Talk:Arvanites/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussion at the Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Women

If you want to remove the phrase "the only female member of Filiki Etairia" go ahead and remove it - I don't really care about it (btw she is either not listed or I couldn't find her in the member list by Βαλέριος Μέξας). Melina (and Spyridon and Stamatis Merkouris) were Arvanites but I wont insert them. talk to +MATIA 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arvanites/Albanians in Athens

Macrakis I have a Greek language-related source which states that Arvanites inhabited around the city of Athens, which explains the language of Athens, Pireus, Megara etc was isolated and developed into a separate dialect called "Old Athenian". There's even a map about it. Are you sure your source doesn't refer to Arvanite and Greek migrations to Athens after it became the capital of the Greek Kingdom? Or maybe is not being very specific about the borders of Athens? Miskin 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The footnoted sentence says "until the "late 19th century", so, yes, this is after Athens became capital. As for whether the area is within "the borders of Athens", are you saying that Plaka was not within Athens?

Another source: Eyre Evans Crowe, The Greek and the Turk; or, Powers and prospect in the Levant, 1853: "The cultivators of the plain live at the foot of the Acropolis, occupying what is called the Albanian quarter..." (p. 99)

Poulton (got to chase down the ref) also claims that there was an Albanian-language law court in the Plaka in the early 20th century. But this needs checking. --Macrakis 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the period before the War of Independence, Hobhouse, writing in 1810, says:

The number of houses in Ahtens is supposed to be between twelve and thirteen hundred; of which about four hundred are inhabited by the Turks, the remainder by the Greeks and Albanians, the latter of whom occupy above three hundred houses.

quoted in John Freely, Strolling through Athens, p. 247

Seems pretty clear. --Macrakis 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If Plaka became an Arvanite district after independence then what on earth was/is the Anafiotika? Concerning the Ottoman period, I have another source which provides unarguably a more accurate account: "Population of Attica: 22,000, Greeks and Turks in the city, Albanians in the villages. " (History of the Greek revolution, Thomas Gordon 1832). Miskin 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it is indisputable (I assume that's what you mean by "unarguable") that it is a "more accurate account" than the three other accounts I've cited? --Macrakis 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Poulton is probably right, I just read somewhere else that certain laws were applied in order to protect Arvanitika in that district. Miskin 00:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between Greeks and Arvanites is not clear, while the Turkish population sometime is referred to the Arvanites which had Muslim religion. Dodona

You should put the photo of Aristidh Kola for his academic work particularly "Arvanitas and origin of Greeks" between distinguished Arvanites. Dodona

Can't find a public domain image of him.--Domitius 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I can not find a proper one either, may be somebody could help or you may ask the permission of Arvanitas league of Greece or his honorable family kindly for a photo of him. Dodona

Either that or the issue could be dropped altogether, he's not that important.--Domitius 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the others share the same view with you?! Dodona

Well, if you want a photo, you're welcome to go and get one. Would be the first productive contribution you made to this article in all these weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the honor, please find a photo of him in the link www.traboini.com/foto/index.html Dodona

Pelasgians

I don't like the way the article presents these theories on the Pelasgians, it presents them as if it's because of their plausibility. It's sourced that the only reason they are propagating such theories is to as to claim indigenous status, so it's ultimately only for a political purpose.--Domitius 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A procedural question: Since Macedonian Slavs are officially seen as a different ethnic group to Bulgarians, and they are even considered to speak a separate language to Bulgarian, then how come it has to be stated here that Arvanitika is a dialect of Albanian? In post WW2 sources Slavophones of Macedonia and their language were considered Bulgarian speaking "Western Bulgarian", just like Arvanitika used to be referred as Tosk Albanian. The only difference between the two is that the Macedonian Slavs consider themselves distinct while the Arvanites consider themselves Greek. So how come the latter's personal self-identification is ignored in wikipedia? Miskin 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Not again. Man, read the old discussions. We do what the literature does, period. The Mac./Bul. situation is not the same as the Arv./Alb. situation, because that's how the literature treats it. End of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was asking out of personal interest why English literature treats it like that, because Arvanite literature certainly does not. This is a question Arvanite editors in the Greek wikipedia had, and I didn't know what to say. Miskin 15:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, the main factor is the near-total absence of ausbau status of Arvanitika with respect to Albanian. There is, despite loud assertions on Wikipedia, apparently very little systematic awareness of linguistic separateness of Arv. among Arvanites in the real world (I, at least, have never yet seen an Arvanite author outside Wikipedia actually claim their language was distinct); and, more importantly, there is no attempt in actual practice to treat it as distinct. Macedonian has developed its own standard form, Arvanitika hasn't. As a friend explained to me, even the few attempts at Arvanitic writing apparently consist largely in just writing Standard Albanian with Greek letters; they do not even attempt to form their own written language on the basis of their local dialects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The absence of a standardised form and literary work makes sense. Thanks Lucas. Miskin 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find an Arvanite who would accept Albanian as the name of the language, linguistic classification notwithstanding. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arvanitika wish it or not is not distinct from Albanian is just a dialect understandable very well from a Gege Albanian , is just that it is in original form and not allowed to be developed . Dodona

Why you deny the pellasgian origin of Arvanites , even not mention at all in the article? Dodona

Because it is an unscientific politically motivated theory that no one takes seriously.--Domitius 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

“unscientific politically motivated” and “no one takes seriously” I understand you very well it is just that does not interest you, even if it is true you will ignore, but it will come back again and again more strongly because it is a message from our grandfathers not just scientific evidence . Dodona

You say "even if it is true you will ignore" - no, if it wasn't an unscientific politically motivated fringe theory, then it would be in the article. The reason it is not is because it's unreferenced from reliable sources written by people who actually know what they're talking about, hardly surprising considering the fact that we don't know enough about the Pelasgians to ascertain such a connection. It's nationalist speculation, nothing more...--Domitius 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why you judge then that it is nationalist idea, who is interested now day for a connection between Greek and Albanians , was Aristidh Kola nationalist and more.. Are you Arvanitas ? Why the Arvanitas tried to build a join state continuously ?The evidence that exist I am certain that it is well known here but being ignored. Dodona

The only possible connection between Greeks and Albanians is that they are both Indo-European-speaking peoples (likely unlike the Pelasgians, which throws the theory out of the window). History cannot be reconstructed based on what is convenient politically (this is the mistake Macedonian Slavs make). There is no proof for these theories, it is not supported by any reliable sources, why can't you understand that? You've also misunderstood what exactly Kollias's theory was - most significantly he did not say that the Arvanites are Albanians (nor did he ever declare as one). His Pelasgian theory had one purpose: to "prove" that the Arvanites are indigenous to Greece and that arvanitika is the language of the "old Greeks". If you understood his theory, you'd be vehemently rejecting it as Greek nationalism.--Domitius 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Read Dhimiter Pilika an albanian ortodox who wrote “Pellasget origjina jone e mohuar “(pellasgic our ignored origin) in Albanian , is a life long academic work on the subject. I understood Kola very well he certainly did know his Albanian origin and he had many Albanian friends abroad like the one who did his photo referred above, sorry but you know nothing about Kola , he played a substantial role during the war in Kosova clarifying Greeks that was not a religion war. Dodona

Dodona, I understand this. And he also had an ulterior political purpose though, didn't he? You said so yourself, to explain to Greeks that the Kosovo War wasn't a religious war.--Domitius 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Kolia was politically motivated please do not play with facts, either was Kola theory of indigenous origin of Arvanites , Kola was academic and everything he wrote is based on academic prove and evidence his books are recently republished as bests seller in Greece.. His opinions during Kosova war were of an intellectual who respect his identity and origin seeing that s.th very wrong is going on…. Dimiter Pilika writes on “ Pellasget origjina jone e mohuar “ again based on extensive academic references a work he dedicated more then 20 years of his life. So you see that they are many evidences, and what is the substrate after your opinion for political purpose behind all this. Dodona

Pilika gets a dozen or so google hits, all from nationalist web forums. He's a nobody in scholarship. Dodona, if you have any concrete data to be added to the article based on reliable scholarly sources, then bring them on. If not, just go away and stop wasting our time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Prof.Dhimiter Pilika the “nobody in your opinion” was Chief of Cathedra of Albanology University of Prague, this is just for clarification, although you are being rude. See at www.tanmarket.com/php/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1240 still in Albanian language although…...Dodona

Where does it say that? I thought it just says that he has a doctorate in history and the Albanian language from Prague Uni and taught a few seminars there.--Domitius 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No it says: “Themelon dhe drejton "Seminarin shqiptar", qender e nderuar studimesh dhe kerkimesh albanologjike pranл Universitetit te Karlit ne Prage, ku ngarkohet si profesor me ligjerimin e mbare disiplinave albanistike “ and “Bretkosat e ugarit se з’vrane drene e malit”.Dodona

Les Balkans, l'Egée et l'Asie Mineure étaient peuplés, avant l'arrivée des Grecs au VIIIe s, de Pélasges (Cariens, Lyciens, Troyens, Phrygiens, Lydiens, Thraces, Illyriens, etc.) dont les Albanais sont les seuls descendants actuels. Mathieu Aref dans ses deux livres ("Albanie -histoire et langue-..." Paris 2003 et "Grèce -mycéniens = Pélasges-..." Paris 2004).Dodona

"Arv."/"Alb", and exactness of quotes

Re. this exchange [1] - I obviously agree with Macrakis that the the distinction between "Alb." and "Arv." didn't exist back then (and I'm slightly amused that Matia seems to be still insisting on it - hey everybody, isn't it nice we are all again reunited here in the same dicussion? Where's Albanau when you need him? ;-)) -- But anyway, I don't mind having it say "Arv." in our editorial text there. Especially because the two terms mean the same in that period. We're free as editors to choose whichever term fits better in the context of our article, and arguably "Arv." fits the bill there. As long as we leave the actual quotes intact. And the very fact that we juxtapose our editorial "Arv." usage with the "Alb." usage in the source, without further commentary, very neatly illustrates exactly that the terms were identical. Which is correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And I obviously disagree with Macrakis. The point however is that the Alb/Arv is dealt in other parts of the articles. Greek people who are from Mikra Asia can't be called Turks, Cretans won't be called Saracens, and the confusing of Arvanites with Albanians (because of the language) is a matter that needs (and already has plenty) citations by authors who dealt specificaly with the subject and not just with travelers. Of course the Arvanites and the Albanians have similarities (I called them cousins in past talk pages - they could have been brothers but they were not), yet by 1821 Arvanites from Suli, Euboea, Hydra, Spetses and others were identifying themselves as Greeks. You may check the lives of Botsaraioi, Tzavelaioi, Krieziotis, Miaoulis, Bouboulina etc. Biris 1966 about the city of Athens, deals exactly with those few Athenians of Arvanitic inheritance (and we know Biris serious work about Arvanites, Roma people, and other, unrelated yet very good, works about architecture - hell his book about Athens was considered so good that the city of Athens funded its first publication). talk to +MATIA 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

category removal

Re. this removal of the Category:Ethnic groups in Greece ([2]): I'd rather like to revert that and get the category back in. While it's generally true that supercategories shouldn't be included when a more specific subcategory is already present, I think inclusion of both makes very good sense here. Category:Greek people by ethnic or national origin is predominantly for articles about individual people, and so is its subcategory Category:Arvanites - it focus is on individual biographies and it only includes the main article Arvanites additionally. The category Ethnic groups in Greece, on the other hand, is for articles about the groups as such, and it conveniently places the Arvanites article side by side with Aromanians, Karamanlides, Vlachs etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead (those categories need a bit of cleaning/sorting up though). 85.73.64.144 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Agree that the categorisation scheme could be streamlined a bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in the Greeks' distinct perception of ethnicity, which coincides with nationality almost entirely. The exception would be those Greeks of much more recent immigrant origins. The Arvanites and Vlachs certainly do not consider themselves any less ethnically Greek than other Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The category implies no such thing. It doesn't say how Greek they are. Arvanites, Vlachs, Karamanlides etc. are certainly groups that in some way stand out within the population and should be categorised together. What cover term would you use to describe what these groups are? In English, "ethnic" is exactly what describes it, I for one can see nothing more appropriate. And of course the English meaning of the term is what counts, this being the English Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Maniots and Cretans also stand out. Are they separate ethnic groups too? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the literature and you might find out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Νευράκια, νευράκια; ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Οχι ρε, φιλικά μιλάμε. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Πράγματι όμως, οι Αρβανιτόβλαχοι δεν ανήκουν στην ίδια κατηγορία με τους Εβραίους ή τους Αρμένιους ας πούμε, που επίσης κατοικούν εδώ και αιώνες στον ελλαδικό χώρο. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting) - Nice semantics problem. I'd agree that they "don't belong in the same category", in terms of real-world semantics. But that doesn't necessarily mean they "don't belong in the same category", in terms of Wiki organisation. Not every fine nuance of real-world categorisations can be mirrored in its own scheme of Wiki cats, which are by necessity less fine-grained than our concepts in real life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Another thread of trolling removed. [3] --Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The followings should be change

I do not care if you ban me , you will show how much unfair you are. Do not attribute to me the user with nick name “Ledea” and many others discussion that you attribute to me I never wrote. I admit that I had to answer a series of provocation and the expression of racism and no respect for the views of the other from certain member of Greek community group. But certainly is that which defines you as Greek. Domitius you claimed yourself that you want to make reality the dream of Ali Pashe Tepelena “ Nese mendoni qe greket nuk ju kuptojme gaboheni. Ne Greqi shume njerez dine gjuhen shqipe sepse kane origjine arvanitase; ekzistojme akoma.--Domitius 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC) “gjuha shqipe eshte gjuhe me e lashte e grekeve” while in the articul he express that Arvanitika is “under danger of extinction” he denies to call Arvanites with Albanian origin but simply calls them a “ population group”. Everybody must see what a corrupted individual writes and make the rule in wikipedia . “Arvanites in Greece originate from Albanian settlers who moved south at different times between the 14th and the 16th centuries from areas in what is today southern [[Albania]” is not true because is a serious fact that a part of them are autochthones .Dodona

Albanian origin is already mentioned in the article, in the #History section. However, they are not Albanians today, so you can't call them that. And no, no part of the Arvanites is autochthonous, they were migrants who have since been assimilated. Also quit making personal attacks.--Domitius 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then how you explain arvanitiki writing about 745 B.C “Δίπυλο της Αθήνας” and Dorians origin of a aprt of them which mention lately and Pangalos ; could be written “population group originally Albanian” and should be mention their anciently therefore the phrases “Arvanites in Greece originate from Albanian settlers who moved south at different times between the 14th and the 16th centuries from areas in what is today southern [[Albania]” is partially true . The fact they have been assimilated is very controversial . Dodona

The Dipylo Athenon is in Greek, not Albanian. Don't cite Pangalos to prove Albanian origin; in his view, "to be Arvanite is to be Greek".--Domitius 09:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Στο Δίπυλο της Αθήνας έχει βρεθεί μια πήλινη κρασοκανάτα επί της οποίας είναι γραμμένη μια από τις πολλές σωζόμενες αρβανίτικες επιγραφές" arbitrary is not suitable for wikipedia and you will understand Pangalos in the future properly .Dodona

Dodona, do you understand the concepts of fringe theories and reliable sources?--Domitius 10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "fringe science" is sometimes considered pejorative , what is the writing then at “Δίπυλο της Αθήνας” and can it be unreliable while you can find it easily at arvasynel.gr/ellinoarv_lexiko.html . Dodona

Absolute fringe.--Domitius 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Something

So far, the article contains historical, sociological, and linguistic information pertaining to the origins of the Arvanites. All I added to this interesting list was an anthropological dimension. Yes, the article needs some anthropological studies. This will help pave the way for other sections containing, hopefully, an archaeological dimension and perhaps even a genetic dimension towards understanding where the Arvanites originated. By the way, while this article is experiencing instability and is deemed "controversial," the Greek version seems to be quite stable and actually exhibits a good sense of "neutrality" (yes, this is shocking even for me). You can see, for instance, that the Greek article actually lists the current theories pertaining to the origins of the Arvanites. Why not have the same thing here? It would be pretty interesting. Also, Happy Easter to all. Deucalionite 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this passage for the time being. According to this website about the author quoted by Deucalionite, there is no publication among his works that matches the bibliographical details that Deucalionite claims to be citing: [4]. This author has in fact published about anthropological studies of Peloponnesian Arvanites, that much is true, but I'm not going to take Deucalionite's word for the correctness of the summary, when he can in fact not even get the bibliography straight. I am, however, going to check another, existing, publication by that same author and will re-introduce a summary once I've checked that. Will report back here shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, I am not "claiming" anything. I actually do have a scanned copy of the anthropological research conducted by Pitsios if you are interested. For the Arvanites, I recommend reading Chapter 3, pp. 227-230 and the wonderful conclusion at the end of the chapter. If I did not have this scanned copy, the bibliography I cited would not have existed. Period. However, I think you should go ahead and check out those other publications. I am actually interested to see what you'll find. Good luck. Deucalionite 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys, I checked Pitsios. Here's what I found:

1. It's a study based on anthropological methdology taken from models such as Carleton S. Coon and Pitsios' teacher, Aris Poulianos (the kind of study where you measure people's skulls and hair colour and stuff).
2. Pitsios did not systematically sample Arvanite versus non-Arvanite populations. In fact, it seems he did not even record for each of the individuals in his samples whether they were Arvanites or not. He made a regional sample of people all across the Peloponese, and then selected post facto subsamples which he thought most likely to have contained Arvanites. He also did not sample any comparative material from Albanians in Albania (He only cites some material by Coon to that effect).
3. The result was a purely negative one: Pitsios found no difference between his (presumedly) Arvanite subsamples and the rest, in terms of physical characteristics.
4. He explicitly states that definite "ethnogenetic" conclusions cannot be drawn from this material. However, he does interpret it as indicating that the medieval Albanian settlers are likely to have mixed to a large degree with local Greek population and possibly absorbed numbers of them. Which is not too surprising really. Of course, he never raises doubts about the self-evident fact that the medieval Albanian settlers were just that, Albanians.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to spell out a summary of this for the article right now. I don't really think it's very relevant. If anybody insists, I'd recommend something along the lines of: The Albanian settlers mixed with the local population in Greece. Anthropological studies of the Peloponesian population made during the 1970s found no significant difference between Arvanite and non-Arvanite inhabitants in terms of physical characteristics, indicating a large degree of biological intermixture or absorption. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The first three arguments you provided make sense. However, your fourth argument is incorrect since Pitsios has explicitly stated that the Arvanites were Greeks. Even if he, supposedly, could not provide "ethnogenetic" conclusions, he still made several conclusions based on his studies.

“Έτσι πολλοί Αρβανίτες δεν είναι παρα Έλληνες που έμαθαν την αρβανίτικη.” (Pitsios 227).

“Οι Έλληνες Αρβανίτες αποτελούν στην πλειοψηφία αυτόχθονα αιγιακό πληθυσμό…” (Pitsios 231).

The anthropological studies of Pitsios should not be seen as irrelevant, but rather as a relevant attempt at providing an anthropological dimension to the origins of the Arvanites. I find that adding anthropology to this article will lead other users to find and add other scientific studies about the Arvanites (if available). I propose the following statements be placed in the article:

In the 1970s and 1980s, Theodoros K. Pitsios provided multiple studies pertaining to the anthropological origins of the Arvanites. These studies relied upon Carleton S. Coon's anthropological work and were focused mainly on comparing population groups in the Peloponnese instead of directly comparing Albanian and Arvanite populations. The data accumulated by Pitsios led him to establish negative conclusions, whereby the groups he compared shared no physical differences whatsoever. Yet, Pitsios himself finds the Arvanites to historically embody Greeks having learned to speak Arvanitika, and finds them to embody an Aegean population from an anthropological standpoint.

I think the above paragraph is quite balanced. Remember, the purpose of all this is to add an anthropological dimension to the Arvanites article. Any suggestions? Deucalionite 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Too long, in my view. There's no reason to have an extra paragraph or even section summarising this particular study, just as we don't have extra paragraphs for all the other studies we use (many of which are far more influential than Pitsios). The purpose of our article is not to summarise Pitsios, but to use Pitsios just as we use others, in order to cite claims that are needed within the flow of the article. Single sentence, more than enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually makes sense. Given the large amount of literature in the article's bibliography, it wouldn't be logical to add a section or paragraph for each source mentioned. However, since the article contains an historical, demographic, linguistic, and sociological dimension, it is only sensible to also add an anthropological dimension. How about creating a new section entitled "Anthropology" with one to two sentences pertaining to the findings of modern anthropologists on the Arvanites? I think this will help open doors towards expanding the Arvanites article and enriching its content.

I can definitely whittle the paragraph I proposed earlier and give you maximum two sentences. I propose the following statements: According to the anthropological studies of Theodoros K. Pitsios, the Arvanites possess different physical characteristics from Albanian populations. Overall, the Arvanites are recognized by Pitsios as an autochthonous Aegean population.

I am sure that there are scholars who are far more influential than Pitsios. However, we have influential historians, linguists, sociologists, and demographers cited in the Arvanites article. Where are the influential anthropologists? I am not saying that we should dedicate a paragraph to every piece of anthropological literature that has studied the Arvanites. All I want added to the article is an anthropology section that takes into consideration the anthropological standpoint pertaining to the origins of the Arvanites. For now, the anthropology section will be small, but it will be an indication that the overall article has the potential to expand.

What do you say? One section entitled "Anthropology" and two sentences? That is all I am asking. Deucalionite 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your answer? Or should I take your silence as a "yes" since I managed to mitigate the paragraph to two sentences? Deucalionite 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We're getting closer. :-) I think the safer conclusion to draw from his study is still not so much that they were different from Albanians, but first of all that they were not different from fellow Peloponesians. I'm also a bit wary about the statement regarding "the Arvanites ... an autochthonous population." After all, if there's any point in these studies it is to show that they are not a uniform, homogeneous group from a single biological source. So we arrive at something like: According to anthropological studies of Theodoros K. Pitsios, Arvanites in the Peloponese in the 1970s were physically indistinguishable from other Greek inhabitants of the same region. This may indicate that early Arvanite groups mixed extensively with local groups and incorporated parts of the autochthonous Greek population. I think that would be a pretty fair summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The statements you have proposed make sense. The first sentence is superb, but I think the second sentence you provided can be slightly modified. How about:

According to the anthropological studies of Theodoros K. Pitsios, Arvanites in the Peloponnese in the 1970s were physically indistinguishable from other Greek inhabitants of the same region. This may indicate that either the Arvanites shared extant physical similarities with other Greek populations or that early Arvanite groups extensively incorporated parts of the autochthonous Greek population.

What do you think? This way, we incorporate both Pitsios's conclusions and any other interpretations of his anthropological data. Here is the full bibliographical citation. Pitsios, Theodoros K. "Anthropological Study of the Peloponnesian Population." Greek Library of Anthropology, Article 2, 1978 (Athens). There is something I am not sure about. Should the citation be in Greek or is it alright to have it translated? Deucalionite 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead with that version of the text if you prefer. The citation should preserve the original Greek, otherwise nobody will be able to locate it in a library, but the title of the article itself can have the English translation in brackets. Are you sure "Αρ." is meant to stand for "article"? It sounds more like "number" (i.e. of the volume, if that's a scholarly journal). The item I was using is: Pitsios, Theodoros (1986): "Anthropologische Untersuchung der Bevölkerung auf dem Peloponnes unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Arwaniten und der Tsakonen". ["An anthropological study of the Peloponesian population, with a special focus on the Arvanites and Tsakonians"] Anthropologischer Anzeiger 44.3: 215-225. Might be slightly more pertinent because it has that special focus on the Arvanites, but it's of course all based on the same material, his PhD dissertation from Mainz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we should cite both sources anyway just to show that Pitsios studied the Arvanites more than once. Also, I think that "Αρ." stands for "Άρθρο" (article). However, let me give you the full citation in Greek and tell me what you think.

Θ. Κ. Πίτσιος. “Ανθροπωλογική Μελετή του Πληθυσμού της Πελοπονήσσου: Η Καταγωγή των Πελοπονησσίων.” Βιβλιοθήκη Ανθροπωλογικής Εταιρείας Ελλάδος. Αρ. 2, Αθήνα, 1978.

Do you want me to upload a picture of the title page so that you can see it for yourself? Afterwards, you can delete the picture if you want. Deucalionite 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, might be useful. I cannot locate that Βιβλιοθήκη thing anywhere. Is it a series of monographs, or a journal? In any case, if it's in any way a well-behaved scholarly outlet, my guess is "Ar." should be "arithmos" ("number"). You number volumes, not articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your silence as an indication that everything is alright thus far. If you want to verify that the source from 1978 exists, just ask and I'll upload the title page on your discussion page or here if you like. Again, thank you for letting me add an anthropological dimension to the Arvanites article.

You know, your not so bad after all Future Perfect. I might just mention this nice turn of events in my social experiments by adding a check plus to your user behavior rating. Keep up the good work. As for me, it's back to basics (paradigms of HCI dynamics, cognitive/emotional facets of user-to-user relations, inhibition effect, etc.). Later. Deucalionite 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, if that was supposed part of the "experiment", the explanation is simple. I tend to be constructive when I see others making an effort at being constructive. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

True. Yet, not many people see the various degrees of "constructivism" existent on Wikipedia (or on the World Wide Web for that matter). Your form of "constructivism" I categorize as "policy-oriented" (known jokingly as "strait-jacket"). My form of "constructivism" I categorize as a form of "monolithic shape-shifting" (known jokingly as "spandex golem"). Trust me, there are so many forms of HCI dynamics and user-to-user behavioral paradigms that writing them down on paper would not be enough to track them down. Well, whether my attempts to fulfill my experiments succeed or fail, always know that I am still in "experimental mode" and that I am still a "catalyst researcher" until maybe 2010 when I get permanently banned or worse.

I know, I digress too much. Here is the title page. Later. Deucalionite 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just tell me if the title page helps in the verification process. Deucalionite 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've deleted it again, as agreed. Looks like it's a monograph in a series, the "2" is the series number, and the AEE is the publisher. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the title page of this monograph. It shows that it was published by the Anthropological Αssociation of Greece (Ανθρωπολογική Εταιρεία Ελλάδος), an organization founded by Aris Poulianos and now run by his son. As the Aris Poulianos article says, he "is a controversial figure with more support in the nationalistic circles of Greece than in the scientific community." Its publications probably can't be treated as WP:Reliable sources. --Macrakis 17:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if Aris Poulianos was stigmatized by the scientific community due to his "controversial arguments." However, even if the overall publication is deemed "controversial" does not mean that it is not relevant. This is Pitsios's work and not Poulianos's even though the former was the latter's student. The purpose of both sources (one presented by me and the other presented by Future Perfect) is to prove that Pitsios studied the Arvanites more than once (and should be recognized due to his consistency on the subject matter). Deucalionite 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The important question is whether we should consider Pitsios's work as a reliable source, not how many times he has worked on the Arvanites. There are various ways of assessing whether a source is reliable, including whether it is published by a recognized journal with rigorous standards (peer review etc.), whether it is cited positively by other researchers, the reputation and institutional affiliation of the author (though this is less reliable than the previous criteria), and so on. Being published by the AAE doesn't help establish it as a reliable source. Can you find evidence that Pitsios's work is recognized by other physical anthropologists? --Macrakis 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a quick check of Google Scholar finds the following article by Pitsios:

Pitsios TK, "Anthropologic study of the population of Peloponnesus with special reference to the Arwanites and Tsakones" [Article in German]

Anthropol Anz. 1986 Sep;44(3):215-25.

ABSTRACT A total of 1582 individuals of the indigenous population of the Peloponnesus was investigated anthropologically. ... According to the distribution pattern of the anthropological characters under study and the results of Hiernaux's distance method two anthropological types can be discerned. The first of these two types covers the largest part of the country and is found mainly in the Western and Southern parts of the Peloponnesus, whereas the other one is dominating in Northeastern and Central Peloponnesus. The Western-Southern type is characterized by a relatively dark skin, straight nose, brown-grey eyes, marked eye-brows, and a marked torus supraorbitalis as compared to the Northeastern-Central type. An ethnohistorical interpretation of these differences is not yet possible.

Note the conclusion (my emphasis). --Macrakis 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually makes sense. You know, I think there is some evidence that Pitsios's early work was recognized regardless if it was published by the AAE. However, I have to confirm this. I'll see if his 1978 work was published elsewhere or if any other anthropologists peer-reviewed it. I'll check back here when I come up with something. No offense, but according to my social experiments, your category of "constructivism" is "evidence-oriented" (known jokingly as "blind gumshoe"). Later. Deucalionite 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I actually found something that might make Pitsios's work seem more reliable: "Recent Publications." Current Anthropology. Vol. 20, No. 1 (March 1979), pp. 195-213. This is the information I found: Anthropos. Published in Athens by the Anthropological Association of Greece. Vol. 4, no. 1-2 (1977): in Greek, THEODORE PITSIOS, [Anthropological study of the Peloponnesian population];...

I'll check for other sources, but does recognition by another anthropological organization count for reliability? Deucalionite 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your silence as a sign that so far everything is alright. However, if I find anything else, I'll report back here. Later. Deucalionite 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I see FuturePerfect had already found the German publication. That teaches me to skim! Anyway, the 1986 publication clearly seems to be a cleaned-up version of his earlier work, and his conclusion is crystal-clear: An ethnohistorical interpretation of these differences is not yet possible. That is, there is nothing worth adding to the Arvanites article. --Macrakis 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Pitsios' bibliography can be found at [5]. He did his PhD dissertation at the university of Mainz, Germany, under the supervision of a local professor but apparently also of Poulianos. He then published various spin-offs of that same study in various outlets, in English, Greek and German. The one Macrakis quoted from Google scholars is exactly the one I used. The Anthropologischer Anzeiger seems to be a regular scholarly journal and as such reputable enough. In contrast, Poulianos' Anthropos-journal and the stuff published by the AAE is probably not first-rate, peer-reviewed and all. The mentioning in Current Anthropology is simply a bibliographical note, of no particular value. The association with Poulianos and his circle is not something that fills me with confidence about the quality of Pitsios' work. I don't know anything about his German supervisor(s) - apparently, the anthropological institute in Mainz was (in the 1950s and 1960s) somewhat tainted by the presence of a professor of physical anthropology who had previously been involved with Nazi race ideology, but I couldn't say to what degree that would still have affected work there in the 1970s, when Pitsios was there. I'd say we can quote him, as we now do, but we shouldn't be over-emphasising his work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, I think you would need to read the whole article in case Pitsios made any other conclusions. I agree that the conclusion you emphasized Mackrakis is crystal clear. However, he may have made other conclusions based, for instance, on his historical research of the Arvanites. In his early work (1978), Pitsios provides a brief history of the Arvanites and establishes his conclusions from that standpoint. Even though Pitsios made other conclusions about the Arvanites from an anthropological standpoint, the tone of his writing reveals a sort of admission that there might not be a unanimous anthropological ethnohistorical interpretation of the anthropological data. However, that may not necessarily mean that Pitsios will not make his own conclusions. There are scholars who do this because academic programs technically require that you provide your own interpretation of the data in question even if other scholars or the academic community may not be able establish any conclusions based on the same data.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to seek a full copy of Pitsios's updated anthropological work so that all of us can read it and come to, hopefully, a more informed unanimous decision pertaining to his research on the Arvanites. The abstract is helpful, but it is not enough. Besides, even if Pitsios cannot make any "ethnohistorical" conclusions based on his anthropological work, the point of this entire matter is to show that anthropological work on the Arvanites has been conducted.

I'll see if I can get the full article. An abstract is not enough when it comes to doing research or making decisions pertaining to how one incorporates information into a body of text. I'll report back here if I manage to acquire it. In the meantime, I recommend you do the same Mackrakis and ask Future Perfect if he knows anyone who might have the full article. Later. Deucalionite 21:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the full article. It just presents the data, makes that disclaimer about no "ethnogenetic" conclusions being possible, and just quotes Biris as far as the historical background and possible population mixture scenarios are involved; no original work by Pitsios in that respect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank God. You just saved me a ton of time trying to find it. Could you please email me a copy of Pitsios's latest work so that I could take a look at it? I'd appreciate it. Wait, do you even have my email address? Deucalionite 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot. Before I get a chance to read Pitsios's 1986 article, should we just add a third sentence to the Anthropology section stating that there is no unanimous ethnohistorical interpretation of the anthropological data? Any suggestions? Deucalionite 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what. Forget it. Future Perfect, if you cannot email me Pitsios's work, then don't worry about it (though I'd wish I could get a copy). I think that all of us in this discussion have made some progress. Even though the sources provided by both Future Perfect and I have some sort of "baggage" involved, it is only sensible to leave the anthropology section intact until other anthropological studies are found. However, I think that despite Pitsios's sources not being "perfectly reliable," at least they prove that Pitsios did conduct anthropological studies on the Arvanites. Moreover, it is quite difficult to regard Pitsios himself as a "crackpot" since he does show that he adheres to standard anthropological methodologies. So, I think that the current status of the Anthropology section seems neutral enough to show that from an historical standpoint, anthropological studies on the Arvanites have been conducted.

I apologize for making this discussion longer than necessary and I thank Future Perfect again for letting me create the Anthropology section and adding the text. Let us conclude this until the next time that someone provides more up-to-date anthropological studies of the Arvanites to help expand the Anthropology section. Goodnight gentlemen. Deucalionite 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Protest for deleting arbitrary the talks

Your actions speak for it self , you delete what you do not like or do not suit you, you can not write and manage an article on base of lies, claiming Greek what is not and writing the history not in the way it is, but in the way suits you and the interest that you protect. I demand that you have to show respect not only for my work but also for the work of the others that contribution as well.. Maybe you need to go in periphery of Athens more often and hear some Illyrian language that you know very well. Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.74.68 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Gëzuar! It's not easy, is it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can people just PLEASE stop responding to the troll? There is really no reason not to simply ignore his rants, and it makes removal much easier if you know there aren't any good posts to lose together with the crap. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Garbage cleaned out

Two more threads of trolling removed and archived [6]. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More trolling and public policy discussions removed and archived. --Macrakis 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)