Talk:Arvanites/Archive 4

message: Although I agreed with NikoX's proposal to leave out the "related groups" entry in the infobox, it seems the template treats that row as obligatory and keeps inserting junk if we don't specify it. I think calling Albanians a "related group" here is not really that controversial, is it? Feel free to remove if the template can be fixed to make the row optional. Are there people who feel strongly about having that info there or not having it? Lukas (T.|@) 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Greeks - language is not the only criterion, Arvanites and Greeks share many cultural characteristics. Telex 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with me - I just hope we won't have furious Greek readers calling in to complain that labelling Arvanites related to Greeks implies that they aren't themselves Greeks ... :-) By the way, if we want to add something useful in this row, how about Arbereshe? Now, these guys really are "related", and there are reports that that's at least one thing that's not terribly controversial or offending to Arvanites. Lukas (T.|@) 09:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Arbëreshë are Arvanites ;-) they were Greek identifying, had Greek names and (much earlier) were Orthodox Christians (now they are Roman Catholics or Uniates - this is also true for the Griko speakers there). They became Albanians in 1926 with Mussolini propaganda, when he also renamed Sicilia piena degli Greci to Sicilia piena degli Arbanessi. Telex 09:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the complaint you mentioned shouldn't happen, as the infobox itself says "related ethnic groups" - thereby acknowledging the Arvanites as an ethnic group. Telex 09:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly that could become the crux. You wouldn't believe what people have already found reasons to squabble about in this article. But maybe I shouldn't talk about WP:BEANS too much. :-) Lukas (T.|@) 09:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Related" entry in infobox 

message: The question is not weather you or I like to the tags to the remain. The tags was put there because of the very fact that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed and not accepting this and state otherwise is a false statement.The tags are extremely necessary and appropriate so editors become more involved in the sensitivity of the subject concerning the article, and also otherwise readers cannot understand what they are reading may contain incorrect information. --Albanau 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - if there is an actual dispute, then they should remain. --Telex 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not certain. --Telex 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to be between Matia and Albanau, on whether to refer to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians . --Telex 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, Albanau, you identified a problem here in the talk page. Fine. It seems you cannot accept that Arvanites are Greeks; well, argue your case. Let me give you some POV information, according to a cousin there is Arvanitiko in our blood, and we say, we know we are Greeks. We like Albania and all our neighbours but we, like the Arvanites are Greeks. I have no idea who you are Albanau so I cannot take your motives very seriously. Perhaps you are a Belgium or a Canadian student having a bit of fun. Well at least make us laugh βρε φίλε! But what is the problem with the article? Politis 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, the problem, which has mainly been discussed between Matia and me, is whether it is appropriate to state in the intro that Arvanites are "descendants of Albanian settlers". It was my proposal to introduce that. And as I still haven't heard any serious alternative to that statement sourced to any serious reference, I still don't see why it shouldn't be included. If those ancestors at the time of the settlement were not Albanians, then what the heck were they? One year of edit war, and still no answer to that basic question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer: Albanian-speaking Greeks. Greeks spoke different languages during the final centuries of the Byzantine Empire and especially during Ottoman times. There were Greeks that spoke Slavic and hence were deemed Slavophone Greeks. There were Greeks that spoke Turkish and hence Turkophone Greeks. The utilization of different languages was a survival tactic the Greeks needed in order to trade more easily, as well as to protect themselves from any potential dangers (especially from harassments by the Ottomans). Once again, language does not define ethnicity. Of course, since Western European academia assumes that a language reflects the ethnic make-up of a social group it is no wonder there is still controversy over this topic. Over and out. Deucalionite 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but no cigar. Who, pray, has proposed this view in the literature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't smoke. So it is true. You actually believe that language defines ethnicity. I never thought I would see the day when I would have interesting proof of sociological blindness on your part. Have you ever heard of the Anglophone Greeks? I hear they are ethnic Greeks who mostly speak English or some linguistic variation of Anglo-Saxon. Just so you know, Greeks speaking different languages during late Byzantine and Ottoman times is not something I conjured up in my sleep. I think there are entities called "people" who realistically understand this too. Care to meet them my sociologically blind friend? Deucalionite 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are entities called books, which are supposed to play a certain role in discussions on Wikipedia. Lukas (T.|@) 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are. However, books are only part of the process. There are journals, notes, statements, etc. that you have to take into account (as well as good old fashioned sociological analyses). Besides, you have to be careful nowadays about which books to use (since certain scholars have these things called "axes" that they tend to grind for monetary or political purposes; oh how much fun academia is). Also, comparative analyses of the books utilized should be in order. You of all people should know that much. Over and out. Deucalionite 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the tags