Talk:Kanun (Albania)

message: -----------------------
Kanun is also the name of a Turkish musical instrument. Hopefully this will show in wiki in the future. In that event, Kanun should be a separate entry to different from it's alternative meaning of "law".
::That could be covered under Kanun (musical instrument) --Asterion 14:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Asterion 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I corrected a very common linguistic anachronism mistake made by Athenean. The modern meaning of the word is rule but when adding the word in its archaic form the first translation that should be added is the original one(i.e. straight bar) and afterwards its two latter meanings.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there was a note with the exact same information before Athenean added the one-line section which seems to be unnecessary, so I'll just copy/paste my corrections to the note.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Alexikoua the source states that in the empire there were many local communities which self-governed themselves(like the Koinon of the Zagorisians) but doesn't relate that with the term kanun. Lekë Dukagjini codified existing customary laws in the 15th century before the Ottoman rule. If you're not familiar with the policy of wp:synth read it again. The source about already existing Illyrian customary laws codified under the term kanun is rs so it can't easily go. Btw the term anachronistic wouldn't be applicable so please familiarize yourself with the definition of the term.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The original word is the Sumerian word gin (reed plant). Akkadians adopted the word as qanū (rod). Later the word was adopted by all Semitic peoples and through Phoenician it was adopted by ancient Greeks. The note is good enough since this isn't an article about the word itself. Maybe a small addition about the original Sumerian word can be added but I wouldn't add anything else.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it seems I have to deal with the usual tiresome WP:LAWYERS, I have decided to quote Todorova directly. What's OR is the nonsense about the ancient Sumerians, which is entirely unsourced and which I have removed.  Athenean (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm with Athenean on this one. The source cited above clearly supports the claim that the borrowing relation of the term "kanun" was Greek > Arabic > Ottoman Turkish > Albanian. Whether the thing itself is older than that (Illyrian or whatever) is unrelated to the question of the etymology. And the pre-Greek etymological history (involving Semitic and whatnot) is irrelevant, because there is no credible suggestion whatsoever that an alternative borrowing path Semitic > ...> Albanian sidestepping Greek played any role. BTW, the statement that the thing itself is "originating from the Illyrians" is not sufficiently sourced, since publications about "Europe after 1945" and "post-communist turbulence" aren't reliable sources about ancient history. Since we all know that virtually nothing is known about the ancient Illyrians, this claim falls under the rule that "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and BTW, this  source doesn't even claim that the kanun derives from something Illyrian, it only reports that a certain school textbook claims it does. Duh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ignores trolling) Agree with Fut. Perf.  The stuff about the Illyrians is an exceptional claim, since very little is known about them, but the sources used are anything but.  Repeating it twice in the lead is nothing short of obnoxious.  Athenean (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @FutureP the note stated that
*Through Turkish kanun and Greek kanon meaning rule, from the Sumerian word gin meaning reed tree
no intermediate languages were "skipped" in the note. The fact that customary laws are of a particular origin isn't an exceptional claim and Cook is a very reliable source. The immemorable times part is an exceptional claim and if someone wanted to add that again many reliable sources should have been provided. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not that there is much of a point discussing this with you, but Cook's book is about contemporary, not ancient, history.  Only an exceptional source that is knowledgeable in-depth about ancient history (e.g. Wilkes) will do. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, I've only now been able to look at what Zjarri was calling the "Cook" book. It's an article in an encyclopedia on post-WWII history. The article isn't by Cook, but is signed by one Antonia Young (no idea who she is and what her credentials are; perhaps somebody can find out.) The article states that "Dukagjini, a wealthy chieftain who visited the pope in 1466, standardized the already existing oral Illyrian laws". That is inherently nonsensical, to the point of absurdity: In 1466, Illyrians had been dead for a thousand years. Nobody at that time could possibly have had direct access to their oral traditions. The only thing that can possibly be known (or guessed) about these laws is that they were orally transmitted before Dukagjini for some time among some people; for how long and among what people cannot possibly be more than a mere guess, in the absence of written sources from antiquity describing what the laws of the Illyrians were like. Since it is logically impossible that anybody could know about an Illyrian origin of these laws today, and this impossibility is a self-evident matter of pure logic, accessible to any rational observer, any claim to the contrary is indeed an "exceptional claim" that would need much, much better sourcing than this, and for this purpose only specialists of ancient history will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @Athenean:Cherry-picking sources isn't defined in the policy of RS. The author is RS and that's enough for him to be used as a citation.@FutureP if we start interpreting sources ourselves then we're near the definition of OR. In any case I'll check for more sources but the fact that some oral customary laws were preserved isn't an exceptional claim.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leonard Fox who is an expert scholar of the kanun states that the laws of the kanun are considerably influenced by Illyrian laws--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So go and look up Fox and see what evidence he bases that claim on. Without concrete evidence, this is all worthless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: That's from Fox's book: [].Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Now we can add more(preservation of laws under Roman governance)--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The old laws must been retained in memory".  Please.  He is just speculating at this point.  Zero concrete evidence.  And who are the other two co-authors anyway?  Also, wasn't Albania still under totalitarian rule in 1989, when it was official state policy to push the "Illyrian" meme?  Athenean (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Fox's assumption is just unhistorical since he is based on the fact that Ilyrians are the direct ancestors of Albanians. It seems that this needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenean that book wasn't published by the Albanian state and those two co-authors are Lekë Dukagjini the Albanian prince who wrote the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini, and Shtjefen Gjecovi who first translated it in English. It is common when a book contains original parts or translated ones of a work to contain their names too as authors. Since you want to edit this article please familiarize yourself with key figures regarding the subject, because such questions show that you don't have the necessary knowledge required to make suggestions and evaluate sources about the subject. Btw this is the source about the Sumerian origin of word kanun so if no source to refute is provided per RS policy I will add it [ Alexikoua nothing has to go because Leonard Fox is considered an expert on Albanian customs etc. and your comment about him making unhistorical assumptions is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Leke Dukagjin is one of the authors?  Are we serious here?  I suppose he proofread the manuscript.  The publishing house is Albanian, yes?  Any mention of the Illyrians in material published in Albania prior to 1991 is suspect, because all published material was subject to censorship and state editorial policy.  I don't need to be an expert to note that words used such as "undoubtedly"  and "must have" indicate speculation on the part of the authors, and indicate a total lack of concrete evidence.  Which is not surprising since the Illyrians didn't leave behind any written records.  And please leave the poor old Sumerians out of this.  The etyomology of the Greek word "κανών" can be discussed in the relevant article, but this is not the place for it.  What's next, the Pelasgians?  Athenean (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenean, you continue to reveal lack of knowledge of the subject. In communist Albania the kanun was the most taboo thing you could think about. The Gjonlekaj Publishing is in Bronx, New York. And Leonard Fox didn't get brainwashed by the communists: he was just the translator of Gjecovi's work. The kanun was coded by Leke Dukagjini and has been memorized by people who were popular judges. And the pelasgians are just your nightmare, nobody is mentioning them.--Sulmues Let's talk  21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zjarri is correct about the authorship technicalities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Your proposal is fine by me.  Athenean (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add some other authors' views which are minor in comparison to the Illyrian origin theory, so as long as its represented as what it is i.e the theory adopted by most authors it's fine by me. Since there hasn't been provided a source to refute the Sumerian origin of the word I'll add the original meaning of the word unless someone brings a source to refute it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the article to discuss the origin of the Greek word  "κανών".  Sorry, but you'll have to take your Sumerian stuff somewhere else, not here.  The Albanian "kanun" derived from the Greek "κανών".  That much is clear by now, I hope.  Where the Greek word ultimately derives from is interesting, but is qay beyond the scope of this article.  Also, I don't see "most authors" anywhere?  Can you provide a source that says "Most authors".  Athenean (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand your point. On one hand you say that the customary law can't be connected to the Illyrians and on the other you are saying that the mountaneers of Albania have not changed in the last 2000 years. Are you suggesting that they hopped to those mountains from some other mountains? --Sulmues Let's talk  02:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Fut's proposal is the best we can do, I think we should add it.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have implemented something in the spirit of Fut. Perf.'s proposal.  Hope it's ok with everyone.  I'm ok with mentioning that authors have speculated on the Illyrian origins of the Kanun, but to mention that as fact is deep in WP:UNDUE territory.  Athenean (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Athenean because it's not just a speculation but the absolute majority, so how is that a compromise and why did Athenean remove Kanun i Vjetër without consensus??--Kushtrim123 (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just a speculation, because no one provides any concrete evidence for it.  Which is not surprising considering the Illyrians never wrote anything down.  I also can't fathom where this "absolute majority" comes from, but then again I don't expect anything better from a revert-only SPA anyway.  Athenean (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Alexikoua I haven't added anything as a fact but as suggestions exactly as the sources state without any original research. Btw Alexikoua please read when the Bronze Age in Europe began. Durham suggested that the Kanun originates from 2600 to c. 700 BC(that's the Bronze Age), while the other theory place its origin in 1000 BC. Someone who doesn't know when the Bronze Age began can make many similar mistakes. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And Zjarri, please read when Albanian ethnogenesis begun. Actually, this is an encyclopedia not a collection fringe theories.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua the sources are not even implying that there were Albanians in the Bronze Age, but that the laws of the Kanun originate from several eras. The sources that list the theories are rs so don't label them as fringe. Btw if you don't provide a reason for the npov tag, I'll remove it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded this parts since it was completely diferrent from what the source said. Now it's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to reword it partially because the Bronze Age began in 2600 BC, while the first theory suggests that the earliest date of practice is 1000 BC(late Bronze Age).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what this source says [].Alexikoua (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a textbook example is based on nothing from the source. Kolor is a distinguished international peer reviewed journal. Athenean there is nothing in the snippet search about Pelasgians and Kolor mentions DUrham's theory among many others as a suggestion'. Btw I searched the book for a particular sentence and because I couldn't find the book I had to search for words contained in the book. Obviously you chose to think that I was searching the book for Pelasgians while I wasn't.  --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: FPS: Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Semitic < Sumerian makes more sense to me than Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Greek < Semitic < Sumerian. The Arabic Languages are semitic in itself, it's unclear how the word from Semitic to Arabic "must" have passed through the Greek language. --Sulmues Let's talk  12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear. The ending -un in Arabic could only have come through the medium of Greek, because the earlier Semitic forms didn't have that -n element (nor did they have the same semantics). Loan relation Greek>Arabic is easily sourceable . Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: I agree with navisliburnia. An article on Albanian blood feuds (Gjakmarrja) should be started instead. In the meantime I redirected this to the main Blood feud article. Regards, --Asterion 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Asterion 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood feuds 

message: I made some changes to the lead to reflect that there are 5 kanuns, the most known of which is Kanuni i Leke Dukagjinit. --sulmues (talk)  22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Athenean used Teodorova to add the following sentence:
*It entered Albanian via Ottoman Turkish (and in turn via Arabic) and was used by the Ottomans to describe local self-governance customs throughout the empire.
and that's the original sentence:
*The term kanun etymologically related to the Greek word canon and transported through Arab into early Turkish derives from Ottoman administrative concepts of local self-governance.
So Athenean's or includes:
*the word entering Albanian via Turkish and Arabic
*kanuns weren't used by Ottoman administration but were a concept of Ottoman tolerance towards local self-governance.
Also since the source is online and not a snippet he should have added a link to it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected a very common linguistic anachronism mistake made by Athenean. The modern meaning of the word is rule but when adding the word in its archaic form the first translation that should be added is the original one(i.e. straight bar) and afterwards its two latter meanings.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there was a note with the exact same information before Athenean added the one-line section which seems to be unnecessary, so I'll just copy/paste my corrections to the note.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Alexikoua the source states that in the empire there were many local communities which self-governed themselves(like the Koinon of the Zagorisians) but doesn't relate that with the term kanun. Lekë Dukagjini codified existing customary laws in the 15th century before the Ottoman rule. If you're not familiar with the policy of wp:synth read it again. The source about already existing Illyrian customary laws codified under the term kanun is rs so it can't easily go. Btw the term anachronistic wouldn't be applicable so please familiarize yourself with the definition of the term.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The original word is the Sumerian word gin (reed plant). Akkadians adopted the word as qanū (rod). Later the word was adopted by all Semitic peoples and through Phoenician it was adopted by ancient Greeks. The note is good enough since this isn't an article about the word itself. Maybe a small addition about the original Sumerian word can be added but I wouldn't add anything else.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it seems I have to deal with the usual tiresome WP:LAWYERS, I have decided to quote Todorova directly. What's OR is the nonsense about the ancient Sumerians, which is entirely unsourced and which I have removed.  Athenean (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm with Athenean on this one. The source cited above clearly supports the claim that the borrowing relation of the term "kanun" was Greek > Arabic > Ottoman Turkish > Albanian. Whether the thing itself is older than that (Illyrian or whatever) is unrelated to the question of the etymology. And the pre-Greek etymological history (involving Semitic and whatnot) is irrelevant, because there is no credible suggestion whatsoever that an alternative borrowing path Semitic > ...> Albanian sidestepping Greek played any role. BTW, the statement that the thing itself is "originating from the Illyrians" is not sufficiently sourced, since publications about "Europe after 1945" and "post-communist turbulence" aren't reliable sources about ancient history. Since we all know that virtually nothing is known about the ancient Illyrians, this claim falls under the rule that "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and BTW, this  source doesn't even claim that the kanun derives from something Illyrian, it only reports that a certain school textbook claims it does. Duh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ignores trolling) Agree with Fut. Perf.  The stuff about the Illyrians is an exceptional claim, since very little is known about them, but the sources used are anything but.  Repeating it twice in the lead is nothing short of obnoxious.  Athenean (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @FutureP the note stated that
*Through Turkish kanun and Greek kanon meaning rule, from the Sumerian word gin meaning reed tree
no intermediate languages were "skipped" in the note. The fact that customary laws are of a particular origin isn't an exceptional claim and Cook is a very reliable source. The immemorable times part is an exceptional claim and if someone wanted to add that again many reliable sources should have been provided. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not that there is much of a point discussing this with you, but Cook's book is about contemporary, not ancient, history.  Only an exceptional source that is knowledgeable in-depth about ancient history (e.g. Wilkes) will do. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, I've only now been able to look at what Zjarri was calling the "Cook" book. It's an article in an encyclopedia on post-WWII history. The article isn't by Cook, but is signed by one Antonia Young (no idea who she is and what her credentials are; perhaps somebody can find out.) The article states that "Dukagjini, a wealthy chieftain who visited the pope in 1466, standardized the already existing oral Illyrian laws". That is inherently nonsensical, to the point of absurdity: In 1466, Illyrians had been dead for a thousand years. Nobody at that time could possibly have had direct access to their oral traditions. The only thing that can possibly be known (or guessed) about these laws is that they were orally transmitted before Dukagjini for some time among some people; for how long and among what people cannot possibly be more than a mere guess, in the absence of written sources from antiquity describing what the laws of the Illyrians were like. Since it is logically impossible that anybody could know about an Illyrian origin of these laws today, and this impossibility is a self-evident matter of pure logic, accessible to any rational observer, any claim to the contrary is indeed an "exceptional claim" that would need much, much better sourcing than this, and for this purpose only specialists of ancient history will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @Athenean:Cherry-picking sources isn't defined in the policy of RS. The author is RS and that's enough for him to be used as a citation.@FutureP if we start interpreting sources ourselves then we're near the definition of OR. In any case I'll check for more sources but the fact that some oral customary laws were preserved isn't an exceptional claim.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leonard Fox who is an expert scholar of the kanun states that the laws of the kanun are considerably influenced by Illyrian laws--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So go and look up Fox and see what evidence he bases that claim on. Without concrete evidence, this is all worthless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: That's from Fox's book: [].Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Now we can add more(preservation of laws under Roman governance)--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The old laws must been retained in memory".  Please.  He is just speculating at this point.  Zero concrete evidence.  And who are the other two co-authors anyway?  Also, wasn't Albania still under totalitarian rule in 1989, when it was official state policy to push the "Illyrian" meme?  Athenean (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Fox's assumption is just unhistorical since he is based on the fact that Ilyrians are the direct ancestors of Albanians. It seems that this needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenean that book wasn't published by the Albanian state and those two co-authors are Lekë Dukagjini the Albanian prince who wrote the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini, and Shtjefen Gjecovi who first translated it in English. It is common when a book contains original parts or translated ones of a work to contain their names too as authors. Since you want to edit this article please familiarize yourself with key figures regarding the subject, because such questions show that you don't have the necessary knowledge required to make suggestions and evaluate sources about the subject. Btw this is the source about the Sumerian origin of word kanun so if no source to refute is provided per RS policy I will add it [ Alexikoua nothing has to go because Leonard Fox is considered an expert on Albanian customs etc. and your comment about him making unhistorical assumptions is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Leke Dukagjin is one of the authors?  Are we serious here?  I suppose he proofread the manuscript.  The publishing house is Albanian, yes?  Any mention of the Illyrians in material published in Albania prior to 1991 is suspect, because all published material was subject to censorship and state editorial policy.  I don't need to be an expert to note that words used such as "undoubtedly"  and "must have" indicate speculation on the part of the authors, and indicate a total lack of concrete evidence.  Which is not surprising since the Illyrians didn't leave behind any written records.  And please leave the poor old Sumerians out of this.  The etyomology of the Greek word "κανών" can be discussed in the relevant article, but this is not the place for it.  What's next, the Pelasgians?  Athenean (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenean, you continue to reveal lack of knowledge of the subject. In communist Albania the kanun was the most taboo thing you could think about. The Gjonlekaj Publishing is in Bronx, New York. And Leonard Fox didn't get brainwashed by the communists: he was just the translator of Gjecovi's work. The kanun was coded by Leke Dukagjini and has been memorized by people who were popular judges. And the pelasgians are just your nightmare, nobody is mentioning them.--Sulmues Let's talk  21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zjarri is correct about the authorship technicalities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Your proposal is fine by me.  Athenean (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add some other authors' views which are minor in comparison to the Illyrian origin theory, so as long as its represented as what it is i.e the theory adopted by most authors it's fine by me. Since there hasn't been provided a source to refute the Sumerian origin of the word I'll add the original meaning of the word unless someone brings a source to refute it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the article to discuss the origin of the Greek word  "κανών".  Sorry, but you'll have to take your Sumerian stuff somewhere else, not here.  The Albanian "kanun" derived from the Greek "κανών".  That much is clear by now, I hope.  Where the Greek word ultimately derives from is interesting, but is qay beyond the scope of this article.  Also, I don't see "most authors" anywhere?  Can you provide a source that says "Most authors".  Athenean (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand your point. On one hand you say that the customary law can't be connected to the Illyrians and on the other you are saying that the mountaneers of Albania have not changed in the last 2000 years. Are you suggesting that they hopped to those mountains from some other mountains? --Sulmues Let's talk  02:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Fut's proposal is the best we can do, I think we should add it.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have implemented something in the spirit of Fut. Perf.'s proposal.  Hope it's ok with everyone.  I'm ok with mentioning that authors have speculated on the Illyrian origins of the Kanun, but to mention that as fact is deep in WP:UNDUE territory.  Athenean (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Athenean because it's not just a speculation but the absolute majority, so how is that a compromise and why did Athenean remove Kanun i Vjetër without consensus??--Kushtrim123 (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just a speculation, because no one provides any concrete evidence for it.  Which is not surprising considering the Illyrians never wrote anything down.  I also can't fathom where this "absolute majority" comes from, but then again I don't expect anything better from a revert-only SPA anyway.  Athenean (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR by Athenean 

message: After we reached an agreement on how to write the Illyrian origins of Kanun, now we have a more extreme wp:fringe theory added in the article claiming that this dates probably from 1,000 BC. Although, Foyer/Merib, explain that this is what Durham believes the latest addition is completely pov the way it's written. No wonder this part is based on Camaj 1989, and Fox 1989 works. I suggest to remove all this unhistorical material. Whether Illyrian or Bronze age.Alexikoua (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua I haven't added anything as a fact but as suggestions exactly as the sources state without any original research. Btw Alexikoua please read when the Bronze Age in Europe began. Durham suggested that the Kanun originates from 2600 to c. 700 BC(that's the Bronze Age), while the other theory place its origin in 1000 BC. Someone who doesn't know when the Bronze Age began can make many similar mistakes. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And Zjarri, please read when Albanian ethnogenesis begun. Actually, this is an encyclopedia not a collection fringe theories.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua the sources are not even implying that there were Albanians in the Bronze Age, but that the laws of the Kanun originate from several eras. The sources that list the theories are rs so don't label them as fringe. Btw if you don't provide a reason for the npov tag, I'll remove it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded this parts since it was completely diferrent from what the source said. Now it's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to reword it partially because the Bronze Age began in 2600 BC, while the first theory suggests that the earliest date of practice is 1000 BC(late Bronze Age).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what this source says [].Alexikoua (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a textbook example is based on nothing from the source. Kolor is a distinguished international peer reviewed journal. Athenean there is nothing in the snippet search about Pelasgians and Kolor mentions DUrham's theory among many others as a suggestion'. Btw I searched the book for a particular sentence and because I couldn't find the book I had to search for words contained in the book. Obviously you chose to think that I was searching the book for Pelasgians while I wasn't.  --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OR by Zjarri

message: All the pre-Greek words can be understood only in Albanian language. But there is a major difference from Albanian language vs. other European languages. Albanian language is a symbolic one while the rest are conceptual languages. That means that with Albanian language you could brake the words in small pieces applying logical rules and finding the functional meaning of that word. That is not only for Albanian words but for Greek, Italian, Turkish, etc. 
The words are no labels but they hold their own meaning. As it said in the Bible: "In the beginning there was the word". Albanian language holds the symbols with which we could decipher the words. That will make it simply to decide the common words used in many language that which is their real origin. 
Doe to long imprisoning of Albanian (into a Totalitarian Regime for half a century) and making Albanian history a taboo, the world did not learn much. But things are changing and real studies of authors like Petro Zheji are allowing to be printed. If anyone is interested to learn the truth than start learning linguistics together with philosophy and mathematical logic. 
Many research have dived into the study of Albanian language as is the 'archeology' of the ancient thoughts codified. 
Do you think the Illyrian did not have their Kanun (laws)? If you can not find them written that does not mean they did not exist! 
I advice the reader to not be part of the long genocidal propaganda against the Albanian language... just study it or accept what the truth. 
Do you really think that the only language that has connection with all other languages is simply a mix of all?! It is probable the mother of all. You do not need to accepted it but do not deny it until you study it. Comparison is a superficial method of learning, you must dive into it in order to find the roots. --BenWeb13 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FPS: Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Semitic < Sumerian makes more sense to me than Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Greek < Semitic < Sumerian. The Arabic Languages are semitic in itself, it's unclear how the word from Semitic to Arabic "must" have passed through the Greek language. --Sulmues Let's talk  12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear. The ending -un in Arabic could only have come through the medium of Greek, because the earlier Semitic forms didn't have that -n element (nor did they have the same semantics). Loan relation Greek>Arabic is easily sourceable . Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kanun (Albania). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615120555/http://www.design.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~hoken/Kazuhiko/2008Customarylaw.pdf to http://www.design.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~hoken/Kazuhiko/2008Customarylaw.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article shows numerous supposedly Turkish words (example: "Iskodra Xhibali Komisi" or "Kanun-i Jhibal") yet I can't corraborate these terms in Turkish-language sources. Could someone with access to the relevant sources confirm if those terms are indeed Turkish? I have a hunch Albanian terminology was misattributed as Turkish. YaGurlArchy (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turkish" translations