Talk:Arvanitika/Archive 2

message: I propose moving this page to Arvanitika. I think that Arvanitika is the best choice. It does not toe the separate language line of Arvanitika language, nor does it toe the Albanian dialect line of Arvanitika Albanian (which is the name that UNESCO uses). It is the middle way, and normally should not provoke reaction from anyone who has good faith, given that Arvanitika plain is the name that the Helsinki Report uses and is a compromise between both pro-Albanian and pro-Greek views expressed by different groups of Arvanites. If no serious objections are raised in the next 72 hours, I'll proceed in moving the page to Arvanitika. REX 13:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: It is Wikipedia policy to include the word "language" in the names of all such articles. Whether or not User:REX considers Arvanitic a mere dialect is irrelevant. Perhaps he objects to Tosk language, then?--Theathenae 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please keep "Arvanitic", not "Arvanitika", because that is the name of the language in English. bogdan | Talk 13:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming policy 

message: This page, and this talk page, have been protected from moves by myself and Master Thief Garrett until this damn mess is sorted out. There are inconsistent redirects all over the place. There has been no consensus to move this to Arvanitika or Arvanitica - language or any of these such locations. Consensus is not a case of "if no-one objects within 24 hours" nor is it a case of what the majority wants.
Some of you are dangerously close to violating our three-revert rule insofar as these moves go, which will mean an immediate 24-hour block. Please begin discussing ideas for:
#Where you want the article and the talk page to be
#What redirects should point to the new location
I'll be keeping an eye on this situation, as well as cleaning up this damn redirect mess as far as possible. Please let me know on my talk page if a consensus is reached. This will not be today - I want some proper, mature discussion of this. Revert warring and move warring are not the answer. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think that's all the redirects cleaned up. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that User:REX's page move was completely arbitrary and in contravention of Wikipedia policy on the naming of language articles. It's a pity that a mini-edit war was required to draw the attention of the administrators.--Theathenae 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears someone is willing to begin building consensus. However, you were moving the page to Arvanitic - language, which doesn't actually fit naming conventions. We may need to settle for copious redirects on this one. I'm looking for more opinions before I unprotect this, however. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I apologise for the inconvenience caused, but there was an absolute mess of redirects as I explain to you, so I thought it better to delete them and have them re-created once this article had found a permanent home. Please try to build consensus on this page to determine where that home should be. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected from moves 

message: It took me some minutes to find where is this wiki today. Just two hours ago it existed in Arvanitika. There's an open ArbCom case I'm involved, and it is about Arvanites as well. And I must point out, that Arvanitika or whatever should have a redirect here. +MATIA  ☎ 14:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for the inconvenience caused, but there was an absolute mess of redirects as I explain to you, so I thought it better to delete them and have them re-created once this article had found a permanent home. Please try to build consensus on this page to determine where that home should be. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding moves and deletes 

message: *link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented. Without discussing the very difficult theoretical issue of what the difference is between a language and a dialect, it is important to note that most of the attention that has been paid to dying speech forms in recent years has been to whole languages that are threatened, not to marginal dialects of languages that are otherwise thriving. Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. … While it is certainly true that there are some
such cases of loss in Arvanitika, some of Trudgill’s claims may be overstated in the light of the full range of Arvanitika dialect diversity, as Hamp has shown.''
*link 2: In a sense then, looking at an on-going contact situation such as that mentioned above involving Urdu, Marathi, and Kannada speakers in Kupwar is more crucial for understanding the Balkan Sprachbund than are constructs from modern syntactic theory. Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund, for these typically village-based situations approximate the contact situation in the Balkans 600 years or so ago in ways that an examination or comparison of the various present-day, generally urban-based, standard languages cannot. What one sees in examining the urban standards is perhaps the aftereffects of the contact from several centuries ago, but it is not such a direct window on the conditions that gave rise to the Sprachbund effects. 
*link 3: Arvanitika is to be considered a
dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the
present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect).''
*link 4: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian.
I believe that it is now perfectly clear that the above, in conjunction with the Helsinki Report and UNESCO and Ethnologue and Encarta and Britannica Arvanitika is a dialect of Albanian regardless if MATIA and Theathenae like it or not.
Also, the Helsinki Report says that the Arvanites of northwestern Greece (Epirus and Western Macedonia) call themselves Shqiptar
Also, Ethnologue says that there are 150,000 speakers of Arvanitika.
Can MATIA and Theathenae explain themselves, they have not provided ANY sources to support their edits, all they do is revert and then not be able to explain why. So much for MATIA, I at one moment in the past had thought better of you, silly mistake of mine, to think that you were neutral. Even if God himself verified what I say above, I bet you wouldn't believe it. GET SOURCES! 
To get to the point, it appears to be perfectly clear that the status of the language/dialect is disputed. That is why is should be at Arvanitic (linguistics) as per Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) and Cantonese (linguistics). There are no sources which say that Arvanitic is a language in its own right, are there? Therefore ity should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics). I have to go now. Regards Rex(talk) 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Joseph calling Arvanitika a dialect/variety of Albanian 

message: According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages): languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages. Arvanitic does not share its name with anything else, therefore the qualifier language is not required and plain Arvanitic would suffice.
Please note that Arvanitic is the English word for Arvanitika (a Greek word) according to Ethnologue.
However, the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right is disputed. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, sources say that it is a dialect of Albanian.
Specifically:
*UNESCO  uses the name "Arvanitika Albanian" and says that it is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian.
*Ethnologue  also uses the name "Arvanitika Albanian", but states that Arvanitic is an alternative name.
:It has been argued that those sources refer to Arvanitic a language and therefore they are calling it a language. That is misleading. If you look up language, you will see that language is a form of communication and therefore, calling something a language does not in itself mean that it can not be a dialect. Having read dialect, it becomes clear that all dialects are languages, but not vice versa. 
As these two reliable sources call this language Arvanitika Albanian, they are obviously indication that it is a variety (linguistics)/dialect of Albanian. Also, UNESCO unequivocally calls it a dialect.
Other sources include the professor at Ohio University, Brian Joseph staunchly defends the term dialect to refer to Arvanitic.
Some of his works include the quotes:
*link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented [[[Albanian language|Albanian]] is robustly represented in all its other forms]. … Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. [ie Arvanitic is a part of Albanian (ie a dialect)]
*link 2: Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety [look up variety it means dialect] of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into…
*link 3: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian. [I think that this one is clear enough]
*link 4: Arvanitika is to be considered a dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the
present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect).''
To get to the point, I believe that Arvanitic language should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics) to reflect its status (according to the above reliable sources) as a dialect (or disputed dialect). All other dialects or languages with disputed status use the form I am suggesting. For example Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Cantonese (linguistics) etc. if you check the talk page of these articles, you would notice moving them to Flemish language etc ha been suggested, and it has been found that their current form is more NPOV (it doesn't take sides) and is more stable. Using the name Arvanitic (linguistics) is not a violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and that form is used by almost every other article on a (disputed) dialect on Wikipedia. It is the NPOV way to go about this. Rex(talk) 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Wikipedia is not a tyranny of majority and certainly not a tyranny of a small group of users. I'll take it to the related open ArbCom case within this week. I'm sick and tired of REX's tactics. +MATIA  ☎ 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boolean logic cannot be applied to my comments. You misinterpret my comments as well. +MATIA  ☎ 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bring everything related on the open ArbCom case. As for my sources I always write them at the buttom of the wikis I edit (that includes Scanderbeg, Arvanites and Arvanitic language). I am not going to sing them to you, I've already spent too much time with your tactics. You haven't told me before if you believe that the first two letters of ISBN stand for Invisible Sources (that's how you called my sources before). Don't answer here, save it for the ArbCom. +MATIA  ☎ 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First up, the Arbitration Committee is not for content disputes. Second, there's obviously a clear problem between you two here. Thank you both for not resorting to personal attacks thus far. Matia, if there is a problem with Rex personally, please do take it up with ArbCom, who will try to sort out that mess. And what is this ISBN rubbish? The acronym stands for International Standard Book Number. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's enough of that. The only thing I see here is Rex attempting to do things properly, i.e. to garner consensus on where the page should actually reside, and what redirects we should have. Things need to fit in with the Manual of Style. Please do not make personal attacks again. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with a poll. This way we'll find something neutral that has a consensus. Unless of course you want to move the article back to Arvanitika, that is what I want. But, as we've said. This is not about our happiness. It's about NPOV, and that is what polls give (like on Macedonian denar). Wikipedia should be neutral. Rex(talk) 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember, UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph all say that Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. They can't all be wrong, can they? Rex(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, don't call the Albanian flag a little red blot! It is the eagle of Gjergj Kastrioti Skenderbeu, an Albanian hero! Rex(talk) 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't push me too hard Robchurch, especially not today. I've tolerated PA from REX at least since early September. He accused me, even today, that I don't bring sources (he wrote MATIA, If you have any sources, please "sing" them to us), and he repeatedly talked before about MATIA's invisible sources. Since I wrote reffering to books and providing ISBN, believing naively that REX might want to check the books on a local (to him) library, I wanted to know whether he interprets ISBN that way. I don't think that's more a PA than your word rubbish about my comment. And I now regret that I hadn't responded to REX's PA in the past. +MATIA  ☎ 20:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make threatening comments, or comments which could be interpreted as implied threats. Thank you. Incidentally, my choice of word may not have been 100% brilliant; but the "rubbish" I referred to was the affair surrounding what, apparently, is some problems with sources you were citing. You appear to have been acting in good faith, and for that I applaud you. Can we keep this discussion as civil as possible? You appear to want the article moved to Arvanitika language, correct? Is that your position in this matter? If so, good - I understand what your wishes are, and now the process of consensus building begins. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: When I try to read this talk page, it looks like the red flag is blinking (it's an eye illusion). As for Scanderbeg anyone can say whether I respect him by checking my edits there. +MATIA  ☎ 20:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As it happens, Rex; the result of the poll will not unanimously decide things. Consensus is not a majority vote, and as some objections appear to have been raised, we'll have to talk through this. That's how it works. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  enough 

message: You keep claim that I don't have sources but my contribs in main, proove the opposite. As for your tactics:
*14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and again ladies and gentlemen, MATIA has not produced any sources, but redirects us to his contributions to find something that doesn't exist (a bluff) as he knows that no one will be bothered to check. And what's wrong with pre-arranging consensi? That notice I got on the Greek Wikipedia asking me to vote in the Macedonian Slavs Poll, what was that? I'll repeat: I'm not in violation of any policy! You are, you are removing accurate statements (the Arvanites of Epirus call themselves Shqiptar) and adding false ones (Arvanitic is a language in its own right). Do you have any edidence like I do, Britannica, Encarta, anything will do? Rex(talk) 22:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough, the pair of you. I don't care about your personal disputes, but I am now going to have to read about a bit more it seems, to see if there is something deeper here. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Comment was a little inappropriate in tone, and after a request for clarification from Matia, I realised that it was also not at all constructive. However, please could all parties try to present their points clearly, and without subtext, and things will run smoother. Thanks. Rob Church Talk 11:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  about pre-decided "consensus" 

message: First of all Arvanitika and not Arvanitic is the most common term among linguists.
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28languages%29:
Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages or "programming language" in the case of programming languages.
We do have Arvanitic (or Arvanitika) language, and Arvanitic (or Arvanitika) songs.
"Anthology of Arvanitika songs of Greece", Thanasis Moraitis, 2002, 
We have Macedonian language for the modern Slavic language, which is characterised by some (I won't argue here whether it's majority or minority view) as a Bulgarian dialect.
There is the Language-dialect aphorism (I've read the wiki today, but I had read similar discussions before) and on Arvanites#Famous_Arvanites I had listed some Arvanites who had positions in Greek Army and Navy (along with Arvanites prime ministers of Greece etc).
And of course we can have more. +MATIA  ☎ 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments by +MATIA 

message: Might I suggest a compromise? Arvanitic (linguistics) would appear to be the neutral form of the name, as opposed to, say, Arvanitic language or Arvanitic dialect. Could we not have it at that, with redirects from Arvanitic language, Arvanitic dialect, Arvanitika, etc. or would that still be a problem?
As I understand it, "Arvanitic" is the English word for it, and so the base article does need to be Arvanitic... in order to comply with this encyclopedia's language. However, I believe Français redirects appropriately (i.e. to French language), and I don't see why we couldn't have as many redirects as there are variations; provided there is one centralised article, and one centralised discussion.
Is this compromise acceptable to the main parties here? Rob Church Talk | FAHD 09:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my previous comments here on Arvanitic and Arvanitika and do check the links. Thanks. +MATIA  ☎ 10:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid it isn't. That precise proposal was made earlier by User:REX to deny the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right, despite the feelings of the people who speak it. It would be like moving English language to English (linguistics) because some German extremists might take issue with considering English anything other than a West Germanic dialect. Such extremism cannot be allowed to hijack Wikipedia. There are many instances of other tongues whose status is also disputed but are located at Bosnian language, Croatian language, Montenegrin language, Moldovan language, etc. There is no reason why Arvanitic should be treated any differently.--Theathenae 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be treated differently because Britannica says that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect. It doesn't say that English is a German dialect. Rex(talk) 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, Theathenae makes at least one point: ..."to deny the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right, despite the feelings of the people who speak it". But we need evidence about the peoples' feelings on this issue. Alexander 007 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What I'm worried about here, in absence of evidence, is hearsay and exaggeration. In the case of Moldovan (one of the cases noted above), the last Moldovan official census showed that two-thirds (the majority) of Moldovans declared that they speak Romanian, not "Moldovan", so if we are going to observe self-identification, Moldovan language would be in violation of the majority's feelings. However, with Arvanitic, what data do we have? Alexander 007 10:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to call it as I see it. If the majority of Arvanites consider their speech a language, then it should stay at Arvanitic language. It seems to me that this should not be decided by a poll, but according to self-identifying policies. However, this situation should be described in detail in the article: e.g.,  "linguistically, Arvanitic may be considered a Tosk dialect of Albanian", etc., but "due to the feelings of the ethnic group, it is treated as a language in this article and in a number of sources" (just an example, not in these words). Alexander 007 10:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one here has tried to deny the genetic relationship between Arvanitic and Albanian. What we have objected to is User:REX's attempted whitewash - defining Arvanitic simpl(isticall)y as Albanian with complete disregard for the Arvanites' feelings on a matter which affects them more directly than anybody else.--Theathenae 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we are getting somewhere. +MATIA  ☎ 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brisn Jospeph (University of Ohio) and every other source on the planet calls Arvanitic a DIALECT OF ALBANIAN. It's status is disputed, like that of Cantonese. Some people say that it is a language in its own right, some say that it is a dialect. Therefore Wikipedia should not take sides by saying that it is a language and directly contradicting EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE. MATIA still has not provided any sources, all he says is that we should check what he has written elsewhere. Wikipedia should be neutral, it should not be a hotbed for propaganda. Clearly in all other disputed cases, the form X (linguistics) is used. Why should the POV with on verifiability be used? Rex(talk) 10:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We need some experts on Wiki-policy here. My reasoning is that, yes, it is 100% accurate to call Arvanitic a Tosk dialect of the Albanian language, and most or many linguistic sources refer to it as such, and I personally agree that it is a Tosk dialect of Albanian. But, because of Wikipedia's self-determination policy, it should (?) be treated as a language, but the situation should be described in detail in the article. But how can we verify that most Arvanites are determined to consider their speech a language? Alexander 007 11:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, the Shqiptar slipped my mind, but they are very important here. I have to agree that the Shqiptar should not be ignored, and they may well consider their speech a dialect. In this case, I have to go with Arvanitic (linguistics) 100%. I have to call it as I see it, but one has to see as much of the picture as possible. Alexander 007 11:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that is a convenient cover-up of Theathenae's. As for his straw man argument that English language can be moved to English (linguistics), HA! No linguists call English a German dialect, nor do any English people identify as Germans. As opposed to EVERY linguist are credible authority which call Arvanitic a dialect and of course the Shqiptar of Epirus and Western Macedonia (according to the Helsinki Report). It's status is clearly disputed, and it would be taking sides if one were to say that it is a language and by so doing, rule out the possibility of it being a dialect. Arvanitic (linguistics) is neutral, as it does not rule out either possibility. Rex(talk) 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If Britannica or UNESCO said that English is a German dialect, then it could be possible to move English language to English (linguistics), but they don't. Also, Britannica says that Moldovan is a Romanian dialect and that Montenegrin is a Serbian dialect. Perhaps there should be a poll there as well. Thank God there are no reliable sources (other than Greek Propaganda Websites. No one questions Macedonian's status apart from extremists) that call Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian. Britannica (and all other sources) clearly say that Macedonian is a seperate language. This is not the case as with Montenegrin, Moldovan and Arvanitic. Their status is disputed (like Mandarin). Wikipedia should not take sides, therefore the neutral X (linguistics) should be used. Rex(talk) 11:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that some in Bulgaria is just not good enough. Are they credible sources? Some in Bulgaria. All I know is that Britannica denies outright the possibility that Moldovan, Montenegrin anD Arvanitic are languages in their own right, but says that Macedonian is. Rex(talk) 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you decide whether Ethnologue is reliable for linguistic issues, do let us know. You can't use it to label the article Arvanitika Albanian and then deny that some linguists support this or that. +MATIA  ☎ 12:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Another thing to address. I spoke above about what the "majority of Arvanites feel", but my mind was clouded by the recent Moldovan census results. It should not be decided by the majority, because this is trampling on the feelings of the minority (if they are  indeed the minority). We should not cater to either side ("dialect" or "language"), but go with the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics). Alexander 007 11:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A question for you, User:Alexander 007. Would you advocate moving Ancient Macedonian language to Ancient Macedonian (linguistics)?--Theathenae 12:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, User:Theathenae, I already came to a decision on this earlier today: Yes. I was even about to move the page unilaterally myself. But maybe I'll wait for Dbachmann's opinion on this. Alexander 007 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who have participated thus far in this laughable "poll" have been users with quite specific anti-Greek sentiments and/or agendas. This would be another example of what User:FlavrSavr would call ethnic majorisation. The Arvanites' feelings are irrelevant, aren't they?--Theathenae 11:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I will add your latest PA (greek extremists again and again) on the ArbCom case we are involved REX. +MATIA  ☎ 11:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article does not say that. It says that in your (without being backed by sources) version. You should read the neutral Helsinki Report. It will open your eyes :-) Anyway, the poll clearly has results and they will be used according to policy. NEXT! Rex(talk) 12:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: OK, straw poll looked promising, but some objections were raised, making it a very narrow consensus, hence I call no consensus.
Something that we could try is if the involved parties try "approval voting" - that is; parties indicate which of the following page names they would be happy to see used. I don't know if this has been tried before, or if it will work, but it strikes me as a fresh idea that has the potentially to really lay things out - if lots of people approve one particular name, then we can see where this is going, for instance.
You can support as many page names as you like. Ideally, please give reasons/cite sources (inline links fine) with your support. If you really strongly oppose a name, say so, but please say why - I appreciate; it's been done before, but I'd like to see it all clearly laid out. Confusion and repetition seem to be the biggest issue here.
Feel free to suggest additional names. The order of names as listed by me shall imply no endorsement or personal preference in this matter - I've scrambled them a little to help reinforce this. Rob Church Talk 14:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 2 

message: *Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arvanitic]]

message: *Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arvanitika]]

message: *Oppose there are no sources which call it a language. It would be perscriptive and would offend the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece. Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arvanitika language]]

message: *Oppose there are no sources which call it a language. It would be perscriptive and would offend the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece. Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arvanitic language]]

message: *Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arvanitic (linguistics)]]

message: *Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arvanitika (linguistics)]]

message: OK, well, if we look at it in terms of net support, then the most support was for Arvanitic being the most neutral form possible. Don't forget that we can still redirect all the other names to this one - redirects are cheap, after all. I'm quite pleased that things are coming together, somewhat.
I'd like you lot to bash it out here for a short period - given that most people seem to support that Arvanitic is neutral, I propose:
#That this article and talk page be moved to Arvanitic
#That the following redirects be created or modified, to point to the new location
##Arvanitic language
##Arvanitic dialect
##Arvanitic (linguistics)
##Arvanitika
##Arvanitika Albanian
#That a disambiguation page be created at Arvanitic (disambiguation) containing links to
##Arvanitic - the language/dialect - we'll have to phrase it a bit carefully methinks
##Arvanites - the people
Thanks to everyone so far for coming up with a really constructive bit of work. I'm confident that a solution will be found shortly. Rob Church Talk 23:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it prudent to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) does not constitute part of Wikipedia policies. It is a guideline. Whether the editors in this dispute choose to apply it here or not is up to them. Rob Church Talk 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: note: 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And something else: did the people who REX invited to "vote" check all the sources? How many of them just vote what REX did? +MATIA  ☎ 23:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And I don't question anyone honour. You did call them to vote, didn't you? Have I called anyone to vote? +MATIA  ☎ 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't help wondering if you deliberately ignore my not-invisible sources. I've analysed too many times at Talk:Arvanites Mr Tapani Salminen Unesco's Red Book (one of the times here). Do you believe he studied Arvanitika Albanian (sic)? Did he copied someone else? Can we compare him with Brian Joseph, Peter Trudgill? Have they studied Arvanitika and Arvanites? My guess is that Mr Salminen has never talked to an Arvanite. We can of course mention him in Arvanitic language and say that he uses the term Arvanitika Albanian.+MATIA  ☎ 11:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See also Luxembourgish language, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28languages%29, and the relevant policy []. Varieties, dialects etc are named language for disambig etc purposes. And the official English name is Arvanitika according to the linguists who studied the language. +MATIA  ☎ 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop sending me on a wild goose chase to find something that doesn't exist (those sources are irellevant to the issues discussed here. They say nothing about a language or a dialect). Calling it Arvanitika language would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and I have explained why time and time again. Deal with it! Do you have a problem with the neutral Arvanitic? Your "sources" do not deny the fact that Arvanitic is a dialect and do not say that it is a language in its own right. That's your POV. Read WP:V, we cannot violate it. Also, sources must be in English unless they are quotes in which case the original language must be given. And I have explained, if UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue or any neutral source called Macedonian a dialect, then that could be changed. Do they say that it is a dialect? No they don't. Only Ethnologue mentions that some in Bulgaria view it as a Bulgarian dialect (imperialists, they don't count. Read WP:RS). Are you saying that UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph etc are wrong? That they are secretly Albanian nationalists? Wikipedia policy must be observed. Rex(talk) 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you dont care about WP policies, facts, and the feelings of Arvanites I can't help you. Ethnologue and Helsinki reports calls it a language, Arvanitika language is ok according to WP policies, Albanian cannot be in the title according to the WP policies, but as I've said numerous times will be (acctually already is) in the wiki. You still want to label Arvanites as Albanians. Forget it. +MATIA  ☎ 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MATIA, Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language because it has dialects within it and classifies it as Indo-European, Albanian, Tosk. Albanau 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Albanau. +MATIA  ☎ 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Brigish English? Rob Church Talk 00:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing Second Straw Poll 

message: Divided into sections purely for clarity; the order in which these appear is entirely random.
====Matia====
I would like one good response regarding my previous comments (Macedonian language and Arvanitic songs, buildings, clothes etc). Ethnologue calls it a language and lists the following names: Arvanitika Albanian, Arvanitika, Arvanitic, Arberichte. That would be Arvanitic language etc. The linguists who have studied Arvanitika call it Arvanitika and not Arvanitic see User:Matia.gr/Arvanites sources. Language is a dialect with an army, and Arvanites were not known for their literature but for their fighting skills see Arvanites#Famous_Arvanites. I haven't called anyone to join the poll because wikipedia is not a democracy. Which linguists call it Arvanitic? Are they more than those who call it Arvanitika? Did they study the language? Have they done publications about Arvanitika? Do they quote Peter Trudgill? +MATIA  ☎ 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: note: 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And something else: did the people who REX invited to "vote" check all the sources? How many of them just vote what REX did? +MATIA  ☎ 23:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And I don't question anyone honour. You did call them to vote, didn't you? Have I called anyone to vote? +MATIA  ☎ 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't help wondering if you deliberately ignore my not-invisible sources. I've analysed too many times at Talk:Arvanites Mr Tapani Salminen Unesco's Red Book (one of the times here). Do you believe he studied Arvanitika Albanian (sic)? Did he copied someone else? Can we compare him with Brian Joseph, Peter Trudgill? Have they studied Arvanitika and Arvanites? My guess is that Mr Salminen has never talked to an Arvanite. We can of course mention him in Arvanitic language and say that he uses the term Arvanitika Albanian.+MATIA  ☎ 11:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See also Luxembourgish language, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28languages%29, and the relevant policy []. Varieties, dialects etc are named language for disambig etc purposes. And the official English name is Arvanitika according to the linguists who studied the language. +MATIA  ☎ 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop sending me on a wild goose chase to find something that doesn't exist (those sources are irellevant to the issues discussed here. They say nothing about a language or a dialect). Calling it Arvanitika language would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and I have explained why time and time again. Deal with it! Do you have a problem with the neutral Arvanitic? Your "sources" do not deny the fact that Arvanitic is a dialect and do not say that it is a language in its own right. That's your POV. Read WP:V, we cannot violate it. Also, sources must be in English unless they are quotes in which case the original language must be given. And I have explained, if UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue or any neutral source called Macedonian a dialect, then that could be changed. Do they say that it is a dialect? No they don't. Only Ethnologue mentions that some in Bulgaria view it as a Bulgarian dialect (imperialists, they don't count. Read WP:RS). Are you saying that UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph etc are wrong? That they are secretly Albanian nationalists? Wikipedia policy must be observed. Rex(talk) 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you dont care about WP policies, facts, and the feelings of Arvanites I can't help you. Ethnologue and Helsinki reports calls it a language, Arvanitika language is ok according to WP policies, Albanian cannot be in the title according to the WP policies, but as I've said numerous times will be (acctually already is) in the wiki. You still want to label Arvanites as Albanians. Forget it. +MATIA  ☎ 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MATIA, Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language because it has dialects within it and classifies it as Indo-European, Albanian, Tosk. Albanau 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Albanau. +MATIA  ☎ 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Brigish English? Rob Church Talk 00:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: I would like one good response regarding my previous comments (Macedonian language and Arvanitic songs, buildings, clothes etc). Ethnologue calls it a language and lists the following names: Arvanitika Albanian, Arvanitika, Arvanitic, Arberichte. That would be Arvanitic language etc. The linguists who have studied Arvanitika call it Arvanitika and not Arvanitic see User:Matia.gr/Arvanites sources. Language is a dialect with an army, and Arvanites were not known for their literature but for their fighting skills see Arvanites#Famous_Arvanites. I haven't called anyone to join the poll because wikipedia is not a democracy. Which linguists call it Arvanitic? Are they more than those who call it Arvanitika? Did they study the language? Have they done publications about Arvanitika? Do they quote Peter Trudgill? +MATIA  ☎ 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: note: 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And something else: did the people who REX invited to "vote" check all the sources? How many of them just vote what REX did? +MATIA  ☎ 23:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And I don't question anyone honour. You did call them to vote, didn't you? Have I called anyone to vote? +MATIA  ☎ 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't help wondering if you deliberately ignore my not-invisible sources. I've analysed too many times at Talk:Arvanites Mr Tapani Salminen Unesco's Red Book (one of the times here). Do you believe he studied Arvanitika Albanian (sic)? Did he copied someone else? Can we compare him with Brian Joseph, Peter Trudgill? Have they studied Arvanitika and Arvanites? My guess is that Mr Salminen has never talked to an Arvanite. We can of course mention him in Arvanitic language and say that he uses the term Arvanitika Albanian.+MATIA  ☎ 11:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See also Luxembourgish language, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28languages%29, and the relevant policy []. Varieties, dialects etc are named language for disambig etc purposes. And the official English name is Arvanitika according to the linguists who studied the language. +MATIA  ☎ 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop sending me on a wild goose chase to find something that doesn't exist (those sources are irellevant to the issues discussed here. They say nothing about a language or a dialect). Calling it Arvanitika language would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and I have explained why time and time again. Deal with it! Do you have a problem with the neutral Arvanitic? Your "sources" do not deny the fact that Arvanitic is a dialect and do not say that it is a language in its own right. That's your POV. Read WP:V, we cannot violate it. Also, sources must be in English unless they are quotes in which case the original language must be given. And I have explained, if UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue or any neutral source called Macedonian a dialect, then that could be changed. Do they say that it is a dialect? No they don't. Only Ethnologue mentions that some in Bulgaria view it as a Bulgarian dialect (imperialists, they don't count. Read WP:RS). Are you saying that UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph etc are wrong? That they are secretly Albanian nationalists? Wikipedia policy must be observed. Rex(talk) 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you dont care about WP policies, facts, and the feelings of Arvanites I can't help you. Ethnologue and Helsinki reports calls it a language, Arvanitika language is ok according to WP policies, Albanian cannot be in the title according to the WP policies, but as I've said numerous times will be (acctually already is) in the wiki. You still want to label Arvanites as Albanians. Forget it. +MATIA  ☎ 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MATIA, Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language because it has dialects within it and classifies it as Indo-European, Albanian, Tosk. Albanau 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Albanau. +MATIA  ☎ 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Matia.gr|Matia]]

message: comment: So much for the peace offer. +MATIA  ☎ 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brigish English? Rob Church Talk 00:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:REX|Rex]]

message: <moved from my talk page. mikka (t) 22:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arvanites doesn't derive from Albanian, but yes, you are right that this is one of the theories. Perhaps you are aware that there are some terms for example Albanian, Arvanitis, Arnaut, etc that are close or related but they are not exactly the same. We'll be in touch. Take care. +MATIA  ☎ 22:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one says that they are "the same". And of course, it is a theory, based on inspection of historical  documents (what else can it be? times long gone). If there is another explanation published, feel free to add it here. BTW Arnaut is missing... mikka (t) 22:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two main problems is that a) this is not the majority view and b) in greek we have Diphthongs (δίφθογγους) for example bravo is written as μπράβο. We can write and pronounce b even if betta (β) is pronnounced veeta. And yes, you are right that many things are missing (that's why I've mentioned Arnauts etc there are also mentions for Arnaut(i) on Scanderbeg). I'd like to expand Arvanitic language, Arvanites, Tosk language, Origin of the name Albania etc. +MATIA  ☎ 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to Arvanites#Origin_and_history_of_the_name, and I hope I'll expand it. +MATIA  ☎ 11:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvanitic language: name origin 

message: This Albania#Origin_and_history_of_the_name has more info than the main article Origin_and_history_of_the_name_Albania. +MATIA  ☎ 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops 

message: As the consensus-building process for this particular move is going to take some considerable time, the discussion on WP:RM (which would have been closed around now) is delisted until something is decided here. Rob Church Talk 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RM]]

message: +MATIA has requested that I provide some of the sources I referenced when I voted here against classifying Arvanitika as a language, and therby agreed with the prevailing scientific consensus that it is a dialect. The sources are listed below as well as on my talk page.
1. Adams, Douglas Q. "The Distribution of Retracted Sibilants in Medieval Europe." in Language 51:2, pp. 282-292. Washington D.C.: Linguistic Society of America. 1975.
2. Kazazis, Kostas. "Greek and Arvanitika in Corinthia." in Balkanistica: Occasional Papers in Southeast European Studies, Volume III." Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, pp. 1976. [Published for the American Association of Southeast European Studies].
3. Myers-Scotton, Carol. "Codeswitching as a mechanism of deep borrowing, language shift, and language death." in Language Death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.
4. Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. "Language decay and contact-induced change: Similiarities and differences." in Language Death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.
5. Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. "Theory of Language Death." in Language Death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.
6. Trudgill, Peter. "On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives." New York: New York University Press. 1983. 
7. Trudgill, Peter and G. A. Tzavaras. "Why Albanian Greeks are not Albanians: Language shift in Attica and Biotia." in Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations, pp. 171-184. Howard Giles (ed.), London: Academic Press. 1977.
8. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. "Greek-Albanian (Arvanitika) Interactive Storytelling and the Legitimation of Critical Discourse." in Traditional storytelling today: an international sourcebook, pp. 247-251. Margaret Read MacDonald (ed.), 	Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. 1999.
9. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. "Language change and language death in Albanian speech communities in Greece: a sociolinguistic study." Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1981. [NOTE: this is his doctoral thesis paper]
10. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. "A linguistic anthropology of praxis and language shift: Arvanítika (Albanian) and Greek in contact." Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. 
-P.MacUidhir (t) (c)08:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I left a res. at your talk page. +MATIA  ☎ 11:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some relevant sources for this debate. 

message: ... language grouped by linguists ...
: when we're discussing on languages families, we always assume this work was done by linguists, not by garbage truck drivers. I see no point of saying this here.
... Indo-European language family labelled Albanian or Thraco-Illyrian by linguists ....
: Thraco-Illyrian is just a hypotesis, which is nowadays considered false, because Thracian and Illyrian appear to have been very distinct languages and the identification with modern Albanian is not at all clear. Let's keep "Albanian" only, to let it be NPOV. bogdan | Talk 10:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Thraco-Illyrian" is outdated. It should not be given credit in this article. Alexander 007 10:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of WP:NPOV is that all views should be included, even those we may not find to our liking. The use of the term Albanian for the branch of Indo-European that includes Arvanitic is problematic and should be addressed. The Germanic family is not German, nor is the Italic Italian.--Theathenae 12:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theathenae's changes 

message: It is Gheg dialect, the standard is Tosk, which is almost identical with the Arvanitic. Please change the Albanian version in the *REAL* standard version.
:Can you explain that a little better please? +MATIA  ☎ 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He means that the the prayer should be in Standard Albanian. I would change it myself, but I can't be bothered. Rex(talk) 19:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Lord's Prayer" in Standard Albanian IS NOT STANDARD ALBANIAN 

message: This is totally unreliable information. The diagram in which the Arvanitic's position within Albanian is shown "Shqip" (the Standard Albanian word for Albanian) appears to be a sub-dialect of Tosk. Gheg speakers say they speak Albanian and not Gheg. They may only say "We speak the Gheg dialect of the Albanian language".
And finally, how come Arvanitic is a language when by all the means it is only a dialect of Albanian (not even a dialect, a form of Albanian). But, this seems to be a vandalistic production of the vandal Greek vandalizers.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luxembourgish language is shown in the diagram as variaty of West Central German, which is is a High German dialect family in the German language. Andreas 14:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOTALLY UNRELIABLE INFORMATION 

message: We seem to have disputes from other articles spilling onto this one. Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and work it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Woohookitty. I think that was the right thing to do. Let's first get the other article Arvanites done, and then come back to this one. Lukas (T.|@) 08:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: Okay, since no fighting has broken out so far again over at Arvanites after I did the reworking, I'm going to propose the same procedure here. Please look at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanitic.
The "political" compromise for the first sentence is the same as in the other article: "Form of Albanian" IN, "Shqip" OUT. That's not just a give-and-take, by the way, but I actually think both decisions can independently be justified.
As for the rest, the version I'm proposing has the advantage of being much better sourced, if nothing else (well, maybe "heavily oversourced" describes it better...)
Theathenae might not like the section on "classification", I'm afraid, αλλά τι να κάν'μι, ουρέ παιδιά, έτσ' του λέν' τα βιβλία.
Please feel free to edit in the User-page version, especially where it deals with the pure linguistic facts. I'd ask you to leave the politically sensitive formulations alone for the moment. 
Lukas (T.|@) 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version proposal

message: ;Proposal:
#Accept compromise formula for first sentence ("Form of Albanian" IN, "Shqip" OUT).
#Use version at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanitic as basis for further editing.
#Request unprotection on this basis.
;Support
*Support as nominator - Lukas (T.|@) 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: According to :
:Along with Vlachs, Macedonians, and Roma, Arvanites in Greece argue whether they should use the Greek or the Latin alphabet to write their language, which has rarely been written (Gerou, 1994a; Kazazis, 1994).
And according to : Greek or Roman script. So Arvanitic may be written in the Latin alphabet as well. Whether the Latin/Roman alphabet they are referring to = Albanian alphabet is a matter of doubt, but I definitely think that there are references claiming that the Latin/Roman can also be used to write Arvanitic should be mentioned. --NikX 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabet 

message: I've reverted to a different version by Telex. (see also Talk:Arvanites)talk to +MATIA 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv