Talk:Arvanites/Archive 2

message: The Republic of Greece might not recognize ethnic minorities among its citizens, but it is a period-ending fact the presence of the Arvanites, Albanians who have lived in Greece for centuries. Please be honest and accept that Arvanties are part of the Albanian ethnic family by all the means.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not use the word 'fact' for something that u are not aware of.Arvanites in no case are considered distinct from the rest greeks.the only way that someone could say that they are distinct,is in regional scale,as all the greeks are:epirots,peloponnesians,macedonians,arvanites,cretan,pontians and so on.u also have to keep in mind that language is not the only factor in ethnic-identification.nor the religion is.the arvanites are as much greeks as the cretans...and the catholics in Tinos are as much greeks as the orthodox of Paros.If they were not-greeks they would not have rebelled during the greek war of independance,nor would they had been and continue to been elected in the greek parliament,as high as prime ministers and presidents of greece.--Hectorian 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hectorian. I've been saying the same during the last months. talk to +MATIA 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvanites are Albanians 

message: I removed this section: it looks like nationalist pseudoscientific drivel. bogdan 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed pseudoscientific section

message: :Thraco-Illyrian tribe, but not particularly  related to the Albanian branch.
This can be easily be proven false, because it is rather easy to find when their language split from Tosk Albanian. Are there any trustworthy sources for this theory ? bogdan 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other [[Thraco-Illyrian]] tribe 

message: I suggest you revert yourself. talk to +MATIA 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a note to Pjetër Bogdani and anyone else interested 

message: I've protected this article again. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page first, but note that this is not about who's right and who isn't. The article in its current form doesn't cite any sources.  If there are multiple viewpoints, find sources for all of them as a first step. Then present each viewpoint along the lines "Group A has said X", backed up with sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to say what "The Truth" is; it's Wikipedia's job to present all relevant viewpoints neutrally and fairly. I've explained this in more detail on this talk page before; check the archives. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear MarkSweep, this article has been through ArbCom and some Admins and Arbs back then recognised the impossibility of Arvanites being an Albanian minority in Greece. As for sources I've listed them at the buttom in the refferences section. talk to +MATIA 17:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Respect WP:NPA MarkSweep and keep characterizations as dishonest for yourself the next time. As for the confused part... what can I say... the article cites sources and you called it unsourced... I have cited books with ISBNs read the ArbCom case (workshop etc) and the article more carefully. You did well to protect the article but you have no right to insult me. talk to +MATIA 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: (moved from User talk:Dbachmann)
There is a problem here. The problem is that Greek nationlists won't allow what can be found in resources to be written on the page. According with UNESCO http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_report.html#Arvanitika Arvanitika is Albanian dialect. Why we not say that on the page? That is not said nowhere. They instead use wealsel word "shares a common origin". That is not found in no source. Show what source says that. They also don't allow the name used by the Arvanites of northwestern Greece, "Shqiptaret". This is found in human rights report http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html. According with that report some arvanites use Arberoret and some shqiptaret. They only write the Arberoret name, they hide the shqiptaret name. Why? That is not npov. Matia also tries to scare people away by thranating that she will say to ArbCom that I am adding unsourced infomation to the page. That is not true. Why will they not write what the resources say. They try to hide the things that they don't like. Zogu
:afaik, it is undisputed that the Arvanitic language is an Albanian dialect. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my name is mentioned here, I'd like to clarify that I'm not threatening. I will take it to ArbCom and wherever else needed. talk to +MATIA 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the problem. Their (former) language is Albanian. They self-identify as Greeks (nationality). So? Where is the dispute? dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, a language is not a nation. My language is a dialect of German, but I am not a member of the German nation. Similarly, according to your very link, most Arvanites object to being labeled as "Albanians". Linguistically, the facts are clear, nor is there a dispute on the classification at Arvanitic language: It's an Albanian dialect. The article on the Arvanites themselves can certainly mention that classification, but only when put in a context making clear that most of them resent being classified as ethnic Albanians. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linguistic classification was clearly mentioned on the correct version (not the version that Zogu supports). But some editors were only interested to revert Greeks... talk to +MATIA 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Albanian editors you're an ethnic German living abroad. It doesn't matter how you feel by it, there's nothing you can do to change it. Miskin 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Arvanites are as ethnic Albanians as the Britons are ethnic British. The Albanian posistion is contradictory to also most every wikipedia ethnic article. Miskin 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Albanian editors are ignorant enough to imagine the an "Arvanite" person as a regular speaker of the Arvanite language. The language is practically dead today, and a person of Arvanite origin can speak Arvanite in the frequence that an Irish-American can speak Gaelic. What's more ridiculous is that a Greek of Arvanite origin doesn't have the means of proving his origin, hence he'll be ignored and regarded as a common Greek (which in fact he is). Miskin 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, Matia, but "Albanian" is simply the conventional name of one of the 12 major branches of Indo-European languages, as well as the name of a modern nation. This is unfortunate, but the problem is not unique, compare German (language vs. Germany), English (language vs. England), etc. etc.; It appears that the Arvanites are simply Greeks who traditionally were speaking an Albanian dialect (I did not check that linguistic classification in a library, but I understand it is undisputed). We might add that the Arvanites are unhappy to be classified as Albanians and leave it at that. Speakers of Swiss German can be classified as "German speakers" linguistically, but not as "Germans" ethnically. Similarly, the Arvanites should be classified as "Albanian speakers" linguistically, but not as "Albanians" ethinically. I think we have established that this dispute concerns only Arvanites of Northern Greece / Epirus.  I suggest you do a section specifically about those, and add a section-npov template there. Can we take this back to the article talkpage, guys? The Irish Gaelic simile is inexact; the Irish may speak about as much Gaelic as the Arvanites speak Arvanitic, but the Irish certainly consider themselves Gaels, not English, while the Arvanites apparently are more assimilated and do consider themselves Greeks. It's a little bit like calling a Frenchman a Frank (or Franconian). dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Miskin you are wrong ;) There are historical records (Venetian and others). Everything will be solved eventually. talk to +MATIA 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ergo, they belong in the Albanians article, where they are already mentioned, and not here.--Theathenae 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If they don't self-identify as Arvanites, then they are not Arvanites. Γκέγκε;--Theathenae 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arvanites 

message: Guys, could you all please use section headings, indents, and proper signatures to make this talk page more readable? Lukas (T.|@) 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Lukas, don't even try to see the archived page... talk to +MATIA 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreadable 

message: Hey zogu and the rest, what will happen if I present you with Arvanite sources that declare themselves part of the Greek nation, unrelated to Albanians whatsoever? Will you quit editing this article once and for all, or will you keep regarding your Albanian scholars to be more reliable? And now answer me this. If the Albanians of Epirus (who were expelled by WW2 as collaborators - but anyway) were Arvanites, then who on earth are the Chams? If I prove to you that the Albanians of Epirus (who recognised themselves as Albanians) were not Arvanites but Chams, who don't exist in Greece anymore, you will have no valid reason to revert our edits. You'll have to tranfer your arguments in 'Arvanitic language'. Do we have a deal or not? Miskin 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Miskin, this is not a matter of one side or the other quitting the article, and it is not a matter of one side or the other being more reliable. It's an NPOV negotiation, and we will present both views. Giving appropriate weight to the self-identification of the groups involved, of course. Please refrain from inflammatory comments. Lukas (T.|@) 07:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lukas I believe that Miskin correctly pointed out that those editors do not use reliable sources and even if I want to be optimistic about it, I can't - I'm pretty sure that after 3 or 4 weeks they'll start again reverting into an "ethnic Albanian minority" version. I won't accept addition based on unreliable sources never again. If they want to add anything, they must quote someone who indeed studied the Arvanites, someone who has seen at least one Arvanitis in his lifetime. talk to +MATIA 09:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Matia, but in the matter of the northwestern "Arvanites"/"Shqiptarë" the sources situation is, to this moment, in favour of Zogu's view. If other sources can be found, fine, we'll work them in. Lukas (T.|@) 09:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be sorry. Whenever some imaginary scenario will be added, I'll give answer from one of the 5 arvanitic books I've listed (or I'd find more books on Arvanites). Been there before. talk to +MATIA 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvanite scholarship 

message: 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:
#The article should clearly reflect the self-identification of Arvanites as ethnically Greek.
##It should not label Arvanites as an "ethnic minority" or an "Albanian minority".
##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).
##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.
##It should generally refrain from making absolute statements about people's stances, hedging statements where appropriate ("most Arvanites" etc.)
#The article should clearly reflect the scholarly consensus that linguistic affiliation and ethnic affiliation are different things.
##It should reflect the scholarly consensus that Arvanitic is a "form of Albanian". The formulation may leave open whether that means: 
###"a separate Arvanitic language, side by side with Standard Albanian, within an "Albanian" language family",
###"a separate Arvanitic language, as an emergent Ausbausprache".
###"an Arvanitic dialect group within a single Albanian language".
##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.
##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.
#The article should reflect the scholarly consensus about the historical/geographical origins of the Arvanites from territories of Epirus and modern Albania.
##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.
##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.
#The article should reflect the scholarly debate about the etymological origin of the name "Arvanites".
##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.
##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.
##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?)
#Not yet determined: Should the group be characterized as a "linguistic minority" in the first sentence? (If not, what else?)
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus draft?