Talk:Arvanites/Archive 1

message: Note: Most of the edit history of this page has been removed, in order to remove personal identifying information at a user's request. The majority of posts on this talk page will be attributed via their signature. If the full edit history is needed, contact Samuel Blanning, or if not available the administrators' noticeboard.
Review of  A Linguistic Anthropology of Praxis and Language Shift: Arvantika (Albanian) and Greek in Contact
:Indeed. And one of the citations is: Trudgill, Peter & Tzavaras, George. 1977. Why Albanian-Greeks are not Albanians: Language shift in Attica and Biotia. In: Giles, H. (ed.). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, New York: Academic Press. 171-184.--Theathenae 00:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: What exactly are you disputing about the article, other than the fact that TheAthenae has edited it? --Jpbrenna 03:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My views are merely a reflection of how our communities view ourselves, reinforced by every other Arvanite and Aromanian I have ever met and unadulterated by the non-Greek constructed identities Albanian and Rumanian nationalists have attempted to project on us. I can see how you would find my views irritating and obstructive to your own agendas, but they are a genuine representation of how we feel, especially considering the pain and suffering your meddling inflicted on us in the past.--Theathenae 11:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: There is nothing in this article that is factually incorrect, nor is the link with Albania or Albanian omitted. The only problem is Albanau's insistence, not merely on calling the Arvanites "Albanians", but going so far as to claim on the fustanella talk page that "you cannot claim Theathenae that Arvanites are Greeks, a pure Arvanítis is a pure Albanian, they have no Greek origin". If you scroll up on this page you'll see more of this kind of diatribe: "It's obviously that this two articles are written from Theathenae point of view, he want to claim that the Arvanites are albanophone hellenes and not hellenphone Albanians". He even disputes the Arvanites' Greek nationality, effectively equating these Greek citizens with the recent Albanian immigrants. That is a deliberate distortion of the truth that is unacceptable on Wikipedia.
Yeah, that's wrong. The Arvanites are a hellenized ethnicity who have a common origin with Albanians, but you can no longer call them Albanians in the same sense as an Albanian is an Albanian. Decius 12:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That's all I have said from the very beginning. Having a common origin does not mean we are the same. All of us are ultimately related, after all. Unlike Albanau, I have never made claims of ethnic "purity". And unlike you, I didn't even claim my pretty skirt was originally Greek.--Theathenae 13:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Ethnologue and the overwhelming majority of (non-Albanian) linguists recognise the language as a separate language, not a mere dialect of Albanian.--Theathenae 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sharing a genetic classification is not the same thing as being dialects of the same language. Maltese for example is classified Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, Central, South, Arabic, but its status as a language separate from Arabic is never questioned.--Theathenae 21:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And if Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian can be separate languages despite being entirely mutually intelligible, then I think we can safely call Arvanitic a separate language from Tosk Albanian, considering their level of mutual intelligibility is only around 50%.--Theathenae 21:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with "sharing a common origin with Tosk"? Rather similar to the Ausbau relationship between Aromanian and Rumanian.--Theathenae 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the beef? 

message: "Almost all speakers of Arvanitika are today bilingual, i.e. they also speak Greek, usually fluently for the younger generations (Trudgill, 1975:53). It is widely agreed that Arvanitika today have been influenced significantly by the linguistic environment in which they have evolved, sometimes for centuries, without any contact with the Albanian communities of modern day Albania. So, it has acquired a separate (Ausbau) status from Albanian, in fact with dialectical richness; nevertheless, at least partial mutual intelligibility between Arvanite and Albanian exists (Trudgill, 1994:14). Indeed, the recent (in the early 1990’s) arrival of hundreds of thousands, mainly illegal, Albanian immigrants in Greece has led to a successful test of that mutual intelligibility, when many settled in Arvanitika villages (it is also noteworthy that in these villages we have seen the two most serious incidents of beatings of Albanian immigrants)."
http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html
I would add that the recent Albanian immigrants themselves have acquired Greek so rapidly and speak the language so fluently that one can hardly question the Arvanites, who have after all lived in Greece for five centuries. The real question is whether or not the children of the recent immigrants will be speaking any Albanian at all in the years to come.--Theathenae 22:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Helsinki report 

message: The dispute is not over Arvanites present day ethnicity, they have intermarried with greeks and define themselves as Greeks, however there is little dispute as to their origins and that of their language. It is a language that came from Tosk Albanian, nearly all
studies on the language state that they are of Albanian origins. Nobody in Albania denies their hellenicness of today. They call themselves Greek, they have been Greeks for over 2 centuries. However this does not change the fact of where they originated from, evidenced even in Byzantine records. Byzantines, who were in fact the people were invited the present day Arvanites(then Arberor) into the Pelopenesus, due to the depopulation of the area thanks to the lands decline. 
Arvanitic itself is barely 50% intelligible with Tosk,
I myself speak spanish. However when I hear someone speak latin, I can understand about 1/2 the stuff said. Does that mean that Spanish is not a Romance language, deriving from latin? No, it just means that centuries of foreign influence, and independant growth and slang have changed the language to it's own course. This has been through 2000 years time. Arvanitika has had 500 years of influence, purely from Greek. I however, can still understand it. I speak a Tosk dialect, and while it may be difficult due to the large amount of recent Greek loanwords and prnounciation differences. I need people to repeat something over again. However, when it comes literature. I can understand it almost perfectly. Many of the differences between todays shqip and Arvanitika are mentioned in one of the articles I provided. 
The following were taken from this book (Note the Book is only in Italian, French and Arberesh or Arvanitika)
From Almiropotamos dialect;
"Moj Marie Marigo, tregoi zoti se te do"
translation;
" My Maria Marigo, tell god because he loves you" (I dont know who Maria is, never mentioned)
do = want, for those who understand a bit of albanian you will notice I put "love you", this is my interpretation because in Albanian "dua" and "do" are also used to express effection to someone close to you. 
Kemi dhene edhe gjake / per te bahemi kuvende arberore kutu
rough translation;
We gave blood, so we can become united Arberor(Arvanite) here.
Ill place some more later if you want...Tpilkati 04:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute is on their origins 

message: I delated this  some have argued that they are descended from early inhabitants of Greece..... Clearly Greek propaganda! And also replace this  the descendants of settlers sharing a common origin with the Tosks with this the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry because the immigrants or the descendants of Arvanites that settled in Greece during Middle Ages were not a mishmash of people sharing common origin with Tosk. They were Albanian immigrants thus make Arvanites descendants of the Albanian immigrants.
The Encyclopædia Britannica Article mention a mass Albanian immigration to Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese where most of the Arvanites are residing today.
The origins of the Albanians (Albanoi/Arvanitai in Greek) remain uncertain. They appear to be the descendants of the Illyrian populations who withdrew into the highlands of the central Dinaric chain. Their name may originate from the valley of the Arbanon (along the Shkumbi River) in the theme of Dyrrachion (Durrës/Durazzo), in which they were first noted by outside commentators. Their language probably evolved from ancient Illyrian (formerly classed with the Hellenic group of Indo-European languages but now generally recognized as an independent member of the latter family), but it is heavily influenced by Greek, Slavic, and Turkish, as well as medieval Italian. For reasons not yet fully understood, the Albanians began in the 14th century to advance into the western coastal plain, where they served both Byzantine and Serbian overlords as well as ruling independently under various warlords and chiefly families; they were also present in considerable numbers in Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, serving as soldiers and as farmers, colonizing deserted lands. Albanians arrived in large numbers in the Peloponnese during the reign of the despotes Manuel Kantakouzenos, who brought them there to serve as soldiers and to resettle depopulated regions. The impact of their presence on the region's existing ethnic and linguistic structure remains debated.
Here also,
Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity Cambridge University Press by Jonathan M Hall
These Arvanites are descended from Albanians who first entered Greece between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries (though there was a subsequent wave of immigration in the second half of the eighteenth century.)
Albanau 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasons why I edit the page 

message: :Albanian language (Encyclopædia Britannica Article) Dialects
:All of the Albanian dialects spoken in Italian and Greek enclaves are of the Tosk variety and seem to be related most closely to the dialect of Çamëria in the extreme south of Albania.
:Linguistic Anthropology of Praxis and Language Shift: Arvanitika (Albanian) and Greek in Contact Oxford University Press by Lukas D Tsitsipis
:Arvanítika, a variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for more than four centuries....
:Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World Princeton University Press by Loring M. Danforth
:There is also a small group of Arvanites, who speak a dialect of Albanian and who, like the Vlach, have developed a strong sense of Greek national identity.
:Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death Cambridge University Press edited by Nancy C Dorian.
:The Albanian speakers of Greece are bilingual in Modern Greek and the local variety of Albanian known as Arvanítika; the latter belongs to the southern or Tosk dialect of the language. Arvanítika speakers are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry who migrated to what is now Greece during the later period of the Byzantine empire, and lived in enclaved communities but not completely out of contact with the Greeak-speaking populations.
As you see above the Arvanitc language is a variety of Tosk Albanian. It isin't as Theathenae made it up sharing common origin with Tosk Albanian and niether isin't Arvanites descendants to a mishmash of people sharing common origin with Tosk. They are descendants to the Albanian immigrants. I'm against Theathenae description, "sharing common origin with tosk", this is his invention. Every neutral sources is against his claim. Enough said!
Albanau 13:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  acknowledge neutral source 

message: I erased this, The native disposition of the Tosks has been modified by intercourse with the Greeks and Vlachs., cause Tosk are as Geg Albanians and not a mishmash of people. Tosk are not Greek/Vlach/Albanian people. Tosks are southern Albanians and Gegs are northern Albanians. Albanau 17:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  erased Greek propaganda 

message: """"This phrase "The native disposition of the Tosks has been modified by intercourse with the Greeks and Vlachs." is from 1911 encyclopedia article for Albania. MATIA 16:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  encyclopedia phrase 

message: Can I please ask you all a question? How does the status of the Arvanites differ from the status of the Arbëreshë of Italy? Also, if we can say Tosk Albanian, Gheg Albanian and Arvanitic Albanian, while referring to the particular dialect; can we say Arvanitic Albanians as we say Tosk Albanians or Gheg Albanians? REX 14:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the Arvanites are Albanians because their ancestors originally came from a place that is now called Albania 700 years ago?  Should this line of thinking apply to all 800 million inhabitants of the Americas except for what has remained of the native tribes?  Chronographos 14:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You may say whatever you want, but if by we you include me, then I won't.  I know nothing about Tosk, Gheg or Arbereshe.  I  know that the Arvanites are Greek citizens and they have been unfailingly and uniformly pledging their allegiance to Greece, not Albania, from the 1821 War of Independence onwards.  As for your "criteria", they could have come from Moses and written on tablets of stone and still I wouldn't care.  Chronographos 15:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Whereas your personal opinion is somehow special? Chronographos 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Strawman alert.  Because it would be innacurate.  All Greeks are entitled to their particular heritage and characteristics, be they Pontians, Arvanites, Maniates, Vlachs, Constantinopolitans or Tsakones.  There is no reason whatsoever to hide them.  Chronographos 16:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: And the straws keep piling up .... Chronographos 16:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I am rather satisfied with the current article as is, except that I would specify that the original Arvanites came from the lands that their contemporary, Anna Comnena, calls Άρβανον and which coincide with the central part of the modern state of Albania.  I would also strike out the Shqiptar name. Chronographos 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Mainly in what? Chronographos 17:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Your posing as a "Greek" didn't last very long now, did it?  You should not have asked for help at Albanau's talk page, it was too obvious.  Chronographos 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No difference whatsoever.  It's just nice to know who one is talking to.  Chronographos 17:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We have established nothing.  You may claim to be anything you want, even a Klingon-Martian hybrid.  But don't take others for fools. Chronographos 17:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I can  Chronographos 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly are you arguing over? 

message: The official site of the largest Arvanitic association of Greece: http://arvasynel.gr - There isn't a single reference to the Arvanites as "Albanians".--Theathenae 10:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprise, surprise ...  Chronographos 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No one is impartial by definition, except maybe God.  The arvasynel website mention of such theories is not the real issue here.  The point is that although they, or anyone, could argue that this, that or the other theory is true, the Arvanitikos Syndesmos does not even mention the word "Albanian" once.  This ought to tell you something about the collective will of the Arvanite Greeks. Chronographos 14:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Chronographos & Theathenae, the trustworthiness of the website can then indeed be doubted strongly. Albanau 15:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: why better of with the part "or the Albanian people" cause not everyone will know who reads it that Arbersh people during the mediveal time in Albania were an Albanian ethnicity, and Albanians are classed as an ethnicity regardless of the fact that the nation did not exist then as a modern state. You denied this one important part of the mediveal people Arbersh or at least try to hide it, their ethnicity. The part "or the Albanian people" will just explain the Albanian ethnicity of the descendants to the Arvanites people, the arbersh who had an Albanian ethnicity. Albanau 16:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That doesn't change the historical realities of the situation, and were do you get the term Arvanite Greeks?, and if the term exist shouldent we mention it in the article? "Arvanites are descendants of the Albanian people from central Arbëria (i.e. medieval Albania) who migrated to Greece during the late Middle Ages" would be a good phrase. Albanau 16:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The scale of User:Albanau's isolation becomes evident when I of all people agree with every word User:Decius says. I may have had my differences with the lad, but on this occasion he's right on the ball. No one here has denied the Albanian connection, but we can describe the facts without offending the very people we're talking about. If Albanian extremists take issue, tough.--Theathenae 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Decius, and they shoulden't either be called 'albanophone Greeks like the text on Arvanites, Language and culture implies some have argued that they are descended from early inhabitants of Greece. Clearly Greek propaganda that should been erased from the article long time ago., And secondly, there is actually nothing wrong with the phrase Arvanites are descendants of the Albanian people from medieval Albania who migrated to Greece during the late Middle Ages. --Albanau 18:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "Albanophone" any more.  They are hellenophone.  Arvanitic is almost extinct.  And Αλμπαναού will never heed moderation.  Chronographos 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Αρβανίτικος Σύνδεσμος Ελλάδος 

message: I believe that Theathenae and Chronographos are being unreasonable. Before making statements one must be prepared to have to prove them when they are challenged. The ancestors of the Arvanites are Albanians as the Helsinki Report states. If Theathenae and Chronographos cannot accept these proven facts, they will just have to withdraw. Wikipedia policy must be observed. REX 17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROOF 

message: I would like to pass on some information:
*The Helsinki Report refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians:The first Christian Albanian migrations to what is today Greek territory took place as early as the XI-XII centuries (Trudgill, 1975:5; Banfi, 1994:19), although the main ones most often mentioned in the bibliography happened in the XIV-XV centuries, when Albanians were invited to settle in depopulated areas by their Byzantine, Catalan or Florentine rulers (Tsitsipis, 1994:1; Trudgill, 1975:5; Nakratzas, 1992:20-24 & 78-90; Banfi, 1994:19). According to some authors, they were also fleeing forced Islamization by the Turks in what is today Albania (Katsanis, 1994:1). So, some have estimated that, when the Ottomans conquered the whole Greek territory in the XV century, some 45% of it was populated by Albanians (Trudgill, 1975:6). Another wave of Muslim Albanian migrations took place during the Ottoman period, mainly in the XVIII century (Trudgill, 1975:6; Banfi, 1994:19). All these Albanians are the ancestors of modern-day Arvanites in Central and Southern Greece.
*The UNESCO RED BOOK ON ENDANGERED LANGUAGES: EUROPE refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian.
So I assume that the page can be now unprotected and the above proven facts be added to it and it will remain that way until the opposite can be proven. Agreed? REX 09:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect page 

message: I followed the link theathenae gave us and found this!  Is this arvanitic language? I would like to hear your opinion about it. If true, it is fascinating that ancient writings in Arbanitic language have been discovered! Kemla 09:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient writings dated 725  BC! Are they [[Arvanitic_language]]?

message: According to MSN Encarta: two variants of Tosk have developed over 500 years in Italy and Greece, brought there by emigrants and mercenary soldiers from Albania. Arvanitika is spoken in some rural enclaves of Greece, primarily by older people; and Arbëreshë is spoken in southern Italy. So I guess we can refer to Arvanitic as a variety of Tosk and until you can prove otherwise, don't change it. REX 10:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened REX? Didn't you enjoy the talk we had yesterday - Talk:Arvanitic language? MATIA 10:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Arvanitic_language/Archive_1#just_the_facts is the current link. +MATIA  ☎ 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The present Albanian language is Tosk. The phrase Arvanitic shares a common origin with Tosk is correct. Tosk and Arvanitic developped seperately for the last 5 or 8 centuries. As a result modern Tosk and Arvanitic have some differences, yet both languages share a common origin. MATIA 12:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Just above I wrote that the present Albanian language is Tosk. Yet this involved Tosk, that I defined as modern Tosk is not the same with ancient Albanian. I've wrote before that Arvanites origin from Tosk. Yet Arvanites today are not Tosks, nor Arvanitic is just the Tosk dialect as spoken today by Albanian people. Can you understand now the meaning of the common origin? MATIA 14:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your phrase Their language, Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian is not wrong, but the phrase Arvanitic shares a common origin with Tosk is a little better, because Tosk today is not the same as Tosk before those 5 or 8 centuries. So, the second phrase is the more clarified version of the same thing.
What I certainly didn't like was your phrase until you can prove otherwise, don't change it, because I really think that you were both talking about the same thing.
Arvanites origin from Tosks and that's a fact, but Arvanites evolved on their own and Tosks on their own. MATIA 14:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't met yet a far-right-wing-Greek here in WP and I don't understand your comment. I've wrote to you above what this phrase means and you can check the fact that the Albanian language (Tosk) as spoken today is not the same as spoken before 5 or more centuries, on the Albanian language wiki. MATIA 17:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. Is Croatian a variety of Serbian? They are entirely mutually intelligible after all, something which can by no means be said about Arvanitic and Tosk Albanian. And if not, why not?--Theathenae 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You still didn't answer my question. Labelling Arvanitic "Albanian" is as offensive to Arvanites as labelling Croatian "Serbian" would be to Croats. These languages may descend from the same proto-language, but they are separate languages today because of the separate ethnic self-identification of their speakers. If the Arvanites considered themselves Albanians, then perhaps their language could be considered a mere variety of dialect of Albanian. But in their overwhelming majority, they do not. Insisting on imposing an unwanted label on the Arvanites is Albanian imperialism, pure and simple.--Theathenae 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We have already mentioned ethnologue.com - Arvanitic is a language, not just a variety. Remember that they do share a common origin yet they are not identical today, nor just a variety/dialect. Linguists (ethnologue for example) categorize it as a language not just as a dialect. MATIA 18:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no need to use such a designation in the article as it stands, as the linguistic situation is more accurately described by the current reference to the language's separate development over the past five centuries. That is NPOV; insisting on replacing it with "Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk" is reflective of an Albanian nationalist POV that seeks to subject Arvanitic to Albanian and deny its separate status.--Theathenae 18:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because he too is a far-right Albanian nationalist.--Theathenae 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a loop REX, a vicious circle. I 've already explained you that when I was telling you the meaning of the common/shared origin.
I must tell you that I find the term far-right-wing offensive since I don't have anything to do with that term, so if you refer to me again as such or as a Greek nationalist I'll have to report you. But perhaps you didn't mean that...
I gave you the term from ethnologue and I guess they'll be offended too if you call them with any of those terms. Ethnologue members are linguists, I 'm not, that's the reason I gave you their definition.
MATIA 19:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You claim that acknowledging the status of Arvanitic as a separate language is "the far-right Greek line". It is nothing of the sort. The overwhelming majority of Arvanites themselves regard their language as separate from Albanian, regardless of their political persuasion. It is only Albanian nationalists who deny the status of the Arvanites as a separate people from the Albanians and of Arvanitic as a separate language. Furthermore, the word "variety" is not as neutral as you claim; according to the Wikipedia article you cite, it can refer to a dialect, a sociolect, a standard language, an idiolect or a register/diatype. Arvanitic is none of the above, unless of course you believe it to be a dialect of Albanian. This, by your own admission, would be the "far-right Albanian nationalist" line, would it not?--Theathenae 19:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As you can see, your narrow-minded far-right Albanian fanaticism has no support on this talk page. Until the return of User:Albanau and the UÇK, of course.--Theathenae 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus for such a change.--Theathenae 19:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well I hate to break it to you, but this article is no longer your fiefdom. There is no consensus for the word "variety" to be used.--Theathenae 20:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I told you before that you are falling into vicious circles but you ignored me. It's strange though, that you called me reasonable here and then left that message in my talk page. MATIA 22:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Officially established" by whom?--Theathenae 08:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You are of course aware that the ancestors of the modern Arvanites and Tosks called themselves Arbërór - Αρβανίται according to the contemporary Byzantine sources. Later on, the Tosks started calling themselves Shqipëtarë, while the Arvanites continued to use their original name. Therefore, Arvanitic is not a variety of Tosk at all. It is Tosk that is a variety of Arvanitic, or rather mediaeval or proto-Arvanitic. Using Tosk Albanian as the point of reference is misleading and anachronistic, when the parent language of both Tosk Albanian and modern Arvanitic was in fact called Arvanitic in all contemporary sources, not Tosk. Perhaps we should change Albanian language and Tosk language to reflect this.--Theathenae 09:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Afraid of what? Let me turn the question back on you: What is so wrong with saying Arvanitic shares a common origin with Tosk? It is more nuanced and more accurate than your wording, which simply ignores the fact that Arvanitic has developed separately from Albanian for the past five centuries. My wording acknowledges the genetic link to Albanian, while allowing for the reality of its separate evolution. Are you afraid of anything that deviates from your Albanian nationalist ideology? Because only an Albanian nationalist would be so intent on censoring any reference to the language's separate evolution.--Theathenae 09:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sure these same "professional scholars" would agree that modern Arvanitic descends from the same parent language (mediaeval Arvanitic) as modern Tosk but has developed separately over the course of the past five centuries. Their use of the terms "variety" and "Albanian" appear to be motivated by sheer convenience and a desire to keep it simple, as Albanian is undoubtedly the closest modern language with which most people are familiar. But a more in-depth study of Arvanitic would reveal its separate evolution from Albanian in Greece. My wording does not contradict yours, it simply adds to it.--Theathenae 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvanitic a variety of Tosk? 

message: I've protected this page because of an ongoing revert war between User:REX and User:Theathenae.  Please note that this is not an obvious case of vandalism, but rather a regular edit dispute. So please, take a break and try to work out a consensus that all parties can live with. This isn't so hard when you consider that it is not your job to decide which view is correct, but to summarize all views fairly.  If you have sources for the view you are advocation, great, please list them below in such a way that makes it easy to incorporate them into the article.  One possible compromise would then to say something along the lines of "Smith[1] argues that ..., but Jones[2] has expressed the view that ...".  There are of course more elegant ways, but something simple like "one the one hand X, but on the other hand Y" will suffice for now (provided that X and Y can be verifiably attributed to some relevant authorities). Thanks, --MarkSweep✍ 13:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no intention of getting involved in the details of the subject matter debate. I'm only here because the ongoing edit dispute is unproductive and has to stop. There's no editor-in-chief who you can appeal to, so you need to work this out amongst yourselves.  A good way to start – especially if you want input from the larger community – is to summarize the two (or more) sides of the issue, including the pros and cons, in a neutral fashion. Ideally, party A would write a summary of party B's views, and vice versa, without disparaging the other side's opinions.  A neutral description of the dispute is required if you want to take this issue to WP:RFC, for example, and it might also produce text that could be worked into the article itself. --MarkSweep✍ 07:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand these MarkSweep but I still believe you should take a look at the talk pages. Thanks! MATIA 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should he? You say we are going around in circles. The latest version of the circle is below. REX 08:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't he? Or anyone else? MATIA 08:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He can, if he wants to. I nmy opinion, it is unecessary. Everything anyone needs can be found below, Have you read it yet? Good isn't it?  REX 08:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I would like to make some things perfectly clear:
*UNESCO RED BOOK ON ENDANGERED LANGUAGES: EUROPE refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian.
*Encarta refers to Arvanitic as a variant of Albanian.
*At the heading Ethnologue says Albanian, Arvanitika.
*All these sources can't be wrong. They can't afford to be or they would lose their prestige. Especially UNESCO which is an agency of the United Nations, unless of course Wikipedia makes a innovation by putting amateur encyclopaedia editor's words before those of an agency of the UN. It probably is true that Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. Theatheanae's reference to Anna Comnena is quite defective because she was speaking in Byzantine Greek, not Albanian. So obviously she was using the Greek name Arbanon to refer to them, we don't know what Albanians of that period called themselves (It certainly wasn't Shqiptarë) but there is no proof that they called themselves Arbëror. Nevertheless, even if they did call themselves Arvanities, that doesn't stop the linguistic classification of Tosk, Gheg, Arbëreshë and Arvanitic as dialects of one language. That language being Albanian today (the standard dialect in Albania today is Tosk).
The similarities between these dialects can be seen by comparing:
*Gheg
*Tosk
*Arbëreshë
*and Arvanitic.
Anyway I urge you all to reconsider using the terminology that UNESCO approves. Using that we can't go wrong. No offence but Theathenae's way of phrasing it has no references that match UNESCO in credibility. REX 17:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh REX can't you see you are going in circles, round and round and again on the same questions? Did anyone dispute that Tosk and Arvanitic have similarities? I even found a source (ethnologue) that verifies that. Before some years that Arbanon river was regarded as the reason of the name Albania. But now Arbanon river is thought by scholars (I think Bambiniotis is one of them) as the root-word for Arvanites and Albanian scholars support that Albania derives from Alps (or something similar, I can't remember exactly). MATIA 17:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What do those examples prove other than the obvious, namely that they are related languages? Shall I start posting identical examples of Serbian and Croatian and start agitating for Croatian to be defined as a dialect of Serbian? Your dismissal of Anna Comnena for no reason other than her Greekness is, for want of a better word, absurd, as we simply cannot afford to ignore the precious few mediaeval sources we have at our disposal. By the same token, we should ignore your sources because they are in English and because they ignore what the Arvanites call themselves and their language. If anyone had bothered to ask the Arvanites, I'm sure the results would have been very different. Your sudden concern for the sanctity of the UN is rather amusing, especially considering your performance at Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Keep up the good work.--Theathenae 17:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, the real question is why are you so dogmatically obsessed with explicitly defining Arvanitic as Tosk Albanian, when you know very well how the Arvanites feel? It is entirely possible to say essentially the same thing, but in a more subtle way that doesn't offend the Arvanites' sensibilities. Remember the Helsinki report: Arvanites are those whose mother tongue is Arvanitika (name in Greek - Αρβανίτες)/ Arberichte (name in their language); most linguists use the word Albanian for that language, but the community loathes its use, and it is therefore advisable that this sensitivity be taken into consideration unless researchers and/or human and minority rights activists do not mind alienating the very community they are studying. Nothing in your sources precludes my more nuanced wording, whereas the source I cite explicitly rebuffs yours.--Theathenae 18:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your arguments are those of an Albanian extremist who couldn't care less for the people we are discussing on this talk page. I will continue to defend their right not to be labelled against their will. And you no doubt will continue your hysterical exercise in Albanian imperialism at the Arvanites' expense.--Theathenae 19:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We can say that Arvanitic belongs to the same language family as Albanian without deliberately offending the Arvanites as you wish to do. The sources you cite were most likely unaware of the Arvanites' sensitivities on the issue, but you have no excuse. Such a stance can only be motivated by Albanian nationalism. Your sources do not negate my wording, as I am not changing the essence of what is being said. Your wording, on the other hand, has been clearly demonstrated to be offensive to the people we are discussing here.--Theathenae 06:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summing up 

message: Folks, this talk page is very long. Can you refactor it a bit, and perhaps archive older debates that have been resolved?
If you all want, please try to fill in the next section. Treat it like an article, i.e., write it in a neutral fashion and don't sign your posts. Comments can go in a separate section, which you can treat like a  regular talk page again. --MarkSweep✍ 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: === Short summary ===
The dispute concerns the linguistic status of Arvanitic. User:REX claims to have provided credible sources (one of them is an agency of the UN) to support his arguments which are that Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian. User:Theathenae and User:Matia.gr insist on Arvanitic being a separate language altogether. User:REX would like to see their claims backed up with references.
=== Relevant background ===
Please include only things that both sides agree on and that are not under dispute, but which will help outsiders understand the debate.
=== First party's position ===
User:REX's postiton: The Encarta and UNESCO Reports refer to Arvanitic as Arvanitika Albanian and the Helsinki report says that most linguists call this language Albanian. So obviously the language is still classed as a form of Albanian. The UNESCO Report also calls Arvanitic a diaspora dialect of Albanian. I think that it is clear now that Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV and especially Wikipedia:No original research (this one requires us to use only sources, regardless of what we can demonstrate on our own) instruct us to say that Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. But, because I am a nice guy, I will only insist on saying that Arvanitic is a variety of Albanian, because by calling Arvanitic a dialect, that means that we are asking for trouble as the entire far-right Greek extremist establishment will challenge this. Variety is a much less provocative word that dialect. REX 16:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Arvanitic a language or a dialect 

message: User:REX's postiton: The Encarta and UNESCO Reports refer to Arvanitic as Arvanitika Albanian and the Helsinki report says that most linguists call this language Albanian. So obviously the language is still classed as a form of Albanian. The UNESCO Report also calls Arvanitic a diaspora dialect of Albanian. I think that it is clear now that Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV and especially Wikipedia:No original research (this one requires us to use only sources, regardless of what we can demonstrate on our own) instruct us to say that Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. But, because I am a nice guy, I will only insist on saying that Arvanitic is a variety of Albanian, because by calling Arvanitic a dialect, that means that we are asking for trouble as the entire far-right Greek extremist establishment will challenge this. Variety is a much less provocative word that dialect. REX 16:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First party's position 

message: Fill in the parts between the vertical lines. Do not start revert/edit wars. There should be no need:  If something is not under dispute, put it in the first subsection; if something is under dispute, write up each party's position in their own subsection.  Pick appropriate section titles, and use further subdivisions if necessary. --MarkSweep✍ 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The case of modern Chinese (and also modern Arabic) is very complex and it is highly POV to declare that Mandarin is a dialect of a larger Chinese language. That POV certainly exists and deserves to be documented, but it is politcally and culturally charged.  That's why the Wikipedia article on Mandarin (linguistics) is very careful when dealing with this issue and avoids taking a position either for or against dialect or language status, while mentioning the diverging popular vs. academic uses of the term.  If you cannot reach an agreement in the case of Arvanitic, I suggest you follow a similar approach where you avoid taking sides, and merely describe what the various positions are without singling out any of them as "correct". --MarkSweep✍ 23:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on dispute resolution 

message: MATIA and Theathenae are obviously promoting far-right Greek extremism. Why else would they be trying to impose a statement that contradicts UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue: that Arvanitic is a language, not a dialect of Tosk Albanian. UNESCO clearly states that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian, but they are choosing to reject this phrasing and use a rather novel phrase directly contradicting that for the single and only purpose that their agenda to de-emphasise the links that ethnic minorities in Greece have with other states doesn't allow that.
* Is it possible that UNESCO is wrong and MATIA and Theathenae are right? No
* Is it possible that Ethnologue is wrong and MATIA and Theathenae are right? No
* Is it possible that Encarta is wrong and MATIA and Theathenae are right? No
* Do we have to accept MATIA's and Theathenae's statements when they haven't proved them and when there are other sources such as UNESCO which say the exact reverse? CERTAINLY NOT!
MATIA and Theathenae may cite the following sources which I have proven to be shams:
* They will say that Anna Comnena says that the ancestors of the Modern Tosks and Arvanites called themselves Arbëror (ie Arvanites) and that the common origin which they insist was the common ancestor of both the modern Tosks and Arvanites were in fact called Arvanites. This is not true, because Anna Comnena was writing in Greek, so all we learn from her accounts is that the Greek name for these people was Arbanitai, not the name they used for themselves. Imagine saying that the Hungarian name for Hungary is Ungaria because that is what it is called in Greek; the Hungarian name for Hungary is in fact Magyaroszag. Therefore their claim that the common ancestors called themselves Arbëror is plainly ludicrous because we really have no idea what they called themselves. Their claim that they used the name Arbëror is plain guesswork.
* They will say that we can't call the ancestors of the Arvanites Albanians because they weren't called Albanians then and therefore it would be an anachronism. According to the Helsinki Report:According The first Christian Albanian migrations to what is today Greek territory took place as early as the XI-XII centuries (Trudgill, 1975:5; Banfi, 1994:19), although the main ones most often mentioned in the bibliography happened in the XIV-XV centuries, when Albanians were invited to settle in depopulated areas by their Byzantine, Catalan or Florentine rulers (Tsitsipis, 1994:1; Trudgill, 1975:5; Nakratzas, 1992:20-24 & 78-90; Banfi, 1994:19). According to some authors, they were also fleeing forced Islamization by the Turks in what is today Albania (Katsanis, 1994:1). So, some have estimated that, when the Ottomans conquered the whole Greek territory in the XV century, some 45% of it was populated by Albanians (Trudgill, 1975:6). Another wave of Muslim Albanian migrations took place during the Ottoman period, mainly in the XVIII century (Trudgill, 1975:6; Banfi, 1994:19). All these Albanians are the ancestors of modern-day Arvanites in Central and Southern Greece.Are all those references to Albanians anachronisms? They seem to think that they were called something else, what was it? Oh yes, Arbëror (they didn't prove it though). The Helsinki report also doesn't seem to have a problem referring to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians does it? The Helsinki report was written by professionals who do call the ancestors of the Arvanites Albanians. So we have MATIA and Theathenae claiming that we can't call the ancestors of the Arvanites Albanians (they couldn't prove why. They said something about them been called Arbëror but that is pure guesswork isn't it) and we have the professional linguists who do call the ancestors of the Arvanites Albanians. Who should we listen to? The professionals of course!
* They will say that Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language of Greece. What you all should know here is that Ethnologue refers to all languages and dialects as languages. It even refers to Mandarin and Cantonese as separate languages of China. We know that this isn't true because the Chinese government calls these dialects of on language Chinese. Anyway ethnologue also says Gheg Albanian a language of Serbia and Montenegro and Flemish a language of Belgium. We know that all this is quite inaccurate. Unless of course Gheg is a separate language form Albanian and Flemish is a separate language from Dutch. 
We know now that MATIA and Theathenae have no sources to support their arguments they are just asking us to accept their word over that of UNESCO. Their entire Greek extremist theory collapses and becomes a sham. The only true and NPOV way to phrase it is to use the way that UNESCO uses, Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian.
MATIA and/or Theathenae will probably claim that I am putting words into their mouths. Here is some evidence:
*  Theathenae: The evidence that this parent language was called Arvanitic lies in the Byzantine sources dating from the Middle Ages. According to Albania#Origin and history of the name: We first learn of the ancestors of the modern Albanians in their native land as the Arbanites of Arbanon in Anna Comnena's account (Alexiad, IV) of the troubles in that region caused in the reign of her father Alexius I Comneus (1081-1118) by the Normans. In their own language, they called themselves Arbërór, which is still what the Arvanites of Greece call themselves today, in contrast to the modern Albanians who call themselves Shqipëtarë instead. Nevertheless, it is not my desire to impose the Arvanitic label on modern Tosk Albanian, despite the mediaeval sources that would support such a thesis. I am simply opposed to applying the "Tosk Albanian" label to Arvanitic, when in fact Arvanitic is the older and more historically accurate term. Describing modern Arvanitic as a variety of Tosk Albanian is an anachronism: a modern ethnonym is being applied retrospectively to the language of a people who migrated to Greece many centuries before the dawn of modern Albanian nationalism. The Arvanites of Greece were not involved in the process of Albanian nation-building and cannot be included in that project, for the simple reason that Greece is the only nation they have known in modern times.
* MATIA: Perhaps you should check Anna Comnene that Theathenae mentioned.
* MATIA: I cited Ethnologue.
Obviously certain genaralisations have been made eg Theathenae does not mention ethnologue but this is a list of their collective arguments and I have demonstrated that their so-called sources are just jokes. They have no real basis to their arguments and are trying to promote something which seems sucpiciously  like Greek extremism. That seems to be the way their mind seems to be moving. Why else would the reject UNESCO's statement in favor of a totally unjustifiable one of their own (Wikipedia:No original research). Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability however dictate that only data with sources can be used. Sadly their wording CANNOT be used and if they try to enforce it without credible sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability) they will be guilty of  Vandalism and that will be dealt with under Wikipedia's diciplinary procedures. I therefore urge them with all the sincerety at my command to drop this ridiclulous argument of theirs and stop wasting everybody's time. I hope that they will cooperate. REX 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A corollary: This isn't a game where you "win" by "discrediting" the most sources or refuting the most arguments. On the contrary, please respect everyone's opinions. We first need a list of what the various positions are. We're in the early stages of sorting this out, and don't want to throw out any a priori reasonable point of view.  You can talk (in a civil manner) about the various points of view later, but first we need to identify everyone's positions without commenting on them. Thanks, --MarkSweep✍ 08:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: MarkSweep please see Talk:Arvanitic language and tell if I disagree with Ethnologue. And tell me what to do to protect myself from personal attacks. MATIA 08:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comments, User:MarkSweep. They have been most helpful in putting this dispute into perspective. Unfortunately, it appears that your description of a game where you "win" by "discrediting" the most sources or refuting the most arguments", replete with value judgments, threats, snide remarks, etc. is exactly how User:REX sees it. It is obvious that no "proposal" of his can be seriously discussed while he continues to launch threats and personal attacks and ignore standard Wikipedia procedures on dispute resolution.--Theathenae 08:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accept the facts 

message: I have taken the liberty of drafting a fresh proposal in the interests of good faith and I sincerely hope that the disputing parties will take a few minutes to consider it and if they wish me to drop this proposal or make amendments I will require conclusive evidence why.
My objections are in reference to the demographics section. I am proposing to replace what is said with the following:
Arvanites are predominantly Greek Orthodox in religious adherence. Their language, Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian and has been heavily influenced by Greek over the course of the past five centuries. The language is in decline, partly due to emigration from Arvanitic-speaking villages to the Greek-speaking cities and partly due to its non-recognition by the Greek state: it has no legal status and is not taught in public schools.
Like the rest of the Greek population, Arvanites have been emigrating from their villages to the cities and especially to the capital Athens, which, incidentally, was populated by many Arvanites in the early 1800s, before becoming the Greek state's capital.
What is said above is entirely NPOV. It aknowledges the proven by Ethnologue, UNESCO and Encarta fact but still grants a slight concession to MATIA and Theathenae by referring to Arvanitic as a language (this is allowed because Ethnologue refers to all languages and dialects as languages). Other NPOV proposals are welcome but it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that what is said is endorsed by the scientific estblishment (like mine above). I now urge MATIA and Theathenae with all the earnestness at my command to consider this proposal carefully and to propose amendements or even to reject it only in the case that they have found a reasonable source saying what they want to say. If you don't have respectable  sources and proceed in implementing your POV onto the article you will have violated Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research REX 11:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound impatient and hasty REX, just like always. Sometimes you sound like a broken record, playing again and again the same tune, but fortunately that's not always the case. I've told you before that I'll give you the sources and I told you I'm a man with honour, or should I say μπέσα (besha)? You can wait for the sources REX or you can go for a walk, a trip, I don't know, it's a matter of personal taste. Though the world is not made to please you REX, if you do wait, I believe my sources will satisfy you. MATIA 20:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: REX if I wanted to be sarcastic I would say that I'm not on your pay-roll. Beside that I told you I find it offending when you play with my name. MATIA 22:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: REX if you have no manners don't make it my problem. WP:CIV, remember? MATIA 23:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Us"?  Is this the Royal We or are you also a member of a secret human rights organization? Chronographos 11:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, that.  Quite inconsequential then.  Chronographos 13:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So UNESCO is wrong in saying that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian? Naughty naughty UNESCO! UNESCO is really bad for lying! We should write to them telling them to accept the infallible word of MATIA. REX 19:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Proposal 

message: a) Check this proposal
b) compare diff 1 and diff 2 with fresh proposal.
c) I can't see Encarta, needs subscription.
d) Unesco's red book external link.
section title: Arvanitika Albanian 
1: nothing
2: Geographical ... Greece: ... mainly in Attica
3: Relationships: a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian / Albanian / Indo-European
4:   language: SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED
4 a) very few children learn the language... 
4 b) nothing 
4 c) nothing 
4 d) ... indicate 50,000 to 140,000 speakers, but ... is probably confined to a much smaller number ... 
4 e) degree of speakers' competence: all idiolects are heavily influenced by Greek 
Unesco's Sources:
(i) information (about the language): nothing
(ii) published and unpublished material (of the language): little
(iii) competent scholar(s) and institution(s): nothing
Remarks: old immigrant communities surrounded by Greek speaking areas
Compiler: Tapani Salminen, Helsinki, 31 Dec 1993
I'll provide you with sources later, but since Mr Tapani Salminen uses at least three times the term language and once the term dialect, you can consider this as my first source. We must have in our minds that his research on Arvanitika language is very poor (see nothing, or compare with reports for other languages on the official site).
COPYRIGHT: unesco's red book is copyrighted by mr Tapani Salminen, and can be used only for personal use. I've copied it partially (compare dots with external link) here, so we can read it, and after we discuss it and agree with our interpretations of unesco's red book, I could erase these data from my comment. Probably the way I wrote it, with the usage of dots, is on the edge of fair-use (I didn't copy the whole red book, just a small segment, I am mentioning the source and the copyright holder, so I believe it's a reference and not a copy-vio).
MATIA 23:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a few points 

message: I can't say if this is offending or just a joke. What does the phrase Instead they say that we have cocked it up. mean? MATIA 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh well 

message: MATIA, not that I wish to appear impatient or anything, but have you found anything at all which suggests that Arvanitic is a separate language from Tosk Albanian? I mean we have all been holding our breath over the past few days waiting for you to prove that my sources (UNESCO, Ethnologue and Encarta) are wrong in calling Arvanitic a dialect/variety of Tosk Albanian. If you cannot find anything, never mind. Just don't keep us waiting for nothing. Let's implement my proposal for now because that is what Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability) requires. REX 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound impatient and hasty REX, just like always. Sometimes you sound like a broken record, playing again and again the same tune, but fortunately that's not always the case. I've told you before that I'll give you the sources and I told you I'm a man with honour, or should I say μπέσα (besha)? You can wait for the sources REX or you can go for a walk, a trip, I don't know, it's a matter of personal taste. Though the world is not made to please you REX, if you do wait, I believe my sources will satisfy you. MATIA 20:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: REX if I wanted to be sarcastic I would say that I'm not on your pay-roll. Beside that I told you I find it offending when you play with my name. MATIA 22:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: REX if you have no manners don't make it my problem. WP:CIV, remember? MATIA 23:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Us"?  Is this the Royal We or are you also a member of a secret human rights organization? Chronographos 11:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, that.  Quite inconsequential then.  Chronographos 13:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are we waiting? 

message: MATIA, I think that you should consider accepting my proposal again as I doubt you ever find any sources indicating that Arvanitic (or to use the name that the UN uses Arvanitika Albanian, something that you would prefer to ignore) is a separate language from Tosk Albanian. REX 13:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are STILL waiting (for [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA]] to produce something that doesn't exist)

message: The way you slander my name in user talk pages and article talk pages is unacceptable (everyone can verify it by checking your contributions). Every time I tell you that I find this behaviour offending, your responce is more calumnies. You understand that your lack of manners irritates me and you continue to do so, with what purpose? What have you got on your mind? As for the sources, I've spent my free time the last days going to libraries and taking notes relevant to Arvanites and Arvanitika language. I've told you numerous times before that I need time, time to sort all that information. And what's your responce? More calumnies on many talk pages. I don't have words to describe your lack of manners. MATIA 13:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  REX and his lack of manners 

message: MATIA, I am afraid your "holier than thou" hypocritical attitude will not help you here. I also feel obligated to tell you that there is no point in your researching in the library. According to Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability your sources must be in English. Also, they should be reliable sources, this means that books which may transmit the author's POV should be avoided (suggestion from personal experience: avoid books published by Γέρου Yéru they are utterly POV, they claim that the Arvanites are descendants of the Pelasgians who lived in the are which is now Greece them moved the to the area which is now Albania, transmitted their language to the ancestors of the Albanians then returned to Greece during the Middle Ages). I myself have found references to the Arvanites in my local library: mostly calling Arvanitic a dialect of Albanian (check Encyclopaedias Britannica, Webster and Hutchinson). Why do you not accept what UNESCO says: Arvanitic is a dialect of Tosk Albanian? It is true isn't it? I know it is not what you would like the truth to be because it conflicts with your perception of the Arvanites (ie your POV). And MATIA, for the last time, you do not have the authority to discipline me. Your pretending to be offended is just one of your tactics. Well MATIA, I have news for you. We have all got used to your tactics: saying that you are looking for sources because you say that you don't believe what UNESCO says and when we ask you how the search is going you say that you are offended. When you make fun of me I don't say that I am offended. As far as I am concerned, UNESCO is the authority on these subjects and no tricks on your part will ever change the fact that they call Arvanitic a dialect of Tosk. Even if you were to find some obscure book which calls Arvanitic a separate language from Tosk Albanian it is highly unlikely that they are likely to be right an UNESCO and the most respected encyclopaedias wrong. REX 17:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA]] and his hypocrisy 

message: If you can't help calling names, go to a mirror. You are the only hypocrite around here. You don't know my sources, and I'm not gonna claim that Arvanites came from outer space so please, try to control yourself despite your immaturity. I never disciplined you, but even though I don't really like the idea, I'll probably have you reported for all those personal attacks, that you did here and in every user talk page or article talk page. Please stop doing it, it 'll be boring to report your immature behaviour. MATIA 18:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So UNESCO is wrong in saying that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian? Naughty naughty UNESCO! UNESCO is really bad for lying! We should write to them telling them to accept the infallible word of MATIA. REX 19:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  keep the characterizations for yourself 

message: The prolonged silence, I suspect, indicates approval of my proposal above. Therefore, I shall be requsting that the page be unprotected and my proposal above being implemented, given that there is no evidence to suggest that anything in that proposal is false. REX 15:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can either a) give me the time I need to finish my research and write my proposal, with bibliographic refences, here on this talk page or b) accept, temporarily, my suggestion Arvanitika language belongs to the same language family as Albanian Tosk. MATIA 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot accept your proposal because I know it's untrue. If you really believe that it is true do whatever you understand. I must remind you however that while Arvanites were protected you took the edit-war to Albanian language. I must also let you know that you shouldn't misunderstand the fact that I postponed the complaint against you as lack of evidence. I saw it as a second chance and I would suggest to you not to misuse it. MATIA 19:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The proposal 

message: Two weeks should be enough. No sense in keeping this protected forever. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Why does User:Theathnae feel that he can remove accurate facts from an article for the only reason that he doesn't happen to agree with them. These facts are proven, they are quoted by UNESCO. They cannot be wrong and what Theathenae says is right. The only way I will even consider the possibility that his edits are right is if he provides sources. No sources, no POV. REX 10:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.--Theathenae 11:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look deeper, shall we? No one says (except of course Greek extremists) that Arvanitic (or to use the name that Ethnologue and UNESCO use, Arvanitika Albanian) is considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike which is what you want to say. This has not been proven, so I removed that obviously POV reference from the article. UNESCO says that Arvanitika Albanian is a diaspora dialect of Tosk, its calling it a language is irrelevant read language to see why. It does not refer to it as a separate language from Albanian. I've been a nice guy so far but it is now time to be nasty (from the Greek extremist point of view). I now insist that the article Arvanitic language be moved to Arvanitika Albanian. This is the name by which UNESCO and Ethnologue refer to the language. What? Are they wrong and the unbelievably arrogant Theathenae and MATIA right? Not a chance. Also, given that UNESCO refers to Arvanitika Albanian as a diaspora dialect of Tosk we shall say that also. Anyway, Encarta, Britannica and the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia mention an Albanian dialect spoken in Greece. Gee, I wonder what that is. You should also not that the Helsinki Report says that most linguists use the name Albanian for their language. I'm afraid that far-right Greek extremist and nationalist POV will ever become part of a neutral Encyclopaedia. REX 12:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: My English is good, but yours may be better: when grandfathers patronise, can this be called "grandpatronising"? Chronographos 14:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: User:REX, you are (already) in serious violation of Wikipedia policy and will be reported if you continue.--Theathenae 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 1) Unesco Red book: We have examined before the unesco report. In one phrase: Mr Tapani Salminen uses at least three times the term language and once the term dialect.
2) helsinki watch: This report should be cross-checked with other sources because it has some pov sections. But the helsinki report never refers to Arvanitika as a dialect. Helsinki report calls the Arvanitika language as arvanitic language and it also says that Arvanitika language has three dialects.
3) Ethnologue: Ethnologue also reffers to Arvanitika as a language.
I'd suggest you read your sources before citing them. MATIA 11:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.--Theathenae 11:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look deeper, shall we? No one says (except of course Greek extremists) that Arvanitic (or to use the name that Ethnologue and UNESCO use, Arvanitika Albanian) is considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike which is what you want to say. This has not been proven, so I removed that obviously POV reference from the article. UNESCO says that Arvanitika Albanian is a diaspora dialect of Tosk, its calling it a language is irrelevant read language to see why. It does not refer to it as a separate language from Albanian. I've been a nice guy so far but it is now time to be nasty (from the Greek extremist point of view). I now insist that the article Arvanitic language be moved to Arvanitika Albanian. This is the name by which UNESCO and Ethnologue refer to the language. What? Are they wrong and the unbelievably arrogant Theathenae and MATIA right? Not a chance. Also, given that UNESCO refers to Arvanitika Albanian as a diaspora dialect of Tosk we shall say that also. Anyway, Encarta, Britannica and the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia mention an Albanian dialect spoken in Greece. Gee, I wonder what that is. You should also not that the Helsinki Report says that most linguists use the name Albanian for their language. I'm afraid that far-right Greek extremist and nationalist POV will ever become part of a neutral Encyclopaedia. REX 12:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: I've been doing some reading on this subject after REX's e-mail where he was pleading for help. In my view, MATIA and Theathenae are vandalising the articles. It is perfectly clear that this language is a dialect of Tosk and no word games on their part will change that fact. Actually I am puzzled over what REX said. If UNESCO and Ethnologue use the name Arvanitika Albanian as the primary name for this language, then why isn't it being used in place of this somewhat artificial name Arvanitic language? If you read Ethnologue you will see that its list of alternative names is often challenged. In my opinion again, I believe that the name at the heading (Arvanitika Albanian) is the only appropriate name, which incidentally happens to be the name used by the UNESCO report. I don't know what REX, MATIA and Theathenae think that they are doing. You cannot pick and choose what parts of sources to use and which parts to ignore at your discretion. Wikipedia works based on neutrality (see Wikipedia:NPOV) and given that our primary sources call this language Arvanitika Albanian, then why isn't that name used? This other name lacks Wikipedia:Verifiability as Ethnologue's alternative name lists are often challenged, therefore the name Arvanitika Albanian is obviously the NPOV name. If you read Wikipedia:No original research you will find that Wikipedia policy requires that you unconditionally accept what it verified in reliable sources providing that it is relevant. If you lot think that you can pick and choose which policies to accept and which parts of which sources to use based on your personal whims, then Wikipedia will become a hopelessly lame encyclopaedia. I sincerely hope that the three of you will mend your ways and behave like responsible adults. GrandfatherJoe 13:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My English is good, but yours may be better: when grandfathers patronise, can this be called "grandpatronising"? Chronographos 14:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: User:REX, you are (already) in serious violation of Wikipedia policy and will be reported if you continue.--Theathenae 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think that you are doing? 

message: Hi, I'm just making this comment to remind participants that we have  Official policies of Civility and No personal attacks.  I've taken the liberty of editing the above exchange to remove the worst departures from those policies.
Quite often when people have a disagreement the main thing that stops them seeking consensus is that they have a lot of emotional investment in their position.  Denigrating one's opponent causes entrenchment of positions and works against consensus.  Please don't do that.  If you do so, for whatever reason, you are departing from Wikipedia policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean it.  Stop discussing whether this person or that is a sock puppet.  Here, discuss the article. Take comments about your suspicions of sock puppetry and whatnot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CIVIL|Civility]], [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]

message: Because no one here seems to be interested in any progress or have any good-faith whatsoever, obviously I shall have to start it (as usual, all the Greeks do is revert and then not be able to explain why):
*UNESCO calls this language a diaspora DIALECT of Tosk
*ETHNOLOGUE calls this language Arvanitika ALBANIAN
*The fact that Ethnologue and UNESCO refer to this language as a language makes no difference. If you all read language you will see that this is just a figure of speech. All forms of speech can be called languages. That doesn’t mean that they are languages in their own right. That is not said anywhere. Dialect is a very specific linguistic term.
*Calling this language a variety of Albanian doesn't mean that modern-day Arvanites are Albanians. Are the Flanders of Belgium been called Dutch because their language, Flemish is called a dialect of Dutch?
*I am trying to compromise. You have to understand that it would be a reasonable thing to do to call the language Arvanitika Albanian. UNESCO refers primarily to it in this way and so does Ethnologue. Also we could call the language a dispora dialect of Tosk. I am not insisting in doing so for YOUR benefit. I am insisting in calling Arvanitic a variety of Tosk and leaving it to be called Arvanitic language. In the interests of Good Faith.
*(this is not personal, this is just how the situation seems to be from my point of view, you are welcome to draft an equivalent for your circumstances or comment on mine for anything that seems inaccurate to you, but be specific) I believe that you are promoting narrow-minded far-right Greek extremist nationalism. You are all grouped together either as an anti-human rights organisation or as sockpuppets of a single user. You move from article to article pushing POV like you did in not only Talk:Arvanites, but in Talk:Macedonian Slavs, Talk:Megleno-Romanians, Talk:Albanians etc. Most of your arguments contradict the views of established bodies such as UNESCO and scholarly facts from well-viewed institutions such as Ethnologue, Britannica, Hutchinson etc. What you are promoting is entirely without precedent and usually emerges from original research. No scientific body endorses your claims but yet you see fit to violate Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability (your statements are not verifiable, mine are) and Wikipedia:NPOV (my statements come from neutral sources, G-d knows where yours come from). You also seem to see fit to ignore what UNESCO, Britannica, Ethnologue etc say in favour of your POV!
*What is said now in the article, that Arvanitic evolved on its own and is now viewed as a separate language by linguists and speakers alike is the most POV statement I have ever seen! There is not even a molecule of truth in it. Most linguists view it as a dialect of Albanian (Helsinki report, UNESCO, Ethnologue, etc the endless list of sources). It did not evolve on its own except maybe for the last 200 years (according to the Helsinki report Arvanitic was referred to as Albanian before the establishment of the Greek state!)
*I have done my best to compromise. I have an open mind; I want this dispute to be over with. I DON'T want to have to have the UNESCO link at the bottom of the page and the readers saying: “Hang on! This article says that Arvanitic is a separate language and UNESCO says that it is an Albanian dialect. What a load!”
*I now ask a simple question: What is wrong with saying: their language Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian? It is ACCURATE. The world is not made to please you, but there is no way in that I will accept any other wording that does not have sources (reliable sources, WP policy requires it). I simply cannot accept your word for it, especially when SOURCES say the reverse. 
(IF I've said something offending and untruthful above, don't take offence, it is not my intention, I just had to let my grievances out) REX 19:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm supposed to be just a sockpuppet (another way to call someone undesirable) I'll just remain silent until there is a good reason not to. GrandfatherJoe 20:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As you have been told before (I think it was Theathenae) this article is not your fiefdom. I think you haven't called me before a troll, thanks for this new characterization, I 'll add it to my list after the numerous times you called me a nazi (actually you called me a-far-right-long-name but it doesn't matter anyway).+MATIA  ☎ 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take the time to read my comment you will see that I wrote you (aka REX) haven't called me (aka MATIA) a troll before. And I guess after the far-right-thing and the troll, you are also calling me a hypocrite, thank you very much. +MATIA  ☎ 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm active and I'm using your sources along with Biris and arvasynel.gr - it's nice that those Arvanites are part of the List of Prime Ministers of Greece. PS I think that there was a music album with instrumentals called Reflections of Silence. +MATIA  ☎ 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Facts? Hm... Talk:Arvanitic_%28language%29#just_the_facts, Talk:Arvanites#just_a_few_points, Talk:Arvanites#Facts.+MATIA  ☎ 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Proving your circular logic and ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere. The 3rd edition of "Arvanites, The Dorians of Modern Hellenism, History of Greek Arvanites" (Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του Σύγχρονου Ελληνισμού, Ιστορία των Ελλήνων Αρβανιτών), has  - the one I'm quoting is first edition, 1960 and on the cover it only has the title "Arvanites" and the author's name Konstantinos Biris (Κωνσταντίνος Μπίρης). (And I 'll try to ignore your joke about Arvanitika language and peanuts). +MATIA  ☎ 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can +MATIA  ☎ explain why UNESCO says that this language is a diaspora dialect of Tosk? GrandfatherJoe 07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously MATIA believes that saying that UNESCO says that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk is a circular argument. How pathetic! Well, MATIA's bluffs won't hold out for ever. It shall soon be exposed that he has no reason to promote his current views except if course his POV. GrandfatherJoe 07:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: MATIA is now still giving me the silent treatment as a punishment for my having sources. Gee, I bet that he is silent now because he has run out or vicious circles. You know what? I really should be studying psychology! I have such insight! REX 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Matia.gr cited a source that you simply dismissed and/or ignored, proving your utter lack of good faith. You will simply reject any source that disagrees with your point of view, so discussing the matter with you is pointless. I don't blame him, really.--Theathenae 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Macedonian, MyNameIsMacedonia, Sterbinski or whatsoever, save the lies for the ignorants. +MATIA  ☎ 08:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, according to the Helsinki Report on Human Rights some Arvanites actually do identify as Greeks but that is only due to Greek pressure, the same presure that forced Romanians to be called Vlachs and Turks to be called Muslims; it also says that before the Greek state was established the Arvanites were called Albanians. Gee, I wonder what the means. REX 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few short weeks ago you too were claiming to be Greek. Was that also only due to Greek pressure?--Theathenae 07:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Πο! REX 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greek pressure in Cornwall?!--Theathenae 09:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What's the deal REX, now the f* word doesn't offend you??? +MATIA  ☎ 08:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Albanian REX, would you translate Po! in English? +MATIA  ☎ 09:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Round, and round, again and again. This is the definition of loop logic. I have expressed before my arguments regarding UNESCO's red book. Instead of constantly repeating the "holy word" UNESCO, perhaps you could try to express your counter-arguments, if there are any. +MATIA  ☎ 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, according to you, ΡΕΤΖΕΠ, not only is it not a language, it is not even a dialect. It is a dialect of a dialect of Albanian. How bloody absurd.--Theathenae 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And whose sockpuppet are you?--Theathenae 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be one of the school kids forming the Sterbinski identity, but that's irrelevant, just like his intervention here. +MATIA  ☎ 14:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I wonder if the Sterbinski Institute is funded by the Soros Foundation.--Theathenae 14:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't worry Bomac, when the Greeks are rude (as always), that just means that they are frustrated because they have no sources and are afraid of being revealed as violators of Wikipedia policy. REX 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Είσαι ρατσιστόμουτρο του κερατά.--Theathenae 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You see, Δεαθήναι is being rude as usual. Racism and double standards. Those twin qualities that are so often at odds inside his head this time come together to make him, as far as the Greek extremists are concerned, a true patron saint! REX 16:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who peruses Nazi-promoted theories for intellectual fodder, Rexhep.--Theathenae 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good-Faith 

message: ...Either way the first thing anyone should do is read the relevant talk pages. You can start here or here or maybe you want to read the root of all these edit wars "Also, could you tell me if the Arvanite fulfil the criteria here (a wiki-link to Albanians#Ethnic_Albanians) REX 15:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have been told before (I think it was Theathenae) this article is not your fiefdom. I think you haven't called me before a troll, thanks for this new characterization, I 'll add it to my list after the numerous times you called me a nazi (actually you called me a-far-right-long-name but it doesn't matter anyway).+MATIA  ☎ 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take the time to read my comment you will see that I wrote you (aka REX) haven't called me (aka MATIA) a troll before. And I guess after the far-right-thing and the troll, you are also calling me a hypocrite, thank you very much. +MATIA  ☎ 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm active and I'm using your sources along with Biris and arvasynel.gr - it's nice that those Arvanites are part of the List of Prime Ministers of Greece. PS I think that there was a music album with instrumentals called Reflections of Silence. +MATIA  ☎ 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Facts? Hm... Talk:Arvanitic_%28language%29#just_the_facts, Talk:Arvanites#just_a_few_points, Talk:Arvanites#Facts.+MATIA  ☎ 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Proving your circular logic and ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere. The 3rd edition of "Arvanites, The Dorians of Modern Hellenism, History of Greek Arvanites" (Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του Σύγχρονου Ελληνισμού, Ιστορία των Ελλήνων Αρβανιτών), has  - the one I'm quoting is first edition, 1960 and on the cover it only has the title "Arvanites" and the author's name Konstantinos Biris (Κωνσταντίνος Μπίρης). (And I 'll try to ignore your joke about Arvanitika language and peanuts). +MATIA  ☎ 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can +MATIA  ☎ explain why UNESCO says that this language is a diaspora dialect of Tosk? GrandfatherJoe 07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously MATIA believes that saying that UNESCO says that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk is a circular argument. How pathetic! Well, MATIA's bluffs won't hold out for ever. It shall soon be exposed that he has no reason to promote his current views except if course his POV. GrandfatherJoe 07:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: MATIA is now still giving me the silent treatment as a punishment for my having sources. Gee, I bet that he is silent now because he has run out or vicious circles. You know what? I really should be studying psychology! I have such insight! REX 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Matia.gr cited a source that you simply dismissed and/or ignored, proving your utter lack of good faith. You will simply reject any source that disagrees with your point of view, so discussing the matter with you is pointless. I don't blame him, really.--Theathenae 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoring part of my comment 

message: MATIA has been active  since I made the post above , but he is giving me the silent treatment. Maybe he is afraid to answer me above. Maybe it is because he has no sources. Gee, I oughta study psychology. REX 21:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm active and I'm using your sources along with Biris and arvasynel.gr - it's nice that those Arvanites are part of the List of Prime Ministers of Greece. PS I think that there was a music album with instrumentals called Reflections of Silence. +MATIA  ☎ 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Facts? Hm... Talk:Arvanitic_%28language%29#just_the_facts, Talk:Arvanites#just_a_few_points, Talk:Arvanites#Facts.+MATIA  ☎ 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Proving your circular logic and ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere. The 3rd edition of "Arvanites, The Dorians of Modern Hellenism, History of Greek Arvanites" (Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του Σύγχρονου Ελληνισμού, Ιστορία των Ελλήνων Αρβανιτών), has  - the one I'm quoting is first edition, 1960 and on the cover it only has the title "Arvanites" and the author's name Konstantinos Biris (Κωνσταντίνος Μπίρης). (And I 'll try to ignore your joke about Arvanitika language and peanuts). +MATIA  ☎ 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can +MATIA  ☎ explain why UNESCO says that this language is a diaspora dialect of Tosk? GrandfatherJoe 07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously MATIA believes that saying that UNESCO says that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk is a circular argument. How pathetic! Well, MATIA's bluffs won't hold out for ever. It shall soon be exposed that he has no reason to promote his current views except if course his POV. GrandfatherJoe 07:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: MATIA is now still giving me the silent treatment as a punishment for my having sources. Gee, I bet that he is silent now because he has run out or vicious circles. You know what? I really should be studying psychology! I have such insight! REX 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Matia.gr cited a source that you simply dismissed and/or ignored, proving your utter lack of good faith. You will simply reject any source that disagrees with your point of view, so discussing the matter with you is pointless. I don't blame him, really.--Theathenae 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflections of Silence 

message: This is just another try of the Greek nationalists to hide that minorities live in Greece and they have no basic human rights, a thing that is going on for centuries. I understand if this was happening in the 16th century, but now is 21st century.
Those people there have no Greek origin and most of them see themselves as of Albanian origin.
Same happens with all national minorities that live in Greece (Albanians, Macedonians, Turkish, Roma etc.). They have no basic human rights in Greece. Just few years ago they were even inprisoned if they spoke their mother tongues.
I just can not understand how can the world ignore this. Every single human rights organization is criticising Greece, but the impotent politicians do not do anything about it. What a fucked up world we are living in.
Their language is chatecorised as variation of Albanian by UNESCO, but the Greeks still claim it is not. How can someone be so blinded from nationalism? Macedonian 00:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonian, MyNameIsMacedonia, Sterbinski or whatsoever, save the lies for the ignorants. +MATIA  ☎ 08:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, according to the Helsinki Report on Human Rights some Arvanites actually do identify as Greeks but that is only due to Greek pressure, the same presure that forced Romanians to be called Vlachs and Turks to be called Muslims; it also says that before the Greek state was established the Arvanites were called Albanians. Gee, I wonder what the means. REX 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few short weeks ago you too were claiming to be Greek. Was that also only due to Greek pressure?--Theathenae 07:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Πο! REX 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greek pressure in Cornwall?!--Theathenae 09:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What's the deal REX, now the f* word doesn't offend you??? +MATIA  ☎ 08:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Albanian REX, would you translate Po! in English? +MATIA  ☎ 09:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Round, and round, again and again. This is the definition of loop logic. I have expressed before my arguments regarding UNESCO's red book. Instead of constantly repeating the "holy word" UNESCO, perhaps you could try to express your counter-arguments, if there are any. +MATIA  ☎ 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, according to you, ΡΕΤΖΕΠ, not only is it not a language, it is not even a dialect. It is a dialect of a dialect of Albanian. How bloody absurd.--Theathenae 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And whose sockpuppet are you?--Theathenae 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be one of the school kids forming the Sterbinski identity, but that's irrelevant, just like his intervention here. +MATIA  ☎ 14:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I wonder if the Sterbinski Institute is funded by the Soros Foundation.--Theathenae 14:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't worry Bomac, when the Greeks are rude (as always), that just means that they are frustrated because they have no sources and are afraid of being revealed as violators of Wikipedia policy. REX 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Είσαι ρατσιστόμουτρο του κερατά.--Theathenae 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You see, Δεαθήναι is being rude as usual. Racism and double standards. Those twin qualities that are so often at odds inside his head this time come together to make him, as far as the Greek extremists are concerned, a true patron saint! REX 16:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who peruses Nazi-promoted theories for intellectual fodder, Rexhep.--Theathenae 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal attack removed 

message: MATIA has removed a fact which can be found in the Helsinki Report and when asked why he did so he said that  that report is biased. What is that? MATIA possesses the authority to reject evidence as biased and force us to accept his POV instead. Well MATIA, wake up; it doesn't work like that, Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter what your Magnificence thinks; what matters is what can be proven and only that can be used. It seems that MATIA has the right to flout these rules but then has the cheek to tell me to observe the NPA. What hypocrisy! Well, MATIA you will have to observe Wikipedia policy as well. You can't violate it when you please and then call us when we violate it. But obviously MATIA seems to think that he is above the rules and His Most Serene Highness is not obliged to do so like lesser mortals such as myself. Theathenae on the other hand doesn't even pretend that he is observing Wikipedia policy. All he will ever do is edit war his only defence being that the Arvanites don't like been called Albanians. That is not true, the Arvanites of Epirus do, something which Theathenae manages to ignore. All this behaviour of theirs is very disturbing and I am appalled at their double standards. You see, according to them the Macedonians and the Arvanites of Epirus don't have the right to call themselves whatever they please, but the rest of the Arvanites do. REX 08:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ALARM! MATIA has no sources to support his explosive claims and yet sees fit to challenge all the available sources on the subject and POV push. If you provide sources to support your claims, then I may accept your edits. But without sources it is just your POV. What you are writing is a lot of guesswork. Please read WP policies. REX 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the POV tag. +MATIA  ☎ 14:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Arvanites have the right to have a language! Arvanites don't want to be labeled as ALBANIANS! +MATIA  ☎ 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Arvanites believe are written in their books. You can deny it, but this won't change what they feel. You can't dictate to people who you don't even know , what to feel. If you don't respect them, so be it. +MATIA  ☎ 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MATIA's unjstifiable POV pushing 

message: ARVANITES HAVE NO RIGHTS! (according to REX)<BR>
MATIA HAS NO RIGHTS - not even the right to defend himself (see here)<BR> +MATIA  ☎ 09:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  calumnies against [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA]] (see also [[User_talk:Matia.gr#REX.27s_calumnies_against_me|here]]) 

message: I think that you all should know that User:Theathenae and MATIA seem to have double standards. They deniy the Macedonians and the Arvanites of North-West Greece the right to call themselves whatever they please, but they seem to display  such sensitivity when it comes to what to call the Arvanites of Attica. I wouldn't take them too seriously as they are obviously one of these far-right Greek extremists who would rather see all Greece's minorities sent to Auschwitz than admit that Greece is now a multicultural society with minrities with links to other countries. REX 10:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy, Greek extremism and double standards 

message: Arvanitis and Arvanitika, are Arvanitic words. So if Arberor is correct (I don't remember but it may be), the correct phrase would be:
Arvanites (Αρbε̰ρόρ, Arbërór or Arvanites in Arvanitika).
Arvanites, Arvanitika, besha (μπέσα), phara (φάρα) and other are loan words from Arvanitika that are also used in Greek.
Shqiptar is the Albanian word for Albanians.
REX had said in the past that he is Arvanitis, and later that he is an Albanian. Well, he can be whatever he wants, or he can claim that he is whatever he wants. But if he was an Arvanitis he would know how they call themselves, and the same applies for Albanian. Why he claimed to be Arvanitis or Albanian, (or Greek  before 3-4 months) I can't say. and I don't care. But forcing names or labels, even if he doesn't know he is wrong, cannot be accepted.
I must also note that he continues to force his personal pov on Arvanites while there's no consensus for his edits.I do hope he'll understand this and cool off.+MATIA  ☎ 14:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ALARM! MATIA has no sources to support his explosive claims and yet sees fit to challenge all the available sources on the subject and POV push. If you provide sources to support your claims, then I may accept your edits. But without sources it is just your POV. What you are writing is a lot of guesswork. Please read WP policies. REX 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the POV tag. +MATIA  ☎ 14:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Arvanites have the right to have a language! Arvanites don't want to be labeled as ALBANIANS! +MATIA  ☎ 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Arvanites believe are written in their books. You can deny it, but this won't change what they feel. You can't dictate to people who you don't even know , what to feel. If you don't respect them, so be it. +MATIA  ☎ 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About REX's edit war 

message: In this subsection I'll provide Brian Joseph view on Arvanitika. While REX 
reminded me of him (I've read his work in the past but I've forgotten about him), he misquoted him and he edited this article while there's no consensus for REX's changes (REX is the only one who agrees with what he does, not even his source Brian Joseph). PS REX must tell us if a) he understands greek and b) he accept sources in greek. The one day he lists his name in translators the other day he says my sources are greek and he can't understand them. Just few days before, he disputed Biris because the book is written in Greek, while Biris is the most referenced source by other scholars on Arvanites. +MATIA  ☎ 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arvanites have the right to have a language! Arvanites don't want to be labeled as ALBANIANS! +MATIA  ☎ 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Arvanites believe are written in their books. You can deny it, but this won't change what they feel. You can't dictate to people who you don't even know , what to feel. If you don't respect them, so be it. +MATIA  ☎ 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Joseph, linguist 

message: Sources in Greek cannot be used according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is a WP policy by the way. You obviously have never seen one before. Only WP:NPA. How convenient. REX 14:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  REX and greek sources 

message: *I would have written summaries but I'm not wp:cool at all and I can't write now
**link1
**link2
**link3
**link4
*I'll try to expand on this tommorrow, I hope. +MATIA  ☎ 20:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arvanites have the right to have a language! Arvanites don't want to be labeled as ALBANIANS! +MATIA  ☎ 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Arvanites believe are written in their books. You can deny it, but this won't change what they feel. You can't dictate to people who you don't even know , what to feel. If you don't respect them, so be it. +MATIA  ☎ 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Joseph on Arvanitika 

message: BLUFF ALERT! These sources do not support MATIA's explosive claims. He is trying to bluff his way into believing that someone actually believes that Arvanitika Albanian is not a dialect of Albanian, but a separate language altogether. These "sources" say nothing of the kind. What a shame MATIA. Anyway, we'll just have to use what Britannica, UNESCO etc say. NEXT! REX 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arvanites have the right to have a language! Arvanites don't want to be labeled as ALBANIANS! +MATIA  ☎ 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Arvanites believe are written in their books. You can deny it, but this won't change what they feel. You can't dictate to people who you don't even know , what to feel. If you don't respect them, so be it. +MATIA  ☎ 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  REX's perspective 

message: It appears Rexhep's ridiculous request for arbitration against me has backfired dismally. I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for the kid.--Theathenae 10:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:REX|Rexhep]]'s fan club 

message: This is appalling behavior on all parts.  I've blocked REX, Theathenae and matia.gr for three hours as a warning for extreme incivility, personal attacks and edit warring.  Please find a way to communicate with one another without making nonsensical and irrelevant accusations. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony is right, you three should be cool when editing and try to work something out. GrandfatherJoe 14:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: I am getting tired of this! MATIA and Theathenae, I insist that you provide sources which confirm what you are saying or else withdraw. I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that what I say is true and can be used in encyclopaedia articles because other encyclopaedias use it too. According to your absurd theory we could say that American English is a separate language from British English, because the Americans don't identify as English. In the same way, you want to say that Arvanitika Albanian and Tosk Albanian are separate languages because (in this case only some) Arvanites don't identify with the rest of the Albanian community. I have made concessions, not insisted on calling the language Arvanitika Albanian, not insisting on the diaspora dialect bit, I've given an inch, turned the other cheek but I say enough is enough! Stop reverting, prove what you want to say and then and ONLY then will I give way. REX 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting this stupid thing over with 

message: REX asked me for advice on how to proceed.  He hasn't yet taken it, but I am still optimistic. I think it applies to all parties in this dispute, so I tweaked it a little so that it's more general and I present it here.
* It's a difficult one.  I think the key here would be to be patient and listen.  Do you know why your opponent is so wedded to his theory, and what his objection is to your sources?  Would they be amenable to a version of the article that described the true situation as debatable and gave both versions?  You've all been arguing loudly and behaving abominably, so it may take a long time for everybody to calm down, but if you treat people with respect they are more likely to do the same to you.  So again, be very patient.  Show that you're not going to edit war, and make sure that other editors are clear that you intend to avoid further edit warring, but stand your ground in the talk page.  At the same time, examine criticism of your points and don't be afraid to admit it if someone makes a good counter to a point you have made.  The only way out of this is for a version to be written that everybody can live with, and the only way to that is for all parties to act reasonably.  Start by making sure that you act reasonably and then wait patiently for others to respond to that. Maybe others who are now repelled by the fighting will change their minds and get involved.   
I do hope all will read this and take it to heart. Haranguing one another hasn't worked.  It's time to listen, to show mutual respect, and to stop edit warring. Maybe if you listen more you'll find that you aren't so far apart after all.
In any case there is nothing to be gained by shouting at one another like this.  You're all breaking Wikipedia policy, so if this case escalates you all have a lot to lose.  --Tony SidawayTalk 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very difficult for me not to point out that a) I weren't even here editing when I got blocked b) you haven't contacted me for clarifications from me or showing and explaining to me where I did what wrong c) you didn't check what was happening here thoroughly d) you never showed that you care who attacked repeatedly whom for a long period e) you didn't check the participants on that debate. anyway, we all know I'm not wp:cool tonite after my block by you... so I'll try to stop here. +MATIA  ☎ 23:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I can't help wondering how would you react if you were labeled in any unwanted way for many months. And then finding out that while you were away you got blocked. No, I can't understand you. We have a proverb in Greece: If the foot hurts you shouldn't cut your hand. (this means that treatment is needed where the problem is and not in other parts) +MATIA  ☎ 23:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: a) MATIA, you were edit-warring when you got blocked. b)Your edit-warring and POV pushing without sources was wrong c) I believe that he did d) that doesn't make any difference to the FACTS e) He did; that's why you got blocked. REX 08:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MATIA, I want you to make a proposal on how you want the article to be. I have made every proposal so far, I have found every source so far. It's time you something for a change instead of critisising. REX 08:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some advice

message: From my contributions: 17:55, 4 October 2005 and then 18:56, 5 October 2005. After I clear my name and prove what you and your friend GrandfatherJoe did, I'm outta here. +MATIA  ☎ 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  facts against yet another calumny 

message: All good-faith users are highly encouraged NOT TO EDIT THIS WIKI. There was a previous consensus and a certain user defied repeatedly the facts. At last his mask is dropped, he finaly labeled ALL ARVANITES as ethnic albanians. ALL USERS DO NOT EDIT THIS WIKI until the admins deside what they'll do with the attitude of a certain user his disrespect of facts regarding the history of ARVANITES. +MATIA  ☎ 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAG ATTENTION PLEASE 

message: Thought it might be useful to have input from someone who knows something of linguistics and identifies with neither Greek nor Albanian. I haven't read all of this dispute, so forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said. 
There are three contradictory ways of distinguishing 'language' from 'dialect':
* One is that a 'language' is a standardized idiom with literature and governmental support, while a 'dialect' is nonstandard, and often by implication substandard and spoken by the uneducated. This usage is why people often become offended if their idiom is called a 'dialect'. This of course is a social/political and often discriminatory definition: the 'a language is a dialect with an army' position. 
* Another is the test of mutual intelligibility. Generally, if a speaker of idiom A, who has had no exposure to idiom B, moves to a B-speaking area and can pick it up in a couple weeks, then A and B are considered dialects of language C. By this definition, Chinese, German, and Arabic are not single languages, while Russian and Ukrainian are dialects of a single language. (I know one Ukrainian who says he speaks 'a dialect of Russian'). Of course, this is a very difficult standard to meet in many cases. For example, is Mixtec one language, or forty? There are very very few languages where controlled studies have been done to determine whether, say, a representative population from town A can converse at FSI level 3 with a representative population from town B. So, although this might seem the most objective and linguistically most justified definition, it doesn't always work well in practice. 
* A third is ethno-linguistic identity. That is, if two peoples consider their idioms to be separate languages, then they are, even if mutually intelligible. A good example of this is Hindi and Urdu, which are commonly considered separate languages despite the fact that speakers very often can't tell the difference if they're not told what someone is speaking. A more recent example is Bosnian. There are problems here too, of course. For example, many Macedonians are of the opinion that they speak the Macedonian language, but many Bulgarians consider it to be 'just' a dialect of Bulgarian. Usually in such cases it is the opinion of the speakers of an idiom that are more highly valued, but of course speaker opionion may also be sharply divided along political, religious, or class lines. 
Finally, very often the word 'language' is used ambiguously in the sense of 'idiom', without implying either a language-level or dialect-level relationship with another idiom. "The American language" etc. 
So my 2 cents are that simply calling something a 'language' or a 'dialect' is not very informative. There often is no simple answer. Rather, if you wish to convey the essence of an idiom to your audience, you need to cover all bases: how is the idiom perceived by its speakers? how is it perceived by outsiders? how readily intelligible is it to related idioms? what kind of recognition does it enjoy? Different readers might be interested in the social aspect, linguistic aspect, or political aspect, and I don't think it should be our job to decide for them which they should consider. kwami 01:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. +MATIA  ☎ 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  language vs. dialect 

message: Someone is removing the fact that the Arvanites of North-Wastern Greece call themselves Shqiptar according to the Helsinki Report. I would like them to convince me that that is fair and accurate. REX 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Arvanites are ethnically part of the Greek people then this article is pointless! --213.100.205.149 00:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: Let me get this straight. While UNESCO says that Arvanitika is a dialect of Albanian and the Helsinki Report says that the Arvanites of North-Western Greece call themselves Shqiptar, we are not allowed to write it in the article because MATIA disagrees with it. I don't get it. How come MATIA can lay down the law and forbid certain phrases being used in the article simply because he doesn't agree with them. Well MATIA, you'll need a GOOD EXPLANATION before I step aside. I want a GOOD REASON to leave out what these reliable sources say. If you provide one, I may stand aside. Rex(talk) 11:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MATIA 

message: *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&diff=next&oldid=27061293
**he reverts back to his edit, without checking the changes
**he changed Arvanitika to Arvanitic, but he was the one who did the final move to Arvanitika - see also Talk:Arvanitika#Page_move and my various previous comments that the language is called Arvanitika on Talk:Arvanites
**he removed the accurate (and not anachronism) phrase about Despotate of Epirus, etc
**he removed the accurate phrase that Pangalos was former minister of Foreign Affairs of the Greek goverment and he changed (back to his previous edit) Greek to greek.
**he removed the accurate phrase "has evolved separately over the course of the past five centuries"
**he changed the number of Arvanites to 140000 - this is just an exaggerated number of the people who speak Arvanitika (there are probably some millions of Arvanites and only some thousands of them speak Arvanitika)
+MATIA  ☎ 12:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  REX's vandalism 

message: *Dialect vs language:Pointless dillema. Read: Dialect. The creteria of distinguishing a language from a dialect in our case are to a large extent political. Some Albanians want to consider Arvanites as Albanians, so for political reasons they like to consider Arvanitica as a dialect of Albanian language. Greeks don't like that, and for political reasons like to consider that a different language. Has Albanian or Greek nationalism much to do with the language itself as a form of comunication? No.
*Arvanites as a national minority: Some Albanians want to consider Arvanites as an Albanian unrecognised minority. They have to have a look at Nation (The nationals (the members of the "nation") are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent). Do Arvanites have a common identity? They ancestors maybe did. Do modern Arvanites and Albanians have a common identity? I don't think so. Do Arvanites and Albanians have a sense of same ancestry, parentage or descent? Some Albanians have that sense. Do Arvanites have that sense too? No. Someone belongs to a nation if he/she believes that he/she belongs to it. If he/she believes otherwise, he is not a member of that nation. Do Arvanites feel Albanians? No. 
*Reference to NGOs. Do these organisations have a "NPOV policy"? Can they make mistakes or "mistakes"?
*Language-minorities. Some greeks and some albanians cannot ditinguish between a minority language and a language of a minority. A minority language is a language that is spoken less than another language. A language of a minority is a language used by a religious or another distinguishable minority. Turkish in Greece, Greek in Albania are languages of minorities. Arvanitica in Greece and  Gheg in Albania are minority languages, because they are spoken by the minority of people.
*Greeks disliking that Arvanites may have a common ancestry with Albanians: What's so bad about having a common ancestry with someone that belongs to another nation? Having a common ancestry with an albanian or a greek or a german doesn't make you an albanian or a greek or a german. See above (my second point).
*Nationalism in the most stupid sense. Living in a specific country does nececerily mean that you have to accept and fight for what you are told (or not told) in school? Why does a Greek or an Albanian have to argue to support the "NPOV" facts he/she is told from the day he/she is born?--Mik2 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have forgotten the fact that ALL linguists on earth call Arvanitika an Albanian dialect. Wikipedia would look ridiculous if we contradicted them. Also, saying that Arvanitika is an Albanian dialect does not mean that Arvanites are Albanians. Are we calling the Irish people English people by saying that their language (Hiberno English) is a dialect of English? Rex(talk) 08:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Liguistists say so because linguisticaly speaking, it is a dialect. Sociologicaly speaking it is a language. If Arvanitica is a dialect of Albanian, then the language of FYROM is a Bulgarian dialect and Norge, Danish and Sweedish are dialects of the same language too. Their diferent wikis shoulg be merged, what about that?--Mik2 17:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "saying that Arvanitika is an Albanian dialect does not mean that Arvanites are Albanians" Of course. That's what I am saying.--Mik2 17:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Kwamikagami, you write above that "calling Arvanitika and Albanian separate languages contradicts normal linguistic criteria". Would this also apply in the case of Croatian and Serbian, which have separate articles and are in the event much closer to each other in their modern forms than modern Arvanitic and modern Tosk Albanian? In my view, separate languages need not mean unrelated languages, as the Albanian nationalists here fear. We have already established that Arvanitic is separate from Albanian ethnolinguistically, because of the Arvanites' distinct identity. However, modern Arvanitic is also different enough from modern Tosk Albanian to be considered a separate language in a purely linguistic sense as well. Remember, they are only partially mutually intelligible according to Ethnologue. The best analogy would probably be the relationship between Castilian and Catalan or Portuguese, which share a common origin and are partially intelligible but are different enough to suffer communication breakdown. Franco considered Catalan to be a mere dialect of Spanish, of course, but the idea has fallen out of favour since. You are quite right to point out that the main problem here is the lack of interest by linguists, who have rather cursorily associated Arvanitic with Albanian but have failed to study the language in any meaningful depth.--Theathenae 08:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say that Serbian and Croatian are one language in the narrow sense (and standard Hindi and Urdu, and maybe Spanish and Portuguese as well). They are closer than the various dialects of German, Japanese, or Igbo. (I don't like my phrase "normal linguistic criteria"; "narrow linguistic criteria" might have been better.) In fact, I know of one Ukrainian who says that he speaks a "dialect" of Russian, which Ukrainian certainly is in the narrow sense! By this same criterion, most linguists would say that Greek is not a single language, that Tsakonian and maybe Pontic are distinct enough to be considered separate languages. As for the intelligibility of Arvanitike, all I know is what I've read in the various sources mentioned above, which indicate that there isn't any real difficulty in communication. Of course, whether the authors are correct or not is another question. kwami 12:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is all this fighting about?

message: In the list "2.3 Famous Arvanites" i've included people who had Arvanitic consciousness (that is they have said that they are Arvanites, have done things for Arvanite people, etc). I don't remember if Kollias, Moraitis and Demetrios Lekkas are Arvanites. I'll remove them and I'll add info about Kollias' book. I'll also remove the phrase "Arvanites have Albanian origins, as language and songs prove". It has been discussed before (here and in ArbCom) and it is analysed in the article. +MATIA  ☎ 18:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the edits by user 67.101.31.233 

message: My changes can be seen at this diff.
*I changed Arbëror and Shqiptar to Arbërorë and Shqiptarë because that is the plural form. It goes as follows: Arbëror (Arvanite man), Arbërore (Arvanite woman), Arbërorë (Arvanites). Also, Shqiptar (Albanian man), Shqiptare (Albanian woman), Shqiptarë (Albanians). It is important to note that final -ë is not normally pronounced in Albanian AND Arvanitic, but lengthens the penultimate vowel.
*I removed the five centuries evolution theory, because it is supported by no sources and is highly unliely anyway (see Helsinki report).
*I removed the Arvanitis and Arvanitissa, because there is no proof that that is their name in English (we could say that it is the Greek name though).
*I added the modern to Tosk, to reflect the fact that the Albanian immigrants stil spoke Tosk (check the Brian Joseph pdf).
I urge you to accept these changes, as this may sweeten me into accepting the article title Arvanitic language. You cannot have everything - compromise. If you remove them, then I may initiate negotiations to move Arvanitic language somewhere else again. I give you the Arvanitic language name, you give me these minor changes. Rex(talk) 08:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain myself 

message: There's been rather extensive debate over the use of the name Shqipere & variants, and I assume this is because such a name could be used to claim Albanian identity. However, Arvanitika itself means 'Albanian', so it's kind of a moot point. Besides, conceptions of names change. The name "English" no longer means German, for example, so what does it prove if Arvanitika means Albanian, or if some Arvanitika use the name Shqipere? That could be entirely independent of ethnic identity. (But then it might not be. I have no idea.)
Anyway, the OED has this etymology for 'Albania':
::Albania is the med.L. and general mod. name of the country, which is called Shqipnija by the inhabitants, who call themselves Shqipetars; in med.Gr. Ἀλβανία, with variants Ἀλβανητία, Ἀρβανητία, the inhabitants being called Ἀλβάνοι, Ἀλ-, Ἀρβανῆτες (in Turkish ARNAUT).
Notice the variants in Ἀρβανητ-. This is the root of Arvenitika. kwami 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to keep in mind Wikipedia:No original research. You can only publish what has been published by a reputable publisher. Wikipedia:Verifiability remember. It's not our job to research and to discover its etymology, we are supposed to quote suggestions by all scholars. Rex(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising. I'm just reminding you :-) Rex(talk) 00:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name 

message: I've changed modern Tosk with Standard Albanian and, those interested could go to the relevant page and see how Arvanitika is categorised by linguists etc. Any comments? +MATIA  ☎ 19:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurate, the only problem is that now it excludes the other (non standard) Tosk dialects including Arbereshe. I really don't know what to think... Rex(talk) 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  last change 

message: The people who are listed as "Famous Arvanites" are not all Arvanites, Here's what the article states:
[[Famous Arvanites-
Greek War of Independence 
Andreas Miaoulis, admiral and later politician 
Markos Botsaris, leader of Souliotes, defender of Messolonghi 
Laskarina Bouboulina, the only female member of Filiki Etaireia 
Nikolaos Krieziotis, leader of the Greek Revolution in Evoia 
Presidents of Greece 
Pavlos Kountouriotis, admiral and later politician 
Theodoros Pangalos, general and briefly military dictator 
Prime Ministers of Greece 
Kitsos Tzavelas 
Georgios Kountouriotis 
Antonios Kriezis, served in Greek navy during the revolution, later politician 
Dimitrios Voulgaris 
Athanasios Miaoulis 
Diomidis Kiriakos 
Theodoros Pangalos, general and later politician 
Alexandros Korizis 
Petros Voulgaris 
Alexandros Diomidis 
Greek politicians 
Theodoros Pangalos, former minister of Foreign Affairs, member of PASOK 
Artists 
Nikos Engonopoulos, painter and poet]]
Im quite familiar with most of these historical figures, and most if not all of them are of Greek Ancestry, this is the first time Ive ever heard of them being refred to as having Arvanitic ancestry, so basically the names of these histoical figures will be permenantly deleted from this article very soon if there is no sufficient Non-biased evidence which can confirm each and every of the people listed are of Avranitic origins. ---E-mail adress02:03, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some examples: Botsaris phara was from Souli, the oldest historical records for that phara date around 1500. Pangalos was from Eleusina or Agkistri, both the general and his grandson has declared repeatedly their Arvanitic identity. Krieziotis was from Karystos an Arvanitic village. Engonopoulos has also declared his identity in interviews and has done some paintings with arvanitic themes (for example Mercouris Boua, an Arvanitis war-leader who fought the Ottomans). Most of these and many more can also be found at http://www.arvasynel.gr but I listed here only the people who I could verify from various sources. Some Arvanites claim that Kolokotronis was also an Arvanitis but this is disputed and so I haven't included him (and I don't know whether he was also partially an Arvanitis). +MATIA  ☎ 17:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  == Famous Arvanites == 

message: Eleftheria Arvanitaki is listed as Icarian.
Does her surname hint of Arvanite ancestry?
I don't have a clue about Eleftheria Arvanitaki's ancestry. +MATIA  ☎ 12:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eleftheria Arvanitaki

message: I have also checked General Pangalos's memoirs, Krieziotis and Kriezis biographies (the author of the last biography, was a Kriezis himself and a member of the greek pariament, from Hydra). So User:E-mail adress if you are familiar with these books, I am expecting your explanations on the subject you raised. In the past we had Albanian and other editors who claimed that Arvanites are not Greeks, however what Arvanites say and what Arvanites have done are the evidence for the opposite. If you want to claim that the books that I've listed in that article (most of them at the Bibliography section) are biased, I expect you to check the books first (start with Bires and Moraitis) and then we can talk about it. +MATIA  ☎ 12:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to [[User:E-mail adress]] and some questions