Talk:Arvanites/Archive 5

message: I think we should use the term "Arvanite" as an adjective rather than "Arvanitic". If you check the GHM report, the only adjective they use is "Arvanite". --Telex 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telex please check the rest of the refs to gain a better prespective of the adjectives (or whatever else) that are in use. talk to +MATIA 07:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on the adjective issue really. Both forms seem to be in use. But in general I agree with Matia we shouldn't over-value the GHM report at this stage. Unfortunately I haven't got my other articles here right now, and I honestly don't remember what Trudgill or Tsitsipis used in their English. By the way, with a short test googling I hit on these two papers: , . Comments? The first has some interesting remarks on the relationship between Albanians and Arvanites. The second is unfortunately access-restricted, but maybe someone could dig it out through some other channel. (As for the usage issue, the first uses "Arvanite" as an adjective, the second apparently "Arvanitic".) Lukas (T.|@) 08:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first one was criticized in that mailing list with Brian Joseph comments. (somewhere in the talk pages archive lies a link... ) talk to +MATIA 09:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find: Interesting discussion here  - although I haven't seen anything specifically addressing that paper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, let's just not bother about that adjective issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what should be done, because at present, the article is quite inconsistent. --Telex 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be. I don't think that we should change all occurances of Arvanite to Arvanitic, unless you think it would look better. talk to +MATIA 11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective 

message: The article formerly described the religion of the Arvanites as Greek Orthodox; I've changed that to Greek Orthodox. I think it's better to wikilink to Eastern Orthodox Church, as that article actually describes the religion, the doctrine and the history of the religion. Church of Greece, merely describes the Orthodox Church in Greece as an ecclesiastical organization and its structure. --Telex 23:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I've gone on record repeatedly as one that is skeptical about the "related ethnic groups" field in the infobox in general, and my personal preference is to leave it out. Nevertheless, I think we should offer 87.203.*.* a bit more of an explanation for leaving it out, if (s)he wishes to have it. I mean, after all, if ever two groups were in fact related to each other, it surely is the Albanians and Arvanites, let's be realistic about that. As for the reasons why I personally don't like the box, see Talk:Greeks. Lukas (T.|@) 09:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A) The Arvanites are not an ethnic group - B) It's original research. For the position of the Arvanites within Greece, see User:Telex/Ethnic identity in Greece. --Telex 11:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the scholarly literature does call them an ethnic group, I thought we had established that? (I think whatever definition of "ethnic" one uses, any group that is defined historically by a distinct language will probably always qualify. And the common English usage, I think, does not treat "ethnic" groupings as necessarily mutually exclusive, so identification as Greeks doesn't entail they can't also be an "ethnic" (sub-)group themselves too.) But I generally like the approach in your draft there, of distinguishing groups on several different levels of "distinctness". Lukas (T.|@) 12:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *As far as I know, in the modern world, the distinction between Tosk and Gheg is of little or no significance. Consider it like the North-South divide in the United Kingdom. --Telex 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Anon, please please please use edit summaries and use this talk page if you want to insist on changes that you know have been disputed by others. Sterile edit-warring is disruptive, even if it's done slowly enough not to touch 3RR.
Also, you reverted blindly, erasing an unrelated change made in the meantime by Matia (the :Category:Arvanites entry). I don't suppose that was on purpose; if yes, please please discuss this with us!
If you persist in these tactics, you run the risk of other editors adopting a policy of just reverting anything you do on sight.
For the moment, I'll leave in the "related" box (I'm pretty neutral on that one), but reinstating the category.  (someone was faster than me.) -- Lukas (T.|@) 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To 87.202.*.* 

message: The link removed lacks serious content, and I'm not going to accept not credible "sources". talk to +MATIA 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link removed 

message: Instead of trying to do something good, he results in PAs. I don't know why I expected something better after his talk page edits at Scanderbeg (and the lack of adding article content there too). talk to +MATIA 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not article Skanderbeg. Do you have dispute with me concerning the article Skanderbeg, we can discuss it at the article's talk page and not here. Kindly read carefully, the excuse me part, and in addition to that if you have sense of humor you would understand. Furthermore, the neutrality and factual accuracy is disputed, it's all over the talk page, so delating the templates is wrong.. Albanau 17:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on Albanau 

message: Two threads from 7 June removed to Archive for being troll-bait.  Please let's all get back to focus on the real issues and on what the literature says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Threads removed

message: As long as Albanau's intro stays, I support the tags he originally placed. talk to +MATIA 09:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags 

message: :I propose the erasement of following unnecessary nonsense:
While most historians regard the ancestors of today's Arvanites as part of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors to present-day Albanians,[5] some Arvanite authors have argued that the settlers were not ethnic Albanians in a true sense. They hypothesize that Arvanites were either descendants of originally Greek populations who had only intermediately become Albanized; or that they were descendants of some other Thraco-Illyrian tribes and as such related but not identical to Albanians proper;[citation needed] or that Arvanites are descendants of the original pre-Greek "Pelasgian" population and as such actually autochthonous to southern Greece. These views have no echo in mainstream scholarship to date.[6] Some Arvanites characterise the Arvanite settlement in Greece as the modern Dorian invasion[4][7].
:Besides, that the theory is incorrect prestented. The Arvanites Pelasgian theory is that Albanians and Greeks are the descendants of the Pelasgians that develop two different identities, Greek and Illyrian (Albanian), and that Albanians (Arvanites including) are brothers with Greeks.According to the books of the Arvanite author Aristh Kolla. I think this theories are very unnecessary and lack encyclopedic value.
--Albanau 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I wrote that passage, but it was based on an inexact understanding of what the alternative views were. I'll try to make a new synthesis shortly. The "Doric" and "Pelasgian" ideas should be minimized until someone cares to actually summarize them correctly. Lukas (T.|@) 09:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it's about time we add what the Albanians did to their Arvanites brothers in Suli, what General Katsimitros did in response to Mussolini's invasion, etc. talk to +MATIA 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section must be improved 

message: I propose the erasement or rewritting of the section "minority status", as it take a political stand on matters involving rejection and recognition of minorities and minority status by the Greek government. --Albanau 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, if you can't prove the opposite then delete... talk to +MATIA 09:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly happy with that passage either. It's somewhat repetitive, and the emphasis on Berisha is really extraneous to the topic of the article. My idea is to merge that section with the "calling them Albanians or not" stuff from the intro and shorten it down. Lukas (T.|@) 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: According to CIA The World Factbook the Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece. --Albanau 09:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helloooooo. Read the refs in that section. As long as you try to delete these, I'll expand them using sources. Unless Lukas agree with you that this article is a fringe view on Arvanites - then perhaps we 'll make it a simple redirect to "Albanian brothers" (sic). Just when this article look that it reached a good level, Lukas changed his mind about the intro and now we see an ever enlarging concordance between you two... talk to +MATIA 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on Telex, the greek gov is irrelevant. talk to +MATIA 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  further erasement or rewritting, section "minority status rejected" 

message: There are articles dealing with minorities. This one is about Arvanites. Please focus. The minority issue of the Arvanites was introduced by the then President Berisha and forwarded to a degree by Gens Polo (son of the Albanian historian Polo). But I have no idea what Albanau is proposing, opposing, rejecting or forwarding! Politis 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is not about minorities in Greece but Arvanites

message: Please Matia, I'm not deleting any concrete information here. I'm just tightening the prose. All the stuff you've been restoring was preserved, I'm just trying to summarize. This article is simply too wordy. Lukas (T.|@) 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance the Levy quote: "...in no way consider themselves an ethnic minority" - we're already saying that, why let Levy repeat it? That's just a feel-good quote if used like that. The only new thing that the quote contained is the dating to the early 19th century, and I summarized that a sentence or two below. Besides, you placed it at a point where it totally distorted the meaning of the next sentence. Lukas (T.|@) 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose the repeated removal of that quote. I'll revert it (if you don't) and expand it. talk to +MATIA 10:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Literal quotes should only be used if they actually add something new to the text. Their purpose in an encyclopedic article is not just to reaffirm something that's already stated just to make readers feel good. Lukas (T.|@) 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tightening prose 

message: Biris gives this number (as I've probably mentioned before in a talk page) comparing two similar studies by foreign authors of the 19th century (don't remember their names now) with statistics of the Greek area and/or Chrysoboula/Venetian records. And, again, PLEASE DON'T REMOVE THE SOURCES I'VE CITED. talk to +MATIA 06:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding 81 thousands 

message: The picture gallery is boring. Were all Arvanites austere-looking middle-aged men in 19th-century gala uniforms? I'd like to have something more colourful here. A woman. A klepht wearing a fustanella. A twentieth-century shepherd. A sailor. A 16th-century stradiote. Whatever. But not more than one uniformed politician. - We have a picture of Bouboulina somewhere, but we need a bit more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it (plus they are all PD images and we know they are of Arvanites). Here's a PD image of Bubulina. --Tēlex 11:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks for the clarification! And apologies for sounding harsh. Hope you've got your password sorted out now? :-) By the way, another hint: please sign your contributions on talk pages with ~~~~ (four tilde characters), that will automatically insert your user name and time stamp. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different... 

message: This may have been the case 100 years ago, but no longer today. Today you will find communities in Aspropirgo and some in Marcopoulo and a few Athens neighbourhoods. Please present any studies to back up 'most' statement and by reliable sources.Politis 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we should clarify the wording with respect to "historical settlement areas" versus "present-day presence" of Arvanites. Point taken. But I'd still want to see a wording that makes it clear that basically all of Attica and adjacent areas was solidly, predominantly Arvanite-speaking up until the 19th century. They were neither a minority among a larger Greek-speaking population, nor restricted to isolated enclaves within Attica, but really covered the whole area. The sources seem to agree on this (Fourikis, Sasse and others as reported by Trudgill, Botsi, Tsitsipis etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All...? The population of the city of Athens was mostly Greek and Muslim. Also, most of Attica - including its moutains and most of its coast, was unihabited, and, of course, Attica prefecture did not exist until after independence. Perhaps you mean, until the 19thC., most of the inhabitants of Attica were Arvanites. Remember that with the 19thC, the influx of inhabitants after Athens became the capital, were not Arvanites. Politis 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sure, the growth of the capital (from the Mid-19th cent. onwards) was what changed everything. Have you got any data for the inhabitants of Athens (was it a "city"??) before it became the capital? - By the way, there seems to be something interesting somewhere in Biris, where he demonstrates how the Arvanite element was so strong even within Athens until well into the mid/late 19th century that even the German immigrants who had come with the Bavarian kings got linguistically Albanianised before they got Hellenised. Haven't seen the original pages myself though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. As for "Albanianisation", I wasn't of course using it in a national sense, just linguistically in the sense of adopting Arvanitika. Here's the source that I had in mind: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most of Attica

message: Albanau, just what exactly do you think is disputed? Your contribution in pointing out the elements of dispute would greatly help us all. Thank you for your perspicacity. Politis 10:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is disputed?

message: Irrespective of what anyone says, the history section was in dire need of revisions. There were spelling errors, as well as a lack of basic paragraph organization. Moreover, certain aspects of the section's content were just plain incomprehensible. Before anyone jumps to any conclusions as to what I did, just remember that the history section was left in a sorry state of disorganization for a long time. Now that the section is better organized, it will be much easier to add more content or refine existing content about the history of the Arvanites. Deucalionite 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deucalionite, while I very much appreciate your attempt at tidying up the history section, which indeed is badly in need of revision, I do think your edits again contain a good amount of OR speculation. Please stick more closely to the sources. And as for the old bone of contention, the characterisation of the medieval settlers as "Albanians", that has been discussed ad nauseam and the result was that there is not the tiniest shred of evidence allowing us to call them anything else. "Albanian settlers" is going to stay, live with it. I'm leaving in your other edits for the moment, as I haven't got time to review it all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Round 3. (or is it 4? or 999?). Deuc.'s slow edit-war about the "Albanian-speaking Greek settlers" is getting boring. Folks, give me two or three days and I'll present my own full rewrite of the article, it needs a lot of tightening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to History Section 

message: Deucalonite: please don't resort to historical revisionism to cover up the factual Albanian (yes, Albanian - all non-partian sources use this word) origin on the Arvanites. Please understand that the Arvanites themselves (not just their ancestors) were known as Albanians before the establishment of the Albanian state, this is a fact. The territory of present day Albania which lies south of the Shkumbin River is known to Greeks as Northern Epirus and to Albanians as Toskëria - the land of the Tosks. Before the establishment of the Albanian state, Albanian used to refer to the Arvanites in Greece, and the Christian Orthodox Tosk Albanians, who were both considered the same people (they both even used the Greek alphabet to write their language). See these maps and how Arvanitika is designated   . See this document dating from 1879 which speaks of the Albanian dialect of Hydra spoken by the Albanians in Greece and particularly those of Hydra. Albanian and Arvanite were used in the same way as Anglos and Englezos are used today to refer to English people today. The Muslim Albanians were referred to as Turkalvani, and they were the distinct nation (millet). Even today, the Encyclopedia Britannica says that Albanian is spoken in Attica and Boeotia. Today, Christian and Muslim Albanians are considered the same nation, and the Arvanites in Greece are considered part of the Greek nation. This is a fact, but it was not always exactly like this, and only a nationalist would have a problem with pointing this out. Please try reading Biris's book, he both tactfully and accuratly explains all this. --Telex 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Telex, I of course agree with what you say. We should still try to get the whole section rewritten some time soon, Deucalionite is at least right in saying the current version is way unsatisfactory. - As for the Illyrian bit, I don't remember where it came up, can you give me a hint where it was discussed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deucalonite 

message: As promised, I'm proposing a substantial rewrite now. I've tightened and shortened the history section and some of the others too. I've also eliminated the old "trivia" section and some of the things that had been moved from there into other parts, because they were, well, trivial. (Names of ouzo brands and the like). I also left out the bookcover pictures, because we had no fair-use rationale for them, so they would have counted as copyvios. There are, however, now better pictures available of some famous Arvanites, especially Markos Botsaris, Laskarina Bouboulina, Melina Mercouri (if she is one, as Matia said). The Greek WP also has a picture of Engonopoulos. We could either use those for a new image gallery in the info box, or put them somewhere in the text.
Another thing I left out is the "Studies of the Arvanites" section. Two reasons:
*First, it was giving "undue weight" to some of the less scholarly and more fringy authors (Kollias, Dede) - if we wanted the real good ones, we should have had Trudgill, Breu, Fourikis, ...
*Second, we really don't have any such section anywhere else on Wikipedia. No article on "X" usually has a section "Studies of X". The role of various relevant authors and works should simply emerge from how they are quoted in the text.
The text is currently not quite as densely footnoted as it used to be. If anything is in doubt, just place a few fact tags; there's lots and lots of literature to back this all up but I've annotated it rather loosely for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Re. these changes : Deucalionite, you are (again) playing fast and loose with the two historically different concepts of Greekness: the modern, predominantly ethnolinguistic concept (speakers of the Greek language), and the historical concept of "Romaioi" (i.e. citizens of Byzantium / Greek Orthodox Christians). Where historical sources call Arvanites "Greeks", it is obviously in this latter sense; however, we are writing this article for present-day English-speaking readers and therefore need to use the term "Greek" in its present meaning. Moreover, the sources that use "Greek" never (as far as I can see)  use it to imply "non-Albanianness", i.e. a distinction between the "Greek" Arvanites and some other, non-Greek Albanians proper.
Specifically:
*"Albanian-speaking Greek settlers": still baseless. The modern literature calls them Albanians, pure and simple.
*Geographical designation "Greek territories of Albanitia" (and footnote 1). It's entirely irrelevant what a late-18th century Greek geographer called that area, and the question of how "Greek" it would have been back four hundred years earlier can only be left to modern historians. The footnote is irrelevant. For our purposes, the area is "what is today Albania", full stop.
*Footnote Tselalis: Who's that guy? What's the bibliographic details? Why a full literal quote in Greek? The text is obviously not a scholarly treatment - we can perhaps use it somewhere as an example of how Greek authors at various times have attempted to Hellenify the Arvanites, but we can't use it as a reference to prop up the claim that they actually were Greeks.
*Footnote Commines about the Stradioti: a Westerner using the term "Greek" (when? In the 16th century?) would obviously understand it in the sense of "eastern orthodox" - those guys couldn't have cared less about the finer details of Balkan nationalities. And why quote it in that terrible Katharevousa translation? Of course, all these primary sources with respect to the Stradioti are quite useless here, since we have perfectly usable secondary sources. Why not just quote the Pappas article from the Stratioti page and be done with it? It has quite an insightful discussion of the partial Hellenization of these Arvanite groups.
*All the other footnotes in that section: same issue; why use primary source quotes (with no proper bibliographic reference) when you yourself have obviously been taking them from some secondary work? Quote that, so that we all know what you are working with.
*..."While fighting, they would profess their identity as Greeks"... do I take it you mean that whenever those Arvanites went to battle, they would continually mutter to themselves "I'm a Greek, I'm a Greek, I'm a Greek"? Sorry, but that sentence just sounds stupid. The whole thing you've added here is just a big and weighty POV-pushing elaboration of a simple fact that was already stated adequately and in appropriately neutral encyclopedic style in the previous version: "Many of them became bilingual and culturally assimilated to the Greeks" If you want a reference, quote Pappas or whomever else and be done with it. The rest is just national feel-good rhetorics.
*..."obligated themselves to helping"... That's not English. 
Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Re. "Despotate of Epirus": Look at the relevant article Despotate of Epirus, apparently during the crucial time of the 14th/15th century, there actually hardly was such a state any longer, and if it was it didn't control the areas in question here. Using that term here strikes me as unhelpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deucalionite's proposals 

message: I think you should skip the comments as to whether I am "fast and loose" with the so-called "different" concepts of Greekness. And you wonder why we cannot get along. 
Just so you know (since you never ask the right questions), the concept of "Greekness" possesses a paradigm that entails ethnicity, religion, culture, and language. Each component has its place in Greek identity. However, language was never the single-most defining aspect of being Greek (unless deliberately made so for ulterior political purposes; example, Athenians and the "barbarian" concept). Though Greeks have been able to speak their own tongue (in its various forms), they did not allow language to serve as a barrier in separating Greek peoples (again, unless there were ulterior political motives involved). Throughout history, Greeks have spoken non-Greek languages and incorporated foreign words into their various dialects. This, however, did not change their ethnic make-up or their ability to identify themselves as Greeks.
The reason why you see a "difference" between the modern Greek worldview and the medieval Greek worldview is because you are influenced by the highly politicized conflicts between classicists and medievalists. Both groups each wanted to have their respective form of Greek heritage to be the defining (and perhaps only) hallmark to the development of the modern Greek nation-state. However, social reality dictates that ethnic Greeks always had a place for both their ancient past and their medieval past.
As for your English-speaking readers, it would be wise to explain honestly that the autocephalous concept was a puissant influence in the minds of many different Orthodox Christian populations. Irrespective of which ecclesiastical institution had the most influence in a region or millet, the autocephalous concept remained whether Western European academia accepts this fact of social reality or not. It is through this concept that Orthodox Christian populations should be seen through the prism of ethno-religion and not just religion.
As for your shopping list of critiques, I have made some minor improvements to the article. However, many of the critiques you have provided are just plain nitpicking (you are an automaton editor so pat yourself on the back). To spare you the agony of reading long responses, I will only expect you to understand the following concepts:
*There is nothing wrong with calling the Arvanites "Albanian-speaking Greek settlers". This coincides with the statement in the introductory paragraph that states how Arvanites speak a form of Albanian and self-identify as Greeks. The Arvanites' language never served as a barrier for them to help other Greeks consistently. This proves simply that language does not define ethnicity. For you to blindly concur with what Western Europe states as "pure and simple Truth" (capital "T" truth and not little "t" truth) is just plain wrong (actually it contradicts with whatever code-of-conduct you may have as a supporter of NPOV).
*The geographical name "Albanitia" comes from a source, doesn't it? The source in question could very well possess information that is cited from older texts. To assume that only modern scholars have a right to give a name to the land from which the Arvanites came from is quite narrow-minded. To also assume that modern scholars (or Western European scholars) are superior to a late 18th century Greek geographer is slightly arrogant (maybe even discriminatory).
Overall, I will make whatever changes are necessary in order to somehow convince you (which would take a miracle) that information (and life in general) is not subject to what the Albanians and what Big Brother W.E. have to say. Though you have to admit, both parties do have some close political relations, which in turn does influence W.E. academia. I will continue to make any necessary additions to the article irrespective if you (or Aldux or Telex) revert the article continuously. Deucalionite 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the above is enough to demonstrate the fundamentally tendentious, "original (pseudo-)research" nature of Deucalionite's edits to this article. From now on, I will not bother wasting my time and bloating this talk page with giving detailed reasons for any more reverts I'll have to make. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Side-note: Do I take it that your Tselalis source is a book about Dimitris Plapoutas, and that the book describes him as an Arvanite? You might want to add the :Category:Arvanites to that bio article in that case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Perfect's critiques?

message: Unfortunately Future Perfect, your thinking is erroneous. To assume that I am a (pseudo-)researcher (kind of offensive; WP:CIVIL) shows that you criticize everything and never ask the right questions.
I recommend that you ask yourself the following questions before making any future judgments:
*If I had not continuously altered the Arvanites article, would have had a significant incentive to alter the history section that you agreed was filled with errors?
*How can I be, as you claim, a "(pseudo-)researcher" if the edits I provided are sourced?
*How can I be an unworthy contributor when in fact I respect your hard work in refining the history section?
You do not pay attention to these nuances and you go off making false assumptions about me. You need to think beyond the typical dynamics of "good user" - "bad user". There is at least three shades of grey that you have yet to take into account. As for the contents of the above section, you simply dismissed what I stated about language not defining ethnicity and the autocephalous concept. Fine. However, you unfortunately assume that I came up with these concepts as if by magic. 
No one doubts that you are a superb editor Future Perfect. However, you need to expand your mind and not just assume everything is picture perfect in the world of academia (the notion of "pure and simple" in academia can only be achieved through the finding of both compelling and conclusive evidence that coincides with reality; difficult to achieve).
In the end, what will you prove? That you are superior? If it makes you feel any better, I give you permission to ignore me and revert my edits that contain sources and references. So, happy reverting and good luck proving whatever point(s) you have to make. Over and out. Deucalionite 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False Judgments

message: Deucalionite, you are editing against consensus here and constantly POV-pushing.  Future Perfect, Aldux, and Telex have been inordinately patient with you.  At this point, it should be clear to you (as it has been to everyone else for a while) that you are engaging in disruptive editing.  You have been on WP long enough to know this.  --Macrakis 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported for 3RR: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncooperative editing

message: The article is missing certain facts. Here is a question the article doesn't answer: When did the Arvanite migrations end? The answer: ca. 1600 AD. 
Troupis, Theodore K. Σκαλίζοντας τις ρίζες μας. Σέρβου. p. 1036. Τέλος η εσωτερική  μετακίνηση εντός της επαρχίας Ηπειρωτών μεταναστών, που στο μεταξύ πλήθαιναν με γάμους και τις επιμειξίες σταμάτησε γύρω στο 1600 μ.Χ.
All things (more or less) have an end. Socio-historically, it doesn't make much sense to only explain the beginning and peak of a migration and not its nadir or end. Deucalionite 18:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. According to summaries of the literature elsewhere, the main waves of migrations were in the 14th and 15th century, but I've also seen 13th-16th mentioned (I've only checked the GHM report and Botsi right now, though). Is the book you are quoting a reliable historical study? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the book is reliable. However, the only drawback you will probably find is that it is focused on the region of Serbou. If the other literature does not mention any other major/minor migrations past 1600 A.D., then wouldn't we have to safely assume that the migrations ended at 1600 A.D.? Deucalionite 20:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's then put in "16th century" instead of "15th", for now. The book you're quoting doesn't seem to intend anything much more specific than that either, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. Put in "16th century" instead of "15th". Yet, wouldn't it be better to specify an exact year for the end of the migrations just like the source does? Or, instead of 1600 A.D., we could put in "early 17th century" just in case any last minute Arvanite migrations occurred in 1601, 1602, etc. Deucalionite 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "γύρω στο..." isn't really an exact date either, is it? Does it matter? Does your book quote anything more specific, besides that one sentence (like, what actual historical studies it's based on?) If not, I'd propose to go simply by the other sources we have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, even if an exact date is not provided, a circa date is better than nothing. I was thinking of putting in this sentence to complement the sentence you already wrote (your sentence: "The main waves of migration into southern Greece started around 1300 and reached a peak some time during the 14th century"). After your sentence, why not put in something simple like, "By around 1600 AD, most major Arvanite migrations ended." Even if Troupis only provides a ball-park estimate of when the migrations ended, it is still something that would verify the sentence source-wise and would generally answer the question. Tell me what you think. Deucalionite 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can still see little difference between "until the 16th century" and "by 1600", but if you must, go ahead... Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Deucalionite 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: The second group of ethnic Albanians in Greece are called the Arvanites. They migrated to what is today central and southern Greece as early as the 11th-12th centuries. These early migrations were part of Byzantine invitations to settle depopulated areas in the south of what is today Greece. Other accounts mention that they were fleeing forced Islamization by the Turks. They are said to number from 300,000 and up to 2,000,000 by some Arvanit accounts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.114.51 (talk • contribs).
:No comment. That topic has been debated a lot here and should not be re-opened. Sorry, but please read the article, and the previous debates if you have the stomach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arvanites are Albanians

message: I'm curious of how many Arvanites are living today in America who think of themselves as Greek?
Can you please give me some numbers. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.114.51 (talk • contribs).
:No idea. Don't think there'd be any statistics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's this question about? Think of themselves as Greeks? They are Greeks. Whatever the origin of some of their ancestors was, they are Greeks. This is an encyclopedia (even the talk page) and not a forum where anyone can post anything he wants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sthenel (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many Arvanites is there in America