, could you please point us others to the exact passages that are in question here? It's a long article, and it's a bit difficult to compare versions across two different pages, where you can't use a "diff" view. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I make diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39220644&oldid=39220039. If matia think I deleted something with a source, please tell me what it is and present the source. Zogu 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also my version now say "linguistic minority". We havn't decided what to change that with yet. Why not plain "minority"? Zogu 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I see three major differences: One is the one bit that's really objectionable to the Albanian side, about "trying to invent" etc., i.e. ascribing inherently evil motives to the Albanian view. Yes, that should be left out (see point 1.2 above). Then the list of Arvanitic expressions - they don't really do any harm, but could just as well be moved to the Arvanitic language article. Then, a number of minor formulation details, all of which will be subject to further tinkering in the light of the principles above, but none of which really presents a serious problem right now, as I see it. So, yes, I'd suggest the Zogu version would be a place to start from. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, about that one still contentious bit about the Epirus Arvanites and their self-identification as "Shqip" and what that means in terms of national identity: Before anybody starts to argue about exact wordings for that again, I think the only way we can get out of the mess is if we accept that the Helsinki report doesn't answer the question well, and read up on its sources ourselves. Can someone actually get hold of the Banfi thing? The paper quoted in the report (Banfi 1994) is unfortunately just an unpublished conference paper, apparently, but the following is likely to contain the same story:

Banfi E., "Minoranze linguistiche in Grecia: problemi storico- e sociolinguistici". In Minoranze e lingue minoritarie. Vallini C. (a cura di), Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, 1996, p. 89-115.

Unfortunately, our university doesn't have it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

request

Please see the test. talk to +MATIA 17:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First, find your own page and don't replace mine :) Also, you didn't say what was wrong with mine. Your current version is just as pov as the version you were reverting to and we will have to start all over again. What is the source for this dubius theory of Despotate of Epirus which is not mentioned in helsinki and again I have to rely on your words. Why start version with Arvanitic history. Start it with how they are today, not how they were. You need history section. Also your version include offensive anti Albanian propaganda. Please prepage proposal that has realistic chance of been acceptable, not just revert back a few months. Zogu 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a proposal and you wanted to see basic differences, so I did a proposal and I asked you in a nice way to check it. Perhaps you should move Arvanites/test to User:Zogu/test, right now it is in the namespace of the articles, I couldn't have realized that it is "your page".

To get back to the topic: If you want you may read a history book about Byzantium, at the time the main population moves occured that place was called Despotate of Epirus. The Albanian hero Scanderbeg, also used the term Epirus and Epirots frequently - it doesn't mean Greek or Albanian, it's a wider term that was used at that time. My suggestion is to start with who they are, they are not a minority of any kind, and most of them aren't speaking Arvanitika today. I don't believe that "my version inculdes anti Albanian propaganda", perhaps you could be more specific. talk to +MATIA 19:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I sorry. I saw that bit about "invent Albanian minority" and I think, what she try to do? I have added the Depsotate of Epirus to my version, so I think it is OK now. Are you sure about the D of Epirus claim though, I have heard of that state, I am not sure if the Arvanites have anything to do with it. If you are sure that it is reliable source, then OK. The dif now is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39235884&oldid=39226349 and you can see that they are almost the same except different order and anti Albanian propaganda is gone. Zogu 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ancient Greek inscriptions"

Just a note about the passage on the "Ancient Greek inscriptions": It's sourced, but it basically falls into the category of Pseudo-science (see point 3.2 above). I'm currently preparing a different article that's going to deal with just those inscriptions, from a different angle. This happens to be not just any odd inscription, which some other people say is Greek. At least one of them is an extremely famous one, being the earliest inscriptions in Greek! Saying that this is Arvanitic is a bit like saying that Beowulf is Chinese. You guys might just want to wait till that new artile, which will be at Dipylon inscription, is ready and then judge how to deal with it. If this stuff is to be included, it might go together with that further down that presents the various writers on Arvanitic and Kolias' claim about Pelasgic. Until we have decided, I vote for provisional exclusion.

And besides, if you guys now start all over quibbling over details of wording, I'll take the matter in my own hands and write the whole article from scratch. Take that as a threat. :-) (Seriously, sometimes that makes things easier.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I've now created a temporary user page at User:LukasPietsch/Inscriptions with a comparison of the accepted Greek readings and the "Arvanitic" readings. That's of course "original research" and not meant to go into the article in this form, just to serve as an internal point of orientation for our discussion. I think it'll be absolutely safe if we treat this stuff as pseudo-science. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Form of Albanian?

Thanks for your proposals, Lukas. While they go a long way towards addressing the core issues, there are some important points that need to be clarified. No one is disputing the close genetic relationship between Arvanitic and Albanian, but defining Arvanitic as a "form of Albanian" is as problematic as defining Croatian as a "form of Serbian" or Urdu as a "form of Hindi". While they obviously descend from the same parent language, their speakers today identify with separate ethnonations. And, in the case of Arvanitic and Albanian, that parent language was not called Albanian, but rather Arvanitic, according to the contemporary Byzantine Greek sources. Thus, using your proposed wording would constitute an anachronism, as the Arvanites have always called their language Arvanitic, not Albanian. In fact, the wording should be reversed, as it is modern Albanian that is a form of mediaeval Arvanitic, and it is the Albanians who changed their name to Shqiptarët in modern times, in a process of nation-building of which the Arvanites were never a part.

That said, the question of the identity of the language was resolved by consensus months ago, with Arvanitic being clearly included in the family of languages for which modern linguists, in the interests of convenience perhaps, use the simple name Albanian - see Arvanitic language. I believe it unnecessary to disturb this delicate consensus in order to placate every disgruntled nationalist with a bone to pick.--Theathenae 15:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I can see your point. This still leaves us with the necessity of finding some formulation that we can use here as a quick characterization (and then point to the main article Arvanitic language. In the light of what you say, do you think the following would be okay: "...who speak Arvanitic, an Albanian language"? That would both imply some kind of separate-language status, express the relation to Albanian, and at the same time be compatible with the idea of treating "Albanian", in this instance, as a name for a language family, not the single language. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, predicating it like that is problematic in my view, as Arvanites do not view their language as an "Albanian language", in the same way that Croats would reject calling Croatian a "Serbian language". Why not just use the formulation in Arvanitic language itself: "Arvanitic is on the branch of the Indo-European language family labelled Albanian by most linguists today, although Thraco-Illyrian was formerly the more common name."? Let's not forget that Albanian as the name of the language group only gained currency when the hypothesised link between Thracian and Illyrian was found to be rather weak, necessitating a name change.--Theathenae 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Problematic. First, it's simply too long for a first paragraph, which must be designed to give the clueless foreign reader a first rough orientation. Second, "Thraco-Illyrian was formerly the more common name" is, to the best of my knowledge, simply wrong (I'm not aware that that term was ever used, at least not internationally and during the last 100 years). Third, with all due respect, it's certainly a matter for Arvanites to decide what their ethnic identity is. But it's not up to them to decide what the classificatory status of their language is. That's up to the scholarly community of linguists. And, as I said above (point 2 above), there's a clear consensus about that in the literature. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you are proposing would be equivalent to going through Wikipedia and inserting sentences like "Catalan is a form of Spanish" and "Dutch, a German (rather than Germanic) language".--Theathenae 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the difference is that in the case of Dutch and Catalan, the separate-language status is beyond doubt, whereas with Arvanitic it is very weak, and for us to be even as much as implying separate-language status is really not much more than a bow to ethnic feelings, not a reflection of the scholarly literature. 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of no known link between Thracian and Illyrian. In biology, when there were some species of which there was little known, biologists used to put them all in the one genus, a "trash-can genus". The same situation was here: We have Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, of which little was known, so some linguist had the idea to make a trash-can family, "Thraco-Illyrian", which from what we know now, it seems that it has as much sense as a Persian-English language family. bogdan 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a few delightful points:

• Arvanitika can be described as a form of Albanian because there are neutral sources describing it as such.
• The contemporary Byzantine sources give us the contemporary Greek name for those people (as they were written in Greek), not what they called themselves in their own language.
• The Helsinki Report refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians, therefore, so can Wikipedia.

You do realise that your views need not be taken into consideration as you have not cited a single source, but have give your own selective original research version of events. Notwithstanding the fact that many relevant, reliable and neutral sources describe the Arvanites as ethnic Albanians. For example the US Department of State ([2], [3]), I still think that Lukas's version is surprisingly pro Greek. Also, as people are disputing your version, how can you claim that there is a consensus when people are divulging from it? Sincerely, --anon 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to insist that the ethnic identification is a matter separate from the classificatory status of the language, which Theathenae was discussing. As for the ethnic identification, can I ask you to re-read point 1 in the outline above and state whether you think the US sources you quote contradict that? Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not as separate as you think. If they were, we would not have a separate "Macedonian" language, and we'd still speak of Serbo-Croatian rather than Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and even Montenegrin.--Theathenae 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That doens't stop a Mexican Spanish, a Canadian French and an Australian English existing, so what's your point? --anon 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't disagree with it, it is not inaccurate. Especially since the in the US context, "ethnic" means descent, so the US sources aren't calling them "an Albanian minority", if that's what you're worrying about. The last thing I would want is to violate the proposal. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in Thathenae's original research reasoning. This may change if he actually cites a source. --anon 16:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course, Wikipedia policy permits the great linguist Thathenae to declare Arvanitika an Ausbausprache contrary to the current scholarly consensus. -- anon 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern politics, history and linguistics are three different things. It is interesting however to note that the States Department of the USA, in the version currently online (1999 till 2004) have removed the false labeling "Ethnic Albanians" and replaced it with a description about the language. talk to +MATIA 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First sentence?

Folks, I hope you do realize that everything we've been quibbling about in the section above only refers to the first introductory sentences. Because that's really the only place where we're more or less forced to give a description/definition of what/who the Arvanites are in our own authorial voice. Everywhere further down, whatever views are expressed will be attributed to others.

Therefore, for a change: Let's have a constructive competition for a good first sentence. I suggest we do a kind of brainstorming: Not discussing and criticizing, but just making proposals (for the moment). Here's mine:

• Arvanites ([...]) are a population group in Greece whose linguistic heritage is Arvanitic, an Albanian language. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Arvanites ([...]) are the descendants of Orthodox Christian settlers from the Despotate of Epirus (today's southern Albania and NW Greece) that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages, principally between the 13th century and 15th century. Zogu 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Arvanites ([...]) are ...

• Arvanites ([...]) are ...

about the lock

Shall we ask the article to be locked in the version that doesn't call them an ethnic Albanian minority? The discussions are very good and I would really love to see the light at the end of our tunnel, but... talk to +MATIA 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to use Template:Editprotected and clarify the edit you want the administrator to make. There has to be consinsus to that change of course, so what is you proposed change (in detail)? Zogu 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also you seem to have not understood what protection is? It is not endorsment of current version. The current version seem to be all you can think of! I oppose reverting it back to your version. We could revert it to Arvanites/test if you like, I will not oppose that. Zogu 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Im sure it can stay in current version for a few more days. If neutral source US department of state can call them ethnic Albanians, then so can Wikipedia. Until we have agreed on compromise version. Zogu 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure, you are sure. And a few days after we have a consensus (unlock and correct the article) someone will come back and label them again as "ethnic Albanian minority". The same thing is happening since autumn... talk to +MATIA

What happend to WP:AGF? Let's find consinsus now, not worry about what might happen. Why you not like Arvanites/test, it seems fine to me. Zogu 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

straw poll for provisional reverting and re-locking of the article

I believe that the article should be reverted to one version back and remain locked till the discussions are finalised. Editors may sign below with agree, disagree and four ~. talk to +MATIA 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It makes absolutely no sense to unprotect, revert, and reprotect, nor is this supported by the page protection policy. Also, such a course of action would be just an extension of the revert war which led to the most recent protection. The fastest and most productive way forward is for you all to reach a compromise. As I've said before, this should be easy, provided that you realize that Wikipedia's role is not to determine the Absolute Objective Truth, only to report, fairly, on the various views that have been put forward. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Let's see it then as part of the discussions. talk to +MATIA 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine as a straw poll. I just want to say that I think there's been some good progress. Once you have a workable version of the introduction that you all more or less agree on, please let me know. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. . agree - talk to +MATIA 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
2. . oppose - matia's version contains anti Albanian propaganda. Zogu 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. . oppose - We can't make decisions for Arvanites, since they declare as related to Albanians. Bomac 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
4. . oppose once we start quibbling over what the live version is like, we've lost focus. I don’t know if I have suffrage, that's for the admin to determine [4]. --anon a.k.a. 70.86.127.130 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
5. . oppose - not because of preference for this version, but simply because it's a waste of energy. This or that version will be gone in one or two days anyway - and whether or not we will then have another edit war has nothing to do with it. But I do think we are close to the point where we can request unlocking for good. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
6. . oppose - matia's version contains anti Albanian propaganda full of Greek chauvinistic claims.--Pjetër Bogdani III 19:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with test?

part 1

I have asked many times what is wrong with Arvanites/test and matia not tell me. I say that this version has all agreed qualificasios above and I asked for comments and matia not give any. Specificly what is wrong with it and why can it not be used. I would agree to unprotection and to use this. Zogu 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see matia took the time to anser marksweep but is ingoring me. I ask her again (hoping that she will assume more construvtiv atitide then the one she has had so far) to say her obdjections to my proposal arvanites/test after I have asked her many times. What is wrong with it why can it not be used? If there is a problem, it can be fixed, but it can not be fixed if you don't say what problem is. Zogu 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall we just start editing together at Arvanites/test, and then get the main page unblocked? I don't know what Matia thinks, but as I said earlier, to me the "test" version seems good enough as a basis to work from (though certainly not as a final result).

Procedural suggestion: when we resume editing, I think this would be a good guideline: Any material that has been the object of previous revert wars should not simply be re-introduced exactly in one of its previous wordings, but preferentially it should be re-written, double-checking possible sensitivities it might touch on. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we evade the question of the identity of the language entirely and simply refer to the relevant article which treats the matter fairly and presents all conflicting points of view.--Theathenae 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you suggest a concrete formulation? Let me repeat one thing that I think people tend to forget: the article is going to be read by clueless foreigners, not just by Greeks and Albanians. We need to have a formulation that addresses the link to Albanian in some way, in the first sentence. Saying that they were "people originally from Epirus" and that they "speak Arvanitic" is simply not enough - the reader won't even know why then all the talk about not being Albanians further down in the article! The readers shouldn't have to first click on the Arvanitic link in order to find out that Arvanitic=Albanian is a potential issue. (Ceterum censeo Arvanitic language must still be re-worked too.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you must. "Arvanitic, which descends from the same parent language as modern Tosk Albanian." This is neutral, as Arvanitic is clearly distinct from modern Tosk, but of course shares a common origin with it.--Theathenae 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd still prefer "... a form of Albanian", "...an Albanian language", or maybe "... a language closely related to Albanian". Your formulation, in its specificity, doesn't seem to me to match the consensus in the linguistic literature, which - like it or not - actually describes Arvanitic as part of Tosk Albanian, not a sister to it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two are clearly unacceptable as they are offensive to the Arvanites. While foreign linguists may not ultimately care whether or not Arvanitic is labelled Albanian, the Arvanites clearly do. The third option is less absolute and could be considered if put in the right context.--Theathenae 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Brian Joseph shows the "sister thing" pretty good (keep in mind that some people refer to the "modern" Tosk - aka standard Albanian - and the "ancient Tosk" with the same name). talk to +MATIA 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think Joseph has been seriously misquoted over at Arvanitic language. He says Arvanitic is a sister to Standard Tosk, not a sister to Tosk. The tree he draws is not an historical tree (Arvanitic being descended from some Old Tosk but now separate); it's a present-day classificatory tree (Arvanitic forming part of Tosk today). Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read policy: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. This is not about accepting your assertations on Arvanitic. It is about writing what can be found in the sources. As the scholarly consensus is A, then Wikipedia shall write A. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to spread assimilatative propaganda. It is where we cite sources. Cite a source, then your views will be taken into consideration. --anon 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Create an account or log in, so we can talk as human beings. talk to +MATIA 12:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your mind if I provided documentation of Greek and Arvanite scholars calling Arvanite a "form of Albanian"? - That said, I'm still hesitant to concede that linguistic terminology should give way to people's lay opinions in such a way. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you retracting your third proposal?--Theathenae 11:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I'd say it's suboptimal, and I'd understand if Albanian editors objected to it. In fact, it is by no means neutral, as it clearly asserts the opposite position. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The wording with related could be used perhaps at the middle and not at the intro of the article. talk to +MATIA 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

part 2

Ok I think this is pretty close to Zogu's version. Few things should be worked out, and many more things will be included (as I've mentioned before), so that a clueless reader can learn who are those people. talk to +MATIA 11:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it ignores the crusial point that the Arvanites in north Greece name themselves Shqiptar and has fringe theory about Arvanitika. I has resource and so it should be used. Regards, Zogu 11:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fringe theory??? I highly encourage you to compare Lukas changes and my additions here with your version. talk to +MATIA 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Arvanitika is part of Albanian language (dialect/form) according to all resources. You say that it is a related languge without resourse. That is fringe theory. Zogu 12:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is an unrelated language?! talk to +MATIA 12:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

part 3

Since they don't call themselves "Arvanites" but "Shqiptar", then it means that they're not Arvanites but ethnic Albanians. Therefore they don't have any place in the article. Isn't that right? Miskin 11:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, by any means. They could, for instance, be calling themselves "Shqiptar" in Arvanitic, but "Arvanites" in Greek. Or they could be calling themselves Albanians but still be subsumed under Arvanites by their Greek fellow countrymen. At the moment, we simply don't know. As I said, let's wait with this until we've got hold of the primary literature.

No, beacause the source which give that information say "the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia". I don't see why you obdject. I agree we not call them "ethnic Albanians" and say that they identify as Greeks today. We just add the information from the resource that the Arvanites in Epirus and western Macedonia call themselves Shqiptar and not Arberor. It is a regional variation there is no proof that there is any difference. Zogu 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The source later on states that Arvanites are the people who describe themselves as such, simply because they don't claim Albanian ethnicity. Furthermore all Arvanitic scholarly sources refute the existence of such ethnic group. So this becomes a POV. Make your changes on that current version, because it's by far the most reliable at the moment. Miskin 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was based on that version! I took your version and made 3 changes to it. This is all explained above. Also, stop trying to use your personal research. Cite a source. I have cited a source so it can be used. Look at diferences with your version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39220644&oldid=39220039 Zogu 12:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're constantly removing the part which states that Arvanites abhor being called "Albanians". This is clearly mentioned in the Helsinki report, or do you want me to copy-paste it for you? You're also removing the part which mentions that Albanian nationalists regard Arvanites ethnic Albanian. This is something that was taken to a political level between Greece and Albania, so you're probably aware of it. So, what exactly is unsourced there? 'YOUR' version removes that sourced information, and it adds a POV in the head which erroneously implies that the Despotate of Epirus was Albanian. Miskin 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No I have not. My version state very clearly that Arvanites don't like being called Albanians. I remove that POV about the Albanian nationalists because there is no source. It is also POV, there where it says they try to "invent" an Albanian minority. That implies bad faith. If they do (doubtful until you cite source) they do it out of ignorance, because they think they are Albanian minority. Anyway, I will not obdject when you cite source. I have not implied anything about D of Epirus. Change that if you want. Zogu 12:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is also POV, there where it says they try to "invent" an Albanian minority. That implies bad faith." - Well what are you guys doing here exactly? Previous editors insisted on calling Arvanites an 'ethnic Albanian minority group of Greece'. But oh well, let's say it's all a big misunderstanding, I'm removing this from that version for the time being. What else bothers you? Miskin 12:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK differences

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39580438&oldid=39226671

1. Helsinki say that Arvanites in Northern Greece call themselves shqiptare
2. UNESCO say that Arvanitika is Albanian dialect (we can chage to "form of Albanian" per Lukas sugestion if you wish)
3. There is no source that say that Arvanites not want ethnic minority status
4. There is no source that the Arvanites of Epirus not claim Alb national consiousness (we don't know if they do. There is no source on this matter and Helisinki is not clear)
5. I remove that list of Arvanitika words. They belogn on article Arvanitic language with English translation in table.
6. Other minor changes.

Zogu 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1. You seem to be a reasonable person. It's irrational to say that a group of people who doesn't call itself "Arvanites" but "Shquptare" is actually Albanian. They don't itself 'Arvanites', hence they're not so. They're ethnic Albanians, hence they don't belong in the article - quite a simple concept. You can't make such irrational claims by simply parotting "Helsinki says, Helsinki says".
2. A form of Albanian - so be it.
3. Yes there is - the very Helsinki report to begin with. Secondly an article (summary of a book) that I linked earlier. You probably can't understand it because it's in Greek, but that really not my problem. Arvanites' first language is Greek, if you can't deal with that then give up.
4. Look at (1) - since they don't call themselves Arvanites, they're not so.
5. Be my guest.

Miskin 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you both please check this and the (December wikipedia's version) [http://www.answers.com/Arvanites answer's archived article). talk to +MATIA 12:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is missing from that version Matia, it has just been re-written. I feel it has been significantly improved. What specific points do you feel that it's lacking? Miskin 12:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

let's try this

First of all a note to any Albanian editor: I respect your people and if my word is not enough, please see the following edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (I took Scanderbeg as an example, because I think all of us like him). I don't think that at http://www.answers.com/Arvanites there's something that offends Albanian people, and we'll see that the new version here become nice for everyone's taste.

I've re-read the current talk page and I've tried this, where I hope I've included everything that can be verifiable. I disagree (with myself) that we have the language first - unlike most other groups the language is not what makes an Arvanitis. They've chosen not to speak Arvanitic at all, in favour of the Greek language, and they still consider themselves Arvanites (read the part about phara - they feel Arvanitis "by birth").

But let's try something different. Let's take this and see if there are some minor changes that should be done. But instead of reverting it, let's talk about it here and leave (for now) the "proposal" as is. talk to +MATIA 15:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, my suggestion to start editing on the draft version seems not to have worked out too well, unfortunately. (T.|@) 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Epirote "Arvanites"/"Chams" again

Having delved a bit more into the thorny "Epirote Albanophones" issue, I now propose the following passage for inclusion somewhere in the article. The study quoted, Botsi (2003), is a recent sociolinguistic dissertation on a village in Attica, written by a local (unfortunately in German).

• Arvanites are distinguished in Greece from Cham Albanians (Greek: "Τσάμηδες"), another group of Albanophones in the northwest of Greece. Unlike the Christian Arvanites, the Chams were predominantly Muslims and identified nationally as Albanians. Most Muslim Chams were expelled from Greece shortly before the end of the Second World War, after violent clashes and atrocities commited during and after Axis occupation.

• There is some disagreement to what extent the term "Arvanites" legitimately also includes the small remaining Christian Albanophone population groups in Northwest Greece (Epirus). Unlike the southern Arvanites, these speakers are reported to use the name Shqiptarë both for themselves and for ethnic Albanians (Banfi 1996, Moraitis 2002). Botsi (2003: 21) reports that the term "Arvanites" in its narrow sense includes only the populations of the compact Arvanitic settlement areas in southern Greece, according to the self-identification of those groups. The Ethnologue ([5]) identifies the present-day Albanian/Arvanitic dialects of Northwestern Greece (in Epirus and Lechovo) with those of the Chams. They are therefore classified linguistically together with standard Tosk Albanian, as opposed to "Arvanitika Albanian proper" (i.e. southern Greek Arvanitic). Nevertheless it reports that the Epirus varieties are also often subsumed under "Arvanitika" in a wider sense in Greek. It puts their estimated number of its speakers at 10,000. On the other hand, Arvanitic proper ([6]) is said to include the outlying dialects spoken in Thrace. Other sources (GHM 1995) subsume the Epirote Albanophones under the term Arvanites, althogh they note the different linguistic self-designation.

Lukas

However we treat this issue, it is unnecessary to include Shqiptár as a direct translation of Arvanite in the head of the article. It is not.--Theathenae 11:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think I'd agree to that now - if only for the sake of brevity and not confusing the reader at that point. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. Which only leaves the question of how to treat the language in the head. Do you stand by your "closely akin to Albanian" proposal? I have been workshopping ideas and think we could add a qualifier such as "modern Tosk Albanian" for clarity: while there is disagreement over whether we should directly say Arvanitic = Albanian, everyone agrees that Arvanitic as spoken today is distinct from modern Tosk as spoken in Albania (or even in Greece by recent Albanian immigrants).--Theathenae 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't actually agree with your last statement (it's distinct from Standard Tosk Albanian, not from all Tosk Albanian!), I guess the formula should be okay. Or what about: "...Arvanitic, a group of dialects closely akin to Tosk Albanian" (sidestepping the "language" bit once again) Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is actually distinct from all Tosk as spoken in Albania, mainly due to the Greek influence of the past centuries. Otherwise, recent Tosk immigrants (who are mostly unskilled and uneducated and wouldn't speak standard Albanian as a matter of course) would speak exactly the same language as the native Arvanites in Greece, which simply isn't true. In any case, your latest proposal could work. What does everyone else think?--Theathenae 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Theathenae until he cites a source. Why not "Arvanitic, a group of dialects of varying degrees of intelligibility with each other and Tosk Albanian". The problem, is that UNESCO indicates that Arvanitic is a Tosk dialect, whereas this (and Lukas') approach indictes that it is seperate altogether. Contridiction? --anon 12:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There are people, especially "anonymous" users, who will disagree with anything Theathenae says, even if he happens to be in agreement with an administrator who has gone out of his way to accommodate the Albanians. You just can't win.--Theathenae 12:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, this is getting sophistic. Well, it's certainly "distinct from every single one of the non-standard and standard dialects of Tosk in Albania", but it's not "distinct from Tosk as a whole", because it is a part of that, at least that's what all the linguists say. - And by the way, if by "administrator" you mean me, I'm not, and I don't think I ever implied being one, did I? :-) Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Με συγχωρείς. Λάθος.--Theathenae 13:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at all this, it seems to be a backslide to the Greek unsourced POV, selective ommissions of information and so on version. Shqiptar is sourced, is used, there is no reason to omit it. Also, "form of Albanian" could mean either a seperate language on the (hypothetical) Albanian language family or an Albanian dialect. So what's the problem that forces you to seek more elaborate and POV ways of saying it? --anon 12:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yer, thanks Rexhep.--Theathenae 12:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If by "more elaborate ways" you mean the debate over "form of Albanian" in the first sentence: pure politics, I personally would otherwise go for your short version. If you mean the longish paragraphs about "Shqiptar/Arvanites" proposed for the body of the article: Reporting on actually diverging usages, which create a problem of definition that we cannot simply ignore. I think we all now agree that "Shqiptar" and "Arvanites" are sometimes used to refer to the same group of people. But is it the case that "Shqiptar" in a wider sense is alternatively used for what otherwise clearly falls under "Arvanites", or is it that "Arvanites" in a wider sense is sometimes used for what properly falls under "Shqiptar"? In the first case, it should go in the first paragraph, in the second not. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A (small?) group of Arvanites might use the Shqiptar and Shqip as names but they self-identify as ethnic Greeks (see Moraitis and Kollias). This doesn't make them neither Chams nor Albanians. The Arvanites of Epirus are the heart of Arvanites, all the groups of Arvanites origin from Epirus. talk to +MATIA 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you formulate this as a properly sourced statement that can be integrated in the paragraph above? I think there's no way around this, there are different usages regarding the scope of the term Arvanite, and we have to present them all. That said, "The Arvanites of Epirus are the heart of Arvanites, all the groups of Arvanites origin from Epirus" is a non sequitur (which doesn't mean that both parts of the statement couldn't be true anyway). Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kollias was in the article (and is at the "proposal"). Let's forget for now the "heart of Arvanites". When I return, I'll add Moraitis statement along with Kollias. talk to +MATIA 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Form of Albanian" again

Please have a look at the temporary user page at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanites2, documenting usage in linguistic scholarship about the "Arvanitic is Albanian" issue (and some related usage questions). Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a form of Albanian. To say otherwise without citing a source is POV. --anon 12:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at it, the more I agree with "--anon" here. I have yet to come across a single linguistic treatment that denies the Albanian status of Arvanitic. The only thing we have against it is the fact that many Arvanites don't like it that way. That indeed is well sourced. So, I must put it brutally to the Greek friends: put up or shut up. Either (a) produce a reputable linguistic source stating that Arvanitic is not Albanian; or (b) produce a reputable linguistic source supporting Theathenae's "sociolinguistic" (OR) theory that the mere wish of a population to view their language as separate actually makes it separate. Read Trudgill (2004) to see that such a view is not mainstream sociolinguistics.

In the absence of such evidence, I shall insist that what I once formulated as "Point 2.1" must be agreed upon by all editors as a sine qua non; until then I will strongly oppose unprotecting.

Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. An olive branch, or perhaps rather a bone thrown to the Greeks: There is in fact the little-used sociolinguistic concept of an "apperceptional language". Google for it, you'll find my friend John Kirk applying it to "Ulster Scots". That concept just might conceivably help your case, if someone could find a bit more about it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Apperceptional language"

I dug out that quote I was thinking of. It's from:

• Kirk, John M. (1998): "Ulster Scots: Realities and Myths". Ulster Folklife 44: 69-93; who in turn quotes
• Strauss, Dietrich (1978): "Scots is not alone: Further comparative considerations". Actes du 2^e Colloque de Language et de Litterature Ecossaises, Strasbourg 1978. 80-97.

Just check if you could mentally replace "[XXX]" below with "Arvanitic":

"Classic differences of dialect [...] are perceived by many as being so strong or striking that they are believed to be differences of language (quite regardless of the facts). The claim of apparent autonomy for [XXX] is made by those who simply believe or wish it to be a language [...] If there is a basis upon which to legitimise the claim that [XXX] is a language, it is no more than perception, among those who see distinctiveness of their identity as allied to the distinctiveness of their tongue.

[...]

[XXX] is an 'apperceptional language' (or bewusstseinsprache [sic]). [...] 'apperceptional languages' exist as 'separate languages only in the minds of people, yet very actively there'; and 'apperceptional languages' do not have 'the objective characteristics' which are 'indispensible' for separate language status' (Strauss 1978:85). [...] Strauss attributes to 'apperceptional languages' several further characteristics which are also applicable to [XXX]: the first is that it has 'an accent noticeable for everyone' [...]. The second of Strauss's characteristics is that the criterion of autonomous, fully-fledged languages are 'vehemently stressed and reinforced on every suitable occasion by the propagators of the idea of an independent language'."

Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To anon and all

Perhaps it's time to unprotect and then semiprotect this article and Arvanitic language. talk to +MATIA 14:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the policies: WP:SEMI. Semi protection is only for really persistent vandalism, not to prevent anons editing. Regards, --anon 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see about that. talk to +MATIA 14:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In the worst case, I'll have to make an account. I will have to think of a good name though (al the good ones have been taken). --anon 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like REX, Zogu, etc.--Theathenae 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be helpful if you had an account. What about: User:--anon? :-) Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protection removed, new proposed version

Admin maru dubshinki has removed page protection, a bit surprising to me, as I think our discussion had not yet quite come to a conclusion and we didn't request it, did we? Anyway, in order to prevent a new revert war about those last bits we didn't yet resolve, I've made a rather bold move and replaced the whole article with a completely reworked one, which I had been preparing over the last few days. I had the intention of first making it the object of a straw poll or some other form of discussion, but after maru's move I felt it better to act more quickly.

My suggestion: If anybody finds this proposed version seriously objectionable and sees more conflict ahead over it, let us retract it for the moment, replace it provisionally with the version currently at Arvanites/test, and then agree on another short editing moratorium (or re-protection) until we sort the last issues out.

As for the bits we were discussing, in my version I've gone with Theathenae's and Matia's proposal not to have the Albanian/Arvanitic names in the first sentence, but I've returned to the formula "...a form of Albanian", which I think is simply the one that reflects the scholarly consensus. In general I've been careful to have lots of references, erring rather on the side of over-annotating perhaps. But I think this might be useful to prevent new edit warring.

Hope we can now quickly tweak this into a stable consensus version (and then go on to solve the issues on Arvanitic language. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic origins

I've read over this article and mainly have on question: Do the Arvanites have any ethnic origin in Albania or ethnic ties to the Albanian people whatsoever ? It appears as though the only thing that distinguishes them from other ethnic Greeks is their language but I wish to have this clarified. Greek nationality/identity is obviously not necessarily the same as Greek ethnicity and this article confuses me as to if the Arvanites are ethnically Greek or not in relation to origins/ancestry or "race"/physical characteristics. If they are ethnically Greek in this sense, what basis is there for them to have any ties to Albanians other than language ? (which is not really a persistent defining factor in ones ethnicity). 69.157.121.76 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, one problem with an answer here is that in Greek there is no conceptual distinction made between "national" and "ethnic". It's the same word for them. So you're going to have a hard time asking an Arvanite whether his "ethnic" identity is different from his "national" or his "lingustic" one. - That said, I think the article makes it pretty clear that the link is mainly on the level of descent from certain medieval population groups. In terms of "race"/physical characteristics there's been so much mixture, obviously, that the question becomes pretty mute. (Well, these guys today certainly don't look differently from their neighbours.) As for the rest, well, if you have the stomach, read the discussion pages, you are coming here right after a huge ideological POV dispute that has lasted more than half a year. So please be careful before you edit the article with anything involving "ethnic" or whatever. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read over some of the discussion and I see your point. The only other real question I have is on the number of Arvanites. 1.6 million seems like quite a bit to me and clearly that number must include Arvanites who are of predominantly or complete Greek origin. This would largely dispell or limit any supposed ties to Albanians other than speaking Arvanite language which doesnt necessarily denote any ethnic kinship. 69.157.121.76 17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would question your implicit assumption that "origin" (i.e. genetic descent) would be the one factor that constitutes "real" ethnic kinship - I sense a biologistic/race-oriented approach to "ethnicity" here, which is quite unwarranted. As for the figures, it's rather the other way round: as far as I understand, the highest figures mentioned are those of how many people would be genetically descendants of originally Arvanitic local communities. But it's really not worth discussing further, in my opinion. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it still exist a large group of Greeks who strongly believe in the myth of Greek ethnic purity. Albanau 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well actually its been demonstrated both in population genetics and anthropology how Greeks have largely maintained much of their ethnic homogeneity since Ancient times [7]. Origin does not mean merely genetics or racial/physical characteristics, but also anything else included with descent whether it be cultural, behavioural, or any other traits which are passed down from your ancestors. Although descent/kinship from common origins is the primary factor in ethnicity, I agree it is obviously not the only factor. The large number of Arvanites would imply to me that most would only have partial Albanian ancestry due to centuries of being absorbed into thelarger native Greek population. 69.157.121.76 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the numbered user that they may have been largely "absorbed" and that Greeks as a whole have retained much of their homogeneity to a significant degree. From what I've read in these discussions and on the article, it appears as though the Arvanites are indeed Greek in both cultural and ethnic terms, although almost all retain at least some degree of Albanian ethnic origin/ancestry. However, most of them can trace the majority of their ethnic origin/descent to Greeks and this helps explain why so many refuse any connections with or labels as Albanians. Epf 16:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How come the Arvanites spoke (as recently as the 19th century) no Greek?

I've added the link to an article published by one Diana Farr Louis in the 'Athens News' weekly. The Arvanitika story by Diana Farr Louis (click twice on the 'Athens News' link to get through). What is surprising is how disinhibited (if I may use this word ) is Ms. Louis and ultimately how right she is when she writes that:

'WHEN J. Theodore Bent and his wife travelled around the Cyclades in the 1880s, his impressions of Andros were coloured by the foul March weather and the prevalence of "obnoxious animalculae", aka fleas and bedbugs. Nevertheless, able to speak Greek, he enjoyed himself in the eastern half which he found almost paradisaical with its "delicious streams", fertile valleys and "lofty towers". Gavrion, the present port, was a different story. "Of all places in the world Gavrion is one of the most desolate... The inhabitants of Gavrion, too, struck us as morose, and not too hospitably inclined". He does admit, however, that part of the problem was his inability to communicate with them. These inhabitants spoke no Greek. Andros is alone among the Cyclades in having a large portion of its population of Albanian stock. They are the descendants of mercenaries brought in by the Venetians in the 15th century to defend the island against Turks and pirates, and given the whole of western Andros to cultivate in recompense. The men and women whom Bent met had not been hellenised, even after four hundred years. They had kept their own dress, customs and language, and had remarkably little contact with the more prosperous families of Greek and Italian origin in the valleys around.'

My impression (and I'm confirmed by Theodore Bent who went on the ground among the Arvanites) is that the Grecization of the Arvanites occured relatively recently and it has do with the advent of the new means of mass-communication, improved roads sponsored by the EU, spread of the Greek language via TV etc. Apostolos Margaritis 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you can find many history books about Greeks who didn't speak greek around 1700. talk to +MATIA 15:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Matia does that apply also to Greeks with Greek Orthodox faith living in Greece? The question is very simple, the Arvanites are descendent of medieval Albanian immigrants, they arrived from central Albania to southern Greece. Matia and few other Greek propagandists in Wikipedia still relay on Greek propaganda books about Greek ethnic purity, a common phenomenon among Greeks even today. They need to stop stop changing and manufacturing false history to fith their agenda. --Albanau 10:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as Albanians stop believing the mythical ideology which is "Greater Albania" and stop spreading Albanian propagandists junk everywhere they turn, then we can sit down and talk about who's who in the Balkans. BTW, from what I know most Arvanites do not even consider themselves Albanian and its they who hold to the idea of a Proto-Greeks or Pelasgi origins who first came to Greece down from what is now Albania. In fact if I remember correctly it was a Helsinki report which told us about two of the most serious incidents of beatings on Albanian immigrants in Greece that took place by Arvanites in Arvanitika villages on Albanians. ~ 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Trolling comments removed

A series of trolling comments from Arianitr (talk · contribs) have been removed from here and moved to Talk:Arvanites/Arianitr. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just left a comment there. What he claims about Kollias etc are 100% unverifiable. talk to +MATIA 11:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was you who actually has a copy of the Kollias book, right? Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"A form of Albanian", again

The current addition "a language generally regarded as a form of Albanian by linguists and as a separate language by speakers" is imprecise and unsourced and cannot remain like this. It is again presenting "a language" as a fact (which was heavily disputed). Also, we currently have no quotable, verifiable statements from anybody that Arvanitic is not a form of Albanian. Even if we have reasons to believe that part of the population share some kind of view like that, we don't really know what those views are exactly: We don't know what these people believe, why they believe it, what their arguments are, how many of them believe it, what they know about Arvanitic, what they know about Albanian, what they believe the relation between the two to be. For all we know, they might silently acknowledge that Arvanitic is a form of Albanian but nevertheless prefer not to hear the name used for it. They might not have any opinion about the matter at all but simply prefer not to be reminded of it. They might believe that Arvanitic is separate but that it nevertheless isn't a "language" but "only a dialect", without being a dialect of anything. (Such views, though hopelessly incoherent, are well attested in Greek society – in fact, people have been convicted to prison sentences in Greece for saying that Arvanitic, Vlach etc. are "languages"! [8]). This alleged opinion of the speakers is not a quotable, verifiable POV that we can represent along with others, but just an hypothetical agglomeration of vague anonymous prejudice and resentment. The only thing we can currently say with some confidence is that there are people in Greece who do not like to hear the name "Albanian" used for Arvanitic. That's what the Helsinki report and several other sources confirm, but it's simply not the same thing as "regarding it as a separate language". It makes no sense to treat it as if it was a verifiable judgment about the classificatory status of Arvanitic vis-a-vis Albanian, to be given equal weight with the linguistic descriptions.

I invite re-formulations to address this, but if nothing is forthcoming I'll revert to the previous version. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Miskin's changes

Just some comments on the recent changes proposed by Miskin:

• "... are a linguistic minority" (introduction): No problem with me. In fact, that had been my own proposal at some time. Avoiding it had been a concession to the Greek/Arvanitic side, because some people in Greece are allergic against the very use of the term minority, even if so qualified.
• Disclaimer about the ancient-inscriptions claim: as Macrakis said, the old wording was chosen specifically to indicate that these hypotheses are so fringy that people have not even bothered to disprove them. I'd suggest we can either leave these claims out completely, or include them but with a rather strong disclaimer, like the one we had. Experience with earlier discussions here suggests it may be better to discuss the issue, because it's attractive to some and its bogusness is not immediately obvious to the layperson. That was the motivation behind relegating it into a footnote. I'd also like to re-introduce the link to the established Greek readings.
• "predominant linguistic minority element": Actually, if I remember correctly what the sources said, they were in fact local majorities in several regions, including Attica.
• "Descend from Albanian-speaking settlers": Again, no problem with me; the rather convoluted formulation was a concession to Theathenae, who doubted that these groups could legitimately be called even Albanian-speaking.
• A single Albanian author: Botsi is Greek/Arvanite, not Albanian, and the passage quoted is a state-of-the-art report quoting multiple other authors.

Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I was reading the Arbëreshë article and noticed that in the Categories they have them as Italian people. Since both the Arbëreshë and Arvanites fall under somewhat of a parallel events, meaning how they came to being were they are now, would it be correct to categorize the Arvanites as a Greek people in modern terms too...since most regard themselves as such? Regards. :) ~Mallaccaos, 30 March 2006

I have the impression the Category:Greek people is more for individuals, not for groups. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Category:Greek people stubs was mostly for individuals and Category:Greek people was for individuals and groups since it hold several articles on groups such as Greek American, Greek Cypriots, Greek diaspora etc.  :) ~Mallaccaos, 30 March 2006

Ah yes, you're right. Well, I have no objection to the category in principle. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, Lukas.  :) ~Mallaccaos, 30 March 2006

As for removing the Category:Ethnic groups in Greece: that also contains Vlachs, Sarakatsani, Romaniotes, Pomaks and others. If those are ethnic groups, why not the Arvanites too? If one were to insist that "ethnic group" must be understood in the narrow sense of a group with a separate national consciousness, then the whole category becomes moot. I'd keep it, it's a very good way of making all these articles accessible together, and if Sarakatsani and Vlachs etc. are to be linked by a common category, then surely the Arvanites belong in the same. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Those additions are weasel edits made by the usual suspects. Miskin 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Which additions, what weasels, and what usual suspects??? Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The usual suspects would be those who are reverted almost on sight. The additions are probably the Ethnic Groups in Greece cat. However that was not a weasel addition made by an editor with certain pov. These category, every now or then is deleted and replaced with another category and then the second category is deleted and the Ethnic Groups in Greece is recreated. The funny thing is that most of the time, this category playtime is not made by Greek (or pro-Greek or anti-Greek editors), but from wikipedians who don't have a clue about Greece (I've been watching it for a long time but I 've chosen not to get involved). talk to +MATIA 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites as 'ethnic group'

One important question is whether Arvanites themselves consider themselves to be a distinct ethnic group as opposed to simply ethnic Greeks who also speak another language ("linguistic minority"). In neither case is the Arvanites political identification as Greek citizens in question. As it happens, the relevant survey research has been done. In the article "Why Albanian-Greeks are not Albanians: Language Shift in Attica and Biotia" (in Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, ed. Howard Giles), P. Trudgill and G.A. Tzavaras report on a survey of 1703 Arvanites. Carol Myers Scotton's review of it in in Language 56:2:445 (June, 1980) summarizes: "The majority in the sample felt that language is not a necessary requirement for Arvanites ethnic group membership; they placed more weight on having Arvanites parents, or being born in an Arvanitika-speaking village." "...responses in the survey make it clear that there is indeed a sense of special ethnic identity among the Arvanites."

This seems quite clear, though it would be nice to read the full paper. --Macrakis 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but what about the following citation:

"...In a survey conducted in the 1970s, 97% of Arvanite informants, despite regularly speaking in Arvanitika, considered themselves to be Greek. A similar concern with being identified as Greek is exhibited by the bilingual Arvanites of Eastern Argolid." (Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Jonathan M. Hall)
Next to the data, the citation above is nothing but a POV. Miskin 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very funny, because if you'd take a look at the footnote in Hall (strange to be getting your info from a study on ancient ethnicity), you'd see that it is actually citing the same Trudgill/Tzavaras study--which obviously we need to read in the original. In interpreting this summary, you are also making a fundamental error: you are assuming that "Greek" and "Arvanite" and mutually exclusive categories. Surely you would agree that someone can be both "Cypriot" (political) and "Greek" (ethnic) or "Cypriot" and "Turkish" at the same time? For that matter, ethnic identification is often fluid and contextual: the same person can be ethnically Arvanite in his village yet ethnically Greek in Athens. --Macrakis 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I planning to make some changes in the article(s) and I present my sources:

• "...As in the case of Vlachika, Arvanitika is an autonomous language--a language that, though not Greek, is a 'language of Greece' -- rather than a dialect of Albanian, the national language of the neighbouring country... The number of speakers is, once again, difficult to determine. The 1951 census gives a figure of 23,000 but this is certainly too small... But my own research in the 1970s in the villages of Attica and Biotia alone indicated a figure of at least 30,000 speakers (see Trudgill and Tzavaras 1975, 1977). Lunden (1993) suggests 50,000 for Greece as a whole." (Stephen Barbour and Cathie Carmicael, Language and nationalism in Europe)
• "...The Arvanites fully identify with Greek co-nationals, and generally only the older generations now speak Arvanitika, or Albanian intermixed with Greek, Turkish and Slavic."(Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece).

I regard those sources much more credible than the websites cited in Arvanitika, and I'm planning to make changes on the status of the language as a "form of Albanian". Modern ethnicity is based on the personal self-identification, not on linguistics. What opposing sources might say can be regarded as a POV as long it's politically incorrect. Until I see some edits in Croatian language that say how linguists regard it a dialect of Serbian, and in Macedonian (Slavic) as a dialect of Bulgarian, I don't see a reason why Arvanitika would be treated differently. Opinions? Miskin 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're mentioning 'websites cited in Arvanitika'. I was quoting a published study, in fact again the same Trudgill/Tzavaras one that your quote is citing. I agree entirely that ethnicity (not just modern ethnicity, by the way) is based on personal self-identification, not linguistics. Which is why it is possible to be an ethnic Arvanite while not speaking Arvanitika, one of the findings of the Trudgill/Tzavaras survey. --Macrakis 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the following phrase in the demography section: "Trudgill/Tzavaras (1976/77): estimated 140,000 only in Attica and Boeotia."
is a straight-forward lie. The 30,000 speakers mentioned above is credited to the same source. Miskin 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your "Barbour and Carmicael" quote above: please quote the name of the author, it's Trudgill (2000). And please give us the full context. We have a very similar passage quoting this one in the more recent Trudgill (2004) article quoted in the Arvanitic article. It says: "Greeks have adopted the interesting practice of referring to the language of this minority not as Alvanika ("Albanian") but as Arvanitika. This is paralleled by the practice of calling the people themselves not Albanians but Arvanites (singular Arvanitis). In both cases, this terminology has the effect of implying that the people concerned are not Romanians or Albanians, and that both Vlachika and Arvanitika are autonomous languages rather than dialects of, respectively, Rumanian and Albanian, the national languages of different and nearby nation-states (Trudgill, 2000). That is, while these languages are obviously not Greek, they are "languages of Greece", i.e. languages that are found only within the frontiers of the Greek nationstate." (my emphasis).

So, this "autonomous languages" claim is not a claim made by Trudgill himself, but ascribed by him to the naming practice used by the Greeks.

Further to your above: what "more credible than the websites cited in Arvanitika"? What "websites in Arvanitika" did anyone quote???

As for the population figures: the 140,000 were quoted somewhere else as being Trudgill's estimation; I have no opinion about it, but I'd appreciate if you didn't throw accusations of "lying" around lightly.

As for the Macedonian/Serbian analogy, that's a strawman. Linguists do not regard Macedonian as a dialect of Bulgarian; that's exactly the difference.

Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Trudgill is cited as a source, but my main focus was on the 97% of Arvanites declaring ethnic Greeks and the Greek and Slavic admixture on Arvanitika. Miskin 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Barbour and Carmicael has ISBN 0199250855 talk to +MATIA 10:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Macedonian is n't a Serbian or a Bulgarian dialect, linguistically speaking? There was a passage by Trudgill somewhere about it. (and I cannot understand why you call it strawman)

The 140.000 may have been my mistake. Perhaps it is an estimation at that paper for the whole number of Greeks who speak Arvanitika, but I'm afraid I can't check it now.

Please Lukas, or anyone else, check "Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death" by Nancy Dorian ISBN 0521437571 you'll get a better picture of the issue. talk to +MATIA 07:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My latest edits can be seen here. talk to +MATIA 07:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lucas said "Linguists do not regard Macedonian as a dialect of Bulgarian; that's exactly the difference.".
What happens if you're wrong? I suppose you're obliged to either edit the article on the Macedonian Slavic or remove any references of Arvanitika being an Albanian dialect from the respective articles. I don't like double standards and that sounds like a fair deal. What do you think? Miskin 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to get involved in editing the MKD article, no thank you. ;-) As far as I can see, the view of MKD as a form of BUL (apparently a minority view) is currently adequately treated in that article. Fact remains, until we get that Trudgill text we have a solid majority in the literature that regards AAT as a "dialect" of SQI, and we have exactly zero references for the view that it is not a "form" of SQI. And we have a solid majority in the literature that regards MKD not as a form of BUL, for whatever reasons. It's not my job to keep explaining to people why this might be so, but read my comments below again, together with the Abstand language article for background. --Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not a minority view Lucas, I'm surprised you even question this. The only difference is that MacSlavs have a state and are able to officially name their language. That's all there is to it, there's no solid majority in literature that regards it separate for linguistic reasons. I can cite many examples. Miskin 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you are mistaken. And we still haven't got a single source that denies that AAT is SQI. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I am tempted to jump in to this issue, I think it would be more productive to avoid the issues around the South Slavic languages in this discussion, which is after all about the Arvanites, the ethnic group, not even the language. --Macrakis 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Bulgarian elite assumed that these Slavs [of Macedonia] were Bulgarian. This was not unreasonable. The language they spoke was the same, albeit with great dialectal variation, as the population of the Bulgarian Principality and Eastern Rumelia." (Misha Glenny, The Balkans)
And this is from a source which stands right next to me. Miskin 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You do notice the past tense in this sentence, right? RTFM. --Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: sources

Just for a clarification: I very much agree we should consult the Trudgill (2000) study that Miskin referenced. Have you got access to the original, Miskin, or are you quoting it from somewhere else? It's probably more relevant than the 2004 study, as it deals specifically with Greece while the other one mentions the Greek situation only in passing. I only urge to be careful with quoting things out of context, because I know that the theoretical framework used by that author about what it means for something to be a "separate language" is not a straightforward yes-or-no one. I just ordered the book from our library, I'll have it early next week. Same for the Dorian book mentioned by Matia. In fact, if the Trudgill study indeed contains stronger argumentation for a separate-language status than we have seen so far in his other stuff, I'll be happy to modify the text accordingly; personally, I'd accept Trudgill's judgment as a final word of arbitration any time. But see my note above about my reservation that we shouldn't be contrasting (a) "a form of Albanian" and (b) "a separate language" as two mutually exclusive contradictory analyses; in fact, Trudgill's version of (b), if he asserts it, is probably one that is perfectly compatible with (a). As for the Macedonian analogy: Macedonian may have little abstand status vis-a-vis Bulgarian but it clearly has ausbau status, and is therefore almost unanimously accepted as a separate language in the recent literature. Arvanitic, for all I've seen, is not usually described as having either the abstand or the ausbau type of separateness from Albanian. It has abstand from Greek, of course, and that may very well be what Trudgill is referring to in the passage quoted by Miskin. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So the "problem" (ausbau, abstand etc) is that the Arvanites instead of doing what (standardisation) RoM did in the 1940s and Albania in 1910s, choose to speak Greek instead of Arvanitika? talk to +MATIA 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Roughly, yes. If Arvanites decided today that they are going to print newspapers and create radio programs in Arvanitic, and provide language classes for their non-Arvanite fellow citizens, and if they created a standardized "Common Arvanitic" for that purpose and used their own orthography for it, many linguists would treat that as a strong indicator for a separate "Arvanitic language". I'm not sure if the degree of abstand is comparable in both cases. As we said earlier, the differences between the Arvanitic dialects and the closest Tosk dialects seems to be smaller than the differences within Albanian, between Tosk and Gheg. It may well be also smaller than that between Macedonian and Bulgarian (which, as far as I know, involves some fairly prominent grammatical features.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have (currently) access to the full text and part of it was quoted by memory, without trying to change their meanings. I'm waiting to gain access to the articles as well, this is why I didn't proceed with edits right away. It's nowhere explicitely mentioned that Arvanitika is NOT related or even originate from Albanian, but I don't understand why do you insist of putting it in the article since by the 1970s 97% of the Arvanites denied such an ethnic heritage. Please see my comment on Macedonian Slavic and Bulgarian above. What happens if I prove that although scholars regard them as dialects, it's nowhere mentioned in wikipedia. The only difference with Arvanites is that the Macedonian Slavs are now a separate nation rather than part of a nation, and I don't see how that gives them more cultural freedom. Miskin 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You quote "from memory", but first try to pass it off as a literal quote?? And you have the nerve of accusing other people of "lying" about quotes??? - Well anyway, compare it with the authentic Trudgill quote I gave you. As for Macedonian, of course it is mentioned: Macedonian language#Different political views on the language. And the linguistic difference with the Arvanites is not "only" that the latter are not a separate nation; the factual difference lies in what they have been doing with their language. It's not a matter of denying Arvanites their "cultural freedom"; it's a matter of stating the facts. By the way, it's you who keep mixing up ethnicity and language again. I'm the last person to deny that Arvanites should be described as Greeks, in accordance with their self-identification; but that does not mean we shouldn't describe their language as what it is, a form of Albanian. Arvanites can "deny such an ethnic heritage" all they want; as I said earlier, it's up to them to decide what they are, but it's not up to them to decide what their language is. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I (finally) understood Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache today. I think Sociolinguistics is related with Miskin's questions - yet all these linguistics aren't greek to me (they're chinese aka μου φαίνονται κινέζικα). talk to +MATIA 12:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that article is actually not very well written. If I find the time I'll try and make it more accessible some day. It should become obligatory reading for anybody discussing languages-and-nations issues on Wikipedia. By the way, it's not "Chinese" either, it's clearly "Czech villages" ("Böhmische Dörfer").  :-) Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I said I quote partly from memory, meaning that I started or ended some sentences which were not visible, and that's the very reason I didn't proceed with editing. Don't give me that crap about "nerves" this article is a huge hypocrisy. People should be free to identify themselves with any ethnic group they want as long as they don't offend others. It's ridiculous to have others decide for the linguistic and political status of the Arvanites. Have you ever wondered why has never an Arvanite been here to edit this page, Lucas? Miskin 12:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree that "People should be free to identify themselves with any ethnic group they want". But "as long as they don't offend others" is problematic. If Greek nationalists are offended by the presence of Arvanites or Roma or Vlachs or fill in unmentionables here, then somehow there is a veto? --Macrakis 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but the Macedonian Slavs for example who try to built a nation on a heritage who doesn't belong to them, poses a problem to others. Miskin 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your memory must be failing you. We had two self-identifying Arvanites here, and they fought over the article for half a year. As for the rest, what parts of the sentence "it's up to them to decide what they are, but it's not up to them to decide what their language is" do you not understand? Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That is the point, you cannot trust someone who claims to be an Arvanite, and at least one of them must have been lying. People don't understand the degree of assimilations that Arvanites have undergone. This article implies the existence of a distinct ethnic and linguistic group in Greece, something which is far from reality. Arvanites and Arvanitika don't even exist anymore. Talking about Arvanites as an ethnic group is as ludicrous as to claim that Bretons are not ethnic French but actually an ethnic British minority of France. Miskin 13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they are an ethnic Breton minority of France, related to the Ancient Britons (usually called Brythons) of the island of Great Britain, not the Modern Britons. Funny, eh, the messy relationships between modern countries, ancient languages, modern languages, modern regions, ancient regions, etc. Do you think this might happen in other parts of the world? --Macrakis 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tell us now that Bretons are a minority in France Macrakis, I'll roll on the floor laughing. Miskin 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites exist as descendants of people from an Arvanitochori, like Cretans descend from Crete, Pontioi from Pontos etc. Yet, the categorisation Ethnic Groups in Greece is... unstable. talk to +MATIA 13:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly the Asiatic Greeks were much more foreign than Arvanites not too long ago. Yet here we are trying to invent a minority that doesn't even exist. Today the circumstances of someone declaring to his friend "Hey I'm an Arvanite!" are the equivalent of saying "So, did you know that an ant can lift 18 times its own weight?" Miskin 13:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arvanitic was apparently alive and kicking when Botsi looked into it in her own village less than five years ago. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wow, it was the official language of an entire community of 10 whole people. Miskin 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even try to read any of it, did you? - Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would but it's in German :( talk to +MATIA 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from trying to make a point in here, I don't need to read books to tell me on the Arvanites. Miskin 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What Trudgill said in 2001

Peter Trudgill, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11:1:114 (2001), review of: Lukas D. Tsitsipis, A Linguistic Anthropology of Praxis and Language Shift: Arvanitika (Albanian) and Greek in Contact (ISBN 019823716).

(Obviously it would not be appropriate to quote such a long extract in the main article, but I am quoting it at length and verbatim here for full clarity.)

Opening paragraph:

It is not widely known that very many areas of the Attica, Biotia and the Peloponnese regions of modern Greece are, or were until very recently, Albanian-speaking rather than Greek-speaking. Indeed, many suburbs of Athens itself are or have been inhabited as much by Albanian as by Greek speakers. These Albanians are not recent arrivals but have been in Greece since mediaeval times. The exact number of Albanian speakers in these areas of Greece is not known with any degree of certainty, but they certainly number tens of thousands. Almost all Albanian speakers there are now bilingual in Albanian and Greek, and language shift and language death are taking place rather rapidly, with younger people becoming more and more monolingual in Greek. Interestingly, the normal practice in Greece -- and a practice which is shared even by the Albanian speakers themselves -- is to refer to the language as Arvanítika and to the people as Arvanites /arvanítes/. The implication of this is, of course, that while the language may be related to Albanian, it is not actually Albanian as such. It is not Greek, that is, but 'a language of Greece' as opposed to Albania.

In the remainder of the article, he refers to the language as Arvanitika.

I trust this is useful. --Macrakis 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Trudgill and Tsitsipis sources again

Hi again, as promised, I got the two studies we talked about the other day. The Trudgill (2000) article in the Barbour/Carmichael volume contains little news about the Arvanites. The relevant paragraph about the linguistic classification is almost verbatim identical to that in the 2004 article. It's quite clear: Trudgill works on the basis of the abstand/ausbau model; he explicitly asserts dialect-of-Albanian status on grounds of lack of abstand (he actually even calls Arvanites themselves Albanians), and he mentions the naming practice as "implying" perceived separate-language status but not factually constituting it. As for the estimated numbers, Miskin was right in saying that it only contains the 30,000 figure for Attica/Boeotia, as a lower bound; nothing is said about an upper bound - which might still be the 140,000 figure quoted elsewhere. The treatment of the Arvanites is actually not very detailed; however, the article also contains interesting stuff about the other groups (Slavs, Vlachs, Turks, Pomaks etc.) Much of which our Greek friends won't like. In all, the tone of the article is highly critical of Greek stances towards linguistic diversity, sometimes acerbic. The Dorian (1989) collection mentioned by Matia contains another article by Tsitsipis. It has some data on the relative degrees of fluency across generations in different locations, the situational use of Arvanitic, and linguistic effects of attrition. Nothing of immediate urgency for our discussion here. Only as an aside, Tsitsipis also leaves no doubt that he regards Arvanitic as "a local variety of Albanian". On Wednesday, I plan to get hold of the original Trudgill/Tzaveras article from 1977, and to another Tsitsipis one from 1982, reported to contain a survey about "folklinguistic ideology through which Arvanítika people reveal their linguistic attitudes" - that might be interesting to assess Theathenae's claim that Arvanites typically insist on seeing Arvanitic as a "separate language" (a claim about which I have some doubts). Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Arvanites call it "Αρβανίτικη γλώσσα" or "Αρβανίτικα" not "Αλβανική διάλεκτος". talk to +MATIA 06:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, nobody doubts that. But a name is not the same thing as a classificatory description. Using the one doesn't entail having a reasoned opinion against the correctness of the other. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now had access to the two remaining articles we talked about, Trudgill/Tzavaras (1977) and Tsitsipis (1983). Both are based on fieldwork done during the early 1970s. Tr&Tz does contain the 140,000 estimate called into question the other day, so we can re-instate that (especially since it is so often reproduced in later literature). Both articles contain interesting stuff on linguistic self-perception, some of it touching on the question of perceived separate-language status (although that was apparently not the explicit focus of the investigations). These folklinguistic judgments recorded from actual Arvanites are so vague and contradictory that I'm now convinced there's no way we can fairly sum them up by saying "Arvanites consider Arvanitika a separate language". It's simply not true; at least there was clearly no such popular consensus among them at that time. Many of the speakers simply had no idea or no opinion at all about the degree of closeness with Albanian; many considered Albanian a weird backwards form of Arvanitic rather than the other way round, or considered Standard Albanian some kind of "Katharevousa Arvanitic"(!) (but that would still agree with seeing them as essentially the same language); many, finally, considered Arvanitic a "bastardized language" or "not a real language at all" (whatever that may mean). Sure, it may be the case that after the 1990s linguistic awareness has sharpened through the contact with mainland Albanian immigrants, but we have no evidence that this has produced a clearer consensus along the lines of what Theathenae has been claiming. In fact, the Botsi study, which is much more recent, reproduces judgments very much along the same lines. All three studies have been written by native Arvanite authors, who clearly are not indifferent to the self-identification of the Arvanites - in fact, that self-identificaton is their focus of research. All three authors themselves - linguistically educated Arvanites - indicate not the slightest doubt about the appropriateness of calling Arvanitic a dialect of Albanian. The Athanassopoulou study (of which I've unfortunately only seen the online abstract) also seems to confirm linguistic self-identification as sharing a common language with Albanians.

I will edit accordingly when I find time; if you have any specific questions about the contents of those papers, let me know. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

the people and the language

The users of the English version of Wikipedia who are pro-Greek, refuses to acknowledge the fundamental facts about the Arvanitis people and the Arvanitic language. They state that the Arvanitis people is an autonomous people and the Arvanitic language an autonomous language, and are incapable of backing up their claims.

The two fundamental facts about the Arvanitis people and the Arvanitic language.

1) Arvanites are the decendants of immigrants of Albanian ancestry.

2) Arvanitic language is an old form of southern Albanian dialect Tosk, influenced by Turkish- and Greek language.

--Albanau 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. (1) is clearly represented in the article, and was recently made even clearer by no other than Miskin. Do you see a problem with how it's currently treated? - About (2), as you've certainly seen, I quite agree (although I'm not sure about the preciseness of describing it as "old", and about why Turkish should have had a stronger effect on it than on mainstream Albanian). More later, I've now got those two remaining articles we were talking about. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Albanau I really do have a question about people like you. What's the point of labeling Arvanites as Albanians in wikipedia, when you know that in reality they don't identify themselves as such, and even take offence by it. Don't you have the least pride? Miskin 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Before this goes back to personal accusations (the above could actually be seen as a "personal attack"), I'd very much recommend we concentrate on the text on the article and not on individual editors' motivations in contributing here. That said, Albanians have every right in the world to take an interest in Arvanites; they even have the right to take national pride in their existence, and to want to see them as representing part of a formerly larger share of Albanians in Balkan population and history. And Albanian wikipedians certainly have every right in the world to participate in the editing of this article, so please don't try to bite them away. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lukas what you're saying almost promotes Balkan nationalism (which is already well-heated). Why would the British never be interested to mingle with the affairs of the French and the Bretons for instance. Under the very same circumstances and logic, they also have every right, and yet they don't. But I wasn't talking about rights, I was talking about prides. Miskin 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And people from Hawai have every right to edit Arvanites, but reality check and reliable sources will be required. talk to +MATIA 09:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All these months I've been giving various examples (Suli etc). Let's try one more: Will anyone care to justify why the Arvanitis Andreas Miaoulis repulsed the Albanians who tried to took over Hydra in 1807? talk to +MATIA 11:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, because he was a Christian and the others were Muslims, perhaps? Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe because he was Arvanitis (aka Greek) and not an Albanian. Spyridon Trikoupis (and other historians of the Greek Revolution) describe that the Suliots couldn't believe the warning by other Greeks that their "fellow" Muslim Albanians would betray their alliance against the Turks. talk to +MATIA 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Famous Arvanites Are NOT All Arvanites?

I have already brought this issue up on an earlier occasion, (Talk:Arvanites/Archive 1: dated "02:03, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)".) As I say there, contemporary sources (primary sources) and historical documents can confirm that the people listed as being Famous Arvanites are NOT all Arvanites, Infact most historical figures listed are ethnic Greeks who come from non-Arvanite Backgrounds. The individual/individuals who decided to add these figures to the Arvanites article left no sufficient confirmation/evidence to clarify their claims, this is a breach of Wiki regulations, so unless they can validate that each and every of the people listed are Avranites their names/pictures will be removed from the Arvanite Article. E-mail adress 12:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have answered you before that I have compiled that small list after checking whether those people wrote about themselves whether they are Arvanites or not. I'm not going to do it again and unless you provide (after visiting a library, checking their memoirs etc) proof that some of them are NOT, I will report you for vandalism or RFC you. talk to +MATIA 12:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from checking the relavant books (some of them I had mentioned on the archived talk page), you might be interesting in this article (quote: Είναι ακόμα Υδραίοι αγωνιστές, ο προπάππος του Περραιβός και ο ήρωας των Αρβανιτών Σκεντέρμπεης (τιμώντας την αρβανίτικη, υδραίικη, καταγωγή του). «Είναι οι τελευταίοι Έλληνες Δωριείς» τον θυμάται να λέει για τους Αρβανίτες η Λένα Εγγονοπούλου σε εποχές «ανύποπτες» για τις πρόσφατες πολιτικές εξελίξεις.), or even perform a google search on your own. talk to +MATIA 12:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have little intention to get involved in this part of the debate, but as the Arvanitic background of some of these personalities seems not to be immediately plausible to other Greeks these days, it would maybe be good if we could document the sources. Sounds like a lot of work to ask you to do, but since you said you actually did the research already, did you save the titles somewhere and could you add them? (Maybe as hidden comments, Miskin-style, so as not to overload the footnotes section even further.) Otherwise, I see these kinds of objections returning again and again in the future. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I'll might do so in the future. talk to +MATIA 18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Small Paragraph

I know, I know. What I did will definitely lead to revert wars on this so-called "sensitive" topic. However, the historical section on the article only takes into account modern historians and the perceptions mainstream historians have pertaining to the Arvanites. Granted, their input is important and valuable. Yet, to completely ignore medieval accounts whereby the authors were much closer to the events and peoples they encountered would not necessarily be a good thing. Moreover, though Attaliates and Komnena's accounts may be understood in different ways, Mazaris' account is specifically oriented on the populations existent in the Peloponnese during the 15th century.

Of course, if you disagree and the "neutrality" of the article is jeopardized (so that there will be no more edit wars), then go ahead and delete it. Yet, to only focus on modern accounts of the Arvanites is kind of narrow-minded if you think about it. Anyway, Wikipedia never had an article on Maximus Mazaris and maybe his account may shed light on the truth pertaining to the ethnic origins of the Arvanites. Over and out. - Deucalionite 4/6/06 12:00 P.M. EST

Personally, I have no problem here, but we might get a problem with WP:NOR: "indicate a pattern" is not just reporting a fact from those sources, but advancing an interpretation of them. That should be attributed, especially since (AFAIR) there are authors who explicitly interpret these sources as not indicating such a distinction. What exactly does Mazaris say? As for Comnena and Attaliates, the only thing I've seen so far is that they sometimes use the one term ("Albanoi") and sometimes the other ("Arbanitai"), both for people from very much the same region (Dyrrachion), so that modern observers have typically concluded they meant the same. The one Fourikis study deals with the issue, has anybody access to it? Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For anybody interested, these are the passages by Attaliates; as for Comnena's Alexiad, here's the full translation.--Aldux 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check which of the two terms Attaleiates is actually using in each of the instances where it's translated as "Albanians" on that webpage. We should also check the following: E. L. Vranousis (1970): "Οι όροι 'Αλβανοί' και 'Αρβανίται' και η πρώτη μνεία του ομωνύμου λαού εις τας πηγάς του ΙΑ' αιώνος." ["The terms 'Albanoi' and 'Arbanitai' and the earliest references to the people of that name in the sources of the 11th century"]. Σuμμεικτα 2: 207-254. Wow, seems they even have it in our library! :-) Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I checked Attaleiates. The two first instances, dealing with uprisings based in Italy, have "Albanoi" in the original. Ioannis Polemis, byzantinologist and translator/editor of the Modern Greek edition of Attaleiates, argues that this term wasn't actually referring to Albanians but to Normans or some other groups, but he notes that this is not necessarily consensus. Probably he's basing that judgment on the Vranousis study above, which we should definitely check. The third reference, dealing with soldiers recruited in the Durres/Dyrrachion area (i.e. in present-day Albania), has "Arbanitai". Thus, it would seem that Deucalionite is right in one sense: at the very beginning, the two terms may have had different meanings. However, that distinction may not correspond to the modern distinction between Arvanites and Albanians; rather, Arvanites referred to Albanians in general, and Albanians to something entirely unrelated. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Checked Anna Comnena too. She has several references to a town or region called Arbanon or Arbana, in present-day Albania, and one reference to "Arbanitai", which is glossed as "Albanians" or "Arbanites" in modern translations, and explained as being connected to that place. This would fit in with my guess above. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Checked Mazaris and Vranousi. Mazaris was a blank, he doesn't seem to be saying what Deucalionite thought (see User talk:Deucalionite and Mazaris for details). Vranousi develops the hypothesis I mentioned above: "Albanians" was originally a term used in Latin/Italian to refer to "foreigners" in general; only "Arbanitai" was the early genuine name of Albanians; and the two terms were later conflated in hypercorrect classicizing Greek, basically because "λβ" sounded like a posh replacement for "ρβ". Lukas ^(T.|@) 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

what we haven't written yet

Is the history of Arvanites, both in medieval times (for example Bouas) and in 1821. talk to +MATIA 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, might be interesting. On the page Deucalionite created the other day, Bartolomeo Minio, there's a link to a dissertation about 15th century Venetian rule and local politics on the Peloponese. I think I've seen the same source mentioned here somewhere (wasn't it by you?) - anyway, it seems to include an account of some Arvanitic insurgencies and similar stuff. - I was also going to ask you to clarify some things on the basis of Biris and Kollias about the supposed medieval identity of the Arvanites and/or the "Pelasgian" origins - you once indicated the summary I had made of some of these hypotheses was inexact. I haven't myself had access to them, so I'd be grateful if somebody could give a corrected summary of what exactly these guys claim. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pangalos

I noticed that Theodoros Pangalos (senior) is mentioned twice: both in PMs and Presidents of Greece. In fact, he was neither PM nor President (well, maybe only if we accept the titles he claimed-two self-claimed titles in about the same chronological period). He was a dictator, who later run as a politician. Shouldn't he be in another list? or maybe (cause i am not sure if i am right if we should considered his titles false) it should be better to list him only in Presidents, since this is the highest. for example, in the list of Germans we wouldn't list Gerhard Schröder as both Chancellor and member of the German Bundestag... --Hectorian 20:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

<Inappropriate section header removed>

The Wikipedia-members should be well-aware of the Greek propaganda that is currently circulating in the articles Arvanites and Arvanitic language. The tone of the two articles is written from a perspective of an extreme Greek nationalist. There is a certain group of users who are unwilling to accept the fundamental facts about the Arvanitis people and their traditional language Arvanitika. The fundamental facts is that the Arvanitis people are the decendants of immigrants of Albanian ancestry and their traditional language Arvanitika is a medieval variety of southern Albanian dialect Tosk. The pro-Greek nationalist group should abandon the Greek-traditional modern myth that all the inhabitants of modern Greece are the direct descendants of the ancient Hellenes! --Albanau 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is a personal attack. Miskin 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I don't see what makes it a personal attack. Albanau, it is not very useful just to criticize the POV of the article globally. Although the article may not be perfectly balanced, and there have certainly been nationalistic Greek editors (but also non-Greek nationalistic editors...), your particular criticisms don't seem right. The article currently does say "most historians regard the ancestors of today's Arvanites as part of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors to present-day Albanians", and, to be perfectly clear, says that alternate views "...have no echo in mainstream scholarship to date." The Arvanitic language article says clearly "It is generally regarded as a dialect of Albanian", and clearly shows that it is a dialect of Tosk Albanian. If there are things in these articles you want to correct, please identify the problematic points rather than criticizing the article as a whole, and bring good sources to support your position. --Macrakis 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To me it's blatant that neither of you knows that "nationalist" actually means. I have no comment about Albanau, his own words and nickname make enough of a point. Miskin 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a personal attack. --Macrakis 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, this is totally unacceptable. Your enmity against Macrakis has no place either in this page nor anywhere else in Wikipedia. I strongly suggest now is the time for you to apologize. I will suggest a block for persisting personal attacks, and am considering whether an RfC and Arbcom might be necessary. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lukas you should at least give more attention to Albanau's PAs on every one who edited that article... talk to +MATIA 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for fundamental facts one should check the oxymoron over at Talk:Skanderbeg about his possible Serbian (or Bulgarian), partial, origins (comparing it of course with the uncalled outburst here). talk to +MATIA 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I didn't even bother to comment on Albanau. Not really necessary at this point, I think. Well, I agree with what Macrakis said about it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Matia this section is not a personal attack as I didn't mention any name and only critized those people who I believe is speading Greek propaganda. About Scanderbeg, his supposed Serbian/Bulgarian origin is not scientificlly proven.

Macrakis, Okay then the problem is the formulation, which I believe is misleading and "unencyclopedic". It would be like saying: "most linguistics agree that Greek language constitute their own branch of Indo-European." The other problem is that not many user here contributing to this article doesn't understand the myths that permeates the politics in the Balkan countries. Wikipedia is not the place we put folkmyth as facts, as in this article which permeates with folkmyths. Britannica: "All of the Albanian dialects spoken in Italian and Greek enclaves are of the Tosk variety and seem to be related most closely to the dialect of Çamëria in the extreme south of Albania. These dialects resulted from incompletely understood population movements of the 13th and 15th centuries." --Albanau 09:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, almost all medieval nobles were mixed (even the modern ones are - Prince Charles's father is Greek and Danish). The royal families of Europe were literally interbred of a Anglo-Franco-Italo-Polish-Scottish-Spanish-German-Swedish-Hungarian international family. Henry II of England was French! Vladimir I of Kiev married a Byzantine/Roman/Greek princess. It's perfectly possible Skanderbeg was of a "Slavic mother" and there's nothing wrong with that and if someone claims it, it should be mentioned - I don't know why you're objecting.

On Arvanites: Albanau, the article does say what you are claiming it doesn't. The dialect bit, the link with the Albanians is all there. Have you even read it? Just because your precise wording isn't used, it doesn't mean that it's propaganda. Moreover, your little act over at Arbëreshë yesterday proved to me how much you respect WP:V. --NikX 10:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice how many sources have been used for this article Albanau? Miskin 09:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Macrakis did answer Albanau's concerns, but he couldn't see Albanau's PAs. As for not mentioning names, Lukas has re-written the article and I'm one of the major contributors - if not the only one who actually added content during the last months. talk to +MATIA 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks should be ignored. Discussing them and the one who made them just gives them their much sought attention. --NikX 10:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks should not be ignored or tolerated. Albanau would have made things proceed better here if he would have avoided implying that various editors here are nationalists, and instead specified his complaints exactly. Miskin's attack on Macrakis didn't have much relevance on any particular content in the article, it was just a general (and rather nasty) attack on Macrakis. Behave! :-)Alexander 007 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (and I expect a personal attack in response to my post as well)

The title of this section and the reply it received "Although the article may not be perfectly balanced, and there have certainly been nationalistic Greek editors", are to me and other editors here offensive. This racial attack came out of the blue. Macrakis did infact point out that nationalist editors have edited this article, and it's not too hard to guess who was he referring to. He has already called me a nationalist in several occasions, some even behind my back. For some reason names such as "nationalist" and "vandal" have become common wikipedia jargon. Well not in my book. I think I still have the right to receive offense from such name-calling and respond accordingly. Miskin 10:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that transferred malice is no excuse. If you have just been attacked, it is not appropriate to attack whoever happens to be around (Macrakis) in addition to the attacker. Anyway, I've renamed the section. --NikX 11:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename, it certainly is more descriptive now. It's fair to remove the attack. Miskin 11:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be two sets of archives: one for the actual discussions and another for the unrelated bickering. Above, it says: "Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussions", someone would have to waste time reading this pointless and irrelevant discussion, with the only interesting bit is Miskin admiring Macrakis's PhD ;-) I't much better to filter the discussions when archiving. --NikX 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the title is good for now. Specific comments by any user or users to improve this article should go to a new section (I 'd like to filter all these out, but let's leave it and continue). talk to +MATIA 11:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to come look at the section header fuss as a neutral admin. A quick look, and I can see how both sides could see both headers as being attacks. Both are inappropriate, IMHO, so I've given the section a neutral "It's removed" header. Of all the things that could be edit warred about, section headers on a talk page seem fairly trivial to fight over. Now, as for the back and forth reverting, I have not done any 3RR counting yet, and at the moment will not do so. However, if the revert war on the header begins again, I will not revert to my neutral header, instead I *will* start counting reverts and handing out 3RR blocks. Please. Let this be over now. - TexasAndroid 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Try: Incoherent Reverts of WP:NPA Titles... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"A population group in Greece"?

"A population group in Greece" is a deeply misleading formulation, and very incorrect, and do not specify the ethnic background of the Arvanitis people. The mistake in the forumlation must quikly be corrected. --Albanau 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"...In a survey conducted in the 1970s, 97% of Arvanite informants, despite regularly speaking in Arvanitika, considered themselves to be Greek. A similar concern with being identified as Greek is exhibited by the bilingual Arvanites of Eastern Argolid." (Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Jonathan M. Hall)

So sorry... Miskin 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected to what, precisely? As you can tell above, the forbidden word "m*nority" cannot be used, and neither can "albansk folkgrupp". The only people to ever refer to Arvanites as a "minority" are EBLUL and the Rainbow Party, who offer them official recognition along with the Vlachs, "Macedonians", Turks and Pomaks. The Arvanites don't seem to be flunking their votes, so presumably, they don't want official recognition as a "minority". --NikX 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Miskin,

.."...These Arvanites are decended from Albanians who first entered Greece between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries (though there was subsequent wave of immigration in the second half of the eighteenth century.) Although still regarded as ethnically distinct in the nineteenth century, their participation in the Greek War of Independence and the Civil War lead to increasing assimilation: in a survey conducted in the... " (Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Jonathan M. Hall)

Yes, sure: sorry!

I recommend that the existing formulation be immediately replaced by "Arvanites are the decendants of immigrants of Albanian ancestry". Albanau 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not sure. Their Albanian ancestry is already covered in the history section Arvanites#History and while there's nothing inherently wrong with your proposal, do you think you could draft a whole first paragraph (so I know exactly how it would end up). --NikX 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "a population group in Greece" is as accurate as can be. talk to +MATIA 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, Albanau, the general rule is be bold in updating pages. Try out whatever you have in mind - it may be great. While the current wording it correct, there's nothing wrong with exploring alternatives, nor does it necessarily imply a definite departure from the current wording. --NikX 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

NikX do me a favour and read the talk page and the archives. The current version resulted after months of debates. talk to +MATIA 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "a population in Greece" is very, very inaccurate.., A mistake and wrong information which must immediately be corrected because it mislead readers.

The author/s of the History section of Arvanites dispute the Albanian origin of the ancestors of Arvanites, and mention a bunch of theories to prove his point. --Albanau 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we've been through this all a thousand times. I think the most important things have all been said by Macrakis somewhere above. They are an "ethnic group" or "ethnic minority" or "linguistic minority", all of that would be correct in the English sense of these terms, and the very study Miskin refers to above confirms all of that. However, we have to deal with a possible (over-)sensitivity among Greek and Arvanite readers, who are prone to misunderstand "ethnic" as "national" (Greek "εθνικό"), and to associate the term "minority" with the concept of a politically separate group that is potentially disloyal to the Greek nation state. For that reason we have been avoiding those terms in the opening paragraph, as both these associations would be clearly wrong. To me, that seems like a reasonable thing to do. As long as people here cannot agree on what kind of group they are, the opening sentence should describe them in the most neutral terms possible, i.e. as just "a group", and leave all the rest to the discussion further down. I agree that the opening sentence should in some way address the link with the Albanians, and the most natural way of doing this is, to my mind, by mentioning the language, not so much by mentioning the historical descent. But keep in mind that opening sentences should be brief, and that overloading them with content just because every editor wants their pet idea represented as early as possible in the article is not a good way of ensuring NPOV. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the "non-Albanian" origins section, we are not questioning or trying to prove points, but reporting. That said, I am myself not very happy with that passage, as it is not well sourced and much of the stuff reported there is either fringy or possibly imprecisely summarized or both. I'd have no problem with cutting down on that and letting the "descendants of Albanian settlers" idea stand more or less undisputed. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone prove that medieval Albanian nationalism has existed? That would be the only way to justify the use of "descendants of Albanians" over "Albanian-speakers", and all the things that Albanau wants to change. Miskin 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the criterion is Verifiability, not Truth: it's not a question whether we think these medieval guys can legitimately be described as Albanians, but whether that's the common practice in the literature (which it is). Unless we have a source that explicitly contradicts their identification as ethnic Albanians (at that time), I don't see much of an argument for not using the term here, if anybody should insist. And of course, there are all those Byzantine sources that called them by some single ethnonym (be it "Arbanitai" or "Illyrians" or whatever), so it seems pretty obvious they (i.e. Albanian-speakers) were already being perceived as a common ethnic unit. By the way, it's common practice to apply ethnic names retrospectively - As I've said repeatedly, we also speak of "Greeks" of 1,200 BC, even though there's certainly not much evidence of Greek "nationhood" at that time. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found Albanau's "new" intro unacceptable and reverted it (I've also left him a comment at his talk page). talk to +MATIA 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna repeat an old example I 've given.

In an english book about Scanderbeg for example you'll might see Arnauts, Albanians, Arvanites etc grouped in one term "Albanians". In another english book about the 1821 revolution you'll might see Arvanites, Maniots, etc grouped in one term "Greeks". It's like seeing earth people from the Mars and then zooming into the Arvanites, if you don't zoom on them you'll might see them as... Europeans.

So, there are Byzantine studies that mention Scanderbeg and other that totaly ignore him. In Runciman's book about the fall of Constantinople, one can find few pages about Runciman refers to Scanderbeg's soldiers as Albanians. Yet in Barleti (cited in other books, haven't found Barleti in English yet) there's the distiction between Epirots and Albanians - Scanderbeg's army had both Albanians and Greeks, and probably others too.

I have again to repeat that there were Arvanitic phares around 1400 who identified themselves as Greeks (Biris cites records of the Venetian Republic, etc). So, since the Arvanites are descendants of people who were called Arvanites and identified themselves as Greeks/Hellenes/Romioi (and even more later, with the milliet system), and those people lived in Greece for 600 years and fought for the Greek Independence against Turk Albanians (aka muslim Albanians/Skipetars) and against Turks, no we're not gonna label them Albanians. But according to the thoughts presented here, perhaps we should go to Albanians and write that they are descendants of Arvanites. talk to +MATIA 10:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Matia, the last version served one sole user's personal agenda and did not respect the ethnic affiliation of contemporary Arvanites. Miskin 10:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant; you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about "labeling them Albanians" (something Albanau's edits did not even suggest). This "the Albanians are descendents of the Arvanites" which is being repeated again and again above is plainly ludicrous and 100% unverifiable. As for the Arvanites' identification with the Greeks (the same goes for the Vlachs), don't you think Orthodox Christianity may have something to do with it? Remember how carefully the first Greek constitution (in Epidavros) was drafted: "all inhabitants in Greece with faith in Christ are Greek nationals". Arvanites and Vlachs certainly fit that description; language (the cornerstone of ethnic nationalism and the foremost requirement of a distinct nation) is not even mentioned. Remember the Greek Struggle for Macedonia, where language was not really an issue, but religion again determined who you are. The Bulgarian Comitaji were pressuring Greek speaking populations to join the newly formed Bulgarian Exarchate and therefore become "Greek speaking Bulgarians" and the Greek guerillas, such as Pavlos Melas were trying to reverse the damage. The same operated in reverse, if you were an Orthodox Christian subject to the Patriarchate in Constantinople, then you are a Greek (Slavophone or otherwise). The Greek nation didn't exist back in 1400 (the very concept of nation didn't exist then) and religion was the definitive factor, including the (mis)conception that Muslim = Turk. --NikX 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NikX the Albanians were also refered as Arvanites in some medieval sources, so the phrase "the Albanians are descendants of medieval Arvanites" is verifiable - yet I've written it to illustrate the problem, and no I do not intend to re-write Albanians. I agree with the rest of your comment. talk to +MATIA 10:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnically and nationally

Is the "they identify ethnically and nationally as Greeks" a quote from somewhere? I don't really like it - in Greece, the perception seems to be that either someone is Greek or is not, and there is no distinction between the two (Greece is a nation state you see). The current seems to imply that it is possible to be nationally but not ethnically Greek (while this may be so - people in Greece don't seem to see it that way; the Muslim minority in Thrace are regarded as Greek Muslims rather than Turks, which is what the vast majority of them are). I think it should be replaced with "they identify as Greeks", and skip the whole ethnicity/nationality/citizenship question, unless the above is a direct quote from somewhere, in which case, the source should be cited. --NikX 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but since you mentioned it above, I thought I should bring it up in this talk as well:

Check the wikilinks: Rainbow Party vs Rainbow party

Now please continue (if you haven't fallen down on the floor laughing).

 NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a disambiguation note on these articles (for the unrelated other article) but it seems it has been worked out with the Caps. talk to +MATIA 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this is in danger of getting back to the old edit-warring of last year. Please, all of us, let's take a deep breath.

That said:

• I do prefer the old version of the intro to the new one based on Albanau's suggestion;
• Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong in principle in proposing changes; the "established consensus" isn't binding to anybody, none of us owns the article, so there's no sense threatening people with "reporting them" or anything;
• I think NikX has a point in what he writes above - it was not a quote but some weaseling compromise attempt by myself;
• As for the appropriateness of labelling the medieval ancestors "Albanians", I disagree with Matia and refer back to what I wrote above: It's common usage in the literature (including literature written by Arvanites); we have exactly zero verifiable evidence that the ancestors of todays Arvanites were distinguished from Albanians proper prior to the 19th century (which wouldn't exclude that some of them also identified as Greeks during Ottoman times; these concepts would likely not have been mutually exclusive; and even if Albanians in general weren't called exactly by that name we can use it in the same retrospective sense that we call prehistoric Greeks Greeks. It needn't go into the introduction, but there's no need to avoid it at all costs. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I said what I had to say Lukas and you have done likewise: I've spent some months with that article, I've been through ArbCom once, and if the circle restarts I'll go through any RfC or RFArb that 'll be needed. In no case I felt that I own the article, however I do have extensive knowledge on the subject and I believe I'm among the few who can see the big picture about Arvanites.
• While that phrase was intended as a compromise, I fail to see what it has to do with weasel terms. While English speakers might think that terms like ethnic, minority etc are appropriate (as they indeed have many meanings), in that article we have a section named minority that explains pretty good the things and puts them in perspective.
• See again my example with zooming. And for "zero evidence" read my previous comments on the talk pages about phares - each phara was distinguished from the other and the only thing we can do is group some phares as Albanians (Tosks, Ghegs etc) and some others as Arvanites, based on historical records of their self-id, things they had in common and things that were different. talk to +MATIA 12:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I find this whole thing about them rejecting being an ethnic minority and being ethnically Greek without a distinct ethnic identity very dubious indeed. Sources are cited which do describe them as having a special ethnic identity (Trudgill/Tzavaras 1977), but then the article here claims that they in fact they reject being an ethnic minority or having a special ethnic identity. Notwithstanding that this coincides the perspective of the Greek nationalist fringe [9], what is the source that Arvanites themselves feel this way or are indeed this way. It is true that www.arvasynel.gr does not mention the Arvanites as a minority, but does mention a distinct culture (and language). I just find this final unqualified rejection of the possibility of Arvanites being a minority (or viewing themselves as such) very unsafe and unstable. That's why I recommended sidestepping the whole issue altogether (at least until sources are found or something which can justify the article's present claims). --NikX 12:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find this naming thing unnecessary because of the Greek analogy Lukas made above. Not to mention that there are ancient sources referring to the ancestors of the present day Albanians and the Arvanites as "Albanoi". --NikX 12:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(To Matia:) Hey, no offense, I didn't mean to criticise you. But in what you say about the self-identification of those "phares", I still fail to see good evidence in that of Arvanites constituting a group clearly distinct from Albanians proper that early; certainly not at the time preceding their settlement in the south. We need a more precise summary of what Biris and others are actually saying about them. Could you send me copies once more? I haven't got access to his book here. - (To NikX): There's good evidence in the sociolinguistic studies that members of the group dislike the term "meionotita", that much is verifiable. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More Biris for this article is in my to do list :) talk to +MATIA 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(to Lukas - after edit conflict) Maybe, but as far as I can see, that, in itself, doesn't necessarily imply that the Arvanites view themselves as being "ethnically and nationally Greek", like the article currently claims. In fact, I'm not sure how to translate the term "ethnicity" into Greek (considering that nationality = εθνικότητα). There are also sources which claim that Arvanites themselves attacked human rights activists - I think this is the strongest evidence, but I still can't see how it justifies the "ethnically and nationally Greek" bit. In fact, a GHM report [10] claims "they want to be considered nationally, if not ethnically, Greek". --NikX 13:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's just avoid the "national"-"ethnic" opposition in the intro then, and just say they "identify as Greeks" or "have adopted a Greek consciousness" or whatever. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And in that report, it also says that Arvanites do not identify themselves ethnically as Albanians... 1+1=2 - let's leave the intro as is. talk to +MATIA 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Strawman... Arvanites don't identify as Albanians and the article already states that. There is no evidence that they identify ethnically as Greeks and according to WP:V any user has the right to remove it until sources are cited. --LionKing 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't revert your edit now, but your comment here isn't very... appropriate. talk to +MATIA 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since 'ethnic' is problematic in Greek, 'national' is problematic in English, and 'state' is problematic in American English, most writers on this topic clarify their terms before using them. The current tendency in Europe (and in scholarly writing) seems to be towards using "nation" in the sense of cultural/ethnic/linguistic groups (see the Council of Europe's paper The concept of “nation” for example), but that probably won't work here, so perhaps we are going to be stuck with using new, unambiguous terms. I hate to suggest this, because it contradicts WP's stance as a reporter, not an originator, but it may be unavoidable. Perhaps we can use the unambiguous adjectives "cultural" and "political"? So (to take a less contentious case), we might speak of some Greek Jews (but not all) as "culturally Jewish and politically Greek". We can also speak of a "cultural group" like the Pontian Greeks, say. When we talk of individuals' or groups' self-identification, we can speak of "cultural identity" or "culture group" (or perhaps "cultural group"). Thoughts? --Macrakis 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arvanitis people aren't a completely assimilated and extinct population group. They must have a own identity since they call themselves in their mother tongue "arbëror" (a medieval term for Albanian, comp. Arbëreshë), but has evidently acquired a Greek national awareness. They are descendant of immigrants of Albanian ancestry and speak an old dialect of Albanian language and have a distinct culture, traditions and costume common with the rest of the Albanians in the world, which makes them a member of the Albanian brotherhood, although, obviously not a proud member as the their "twin brothers" the Arbëreshës. Albanians are not homogeneous ethnic group living in a particular area and speaking a single language or following a single religion. Rather, they are a heterogeneous ethnic group with a wide variety of dialects and sometimes with big cultural, tribal, and religious differences who live scattered around the world. --Albanau 17:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Albanau, my comment didn't try to address the substantive issues around Arvanites. We need to find terminology for cultural groupings like Arvanites or Frisians or Basques, which do not have their own state, which (a) makes sense to WP readers (b) reflects scholarly approaches and (c) can be agreed on by the editors here. The terms "ethnic group" and "national minority", among others, cause misunderstandings among WP readers and editors, even though they do reflect common (but not universal) scholarly usage. The problem (as pointed out in the Council of Europe paper) is that many nation-states (including Greece and France) do not generally distinguish in common or official usage between "nation" and "state". That is why I was proposing that "cultural group" might be clearer, as it cannot possibly refer to political allegiance or identification. It does have the problem of reifying the "group" rather than talking about cultural 'traits' or 'identification' at an individual level.... It does not, however, imply exclusivity or homogeneity. --Macrakis 18:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about not using standard (WP) terms, but culture/cultural etc and folklorist/etc are used for Arvanites and can be used here too. I'd like to hear your thoughts comparing Arvanites with Cretan or Pontian Greeks. talk to +MATIA 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

MATIA , I think we should avoid using unfounded comparisons between the Arvanites and other different ethnic groups which leads to nonsensical conlusions.

I think "acquired a Greek national awareness" solve the problem we dealing with. I do not get involved with the modern scene or how the people identify themselves (how people identify themselves is extremely subjective and arbitrary and does not necessarily reflect the historical, linguistic etc realities of a situation.) Albanau 10:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Albanau, the problem is that "national" in "national awareness" is ambiguous. Does it refer to "nation" in the ethnic/cultural sense (see Council of Europe page referenced above), or "nation" in the political sense (allegiance to the nation-state)? How people identify themselves is subjective in the sense that you cannot decide it through genetics, linguistics, etc., however it is what most modern anthropologists/sociologists/etc. would consider the core result -- along with how others identify that group. The notion that objective, unchanging characteristics can determine group membership is usually called the fallacy of 'essentialism'. Of course, the objective history is also interesting. --Macrakis 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Po kjo është gjuhë shqipe

Nuk duhet me harru që gjuha shqipe është shkrua në tri alfabete gjatë një kohe të shkurtë deri sa kanë vendosur për alfabetin romak. Njerzit mund të thonë se Arvanishtja është gjuhë po ajo nuk është gjuhë dhe nuk është dialekt sa është e folmja vlornjake apo korçare. Problemi është që pas marrveshjes për shkrimin latin në disa pjesë të Epirit gjuha shqipe edhe më tutje është shkruar me shkrimin e vjetë (grekëve të vjetër). Asnjani nuk mund të bëjë kompromis për këtë e vetmja është që në këto troje Kisha Orthodokse edhe më tej ka përdoru shkrimin e vjeter këtë e kanë bërë edhe institucionet fetare me ndikim të fesë islame (shkrimin arab), mirpo ato nuk kanë pasur ndonjë ndikim të madhë. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhmmm, could someone please translate this for the rest of us please? :-) Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)