Talk:Arvanites/Archive 6

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

message: Macrakis I have a Greek language-related source which states that Arvanites inhabited around the city of Athens, which explains the language of Athens, Pireus, Megara etc was isolated and developed into a separate dialect called "Old Athenian". There's even a map about it. Are you sure your source doesn't refer to Arvanite and Greek migrations to Athens after it became the capital of the Greek Kingdom? Or maybe is not being very specific about the borders of Athens? Miskin 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: quoted in John Freely, Strolling through Athens, p. 247
Seems pretty clear. --Macrakis 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I don't like the way the article presents these theories on the Pelasgians, it presents them as if it's because of their plausibility. It's sourced that the only reason they are propagating such theories is to as to claim indigenous status, so it's ultimately only for a political purpose.--Domitius 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. Not again. Man, read the old discussions. We do what the literature does, period. The Mac./Bul. situation is not the same as the Arv./Alb. situation, because that's how the literature treats it. End of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Re. this exchange  - I obviously agree with Macrakis that the the distinction between "Alb." and "Arv." didn't exist back then (and I'm slightly amused that Matia seems to be still insisting on it - hey everybody, isn't it nice we are all again reunited here in the same dicussion? Where's Albanau when you need him? ;-)) -- But anyway, I don't mind having it say "Arv." in our editorial text there. Especially because the two terms mean the same in that period. We're free as editors to choose whichever term fits better in the context of our article, and arguably "Arv." fits the bill there. As long as we leave the actual quotes intact. And the very fact that we juxtapose our editorial "Arv." usage with the "Alb." usage in the source, without further commentary, very neatly illustrates exactly that the terms were identical. Which is correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I obviously disagree with Macrakis. The point however is that the Alb/Arv is dealt in other parts of the articles. Greek people who are from Mikra Asia can't be called Turks, Cretans won't be called Saracens, and the confusing of Arvanites with Albanians (because of the language) is a matter that needs (and already has plenty) citations by authors who dealt specificaly with the subject and not just with travelers. Of course the Arvanites and the Albanians have similarities (I called them cousins in past talk pages - they could have been brothers but they were not), yet by 1821 Arvanites from Suli, Euboea, Hydra, Spetses and others were identifying themselves as Greeks. You may check the lives of Botsaraioi, Tzavelaioi, Krieziotis, Miaoulis, Bouboulina etc. Biris 1966 about the city of Athens, deals exactly with those few Athenians of Arvanitic inheritance (and we know Biris serious work about Arvanites, Roma people, and other, unrelated yet very good, works about architecture - hell his book about Athens was considered so good that the city of Athens funded its first publication). talk to +MATIA 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arv."/"Alb", and exactness of quotes 

message: Re. this removal of the :Category:Ethnic groups in Greece (): I'd rather like to revert that and get the category back in. While it's generally true that supercategories shouldn't be included when a more specific subcategory is already present, I think inclusion of both makes very good sense here. :Category:Greek people by ethnic or national origin is predominantly for articles about individual people, and so is its subcategory :Category:Arvanites - it focus is on individual biographies and it only includes the main article Arvanites additionally. The category :Ethnic groups in Greece, on the other hand, is for articles about the groups as such, and it conveniently places the Arvanites article side by side with Aromanians, Karamanlides, Vlachs etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead (those categories need a bit of cleaning/sorting up though). 85.73.64.144 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Agree that the categorisation scheme could be streamlined a bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem lies in the Greeks' distinct perception of ethnicity, which coincides with nationality almost entirely. The exception would be those Greeks of much more recent immigrant origins. The Arvanites and Vlachs certainly do not consider themselves any less ethnically Greek than other Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category implies no such thing. It doesn't say how Greek they are. Arvanites, Vlachs, Karamanlides etc. are certainly groups that in some way stand out within the population and should be categorised together. What cover term would you use to describe what these groups are? In English, "ethnic" is exactly what describes it, I for one can see nothing more appropriate. And of course the English meaning of the term is what counts, this being the English Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maniots and Cretans also stand out. Are they separate ethnic groups too? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the literature and you might find out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Νευράκια, νευράκια; ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Οχι ρε, φιλικά μιλάμε. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Πράγματι όμως, οι Αρβανιτόβλαχοι δεν ανήκουν στην ίδια κατηγορία με τους Εβραίους ή τους Αρμένιους ας πούμε, που επίσης κατοικούν εδώ και αιώνες στον ελλαδικό χώρο. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  category removal 

message: I do not care if you ban me , you will show how much unfair you are. Do not attribute to me the user with nick name “Ledea” and many others discussion that you attribute to me I never wrote. I admit that I had to answer a series of provocation and the expression of racism and no respect for the views of the other from certain member of Greek community group. But certainly is that which defines you as Greek. Domitius you claimed yourself that you want to make reality the dream of Ali Pashe Tepelena “ Nese mendoni qe greket nuk ju kuptojme gaboheni. Ne Greqi shume njerez dine gjuhen shqipe sepse kane origjine arvanitase; ekzistojme akoma.--Domitius 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Albanian origin is already mentioned in the article, in the #History section. However, they are not Albanians today, so you can't call them that. And no, no part of the Arvanites is autochthonous, they were migrants who have since been assimilated. Also quit making personal attacks.--Domitius 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Absolute fringe.--Domitius 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The followings should be change

message: Your actions speak for it self , you delete what you do not like or do not suit you, you can not write and manage an article on base of lies, claiming Greek what is not and writing the history not in the way it is, but in the way suits you and the interest that you protect. I demand that you have to show respect not only for my work but also for the work of the others that contribution as well.. Maybe you need to go in periphery of Athens more often and hear some Illyrian language that you know very well. Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.74.68 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gëzuar! It's not easy, is it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can people just PLEASE stop responding to the troll? There is really no reason not to simply ignore his rants, and it makes removal much easier if you know there aren't any good posts to lose together with the crap. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest for deleting arbitrary the talks 

message: Two more threads of trolling removed and archived . --Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage cleaned out