Talk:Arvanites/Archive 1

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)

Acciajuoli

The life of Basil Sakelaris, the Troesenian priest. (Freely adapted from the arvanitic.) I was born in nineteen ninety-seven, 1797, after the birth of Christ. And when I reached the age of seven, I learned to write in modern? Greek in Piyada (Nea Epidaurus?). Then I returned in my native country, and in 1808 I went to Poros, to study Greek under N. Bambakis. Then, after one year I got on a ship and we set sail to Constantinople, and then came we to Smyrna and we loaded raisins destined for Amsterdam. We set sail for Malta, from there we went to Mahon, and then to Mallorca, and we anchored in Argazilia (?). The sailors warned us not to go on sea, because the Algerians were offshore, and they would kidnap us. We went to sea anyway, they caught us and put our whole crew in their ship. In our ship the Algerians put some of their men and took us to Algiers. We remained there for four days, and then they released us, together with some other slaves. After being released we arrived in Calais, but we were sent off. Then we went to Lisbon, from there we went to London. We went to Helder by ferryboat (?) and unloaded. We entered Amsterdam six months after we set sail for the first time. Then we came back to Poros. Then I got married there, in 1818, and in 1820 I became a priest.

In 1821 the war with Turkey broke out. In 1828 I learned the allilodidaktike method? and became a teacher in Poros, remaining there until 1842. Then I left the island and in 1852 I was anointed priest for the king Ludwig. We went also in Toulon, France. In 1855 Ludwig released me from my duties and since then I have been employed in my church, with no other occupation.

Jeta e Vasil Sakelarit, priftit, Triziniotit. U u leshë ndë ñië mil’lë e shtatë qint e nöntë dhietë shtatë, 1797, gka të lerrëtë e Krishtit. E, kur u shkitshë e u böshë shtatë viet, d’zura grammëtë êïéíÜtë ndë Pijadhë (ÍÝá ’Eðßäáõñïò). - Pra u pruarshë ndë katunt t’im, e ndë 1808 vaita ndë Porje, çë gje’shë grammë hel’linikí gka N. Bambaki. E pastai gka viti hira me ñië karav : e vammë ndë Pol, pra erdhm ndë Smyrn e ngarkuam staphydhe prë* [prë Zotin?] Amsterdham. - E lashuam e vammë ndë Maltë e gkah’ atje ndë Mahon, pra ndë Mayorkë, e zumm ndë Argazilie. - Atje na thoinë varkatë : “mos dilni jashtë, se janë Alindzerintë e do u grapñiënë.” Nevet duallm e na grapnë e na vunnë nevet ndë karav të tire e nde i ini karav vunnë Alindzeriñ, e na muarë pasoiet* [pasjet?], e na qellë nd’ Alindzer. E mbemmë atje katrë dit, pra na lashuan : pse ish qæroi çë lashuanë edhe të tierëtë shklev. - E, si na lashuanë i a thurm [thuam] e vamm nish-nish ndë Kalès, e nögkë na lanë, po na gjuaitin. E vamm ndë Lisbonë e gkah’ atje ndë Londrë ; e gka Londra muarm ñië matës detit e vamm ndë Hèldèr e shkarkuam ; pra himm mbörda nd’ Amsterdham, çë bömm gjashtë muai. - Pra u pruarm e erdhm ndë Porje. - Atje edhe u martuashë ndë 1818, e ndë 1820 u böshë prift. - - Edhe ndë ñië mil’lë e tetë qint e ñiëzet e ñië, 1821, gritim luftë me Turki. - E ndë 1828 d’zura al’lilodhidhaktikinë methodo e u dhiorishë dhaskal ndë Porje e mbeta ñierë ndë 1842. - Pasandai dolla e ndë 1852 u dhiorishë prift i Ludovikosë. - E vamm edhe ndë Toulo’ të Gal’lisë. - E ndë 1855 më lashuanë gka Ludovikua, e jam ñierë ndë sot ndë klishë t’ime pa doñië iatrë shërbes.

Theathenae are you -- > swedish wiki user Arvanítis? Albanau 16:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where's the beef?

What exactly are you disputing about the article, other than the fact that TheAthenae has edited it? --Jpbrenna 03:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae simply said Arvanites are 'a people' originating in central Albania rather than specifying 'a people of Albanian origin', look. Take a good look on the article Arvanitic as well, he begines with 'Arvanitic is an Indo-European language originating in the Balkan peninsula', he does not either specify here that 'Arvanítika is a variety of Tosk Albanian originating in the central Albania', and he continues 'spoken by about 150,000 Arvanites, a people of south-central Greece', also here he mention 'a people' which for me is very confusing. But he does not stop here, he says ' genetically related to Tosk , the language has been heavily influenced by Greek over the centuries', can't he say insteed genetically related to Tosk Albanian, look at this edit. 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. Please go and look what I wrote on the talkpage Fustanella.--Albanau 04:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae obviously has a concerted agenda here to deempasize the historical/linguistic links that the minorities of Greece (such as Arvanites & Aromanians) have with groups outside of Greece---the problem is, 'athenae takes it to the brink of pseudo-science, because the fact is the groups in question have very much the same origin, despite the gulf that has developed in the ensuing centuries. While one should not necessarily project the close historic link onto the modern scene, one should also not attempt to blot out the common link from the past in a Wikipedia article. Decius 11:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the way I approach this topic: my edits to the articles in question will show that my concern in these situations is to make sure the close historical/linguistic links are made clear; in the articles, I do not get involved with the modern scene or how the people identify themselves (how people identify themselves is extremely subjective and arbitrary and does not necessarily reflect the historical realities of a situation) . And I note that 'athenae gives a selective impression of how these groups identify, and repeatedly attempts to speak for an entire people---which is ridiculous, point blank. His own position is extremely pro-Greek. Decius 11:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Keep your views from distorting historical and linguistic links---which are factual, not subjective. Your views are by defintion subjective, and they must be kept in check within a Wikipedia article. Decius 11:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I didn't seriously claim that the fustanella is of Greek origin. I would assume that it was imported along with the word itself, but I don't know. Decius 14:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is usually elements which contribute to confusion about identity. The Arvanites living in southern Greece are originally a Albanian folkgrupp who have absorbed a lot of Greek element through intermarriage and interaction with Greeks through the centuries. They have lived in Greece for centuries, they identified themself today with Greece, they have become associated with the new land.

Part of the article confused me, it stated: 'a people' originating in central Albania, I changed it to: 'originally a Albanian ethnic group' originating in central Albania. I think it's necessary to confirm this and not try to dislink the affinity of Arvanites people with the southern Albanians.

On the article Arvanitic language it is stated: 'an Indo-European language related to and somewhat mutually intelligible with Tosk' which should have sounded an alarm bell in you mind Decius. The line should be replaced with the following; 'a variety of Tosk Albanian spoken by the Arvanites'. Theathenae must recognize this fact that the Arvanítika language is a a variety of Tosk Albanian and not attempt to dislink the dialect of Arvanítika with the Tosk Albanian. --Albanau 20:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

What you said, now, and what you wrote on the article: Arvanitic language it's misleading. Oxford University Press: "Arvanítika, a variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece".

Then of course the Arvanítika dialects have been influenced by other Greek dialects and vise versa. --Albanau 20:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language and classifies it as Indo-European, Albanian, Tosk. Decius 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree Arvanitic should be referred to as a Tosk (Albanian) language, not a dialect. Ethnologue also indicates that Arvanitic has dialects within it. Decius 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Greek Helsinki report

"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)

Albanau if you go up to an Arvanite and call him an Albanian-Greek you'll experience the greatest mockery of your life. Miskin 4 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

[[User:Miskin|Miskin] the Arvanitic word for the Arvanit people is Arbëror and the Arvanitic language Arbëríshte wich is the old Albanian word for Albanian. Arbëreshë are Albanian people living in southern Italy. / Read Albanian identities, Myth and History, page 179, the term 'Alvanoi' was also used to describe the Arvanites. --Albanau 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Albanau|Albanau There is a big Albanian minority in every part of the Balkans, and they all happen to have their own special name according to you. So maybe you are going to declare those parts of the Balkans they now make home a part of the new Albania. The great Albania that some nationalists like you have in mind. Wake up!!! There is no Kosovo here. You are not qualified to debate and solve these issues, and the debate should definetely not take place here in Wikipedia.

Dispute is on their origins

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)

reasons why I edit the page

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)

Albanau please try to understand that as you want to be called (self-identified) as Albanau, Arvanites feel they are Greeks. Let me clarify something I've already mentioned on Arvanitic language: if you go to an Arvanitis and call him Albanian he will react like you have offended his mother.MATIA 07:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of you are not getting the point here and the point is that it doesn't matter how Arvanites act today and what their feelings are. This shouldn't have to do anything with who their ancestors were. Arvanites are Albanian immigrants, accepting it or not, it wont ever change anything. Regards -User

acknowledge neutral source

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)

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)

erased Greek propaganda

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)

I 've already told where this phrase came from. I believe you can use that source and make two articles, one for Gegs and one for Tosks, explaining the similarities and differences (language, way of dressing etc). This was old britanica "propaganda", take the source, modify it properly (I don't like some characterizations on that encyclopedia about Albania people) and make something useful out of it.

Please change the phrase Greek propaganda and try to accept the history of Arvanites.

MATIA 17:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok what they are talking about had nothing to do with Arvanites, are you sure you're taking your pills? - User :)

So any fact you don't like is propaganda now? What reason did the old Britannica have to use propaganda against Albania? What characterizations don't you like from that encyclopaedia? You need to get some help. Or maybe you need to have some intercourse yourself because it seems like you haven't gotten any in a long time.

encyclopedia phrase

""""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)""""

Paraphrasing: The native characteristics of the Tosks have been modified by communication/dealings with the Greeks and Vlachs. In light of this simple truth, why are we talkin about Tosks being a mishmash?

The 1911 encyclopedia article on Greece[1] highlights:

""The Christian Albanians have long lived on good terms with the Greeks while retaining their own customs and language and rarely intermarrying with their neighbors. They played a brilliant part during the War of Independence, and furnished the Greekswith many of their most distinguished leaders.""

""Like the Albanians, the pastoral Vlachs seldom intermarry with the Greeks; they occasionally take Greek wives, but never give their daughters to Greeks""

The ancestors of arvanites and vlachs were ridiculed for their origins, and that is one reason they are the most hardcore "greeks".

Vlachs:

""Owing to their deficient intellectual culture they are regarded with disdain by the Greeks, who employ the term j3M~os to denote not only a shepherd but an ignorant rustic.""

Albanians:

""The process of their Hellenization... has been somewhat slow; most of the men can now speak Greek, but Albanian is still the language of the household. The Albanians, who are mainly occupied with agriculture, are less quick-witted, less versatile, and less addicted to politics than the Greeks, who regard them as intellectually their inferiors. A vigorous and manly race, they furnish the best soldiers in the Greek army, and also make excellent sailors.""

Typical albo occupation historically has been soldier.

What exactly are you arguing over?

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)

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)

I never said that, I was comparing the Arbëreshë to the Arvanites and I was asking if we can say Tosk Albanian or Arbëreshë Albanian, why can't we say Arvanitic Albanian? Also, could you tell me if the Arvanite fulfil the criteria here. REX 15:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

That may be, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for you to express your personal opinion. REX 15:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Of course not. All right, assuming you are right. Arvanites are nothing but Greeks on Prozac, why doesn't the page Arvanites be made blank and make it redirect to Greeks? REX 16:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Exactly, why don't you make the following changes:

• Change Arvanites to Arvanite Greeks,
• Change Aromanians to Aromanian Greeks,
• Change Pontians to Pontian Greeks
• etc

just to be sure that nobody dares assume that there is a minority nationalist movement in Greece, to give the Greek Police something to do, storm a festival perhaps (snort). REX 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

""""So, the Arvanites are Albanians because their ancestors originally came from a place that is now called Albania 700 years ago?""""

No, they were albanians because historical sources say so.

""""Should this line of thinking apply to all 800 million inhabitants of the Americas except for what has remained of the native tribes?""""

When have lets say, white north american citizens, disputed that they have european origins? Stop false analogies. Here some want to put in dispute the albanian origins of arvanites even though there are sources that say they were albanians. Nobody puts in dispute the origins of the americans.

""""I know that the Arvanites are Greek citizens and they have been unfailingly and uniformly pledging their allegiance to Greece, not Albania""""

This is not the focus of the dispute.

All right! Shut up with the straws. To quit beating around the bush, I invite you to prepare a proposal on how YOU believe this article should be and we'll go over it point by point! REX 16:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

I like it too, I suppose the Arvanites' place of origin could be clarified, but I wouldn't remove the Shqiptar, that would be supressing the truth, even the Official Helsinki Report mentions that name is used by some Arvanites, mainly in Τσ̈αμε̰ρία.

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

In Epirus, that's the Arvanitic name for Epirus.REX 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

What is that supposed to mean? What difference does that make to the issues? REX 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Good! At least now we 've established that you are talking to an Arvanite/Albanian (But also Greek). REX 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Nobody 's a fool. But I can't understand where you got that from. REX 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I can Chronographos 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You can what? The question is why are you now saying that Arvanites are not Greeks? REX 17:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

REX

Can you please explain your reasons for doing this: this? REX 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really. The Arvanites do not self-identify as Albanians, nor do they describe their language as Albanian or a dialect or variety of Albanian, and in fact consider the term offensive. Just like the Croats, who do not wish their language to be referred to as a dialect or variety of Serbian, even if their standard language is much closer to Serbian than Arvanitic is to Albanian. Languages sharing a common origin need not share a name, especially when issues of distinct ethnic self-identification are at play.--Theathenae 14:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, not all Arvanites view themselves as distinct from mainstream Albanians. I am of Arvanitic descent and I know many other people who are also. They do not regard mainstream Albanians as foreigners but also regard themselves as Greeks, they (and I) just prefer to not be called Albanian for the purely social reason that a few immigrants from Albania have given all Albanians a stereotypical bad name. That does not mean that they are. Also, if Arvanitic were genealogically related to Tosk, Gheg and Arbëreshë (which it is, it belongs to the Albanian branch of the Indo-European family of languages), the link being on the page would be helpful if one would like to compare them. I think that you are mixing (Greek imperialistic) politics with science, and you shouldn’t. REX 14:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Greek imperialism? We are talking about a Greek population living on Greek soil. On the contrary, it is Albanian imperialistic politics trying to project an alien identity onto the citizens of another sovereign nation. I don't know if all Arvanites view themselves as distinct from "mainstream" Albanians, but I would say almost all certainly do. I have yet to meet or even hear of an Arvanite who considers him or herself Albanian, inside or outside my family. In any case, if you really are an Arvanite and "prefer to not be called Albanian", for whatever reason, you have answered your own question.--Theathenae 15:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's Greek imperialism, plain and simple. Didn't you know that the Μεγάλη Ιδέα was nothing but a camouflaged plan to invade Koropi? Chronographos 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I feel uncomfortable every time I visit there and have to listen to relatives' anti-Albanian rants. I'd prefer a world in which the Arvanites, along with the rest of the Greeks, respected the Albanians more, and the Albanians respected the Arvanites' right not to be Albanians.--Theathenae 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying, do you truly believe, that Arvanites differ in no respect from the mainstream Greek population? Our very name 'Arvanites' means Albanians, some Arvanites today may want to have nothing to do with the modern Albanian state, but that does not change anything. What kind of minority are we then if indeed, we are not Greek (you can tell from the classification of our language) and not Tosks (the population of Albania)? REX 16:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Μιλάς Ελληνικά? Chronographos 16:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ασφαλώς. REX 16:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Θεωρείς τον εαυτό σου Έλληνα? Chronographos 16:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Έλληνα και Αρβανίτη. REX 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)]

Όχι Αλβανό;--Theathenae 16:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Άρα "Arvanite Greek" στα Αγγλικά? Chronographos 16:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Arvanites are Greeks in that sense. Therefore the term Arvanite Greeks in pointless. Just say Arvanites. Like in Greek: Λέμε Αρβανίτες, όχι Αρβανιτοέλληνες. REX 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Does your friend Albanau agree with what you just said? Because he usually screams "Arvanites are not Greeks!" It's interesting that you asked for his "help". Και ούτε "Σπαρτιατοέλληνες" λέμε, ούτε "Κερκυροέλληνες". Chronographos 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Παιδί μου, θες να σε λέμε Αλβανό, ναι ή όχι;--Theathenae 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Arvanites are Greeks, but they also have a unique heratige, which contains many elements that the Arbëreshë and the people of Albania share. To deem Arvanites just Greek would be the biggest arrogance, because they are being denied that heratige. REX 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No one said "just Greek" except you. See Straw man. Chronographos 16:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I believe that you insist on overly emphasising the Arvanites' Greek element. Why? REX 16:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

you never change your tune, do you? Chronographos 16:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you must realise that the point of this discussion (as far a I am concerned) is to come up with a compromise on how the articles Arvanites and Arvanitic language should be. I believe that it is important that this compromise must be totally impartial, because, to use a correct analogy for a change, it would be like an article on the status of Taiwan being written from a Chinese or a Taiwanese perspective. I must be written so that nothing which is said can be reasonably challenged. I am willing to co-operate, if you are not, but are willing to continue talking about straws and scarecrows, I cannot help you and the above articles will remain erroneous. REX 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ισχυρίζεσαι ότι είσαι Έλληνας και Αρβανίτης. Θεωρείς εαυτόν "εθνική μειονότητα"? Chronographos 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Arvanites do not have a unique heritage. They have a common origin with the Albanians but they are not Albanians per se. They are Greeks whose ancestors came from Albania. To use Chronographos's analogy, nobody today considers Englishmen of Norman extraction "ethnically French". All I have ever objected to is the attempt to project an Albanian identity onto people who have only ever known the Greek nation in modern times.--Theathenae 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Δεν μπορώ να μιλήσω εκ μέρους όλων των Αρβανιτών. Εγώ όμως τους θεωρώ μη αναγνωρισμένη εθνική μειονότητα. REX 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why mainstream Albanians or Greeks should be mentioned, it could be glossed over to avoid confusion. Can't we just accept that Arvanites are an unique combination of Greeks and Abbanians (that could stand even literally, because of all the intermarriages). REX 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Εγώ πάλι νομίζω ότι λες ψέματα ότι είσαι Έλληνας. Για την ακρίβεια νομίζω ότι είσαι εξώλης και προώλης. Chronographos 17:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Greeks should be mentioned because that's the 'nation with which the Arvanites identify, including yourself by your own admission.--Theathenae 17:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Δηλαδή; Σκέφτωμαι τώρα, να σε καταγγείλω ή όχι; REX 17:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Πέρασες το τεστ στης Καθαρεύουσας, αλλά γιατί λες την Ήπειρο "Τσαμερία"? Ούτε καν "Τσαμουριά"? Chronographos 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps just to be on the safe side, it may even keep Albanau quiet, we should just mention that Arvanites live in Greece and that they are almost totally assimilated. REX 17:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted to keep him "quiet", why did you ask for his help in his talk page? Chronographos 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Δεν καταλαβαίνω;

Because, as far as I can tell, he shares my views that certain individuals (that incluses you) are trying to make out that Arvanites are totally Greeks. REX 17:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Posing as a Greek was a rather cheap trick, mind you. Chronographos 17:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm an Arvanite/Albanian (but also Greek). REX 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And I'm the Pope. Chronographos 17:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well your Holiness, do tell me, you are not Greek, are you German? REX 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nur ein bisschen Chronographos 18:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Α μούνd τε̰ μα πε̰ρκθένι κε̰τέ̰; REX 18:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't understand the concept of "just Greek" or "totally Greek". You're either Greek or you're not. You can also be Arvanite, but that doesn't detract from your Greekness. I don't discriminate or divide my compatriots into "pure" and "impure" Greeks, nor do I believe in ethnic purity, as the likes of User:Albanau do. I see no contradiction in being both a proud Arvanite and a proud Greek.--Theathenae 18:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you? REX 18:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not so straightforward for an Albanian who speaks Greek and pretends to be an Arvanite Chronographos 18:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could get to the point (the articles), what do we do about them? REX 18:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. Can you explain to me what is so objectionable about describing the Arvanites and their language as "sharing a common origin" with the Albanians and their language? That way, you're ackowledging the Albanian connection, without actually calling them Albanians which is the bone of contention. That is far more NPOV than insisting on calling them something they find offensive.--Theathenae 18:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me just explain my position here. Arvanites (Αρbε̰ρόρ, Arbërór or Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρ, Shqiptár) are neither ethnic Greeks nor ethnic Albanians although they possess characteristics of one or both nations. However most hold Greek citizenship. They are a Greek ethnic minority. What makes them an ethnic minority is their history, their language, and some other cultural characteristics (ie traditional dress). If you have a Greek encyclopaedia with you, look up Αρβανίτες or Αρβανιτόβλαχοι, where you will see it refer to them as a λαός. What I propose is avoiding mentioning both Greeks and other Albanians as much as possible. We could say that Arvanites are a people (=λαός) originating in Central Albania who immigrated to Western Greece during the Middle Ages, that their language Arbëríshte is a form of Tosk Albanian and that they have almost totally assimilated into Greek society. That's it! We haven't said anything to politically sensitive, nor have we said anything untrue. And Please… Please don't speak for all Arvanites, you don't know what percentage resent being identified with the immigrant Tosk and Gheg Albanian community. I see the term Albanian an equilavent term to Scaninavian. Just as there are Tosk, Gheg, Arvanite, and Arbëresh Albanians; there are Norwegians, Swedes, Danes and Icelanders. Similar people, with partial intelligble languages, but different. Tell me what you think and if you don't agree with me prepare a proposal of your own, so that we can get this over with, Φαλεμινdέριτ. REX 19:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Descendant and admixture is differing. The Arvanites are, dispite the degree of Greek genetic admixture, descendant to the Albanian immigrants. Their mother-tongue is Arvanítika, is referred to as a language cause it has dialects within it, and the language is a variety of Tosk Albanian.

Theathenae have very clear denied two important things about the Arvanites and the Arvanitic language that we should take notice. One is that he have denied the fact that the the descendants of the Arvanites were an ethnic Albanian group, and the other important thing is that he have denied the fact that the Arvanitic language is a variety of Tosk Albanian. Theathenae should keep his views from distorting historical and linguistic links in the article. He should really give up and not continue to persist in his attempts to alter history and linguistic facts! Britannica, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Princeton University Press mention the Arvanites as descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry and their language as a variety of Tosk Albanian. This information are taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, so, they are legitimate and so they can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy.

I wish that Theathenae and Chronographos will not react with ad hominem-arguments as they allways do cause it becomes incapable with them to speak with. --Albanau 19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't Theathenae and Chronographos produce some evidence to support their arguments like Albanau does, so we know who to believe. Personally, I don't wish to disagree with Albanau's sources. REX 20:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How touching. You "don't wish to disagree with Albanau's sources", which as of right now are dead links. You two think so alike in so many ways, it's amazing: REX can even see Albanau's dead links telepathically. One might even consider you old friends. Still you have to reconcile this statement: REX: "Arvanites ... are neither ethnic Greeks nor ethnic Albanians" with this one: Albanau: "the descendants of the Arvanites were an ethnic Albanian group". You guys need some sorting out between yourselves. And while you 're at it, you may consider asking the Arvanites themselves what they think (for a change) Chronographos 20:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Φίλτατε Ρήγα, your proposal would be a breakthrough if only the likes of User:Albanau would accept it. It turns out our views on the subject are practically identical. Your phrasing is almost exactly what I had written before User:Albanau stormed in and insisted on calling them Albanians. He rabidly objected to the use of the term "people", insisting on "Albanian folkgrupp" instead. I have been saying all along that the Arvanites are a similar people to the Albanians, with partially intelligible languages, but different. The only modification I would make to your wording would be in regards to the language; "Arbëríshte shares a common origin" or "descends from the same root as Tosk Albanian" is a truer reflection of the linguistic situation, as they both descend from the same mediaeval proto-language, which I like to call proto-Arvanitic. "Arvanitic is a form of Tosk Albanian" implies that Arvanitic is somehow dependent on Tosk Albanian, when in fact it has developed entirely independently over the course of five centuries and can legimitately be classed as a separate language. Unfortunately, the term Albanian has very specific ethno-national(ist) connotations, so it is not equivalent to Scandinavian. If there was a neutral umbrella term covering all "Albanian" groups, I would use it.--Theathenae 20:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Νουκ jαμ ι ν̇ε̰ μενdjεjε jου, Κρονόγραφε. These are merely a few isolated examples, I am confident that under all the arguments everyone here agrees, we are all just trying to influence the outcome according to our political beliefs. And Chronographe, instead of causing trouble, why don't you try to help us come up with a solution? REX 20:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. And quit patronizing. Chronographos 20:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Κρονόγραφε, not Χρονογράφε? Hmmm..--Theathenae 20:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A "Greek", no doubt!  :-))))) Chronographos 20:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (You know what they say about sh*t: it's like quicksand - the more you move, the deeper down you go)

Theathenae, I am pleased that we are actually agreeing on something. However Arvanitic is a form of Tosk Albanian is not that bad. I mean that it is similar to saying that Hellenistic Greek is a form of Attic Greek, with the sole exception that Arvanites and Tosks are related while Hellenistic Greek was a lingua franca spoken by many people with little or no connections to the Ancient Athenians. They certainly were not dependent on the Ancient Athenians. It could also be compared to Spanish's relationship to Latin. They were once the same languages, then they began to differ. The standard Latin of Rome and the vulgar Latin of Spain. Spanish Latin was still a form of Standard Latin. Then after Arabic influences during the Middle Ages Spanish became similar to language we know today. Is it still not a form of Latin in the loose sense that Arvanitic is a form of Tosk. If we call it a form of Tosk, then even Albanau will be happy. Also, in Arvanitic χ is pronounced like the English letter h, which differs from the Greek letter χ. REX 21:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Not really. You need to compare two current Romance languages, like Spanish and French. Your analogy is totally inappropriate. Chronographos 21:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

REX, I agree with your proposal except in regards to the description of the language, as stated above. You still haven't explained what is wrong with my less controversial "sharing a common origin" or "descending from the same root" wording. The Arvanitic language article should stay as it is, except where User:Albanau claims that the Arvanites have been "forbidden" from learning their language. Have you as an Arvanite in Greece been forbidden from learning your language, REX? You seem to speak it rather fluently.--Theathenae 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, there is nothing wrong with sharing a common origin or root, it's just that Albanau seems to prefer form of Tosk. I mean, we have to give him something. Also, I would like to thank Chronographos for all his hard work and contributions to the project. lol! REX 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Compliment returned: I thank you for falsely posing as a Greek. Wish I could "laugh out loud" like you did, except it's sad. Chronographos 21:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have issues, some kind of complex maybe. Now that is sad. Are you by any chance Albanian. Oh! I blew your cover. Sorry! Anyway, are you Tosk or Gheg? REX 21:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If all of us (bar one) agree there is nothing wrong with it, then that's how it shall stay. We are under no obligation to give User:Albanau anything; he will just have to learn to live with it. We are here to contribute to an online encyclopaedia, not to appease supporters of armed extremist groups like the supposed "Çamëria Liberation Army".[2]--Theathenae 21:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK by me. I suppose that we now agree on everything. I still think that we should ask Albanau for any other reasonable amendnents or oversights he would like to tell us. Better friends than enemies I always say. By the way, what is the Çamëria Liberation Army? REX 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, but User:Albanau does, and even wrote an article on it. Ask him to translate his Swedish contributions[3] on the subject into English for you.--Theathenae 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And there is nothing I demand then for you people to accept the two simple facts. 1) Arvanites are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages. 2) Arvanitic language is a variety of Tosk Albanian.

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 by Lukas D Tsitsipis

Arvanítika, a variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for more than four centuries....

Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity 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.)

Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World 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.

--Albanau 23:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

theathenae and xronographo are hopelessly trying to escape the kiss of death, loooool.

Do you perceive yourself as the Black Widow? I thought that was your mother. Chronographos 05:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This issue has hereby been settled, with the agreement of everybody except Albanau. NEXT!--Theathenae 05:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The question is, which of Albanau's many incarnations? Chronographos 06:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Albanau says that Arvanites are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages and that is true isn't it? Anyhow, Theathenae says that he accepts the following Arvanites are a people originating in Central Albania who immigrated to Western Greece during the Middle Ages, which is almost the same thing. However, I find one small defect in that second definition. While it says that Arvanites immigrated to Greece at some point in the Middle Ages, the problem is that then Arvanites were the same as Tosk Albanians and that the differentiation began later, and it also implies that even before the immigration, Arvanites and Tosks were different peoples. That is quite misleading isn't it? Albanau also says that the Arvanitic language is a variety of Tosk Albanian, while Theathenae accepts that Arvanitic shares a common origin Tosk Albanian. While they are both true, it depends on your perspective. Albanau's input seems to treat Arbëríshte as a dialect of Albanian, while Theathenae's seems to treat it as a separate language. Politics no doubt, but unfortunately there is no Arvanitic Authority from whom we could find out whether it is a language or a dialect. However, respectable sources such as Ethnologue treat it as an Albanian dialect and my encyclopaedia calls Arvanites Αλβανόφωνοι Χριστιανοί (=Albanian speaking Christians). Also Albanau's reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (if it's genuine) could be acceptable. That encyclopaedia has a very good name and is respected throughout (not just the English speaking) world. I would also like to say that it is a bit unfair to accuse Albanau's input of appeasing political guerilla groups. I can't see any connection (unless of course Britannica was written by them). I wouldn't pay much attention to his other references, they are just private books, I could even write a book saying that the capital of Greece is Tokyo. REX 08:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even Ethnologue describes Arvanítika as a language of Greece. I have no problem with saying that the ancestors of the Arvanites were the same people as the ancestors of today's Tosk Albanians, but that is not the same thing as describing them today as Albanians or descendants of Albanians, as the Albanians are a very specific modern nation. The ancestors of both the Arvanites and the Tosks called themselves Arbërór (Arvanites), not Shqipëtare (Albanians), so why not call the Albanians the descendants of Arvanites, which is actually more correct than the reverse? The Albanians would not accept this, of course, which is why we don't do it. But neither should we do it to the Arvanites, who deserve to have their distinct identity respected. The Arvanites and Albanians became separate peoples by virtue of their identification with separate nations in modern times. Apart from being simplistic and anachronistic, it is unhelpful and misleading to impose an unwanted label onto a people with its own unique heritage, just because that term happens to be more well-known and convenient. The appearance of the term in Britannica or other references does not make it correct or eternally binding; the Roma are no longer referred to as "gypsies", nor are the Inuit labelled "Eskimos", even if such names were commonplace until relatively recently. A more nuanced description of the Arvanites' origins and identity is both possible and necessary.--Theathenae 10:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but at the heading Ethnologue says: Albanian, Arvanitika A language of Greece. In conjunction with the fact that the distinction between language and dialect is somewhat blurred (eg Cantonese and Mandarin are classed as dialects one language Chinese, even though the difference between them is like the one between Portuguese and Spanish, which are classed as different languages; Danish and Norwegian (Bokmål) are intelligible and are classed as different languages) I believe that we shouldn't really go into detail on the Arvanites page. That sort of lengthy discussion is for the Arvanitic language page (see there, we are calling it a language). Also, I disagree with your statement that calling the Albanians the descendants of Arvanites is actually more correct than the reverse or vice versa is wrong. Arvanites and Tosks are both seperate modern nations (sorry for using such a strong word) but they are very closely related (similar languages, similar religion (the Orthodox), similar (ethnic dress) dress, same history (up to a certain point) etc.). To get to the point, couldn't we say: Arvanites are an ethnic group descendent from the Tosk Albanians who immigrated to Greece during the Middle Ages and have been influenced strongly by their Greek surroundings and that their language Arbërishte is an offshoot of Medieval Tosk Albanian and is partially intelligible to speakers of Modern Tosk or their language Arbërishte is closely related and partially intelligible to Tosk Albanian? Are we reaching a concensus here? Do tell me, in your opinion aren’t Arvanites the Greek equivalent to the Italian Arbëreshë? REX 12:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, we couldn't say that because one doesn't descend from the other: they both descend from the original Arbërór. The Tosks have no more right to claim the Arbërór than do the Arvanites. As for the Arbëreshë, I don't know enough about their ethnic self-identification to comment. If they see themselves as Albanians, fine. If they don't, we shouldn't be calling them Albanians, however closely related to the Tosks they may be. If the Arvanites and Tosks are "separate modern nations", as you say, then it is absurd to call the Arvanites Albanians, is it not?--Theathenae 12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae firstly you don't represent the Arvanitic people, and secondly stop making absurd comparisons just to falsify your own arguments it will contribute nothing good in the discussion. Thirdly, accept the simple facts that Arvanites are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages and that their language Arvanítika is a variety of Tosk Albanian. This information are taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, so, they are legitimate and so they can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy and if you do a smallest a attempt to disort this facts you will be breaking the policy rule. Case closed! --Albanau 14:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"""""I wouldn't pay much attention to his other references, they are just private books, I could even write a book saying that the capital of Greece is Tokyo."""""

loooooooooool, that is the least intelligent statement i have read from you rex, ok then, try to get your book published under the name of prestigious universities like cambridge, oxford, or princeton, good luck my friend.

""""Do you perceive yourself as the Black Widow? I thought that was your mother.""""

looooool, brilliant answer, lets degenerate the discussion to family insults, way to go grekos.

This really doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Theathenae, please Cite your sources, preferably reliable sources before making such explosive claims. Who are the Original Arbërór when they're at home? Are or are not the Arvanites the descendants of Tosks who immigrated to Greece five hundred and something years ago? That is what the Arbëreshë are: descendants of Tosks who immigrated to Italy with Gj. K. Skanderbeg. Please read the Arbëreshë article. It mentions something about your Original Arbërór. I suggest that we request for Meditation. This might help us resolve this dispute. REX 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

REX, I agreed with your proposal and then you retracted it. That is the real reason why "this really doesn't seem to be getting anywhere".--Theathenae 15:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's standard tactics on Albanau's and REX's behalf. It's called "One step forward, two steps back". I believe there was a book by Lenin with the same title ... Chronographos 18:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I’m not retracting it. I’m adding to it. I simply can’t see any point in omitting such vital information. Arvanites are (at least ethnically) more related to the Albanians than the Greeks. While originating in Central Albania is true, it is only half the truth (if it is true at all, because I don’t know where those facts come from). It must be made clear that the Arvanites are an Albanian ethnicity. Please read the Report on the Arvanites; you will see that it refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians. REX 20:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case I withdraw my consent. Read the first paragraph of the Helsinki report to find out why.--Theathenae 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It says that most Arvanites resent being called Albanians. I am not calling them Albanians. I am calling their ancestors Albanians and them Arvanites (so does the Helsinki Report). REX 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Read your own comments above. "It must be made clear that the Arvanites are an Albanian ethnicity". There's no point discussing this further until you've sorted yourself out.--Theathenae 20:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday he said that "Arvanites (Αρbε̰ρόρ, Arbërór or Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρ, Shqiptár) are neither ethnic Greeks nor ethnic Albanians" (see above: REX 19:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)). Today he' s towing the Albanau line. Maybe tomorrow he'll say they are Feathered dinosaurs. Chronographos 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Never mind that! I suggest you provide sound references to support your arguments or stand aside. You must cite your sources remember. Don't expect us to accept your word as infallible. REX 20:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you conidered the possibility that an ethnic Albanian is not the same as an Albanian ethnicity. You two instead of criticising, why don't you try to help us reach a concensus (remember cite your sources, if what you say is true, there must be some). REX 20:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"We first learn of the ancestors of the modern Albanians in their native land as the Arbanitai of Arbanon in Anna Comnenas' account (Alexiad 4) of the troubles in that region caused by the Normans during the reign of her father Alexius I Comnenus". Is her age's top historian (and an imperial princess born in the purple, with access to all imperial archives) good enough for you? Chronographos 20:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? What are you trying to prove? The descendant of the Albanian immigrants still present in Greece and Italy have been known by different names over time: Arbërorë, Arbënuer, Arbënorë, Arbëneshë, Arbëreshë and in a consensus reached in year 2004 from representatives of all respective regions the standardized name was agreed upon Arbërorë (plural) and to be used by all parties hereafter as also on all publications regarding these populations. Note the word Albanian immigrants. Wow, it looks that Albanian immirgants are still present in Greece. I wonder who they are, Vlachs maybe.REX 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is quite obvious (by the poor standard of English) that it was Albanau who wrote that load of Feathered dinosaur-related stuff. Anna Comnena, writing in the 11th century, called them otherwise. And it is quite plain that Arvanite Greeks do not call themselves "Arbërorë". Google-searching "Arbërorë" in Greek domains (.gr) yields just two pages, one by some Albanian guy and one in, (you guessed it), Kossovo! Google searching "Αρμπερόρε" in all domains yields zero results. Chronographos 21:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And you have never answered my question: Why did you initially pretend to be a Greek? Do you think such behavior is conducive to bona fide discussion or establishes any kind of credentials? Chronographos 21:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos do you speak and read English well and REX why didn't you bold or italicize the whole text, note the full meaning, the descendant of the Albanian immigrants still present in Greece and Italy and is not as you put it to disort everything, Albanian immigrants still present in Greece, you missed the beginning . And I don't understand Theathenae's rephrasement, descendants of the Arbanitai, [4], isin't it more correct and non- Greek propaganda to use the non Greek form for the Albanian people and say descendant of the Albanian immigrants insteed. I will review what he have been doing and if he does this again I will call on for administrators to stop him for good. Albanau 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhh, Now I get it!. "The descendant"! There is only one left! And what did this esteemed fellow do? Lay an egg? Chronographos 00:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonesense should be ignored. Should we give you a silent treatment? Albanau 01:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding. Arvanites call themselves Arbëror (or sometimes Shqiptar). Chronographe, I didn't pretend to be Greek. If, as you say, Arvanites are Greeks, then I'm a Greek by your own definition. And finally, before you say anything. Be prepared to have to prove it. Albanau has provided sources, so that we can check his work. What about you? You just doubt his totally legitimate sources without stating any reasonable reason whatsoever! REX 08:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course you did: "Θεωρείς τον εαυτό σου Έλληνα? Chronographos 16:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC) - Έλληνα και Αρβανίτη. REX 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)" and no amount of lying or word-twisting on your behalf can change the record. When I asked you that question, there were no spurious "definitions" of the kind you use to twist meanings around. I asked you a straightforward question and you answered with a straightforward lie. And BTW I called my trusty old lady neighbor and she told me that Arvanites in Arvanitic are called "Arvanit" and the question "Do you speak Arvanite?" in Arvanitic is "Di Arvanit?", or something. Albanau's links are dead (404 File Not Found), and as I told you, but you chose to ignore, Google finds no Greek websites containing the words "Arbërorë" or "Αρμπερόρε". Chronographos 10:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

About Meditation, should we request it. All those in favour, please add ther names here:

• User:REX

If three names are added I will apply for it. REX 10:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I request for outside Mediation, but Meditation might also be beneficial here... Decius 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No objection, but isn't the proper procedure to "call for comments" first? Chronographos 10:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Decius 10:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC) ---I request for outside Mediation for the on-going dispute in Arvanites and Arvanitic language.

I think that Έλληνας και Αρβανίτης differs from just Έλληνας, doesn't it. What is the straightforward lie? And for the record Do you speak Arvanitic is Flet Arbëríshte? Let's leave Albanau's references for now, let's focus on the Helsinki Report (or any other legitimate documents). Use that to support your arguments if you can (It even mentiones all these Albanians are the ancestors of modern-day Arvanites in Central and Southern Greece). lol! REX 13:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious then that Arvanitic differs from Albanian substantially. Calling the distant, medieval ancestors of the Arvanite Greeks "Albanians" is a flagrant anachronism. Contemporary historians call them ... "Arvanites". (!) The Arvanite Greeks are a subset of all Greeks, therefore they differ in a few respects, although they are the same in most. Just like any subset of Greeks. And you lied. As the Helsinki Report states in its very beginning, the Arvanite Greeks abhor being called "Albanians". So, their ancestors were never called "Albanians", they hate being called Albanians now, their language has evolved independently of Albanian, and is about to become extinct, and in the meantime Albanau and you want to dictate and appropriate their history and their sense of nationality. Don't hold your breath ... Chronographos 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What's outside Mediation. I think that standard Meditation would do. I might get this thing over with. REX 13:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you may find this interesting. It is from the Helsinki Report:
When the modern Greek state was formed, the Albanian-speaking population and its language were called Albanian, even if those Christian Albanians were considered an integral part of the Greek nation and had played a decisive role in the War of Independence between 1821-1828 (Bartholdy, 1993; Bickford-Smith, 1993: 47; Embeirikos, 1994; Vakalopoulos, 1994:243-249). However, the policy of the new Greek state was to Hellenize all the non-Greek speaking Orthodox populations within its, then limited, territory as well as in the territories of Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor still under Ottoman rule, which were though considered as part of Greek irredenta; the other Balkan countries (Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and later Albania) had also followed similar policies. As elsewhere in Europe, army and education were the most effective mechanisms of Hellenization, assisted by the judiciary system ready to denounce and punish all forms of behavior inconsistent with the state’s nationalist culture (Kitromilidis, 1990:38; Kollias, 1994). It is noteworthy to point out though, that, before the definite development of modern Albanian nationalism, there were efforts in the 1870’s to include most Albanians under Ottoman rule in a Greek-Albanian kingdom (Castellan, 1991:333; Vakalopoulos, 1994: 243-249), just as others appealed to them for their inclusion in an Albanian-Vlach Macedonian state (Berard, 1987:292-333). The Albanians’ fear of an eventual assimilation by the Greeks led to the failure of the former effort. The result of the Hellenization policy -which was to take a very oppressive turn during the Metaxas dictatorship (1936-1940)- was that Albanian Greeks, especially after the emergence of Albanian nationalism and of the Albanian state, felt that they had to ‘constantly prove their Greekness.’ Hence, their very conservative political behavior: they had traditionally been royalists and, in large numbers, adhered to the Old Calendarist Orthodox Christian Church, which -when the split in the Greek Church over the introduction of the new calendar took place in the 1920’s- was originally supported by the royalist forces. Moreover, and more important for the survival of their language, they have distanced themselves from the Albanians to the extent that most consider today offending to be called Albanians: they have preferred the term Arvanite (Arberor in their own language) for the people and Arvanitika (Arberichte) for the language, as opposed to Albanian (Shqiptar for the people and Shqip for the language) that Albanians use for themselves and their language -with the exception of the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece, as mentioned above. This attitude may also explain the efforts of some intellectuals of the Arvanite community to trace Arvanites’ and Arvanitika’s roots back to the prehistoric inhabitants of Greece, the Pelasgians and their language, so as to claim indigenous status (Williams, 1992:87; Gerou, 1994b; Thomopoulos, 1912). Trudgill (1994) has shown that, in Greece, as minority languages are all alien (Abstand) to Greek, the use of different names for them (Arvanitika rather than Albanian, Vlach rather than Romanian, Slav rather than Macedonian) has contributed to denying their heteronomy (i.e. their dependence on the corresponding standard language) and increasing their autonomy (by assigning them the status of autonomous languages). As a result, the minority language’s vulnerability grew significantly, as well as the dissociation of the speakers’ ethnic (Arvanite, Vlach, Slavophone) identities from the corresponding national identities (Albanian, Romanian, Macedonian) which have developed in the respective modern nation-states. Today, Arvanite ethnic identity is perceived by many members of the community as distinct from that of the other Greeks who have Greek as their mother tongue but as fully compatible with Greek national identity (likewise for many Vlachs and Macedonians). A similar phenomenon has helped weaken the links between Pomaks in Greece (speaking a Bulgarian-based language) and Bulgarians, and the consequent Pomaks’ assimilation into the Turkish ethnic and, by now, national identity in Western Thrace, an assimilation here detrimental to Greece’s homogenization and anti-minority policies. In another Balkan context, such attitude helped distance the literary Macedonian language standardized by Yugoslav authorities in the late 1940s from Bulgarian to which the previously spoken dialects in Yugoslav Macedonia were heteronomous.
I think that this is clear enough. REX 14:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. What's the relevance of what the dictator Metaxas, a fascist, did 70 years ago? It's as irrelevant as what Hodja did to Albanians, and Vorioepirote Greeks, for 50 years. If you want to mention in the article that the Greek state carried a process of Hellenization thoughout its 175-year-long existence, go ahead, I have no problem with it. So did all Balkan states. France did the same with Alsace-Lorraine since 1945. The US was almost genocidal to the native Americans. The Albanian state threw the leaders of the Vorioepirote Greek party in ... jail (!) for several years to keep them from taking part in elections, and to intimidate their voters. Every state in the world has it's closet skeletons, except maybe ... Luxemburg. Chronographos 14:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm pointing out that the ancestors of the Arvanites were Albanians and that Arvanites were called Albanians until the application of the Hellenization policy. REX 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If any of this is true, it certainly had the Arvanites' complicity, as two Presidents of the Republic, at least four Prime Ministers, scores of ministers, members of Parliament and top civil servants, and many heroes of the 1821 War of Independence were Arvanites. Why didn't they ever complain, or use their exalted positions of power and authority to stop such practices? Chronographos 15:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

For the benefit of those who have (prematurely) called for mediation: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes--Theathenae 14:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well you should organise everything then. I just think that Balkan politics (that is what all this is about) is a rather specialised and complex area to request opinions from. REX 14:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There would be no problem if you'd stuck to your original position. First you say the Arvanites are Greeks not Albanians, then you say they are neither Greeks nor Albanians, and now you say they are Albanians not Greeks. I think you should apply for a Request for Comment to sort out your position first.--Theathenae 14:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

He never believed anything other than the last position. The previous ones were part of his lying about being a Greek himself, and then his being caught lying. Chronographos 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Chronographos 14:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for over a month now and I see no sign of a quick resolution, so Mediation does in fact seem to be needed, the only problem there is that few admins know much about the politics and facts and opinions involved here. Decius 14:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, Decius, the Wikipedia steps for conflict resolution are clear. The first step is WP:RfC. Chronographos 14:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, when I say Mediation, then interpret it as "Let's get the ball rolling towards Mediation", since this debate here isn't working yet. Decius 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Decius is right. This debate is goin around in circles. Chronographos and Theathenae still haven't proven their views. They expect us to just accept them. REX 15:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

1) This has been going on since June 5th (see edit history of Arvanites) 2) the page is protected from editing till the dispute is resolved on the talk page 3) the dispute shows no sign of resolving soon. So it seems like a case to move towards Mediation. Decius 15:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Through WP:RfC Chronographos 15:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone's waiting for me to start it, they can keep waiting. I'm only getting involved here & there, and I'm mostly watching how this develops. Decius 15:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the brouhaha is about. The Arvanites' situation is analogous if not identical to that of the Vlachs in Greece. I have had some minor differences with the Rumanian editors here, but they have not insisted on calling the Greek Vlachs ethnic Rumanians or the descendants of Rumanians. The Aromanians and Aromanian language articles represent a fair balance, one achieved without resorting to mediation or other extremes. REX is right; this is all about contemporary Balkan politics, with Albanian editors objecting to anything that deviates from the dogma of pan-Albanianism, which for obvious reasons is today a more virulent strain of nationalism than that of the EU-bound Rumanians. But it doesn't have to be like this; the Albanians belong in Europe too, and the sooner they abandon their dangerous ultra-nationalism, the sooner they will get there. As for Wikipedia, the Albanian editors should take a leaf out of their Rumanian brethren's book.--Theathenae 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what Theathenae said above. Yet I also think that the article as it is now is already balanced: it says the Arvanites are descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry, and they speak a variety of Tosk Albanian. Does REX want it to say that the Arvanites are Albanians? I don't agree with that either. I don't think of the Aromanians as Romanians, I think of them as Aromanians---a group that branched off from a common Vlach stock centuries ago. Decius 16:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem here boils down to the fact that there is no neutral umbrella term like Vlach to describe that common stock from which both the Arvanites and Albanians branched off centuries ago. I would use the term proto-Arvanitic, as the ancestors of today's Arvanites and Tosks were referred to as Αρβανίται in contemporary Byzantine sources. But to call them Albanians is anachronistic and misleading, and would be the exact equivalent of calling all Vlachs in the Balkans today Rumanians. We should apply to the Arvanites the same principle we have already applied to the Aromanians, but it appears that is impossible due to a few Albanians' delicate nationalist sensibilities.--Theathenae 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Avanites are Albanians. I said that their ancestors were Albanians (like the Helsinki Report does), something which Theathenae is determined to gloss over. I am happy with the article as it is now and I'm trying to convince Theathenae that it must stay this way. If he can find reasonalbe proof that the Arvanites' ancestors were not Albanians then I'll willingly consent to the edit. But he doesn't do that. He insists on not including the word Albanian in the article and replaces it with things like "Arbanoi". That is a Greek word. This is an English encyclopaedia. Only legitimate English words can be used. All English sources have always called the Albanians Albanians, just as they have always called the Turks Turks. I still insist on Meditation. REX 16:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No REX, it is you who wants to gloss over the fact that the ancestors of the Arvanites and Tosks were called Arbanítai (Arvanites) in contemporary sources, not Albanoí (Albanians). Vlach is not an "English" name either but is used for the ancestors of both the modern Aromanians and Rumanians. The correct equivalent term to Vlach in this situation is not Albanian, which denotes a specific modern nationality, but Arvanite or proto-Arvanite.--Theathenae 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

But does Albanian always denote the specific modern nationality? The actual term may also be used to include the ancestors of related ethnic groups, as the Helsinki report uses it. The problem here may be the definition of Albanian. If we're going to use Albanian in the article (and we probably should) as it is now, I think we should explain this problem in the article itself. Decius 17:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed the problem. And because of the confusion the use of the term inevitably causes, my proposal is to describe the Arvanites in a neutral way, such as "sharing a common origin with the Tosk Albanians", which acknowledges the Albanian link but doesn't explicitly call them Albanians or the descendants of Albanians. Albanian in this context is an anachronism used in the absence of a neutral term covering all such related groups, but we are not bound to use it when it is easily avoidable by way of a periphrastic description. Insisting on calling them or their ancestors Albanians, however, would be like ditching the term Vlach in favour of Rumanian, i.e. projecting the modern national identity of the Rumanians onto the related but separate Vlach groups.--Theathenae 17:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No no no no. Vlach can be found in the OED. Anyway, I have been reading the articles Aromanians and Aromanian language and I do like them. Do you think that we could use those articles as templates? They omit anything controversial of they state both opinions: Romanian nationalist and Greek supremacist. Off the record: If you want to support you opinions, GET SOME SOURCES! You do try to promote Greek supremacist ideas even on Talk:Aromanian_language. REX 17:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We could easily use those articles as templates, but we would have to refrain from using the loaded term Albanian in the main description. Then we could add the opinions of Albanian nationalists, who view the Arvanites as Albanians, and those of Arvanite Greek nationalists, who say they are the descendants of the Pelasgians and are therefore indigenous to Greece. They are both as ludicrous as each other, but that's just my opinion and not a reason to exclude them from the article.--Theathenae 17:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we could exclude the phrase Albanian ancestry from the main description, but is that phrase really that offensive to most Arvanites? REX says he is an Arvanite (I think), and he doesn't have a problem with it. Also, the view that Arvanites are of Albanian ancestry is not just an "Albanian nationalist" view, and we've seen references that use that terminology. The point I was underlining earlier is that the definition of the term Albanian may include the ancestors of Arvanites, so it would not be an anachronism in that context, regardless of the fact that the nation of Albania didn't exist back then. Decius 18:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, except for the fact that the separate term Albanoí was not used for the ancestors of the Arvanites, the term Arbanítai was. As for REX, I doubt he really is an Arvanite - you can blame User:Chronographos for that - but what I think is irrelevant. Even if he is, by his own admission he does not represent the Arvanites. The Helsinki report clearly states that the Arvanites "loathe" the Albanian designation, and yes that extends to their ancestry. You don't loathe something half-heartedly, you loathe it totally. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of Aromanians in Greece reject being called Rumanians, but they have no problem being called Vlachs - even if that isn't the name they use for themselves in their own language. The Arvanites don't call themselves Albanians in any language.--Theathenae 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I would also reject being called an Aromanian (or a Koutzovlach). If most Arvanites really do object to that phrase ("Albanian ancestry"), then maybe Theathenae's latest proposal is the way to do it. Decius 19:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dekie, you are an honorary Αρωμούνιος by virtue of your Hellenic roots.--Theathenae 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Aromanian people have at base a Thraco-Dacian root, according to a Byzantine writer. But most Aromanians have Hellenes on their tree these days. I'm proud of my Hellenic and my Daco-Thracian roots, and whatever else. Decius 19:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, roots are fun. Even if disentangling yourself from them afterwards can be a challenge.--Theathenae 19:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it now rests on REX and the opposing parties to describe what they want the article to say. Decius 19:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You are speaking generally. The Helsinki report says that MOST Arvanites reject being called Albanians, these Arvanites live generally live in South Greece. Other Arvanites who mostly live in Northwest Greece do call themselves Albanians. Of course these distinctions are not absolute. I am from Southern Greece (Hydra) and I do not reject the name Albanian, so we can assume that there is at least one Arvanite from Southern Greece who doesn’t. Anyway, to get to the point is this what is going to be done: All references to Greece or Albania shall be avoided with the following exceptions:

• Arvanites originate in somewhere in today’s Central Albania.
• Arvanites speak a language very similar to Tosk Albanian (as in Aromanians).
• Arvanites have being assimilating into Greek society since the establishment of the Greek State and now, like other Greek ethnic minorities such as the Aromanians, identify nationally but not ethnically as Greeks?
• And perhaps your proposed references to Albanian and Greek nationalism trying to project different identities on the Arvanites.

With the benefit of hindsight, I strongly urge you to remember: the less said, the better. Also, do we request for Meditation after all, or should we wait? REX 19:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop your lying, Rex. The OTE White Pages search has NO entry for (personal information removed per user's request) in Hydra. You are not fooling anyone. The Arvanites are not an ethnic minority, and do not perceive themselves as such. Chronographos 20:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, except your third point. For the Greeks, the notions of ethnicity and nationality effectively coincide, and the Aromanians and Arvanites are certainly not excluded from the Έλληνες το γένος designation as the Muslims of Thrace and the Roma are. It would be best simply to state that the Arvanites are a people who identify as Greeks but also retain their own distinct identity, as expressed through their language and culture. Also, they haven't been assimilating into Greek society since the establishment of the Greek state; they have been doing that since they first set foot in Greece.--Theathenae 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Chronographe, what are you talking about? There must be. (personal information removed per user request). Please check again. And Theathenae, prove that that you are saying about assimilation. I agree with everything else words like ethnic and national are controversial. REX 20:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed they are, which is why we should avoid them. As for the Arvanites' assimilation, there is nothing I need to prove that you don't already know. They have been under Greek influence for centuries, speaking Greek as well as Arvanitic and living as Greeks. If you mean their total assimilation, that began relatively recently with the advent of urbanisation and modernisation, not since or because of the establishment of the Greek state per se.--Theathenae 21:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, 0 results. You should have chosen a better alias. Chronographos 20:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you check (personal information removed per user request) then. REX 20:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No Chronographos 20:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that YOU are Lying. You are trying to discredit me! Don't ask me why. I don't believe that you even have the OTE white pages whatever that is. Well it is NOT funny so you should stop it. REX 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A "Greek" who's never heard of OTE?!? Now isn't that special .... Here, try for yourself Chronographos 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

REX's Arvaniticity or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as his views would in any case represent a negligible fringe element within the Arvanitic community. That doesn't mean of course that we can't build an article together.--Theathenae 21:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said I'd never heard of OTE. I said that I'd never heard of the white pages. And Theathenae, who says that my views represent a negligible fringe element. Yes it is not the view of the Arvanitikos Syndesmos Ellados, but many Arvanites feel the same way. Especially in Northwestern Greece. Sadly, I can't prove it, but you can't prove the reverse. I strongly believe that we CAN make an article together. Do not pay any attention to Chronographos. He has been of no help. All he does is try to cause trouble. If only he spent the time he spends thinking up lies about me trying to improve the article. REX 21:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Money talks, b*llshit walks. I gave you the OTE Directory link. If you can find a (personal information removed per user request) in Athens, or any (information removed per user request) in Hydra (it takes 2 seconds), let the world know. Chronographos 21:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (and don't worry that the Arvanitikos Syndesmos Ellados agrees with Theathenae and me, and not you. If you say so, we'll take your word for it.)

Nothing yet, huh? Thought so ... Chronographos 22:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been withholding comment about the "Arvanites" of northwestern Greece (known simply as Epirus by the Greeks - cheap gibe, I know), because I didn't know there were people there who identified as "Shqiptár" until reading the Helsinki report. If they really do self-identify as Shqiptár, i.e. Albanians, then using the term Arvanites for them would be a misnomer; they would be ethnic Albanians plain and simple. This would not be inconceivable in areas adjoining Albania, just as there are ethnic Greeks in areas of southern Albania adjoining Greece. My argument all along has been that you can't project "Shqiptaria" onto people who don't identify as Albanians. If they do, then who am I to object? But I will defend the Arvanites' right not to be Albanians until the end.--Theathenae 21:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Not according to the Helsinki Report, which describes them as Arvanites. That's not important though, it needn't even be mentioned in the article. And just for the record: I'll defend the Arvanites right to be Albanians until the end. REX 21:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You can I suppose, if you can find any Arvanite who'll listen.--Theathenae 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

THIS is what the Arvanites did for their country, Greece Chronographos 22:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Κjο έ̰σ̈τε̰ ε βε̰ρτέτε̰, Δεαθήναι. REX 22:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Το ξέρω ότι είναι η αλήθεια, Ρήγα μου. Η αλήθεια να λέγεται. Η απόδοση του username μου πάντως παραπέμπει σε αρχαία μακεδονική.--Theathenae 22:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it reveals someone who is not a Greek ("Δεαθήναι" indeed!). Rhymes with ... "Κρονόγραφε" I guess. Chronographos 22:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Αυτό δεν το ξέρεις. Τι θα γίνει όμως με το άρθρο; Συμφωνήσαμε σε κάτι ή θα συνεχήσουμε να μιλάμε για βλακείες; REX 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Αν και ανορθόγραφος, πρέπει να ήσουν απ' τους καλούς Αλβανούς μαθητές στο σχολείο που πήγαινες στην Ελλάδα. Βερτέτε, τον Οδυσσέα Τσενάι τι τον έχεις;--Theathenae 22:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Συννυφάδα? Chronographos 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Σταμάτα, Χρονογράφε, με πονάει ο σφάχτης - ή μήπως ο (information removed per user request); - απ' τα γέλια, και θα μου βγουν ξινά στο τέλος.--Theathenae 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Τι; Δεν καταλαβαίνω; Να σας καταγγείλω για ρατσισμό εις βάρους Αρβανίτη στην επιτροπή; REX 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What racism? You posed falsely as a Greek, and your lies were exposed, largely by yourself. What's racist about that? Chronographos 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No no no, I didn't. There were no lies to expose. I, you or anybody have not proven anything, so no offence if nobody takes you seriously. REX 22:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did, dear friend, yes, you did. But it's not the first time you "change positions". You sequentially stated that the Arvanites were Greeks, then Greeks and Albanians (!), then just Albanians. I wonder who is to take whom seriously. Chronographos 22:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said that, you should polish your glasses. I stated that Arvanites were Greek citizens, were descendants of Albanians and now neither Greeks nor Albanians. Complex combination I know, but that's it. REX 22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused again, but I don't care what REX's personal opinions are any more. Συννυφάδες notwithstanding, I think we have a tentative agreement on what to do with the article, based on REX's proposal above. To quote him, the less said, the better. All those in favour say aye.--Theathenae 22:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Aye. Might as well get the page unprotected and begin revising it. Decius 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How do we get it unprotected? Skin on skin always feels much better.--Theathenae 23:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think User:MacGyverMagic can unprotect it, or another admin. Decius 23:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering he protected it at User:Albanau's behest, we'd better start looking for another admin. How about User:Gamaliel? ;)--Theathenae 23:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Any admin can do it, unless I'm mistaken. Decius 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The more formal procedure is through this page:Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which is also for unprotecting. But I've seen people just ask admins on their talk pages to protect or unprotect. Decius 00:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Over more then hundred times I told everyone that no one have denied the admixture of the Arvanites but descendancy is another thing. The facts are very simple:

Arvanites are descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry and their language Arvanítika is a variety of Tosk Albanian. Albanau 00:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem here is the terminology. Many Arvanites would want a different terminology used rather than Albanian, while at the same presenting the same facts under the guise of a more delicate phrasing. I will see to it that the new phrasing, if we use it, will present the same facts in essence. New terminology cannot be used, but different phrases can. Decius 00:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not invented by me in contras to Theathenae's 'Arvanites are descendants of settlers of a people sharing common origin with Tosks and their language Arvanítika is a language sharing common origin with Tosk language. This information I bring are taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, so, they are legitimate and so they can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy Albanau 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

logged out... --Albanau 00:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase of Albanian ancestry (though I also think it is correct as long as one understands the definition of Albanian in this context) will just be challenged over & over, so a compromise would be better. The proposal is to not use the phrase of Albanian ancestry in the main description, but to discuss that issue and other views later in the text. Decius 00:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Things panned out just as I thought they would. When a "vote" was called, REX disappeared and Albanau was summonned, to state in his own, inimitable way that what he says "will remain in the article according to policy", period. It is well known to all such as suffer his Wiki-existence, that Albanau is the self-appointed Wiki-arbiter of "policy and NPOV". So he withdraws his consensus, REX does likewise (as always) and now a new consensus will be required: one that's halfway between the previously emerging consensus and Albanau's immutable extreme position. The tactics is well known, and even has a name: "the Oriental Bazaar bargaining strategy". Its ultimate goal is: "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too". Chronographos 01:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, Chronographe, as we have made abundantly clear what is and isn't acceptable in the article. User:Albanau is isolated in insisting on the controversial wording; the rest of us acknowledge the need for a more neutral description. I think you'll agree User:Decius has it right this time.--Theathenae 05:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you all need to realise that in order to change an article, you need to have to prove why. Chronographos and Theathenae have yet to prove their position, despite the regular requests for them to do so. As I have said, many times: the Helsinki Report refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians, and if it’s good enough for an Official Report, it is good enough for Wikipedia. Of course far right extremist groups in Greece such as the Χρυσή Αυγή or the political party Λ.Α.Ο.Σ. don’t like that, but I don’t think that that should affect the article. Also, Theathenae and Chronographe I think that I should request, with all the earnestness possible, do NOT make racist remarks. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of thing. REX 10:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Examples of racism, please? I think they will prove as elusive as your non-existent Greek phone number. Chronographos 10:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually a Συνασπισμός voter who would rather see far-right groups like the ones you mentioned banned, and I resent your innuendo. When have I ever made a racist remark? Please retract this serious allegation immediately, or I will take the matter further.--Theathenae 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I used to be a Synaspismos voter until it was taken over by the likes of Alavanos (please excuse my use of such obscenities!). Until Papagiannakis is elected leader, I 'd sooner die than vote for Synaspismos. :-))) Other than that, I agree with Theathenae in that I despise LAOS and Xrysi Avgi (I believe the latter is practically dead). Chronographos 10:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Αρβανίτικος Σύνδεσμος Ελλάδος

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)

Surprise, surprise ... Chronographos 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (Nor is there any reference of persecution, and how could there be? After all, Greek citizens and institutions can always appeal to the EU Courts, or the Council of Europe, and their verdicts are binding as they overrule Greek legislation)

Well, that is one of the organisations which describe Arvanites as descendants of the Pelasgians. It represents just one point of view. The many views are discussed in the Helsinki Report which is by definition impartial. REX 12:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

REX, yesterday you were saying you want to go ahead and work out a compromise in the text, using Aromanians and Aromanian language as Templates. If so, then somebody should request that the page be unprotected here:Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Albanau apparently hasn't changed his mind on the formula Albanian ancestry in the main description, but it doesn't depend on Albanau here. He might (about a 35% chance) even agree to a new format. I'm wondering though whether you are willing to let go of that phrase in the main description (your latest comment indicates a return to Albanau's position, but you haven't said explicitly whether you want the phrase Albanian ancestry in the main description). If not, then there is no compromise (that's the main point), and all your comments towards compromise would be rendered irrelevant. The page should then as well stay protected for awhile longer. Decius 15:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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

An example of a more neutral treatment would be: "Arvanites are descendants of settlers from central Albania who were of the same ethnicity as the ancestors of today's Tosk Albanians"---something along these lines. As you can see, it is presenting the same fact, but without saying of "Albanian ancestry". Just because Brittanica or Helsinki says it in a certain way, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to echo them exactly. Wikipedia's whole point is that it is more free and flexible. Decius 15:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got another proposal which is pretty god and perhaps better then yours, "Arvanites are descendants of the Arberesh people or the Albanian people from central Arbëria (i.e. medieval Albania) who migrated to Greece during the late Middle Ages". Albanau 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It might've been better if not for "or the Albanian people". Decius 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You guys can figure something out, this isn't my "battle" here, but it parallels the Aromanian case which was resolved along these lines (though actually what resolved the Aromanian case is the fact that Romanians don't really care whether the Aromanians choose to consider themselves as a southern variant of Romanians or a separate Vlach group from a common Vlach stock; the Aromanians don't really fit in any current nationalist Romanian scheme). Decius 16:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Don't ask me, I'm not the one whose ancestors are at issue here. Since most Arvanites (Arvanite Greeks) apparently do not like the term Albanian applied even to their ancestors, a different phrasing would perhaps be best (though we don't have any opinion polls that prove that most Arvanites would take offense to Albanian ancestry). Decius 16:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

I didn't say that it "changes the historical reality of the situation", I'm saying the same reality can be described in a different manner. Decius 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And how would that be described as? Cause when we Albanians talk about the Arbëresh we are talking about the medieval Albanians or the descendants of the Albanian immigrants still present in Italy, and Arbërorët are the descendants of the Albanian immigrants still prestent in Greece, called the Arvanitís in Greek and Arbéror in their language. So actually it would be better to phrase it like this ""Arvanites are descendants of the Arbëror people or Albanian people from central Arbëria (i.e. medieval Albania) who migrated to Greece during the late Middle Ages" would be a good phrase. --Albanau 17:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, your phrase looks to be 100% accurate as long as a reader understands what Albanian implies in this context. "I" do not have a problem with your phrase. But most Arvanites might have a problem with it; and since the same historical reality can be described in a less obtrusive way, then why not try a different phrasing in the main description. Any ambiguity will be made clear later on in the text as the problem is explicitly described from different view points. Decius 17:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I made it very clear and un--Albanau 18:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)derstandable,, descendants of the Albanian people from medieval Albania. Do we really need to discuss something that is improper to say some Arvanites will a problem with it. Either are you a Arvanite or not, and being Arvanite means that you are part of the Arvanites people who are descendants of the Albanian people from medieval Albania who migrated to Greece during the late Middle Ages. Albanau 17:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any one can put forth a credible argument that Arvanites and (Tosk) Albanians were not once the same basic ethnicity (which is termed Albanian in the references we've seen so far). Many Arvanites still speak Arvanitic, which is in the same group as Tosk. These are the facts we've repeated a hundred times. The issue is how do we describe these facts in the text so that many Arvanites will not be offended. I don't plan on repeating myself on this topic over & over. The Wikipedia text can be more flexible while still presenting the same facts. Decius 17:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

.. also,, there is no way that Theathenae will accept simple facts, I'm already in edit war with him again, on the article Albania. --Albanau 18:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

What do you think of this? It's just a first draft, but I think that it is both truthful, impartial and represents both sides of the argument. I modeled it mostly on the page Aromanians but that is not always possible in some areas. Iwill be thankful of any assistance. Please fell free to comment. I am sure that it will have to be amended before publishing it.

Arvanites (in Arvanitic: Αρbε̰ρόρ, Arbërór or Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρ, Shqiptár, in Greek: Αρβανίτες Arvanítes and in Albanian: Arvanitë) are a people living mostly in western Greece. Their current population is estimated at anywhere from 140,000 to 1,600,000. (It is not possible to give an exact figure as Greece has not held a census of mother-tongue speakers since 1951).

Their language is called Arvanitic, although today very few Arvanites speak only Arvanitic. They are either bilingual or speak only Greek.

Name
The name Arvanite derives from the medieval Greek word for the Albanians: Αρβανίται Arbanítai. Most Arvanites today though still call themselves Αρbε̰ρόρ Arbërór, the medieval name that Albanians used for themselves. However in northwestern Greece Arvanites refer to themselves as Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρ Shqiptár, which is what modern Albanians call themselves. It should be noted that most Arvanites, particularly in southern Greece reject being called Albanians and prefer the term Arvanites.

Demographics etc.

REX 19:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the set-up looks basically good (though there might be a number of wrong statements that I missed). Decius 19:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable proposal, as it is full of malicious factual "errors". The vast majority of Arvanites live in Southern Greece, and most of them in Attica. No Arvanites speak only Arvanitic today. The vast majority of Arvanites do not use Arvanitic at all, ever, and most don't even know it. That is why the language is about to become extinct. Medieval Albanians were not called "Albanians", as the Albanian language was first written in the 14th century. By that time, Arvanitic migration to Greece was almost complete. Epirote Arvanites in do not call themselves Shqiptar. Chronographos 20:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, any statement of alleged fact that looks contentious needs references for it. Decius 20:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You needn't be so harsh Chronographe.

• I didn't say that the vast majority of Arvanites don't live in Attica I didn't say where most of them live. I said some live here and some there. Sadly, there is no way to know where most of them live. We will require proof, before saying something that specific.

Lie: "Arvanites (in Arvanitic: Αρbε̰ρόρ, Arbërór or Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρ, Shqiptár, in Greek: Αρβανίτες Arvanítes and in Albanian: Arvanitë) are a people living mostly in western Greece". Your words. Chronographos 20:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for that oversight. Human make mistakes. Can you prove to us now that most Arvanites live in Attica. I think you can't. I think that you are lying. Why though. REX 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You know you lied, and I know you lied. The population of Attica approaches five million, whereas that of Epirus and the Peloponnese combined is about one million. Chronographos 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't know if I lied if the total population ratio is 5:1 for Attica:Provinces then it is not necesserily the same ratio for a minority population. Learn your Maths. REX 22:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I know my "Maths" (sic) pretty well. Please try to fit between 150,000 and 1,400,000 Arvanites (Albanau's estimate) into the 370,000 inhabitants of Epirus, the 670,000 inhabitants of the Peloponnese and the more than 4,000,000 inhabitants of Attica. Then let me know where your "Maths" lead you. Chronographos 15:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• We don't know that no Arvanites speak only Arvanitic. I am trying to be on the safe side, because we don't know if there are any or not. We need proof before making such arbitrary statements.

We do. There are tons of references. Look at Pangalos. Pangalos is one of the prominent Arvanites you youself added to the Arvanites article. I suppose he is only good enough to mention, but not good enough when he speaks his mind, huh? Chronographos 20:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Pangalos does not represent all the Arvanites. He is just a prominent one. REX 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Pangalos does not represent them despite getting their votes more than anyone else, the Arvanitikos Syndesmos of Greece does not represent them, that leaves you and Albanau representing them, right? Chronographos 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Very droll, you should see straw man. REX 22:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Let's call Medieval Albanians Medieval Albanians or Albanians of that period then.

That's a blatant anachronism Chronographos 20:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? REX 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this all you have to say, after being caught lying again? Existing sources from the time of the migration of the Arvanites, between the 11th and the 14th centuries, do not refer to them as Albanians: they call them Arvanites. I find your behavior thoroughly dishonest. Decius' point was simple: It's "a waste of time since anything dubious will be spotted and questioned sooner or later". Is this so hard to grasp? Chronographos 21:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not been caught lying because I never lied. Let's go back to the Helsinki Report. It 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. REX 21:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• According to the Helsinki Report: the Arvanites of nothwestern Greece do call themselves Shqiptar.
  I hope I answered all your questions. REX 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is the case. Chronographos 20:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, REX, it seems like you're trying to sneak things into the text, which is a waste of time since anything dubious will be spotted and questioned sooner or later. Though at least you have Helsinki backing up the Shqiptar claim. Decius 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This has been his tactics all along, ever since he tried to pose as a Greek and was caught Chronographos 21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hopeless! Albanau 21:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

He was, from the very beginning. Chronographos 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Typical isn't it, Chronographos rejects my evidence because it enables my views to be published in the article and he just doesn't happen to agree with them because they are harmful to his agenda. Above, I have laid LEGITIMATE evidence that the ancestors of the Arvanites can be called Albanians and therefore CAN be used in the article according to Wikipedia policy. I hope you know that removing accurate facts constitutes VANDALISM. REX 22:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Greek still claim that there are no minorities in Greece, only Greeks with religious, cultural and language difference. The Christian Albanians in Greece used to be "Albanophone Greeks". The line "Arvanites are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages" is totally correct and supported by scientific sources and will remain so in the article according to policy, and will not be changed for it become sutiable to the the Greek chavunists view that descendants of the Arvanites were not of Albanian ancestry. Albanau 01:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A legitimate source refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites, so we can say: Arvanites are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages. If anyone tries to remove it without stating why, they will be guilty of Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Disguised_Vandalism_and_Stalking_Vandalism. REX 08:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. It is obvious to any objective observer that it is Albanian nationalists who have an agenda. Witness Albanau's "indignation" about Greek "minority rights". Greece has the highest standard of respect of civil rights and liberties. It is a fully functioning, wealthy (with a per capita GDP almost four times the average of its neighbors) Western democracy, a member of the EU, the eurozone, and NATO. It houses and gives employment to an amazing number of migrants that total a huge 10% of Greece's population. You can only imagine what would happen, say, in the USA, if 25 million Mexicans were suddenly to cross the border and seek a home and employment there. Mexican migration to the USA is one tenth of what I described, yet the USA has erected steel fences on its border and has authorized border patrols to shoot if need be.

In contrast, Greece has given most of these migrants full social benefits (including free medical care and subsidized medication purchases), free access to the country's infrastructure (e.g. schools and Universities, paid for by generations of Greek taxpayers). These also include, e.g., children of illegal aliens, as Greece accepts that these kids are entitled to free health care and a free education, regardless of whether their parents might have broken the law by entering the country illegally. If there is anything Albanian nationalists should fear (in their nationalistic delirium) is assimilation of these migrant kids. Just the other day I was passing through a park and saw a bunch of Albanian kids, probably aged around 6-8, playing soccer on the grass. They were jostling and having fun in Greek ("δώσε τη μπάλλα ρε μαλάκα!"). I am sure these kids will grow up here in financial safety and will lead rewarding lives for themselves and the society at large. This makes me very happy because I believe that any country's most valuable asset is its people, regardless of where they come from. That's why Greece's neighbors have been voting with their feet, as what they see here is a chance for a vastly better life. And Greece is coming through for them too. I read somewhere that 80% of the money that enters Albania comes from migrants in Greece who send it to their relatives. I think it's wonderful that this prosperity is shared.

As for the shrill cries herein ("VANDALISM"!, "CHAUVINISM"!, "SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIALISM!") and elsewhere, it seems to me that History will make sure they find their place where they rightly belong: in the trashbin Chronographos 09:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If all that is true, it doesn't changed the issues. I have proved that it IS possible to say that the ancestors of the Arvanites were Albanians. Removing these actual facts from the article is Vandalism and you should just accept the facts. REX 12:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Care to notice that I have never edited a single word in the Arvanites article? For the millionth time, you are caught lying. Except if you are warning me about "future vandalism", in which case I would advise you to hold your breath until such time as I "vandalize" something. You will find that turning blue will flatter you. Chronographos 14:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Chronographe, you mustn't lie. It is a sin. My accusations of Vandalism are conditional and you know it. You just like lying. REX 17:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't Chronographos and Theathenae accept the simple fact that the "Arvanites are the descendants of settlers of Albanian ancestry from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages"?

look here, Most of the modern theories concerning their origins regard them as Hellenic population living in the north., and, some have argued that they are descended from early inhabitants of Greece. Clearly shows that the information in the article is marked with Greek propaganda. For people who don't know much about Greek propaganda, read this

Im already done. Im sick of Chronographos and Theathenae and that ragtag bunch of hypocritical nationalists. They make up claims like "southern Albanians are Greeks" [5] and that Arvanites are albanophone Greeks yet make such statements as "Albanian extreamist." The place is a joke and a breeding ground for idiots like them. I'm just speaking the truth! Albanau 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary: Albanau considers those that dare disagree with His Magnificence "a ragtag bunch of hypocritical nationalists", "idiots", and frequenters of pages that are "jokes" and "breeding grounds" for the aforementioned. Is this a fair and balanced summary, your Albanauess? Chronographos 14:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Who cares about Greek propaganda? I hanen't seen any. Why can't Chronographos just accept the evidence. The Helsinki Report refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians. Perhaps Chronographos believes that the Halsinki report was composed by Albanian nationalists. IT IS THE TRUTH WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! REX 12:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't scream, REX. Chronographos 14:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think User:REX has comprehensively discredited himself with his hysterical outbursts, and is now towing the User:Albanau line despite a glimmer of hope earlier on in the discussion. I cannot support any proposal of his under these circumstances.--Theathenae 15:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Theathanae you are ignorant and don't accept simple facts let alone discussing like sensible person. Your user Arvanítis have been banned many times in the swedish wikipedia when you have acted this way, trying to claim the Arvanites as an Greek ethnic group speaking a language related to Albanian. Surely, sooner or later you will be stoped. Albanau 16:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

PROOF

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)

Unprotect page

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)

Ancient writings dated 725 BC! Are they Arvanitic_language?

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)

Arvanitic a variety of Tosk?

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)

What happened REX? Didn't you enjoy the talk we had yesterday - Talk:Arvanitic language? MATIA 10:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Arvanitic_language/Archive_1#just_the_facts is the current link. +MATIA ☎ 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with the edit? I just entered something that is true and I proved it using a legitimate source. Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk. What does that have to do with out little chat yesterday? REX 10:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Tosk is actually a dialect of Albanian and the division between Tosk and Gheg already existed before the immigration of Tosk-speaking Albanians (you can check the dates in the Helsinki Report). What is important here is that sources other than Wikipedia (The Helsinki Report and more recently MSN Encarta), which can be considered neutral and impartial, do refer to the ancestors of the Arvanites as (Tosk) Albanians and refer to Arvanitic (Arvanitika) as a dialect/variety of Tosk Albanian. Therefore this proves that those terms can be used in (what is supposed to be) a neutral encyclopaedia article. So why do you insist so firmly that these phrasings cannot be used? I did agree with you when you said that Arvanitic and Tosk were unintelligible to speakers of Gheg. I changed it, didn't I? The article doesn't say that now, does it? REX 14:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's just that sharing a common origin with Tosk is quite misleading; you see Gheg does shares a common origin with Tosk, but when the migrations happened, the modern Arvanites' ancestors were already called Tosks and had already differentiated themselves from the Ghegs. Do you think that we could say that Arvanitic shares a common origin with Modern Tosk? REX 15:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The word modern is implied in the phrase sharing a common origin with Tosk, yet I haven't seen a reference of the term modern Tosk. MATIA 15:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen a reference for the phrase sharing a common origin with Tosk. I mean the only reason for not using the phrasing Their language, Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian, which I remind you can be used, is to please a few far-right wing Greeks. REX 16:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

I don't understand, what are you trying to say? Today, Tosk is obviously different from the Tosk as spoken five hundred and something years ago, but doesn't it remain the same language. If modern Greek and ancient Greek are actually the same language as most Greek scholars claim, why can't Tosk change over the years? What I'm saying is that Tosk as spoken today and Arvanitic as spoken today, were the same language about six hundred years ago: Tosk of that period, which had already differentiated itself from Gheg. REX 17:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you are getting somewhere: the Tosk of that days, or something similar, is the common origin of Arvanitic and Tosk as spoken today. MATIA 18:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but also a variety of Tosk, if you read the article dialect you will see that this way Arvanitic could be called a dialect of Tosk. It could also be called a seperate language but that is for politics to dictate. Equally all are fine answers, but which one do we use and why? REX 22:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing some reading on this subject and I believe that the only truly neutral way of phrasing is to say: Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian. I mean according to the Wikipedia article Variety (linguistics), variety could mean that Arvanitic is merely an Albanian dialect, but it could also mean that it is a separate language genetically related to Tosk. This is ideal, as it has not been officially established whether Arvanitic is a language or a dialect. In my rather humble view a far-right Albanian nationalist would like to have the article say that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect, while a far-right member of the Χρυσή Αυγή would like to say that Arvanitic is a separate language from Albanian altogether (but as it is obvious, sharing a common origin with it). As, as I have already said, neither view has been officially established (linguists don't seem to care much for this beautiful language) the term 'variety' could well mean both and so there would be no disputes. Also as a respectable source (MSN Encarta) refers to Arvanitic as a variety of Tosk, this proves that the term can be used in an encyclopaedia article. How perfect can it be? Tell me what you think. REX 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Are we reaching a consensus here? REX 14:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Δεαθηναι, have you not read a single word I've said? Who are we to say if Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian or a separate language? The word variety is neutral it could mean any of the above. If you like however, let's play your game. Cantonese is discribed as being a dialect of Chinese, the standerd dialect being Mandarin. These languages are obviously more different than Arvanitic and Tosk, therefore, we can call Arvanitic an Albanian dialect, the standard version being Tosk. Brilliant huh? A (respectable source) refers to Arvanitic as a variety of Tosk, this is more reasonable than you non-existing sources. REX 17:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

To bring this thing to a close, let's use Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk. It is used by a respectable source, it is not open to misinterpritation and it neutral (see Wikipedia:NPOV). I hope you know that removing accurate data or turning NPOV into POV is Wikipedia:Vandalism. REX 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

REX yesterday wrote that In my rather humble view a far-right Albanian nationalist would like to have the article say that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect... so I guess you too agree now. That's nice. MATIA 18:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Have you noticed that ethnologue.com on the page about Arvanitic at the heading says Arvanitika, Albanian? How do you explain that? I'm not saying that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect, nor am I saying that it is not. That is the beauty of the word variety. It not specifically calls the language either of the above, whereas you want to call it a seperate language, the far-right Greek line. So to get back to the point, I'll say that if another encyclopaedia can use the word variety, so can WP. REX 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, it can be a dialect or a standard language. Furthermore you seem to be forgetting that the Wikipedia article is Arvanitic language, not Arvanitic. And who made that change, I believe that it was ME (see how can I then be an Albanian nationalist). So, if you think about it, that in conjunction with the word variety ultimately implies that Arvanitic is a language in its own right and has a standard version. The far-right Greek stance, but it does not exclude the possibility of Arvanitic being an Albanian dialect. That would not enable Albanian nationalists to complain. See, the ideal combination. But of course, understanding this thought process requires impartiality, not being a narrow minded far-right Greek fanatic like certain individuals who I don’t care to name. Also, you didn’t answer my question: why does Ethnologue say Arvanitika, Albanian? That could constitute grounds for an Albanian nationalist to insist on Arvanitic being an Albanian dialect. I’m choosing to ignore that and insist on calling Arvanitic a variety of Albanian which both has the above benefits, but also is used by a fellow encyclopaedia, therefore it can be used and truly is neutral. REX 19:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Don’t change the subject (I previously demonstrated that I don’t support Albanian nationalism, I moved the article from Arvanitic to Arvanitic language). The word variety is the only true neutral term and you know it. Both far-right Greeks AND Albanians can’t complain. It is perfect. Anyway, you can’t challenge it. A fellow encyclopaedia uses my phrasing and no encyclopaedia uses your phrasing. Therefore, we will just have to use the word variety. REX 19:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Back then, only I was editing the page. Check the history section and you'll see. Anyway, nobody objected. Also, Don't change the subject. We are talking about why the word variety should be used. REX 20:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Dear REX I'm afraid you are falling into a vicious cycle. Please check ethnologue and all my comments and if you really disagree with something cross-check it and then let us know. MATIA 20:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you MATIA. You are the only reasonable person here. Theathenae is utterly useless; he has yet to present a logical argument. While I believe that Arvanitic shares a common origin with Tosk is a perfectly fine answer, I believe that it has some major defects which Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk doesn't. Namely:

• It implies that Arvanitic is a language in its own right. Obviously this has not been officially established and can't be established as the Greek state denies the existence of the language.
• Technically, when Arvanitic had not differentiated itself from the language of the other Tosk speakers it was still called Tosk (the common ancestor you mention), as opposed to Gheg (check the Helsinki Report). See it this way. Try saying that American English is not a variety of English, but saying that it shares a common origin with British English (that common origin was still British English). It is just a pathetic attempt to acknowledge the links between the various varieties or the language while saying that they are now separate languages. As I have said above in the case of Arvanitic, this has not been officially established. Therefore your way of saying it is slightly misleading.

I now urge you to try to think neutrally (just in case you aren’t). The word variety has no such defects, as it could mean dialect and it can mean standard language in its own right. If we use your way sooner or later there will be a dispute involving someone who says that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect (don’t forget, they can find at least one argument supporting the fact that Arvanitic can be called Albanian, the heading at the entry on ethnologue.com). By using the word variety we might be able to avoid such disputes (unless of course he wants to call the page Arvanitic). Remember, the phrasing Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk is used by Encarta, which was written by professional scholars, not amateurs like us. They didn’t seem to have the same objections as you. You can’t challenge that. So, I think we should use that phrasing and end this insipid discussion. Just answer with a YES or a NO (including an explanation) please, because if you start commenting on something else, we’ll start going around in circles again. REX 21:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Can you not just accept this simple fact (instead of resorting to straw man arguments about vicious circles):

• Encarta a fellow encyclopaedia uses the term variety. Encarta's entries are surervised by a group of professionals. Are you saying that you know better that these professionals and that we should accept your word for a phrasing that has no credibility whatsoever. As for ethnologue.com, they include the word Albanian in the heading. Why is that there if not that Arvanitic is a variety. Please look up variety (linguistics) it is a linguistic term meaning either a dialect or a standard language. This way we are not taking sides, by calling Arvanitic a language or a dialect. Look up dialect and you will see that the distinction between languages and dialects is quite blurred. It has not been officially established if Arvantic is a language or a dialect. REX 08:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

By the Greek government. That's how Serbian and Bosnian are seperate languages not just varieties of the same language, because there is legislation recognising them as such. Had the Greek government recongised Arvanitic as a language or a dialect of Albanian, we could have used that. But they haven't, tharafore it could be either. Either meaniang variety (linguistics). REX 08:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

If saying Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk is so wrong, why then does Encarta use it? Encarta is edited by professional scholars. Are you expecting us to accept that you know better than them. Your definition is entirely without precedent and can easilly be challenged by anyone, while mine is quoted by professionals. REX 09:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should start seeing about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. That is unless of course you are afraid. REX 09:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Variety (linguistics) also implies a common origin. Don't two dialects or two closely related languages ALWAYS have a common origin? It is just that your terminology is slightly inaccurate given that that common origin was still (Medieval)Tosk. So for it to be accurate, we could say Arvanitic shates a common origin with Modern Tosk. REX 10:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do so REX, perhaps if someone else see what you've been doing, he could be able to help you. And as I've answered to you on my talk page, Ethnologue are professional linguists too. You are falling into vicious circles, and though I wish I could, I cannot help you. MATIA 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of anything. I just asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk is better than Arvanitic shares a common origin with Tosk because professional scholars have themselves said Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk. REX 10:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

It is not vicious circle (stop that straw man argument). Ethnologue are professional linguists and they say Albanian, Arvanitika. You still can't explain that can you? REX 09:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't requested for a third opinion, I requested for comment. REX 10:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting this over with

• Encarta refers to Arvanitic as a variant of Albanian.
• UNESCO RED BOOK ON ENDANGERED LANGUAGES: EUROPE refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian
• At the heading Ethnologue says Albanian, Arvanitika.

Therefore we can use the phrasing Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian. You will not have the right to remove it (when I add it). That would be Wikipedia:Vandalism (removing accurate facts because you disagree with them and not being able to prove your changes). Please behave like responsable adults and accept the facts. Thank you very much in advance. REX 10:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is your refusal to acknowledge the separate evolution of Arvanitic that is the problem. Any edits that ignore or remove the accurate facts will be considered vandalism and duly reverted.--Theathenae 10:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So, Tosk and Gheg have been developing separatly from each other. They are still considered dialects of the same language. See Chinese language most of the Chinese dialects differ more from each other and have evolved separatly from each other. Do you know what a dialect is? It is a variety of language which differs from other varieties of the same language for various reasons (such as isolations) and has developed separatly. Why don't we stop calling Cypriot Greek a variety of Greek but call it a separate language which developed separatly. Anyway as MATIA says, the UN always has the fianl say (see Talk:Republic of Macedonia) and UNESCO sees Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Albanian therefore we have no choise but to say that. REX 10:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please wait for the linguists. Check WP:COOL. MATIA 10:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't distort facts and be carefull when you mention my name. MATIA 10:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not distort facts, but sorry for using your name if you indeed don't believe that the UN has the final say. That will come in useful in Talk:Macedonia. REX 10:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae is playing games and is committing acts of vandalism in my opinion. Clearly, the language in question is descended largely from Tosk. Maybe using the phrase Arvanitic is descended largely from Tosk Albanian maybe a way out of this impasse. Or, alternatively: The Arvanitic language developed from Tosk Albanian, with influence from Greek". I've taken these phrases from the page on Spanish_language, which in many linguists eyes is is a variety of Latin (to use REX's construction.

If we were to apply Theathenae's principles on the Greek language, we'd have to break up that article into various parts. And I would object to that. --Damac 11:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding my intentions. If the Arvanites identified as Albanians, there would be no issue. But they don't. Similarly, if the Cypriots for example did not identify as Greeks, their language could be referred to as a separate language, despite its common origin with Greek. No one is denying that Arvanitic and Tosk descend from the same parent language, but that parent language was called Arvanitic, not "Tosk", and referring to one as a variety of the other is misleading and offensive to the speakers of that language. Is Croatian a variety of Serbian? Is Portuguese a variety of Spanish? Or, for that matter, is English itself a variety of German? From a linguistic point of view, some may indeed make such assertions, but these languages are considered separate today because of the separate ethnic self-identification of their speakers. The Arvanites deserve no less respect for their right to self-determination.--Theathenae 11:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood you up to certain point. Now, I appreciate what you were trying to say but still have difficulty in how you saying it. Fair enough, Tosk and Arvanitic have a common origin. Yet, on the page Albanian_language, I don't see it written anywhere that Tosk, Gheg, Arvanitic all descend from "parent language was called Arvanitic", as you claim. What is the basis for this claim? I'm genuinely interested. What was the parent language called, who coined this term, and where is it used today?

If you cast a quick look on the English site, you'll notice that it states that "English is a West Germanic language". Whether modern day Britons agree or disagree with that is besides the point. Linguists and scientists are supposed to look at the evidence in front of them and not write linguistic history to suit the masses.

I'm all for what you call "ethnic self-identification of their speakers", but this must be placed within its historic context. I'm Irish, and you might know that the vast majority of the poeple of Ireland do not speak that language. In fact, many of them detest it. There are clear historic reasons why this is the case, and the massive Anglicisation of Ireland in the 19th century was forced and not by choice. It was a complex affair, a result of cultural colonialism, which involved coercion (on the part of the authorities) and the grudging participation of the population. The situation of Arvanitic is not all that different in my opinion. --Damac 12:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

What Theathenae says here is wrong. Check Talk:Arvanites#Accept the facts where I have demonstrated that here Theathenae is just playing with the words. REX 15:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right that English is a West Germanic language, but this is not the same thing as saying that it is a variety of German. The problem lies in the lack of a neutral blanket term covering the entire language family. Based on the historical evidence, Arvanitic would be the appropriate equivalent term to Germanic.

The Irish situation is indeed interesting, but not quite analogous to what we are discussing here. The Arvanites came to Greece five hundred years ago and settled alongside the native Greek-speaking population, being gradually absorbed by the majority as has happened to immigrants around the world throughout recorded history. Your implication that the Arvanites would have chosen a distant Albanian identity had they been "allowed" to is entirely hypothetical and rather far-fetched, IMHO. In any case, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and the reality today is that, for whatever reason, the Arvanites identify as Greeks, not Albanians. They are not some poor, isolated, oppressed minority. They have participated fully and actively in the process of Greek nation-building, rising to the highest echelons of the Greek establishment and society. You are perhaps unaware of the numerous Arvanite prime ministers of Greece who spoke Arvanitic at home and with fellow Arvanites and never hid their distinctive Arvanitic identity. Describing them as "ethnic Albanians" would be as absurd as describing the modern descendants of the Anglo-Saxons in England as "ethnic Germans" and those of the Normans as "ethnic Frenchmen".--Theathenae 13:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the contribution made by Arvanites to the process of nation building. I'm also fully aware that in his books, Irish-born British ambassador to Greece, Thomas Wyse, repeatedly refers to the Arvanites and their language. During his relatively long period in office in Greece, he toured the countryside, visting many villages where Arvanitic was the only language spoken. That was in 1850s. What interests me is the decline of the spoken language and my point with Irish was that government and education policy had a lot to do with that, as well as assimilationist trends among the Arvanites themselves. This process was certainly accelerated with the formation and development of the modern Greek state, a state which tends to single out the "Hellenic" heritage as the only heritage worth talking about in this part of the world. I never said that Arvanites were oppressed, nor have I claimed they were Albanians. Vlachs, Slavs, and others have by and large were absorbed into the majority culture but this was not always by choice as you suggest. We've far more in common than you think, and had I a vote in this country, I'd vote for the same party as youself.

I intend on reading the full talk page, and if the two sides are interested, will attempt to review both sides of the argument. --Damac 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greeks are by no means unique in having "singled out" a particular heritage around and upon which they have built a modern nation. In fact, that is how most if not all modern nations have been formed, especially in Europe, Éire included. There are few truly multicultural or plurinational states, and the ones that are have generally not enjoyed a great deal of success. Yugoslavia was perhaps the most tragic example of all, but Belgium and Spain are not immune to the real possibility of dissolution either. Multiculturalism only seems to work either in relatively new nations with no ancient roots, like the United States, where cultural differences are suppressed in the melting pot anyway, or Australia, where one group predominates and all others are too small to challenge the dominant national culture in any serious way. Canada, on the other hand, is in a state of perpetual crisis vis-à-vis Québec, despite Ottawa's best efforts to promote a bilingual, bicultural and ultimately binational state. That is not to say of course that European countries cannot accept and integrate people from other parts of the world, but it is unlikely that the French will accept that they should surrender their Frenchness, par exemple, in order to accommodate the newcomers. It appears that people will always put their tribe before the common good of mankind, so getting them to feel they belong to the same tribe has been seen as desirable at least since the French Revolution and the dawn of nationalism. In the case of Greece, foreign populations have been assimilating as Greeks since time immemorial, even before the creation of the modern Greek state and its supposedly coercive assimilationist policies. Indeed, the Arvanites actively fought for Greek independence and were among the founders of the new state. Perhaps they shouldn't have, but that is an endless and ultimately futile argument. They did.--Theathenae 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that two nations can't share two dialects of the same language. That has occured in Belgium, Finland, Belorussia, The Ukraine and many more outside Europe. So there is still no reason to say that Arvanitic is not a variety of Tosk. REX 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User:REX, would you like to see Arvanite children being taught Tosk Albanian at school? There is obviously no shortage of speakers of that language in Greece nowadays, many of whom would be more than qualified to carry out such a task.--Theathenae 16:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that while Theathenae has the best intentions his edits are too POV. I have provided references from various respectable sources which clearly refer to Arvanitic as a variety of Albanian. I find it hard to believe that UNESCO, Encarta Encyclopaedia and Ethnologue are wrong ant Theathenae is right. He may be, but he still hasn't proved his point. His statement that Arvanitic has developed separately from Tosk Albanian and has been heavily influenced by Greek over the course of the past five centuries, to the extent that it is today considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike is just untrue. There is no reference whatsoever to suggest that Arvatitic speakers and linguists view it as a separate language from Albanian. So far, Theathenae has indicated that he is not willing to cooperate and seems unwilling to understand that I am not prepared to accept only his word for such a questionable claim while respectable sources say the exact opposite. I do hope that he is willing to cooperate to find a truthfual and impartial solution. REX 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So now I have the "best intentions", do I? Please. A few short edits ago I was a "useless" "far-right Greek fanatic". I'll have you know that I vote Synaspismos, and I resent and reject your vitriolic attacks totally.--Theathenae 14:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So, you still haven't proven you claims, nor have you dicredited mine. And on the subject of elections I'll have you know that I vote Labour. I think you should realise that that best intentions thing was just politeness. Something you obviously don't understand! REX 14:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? I could have sworn you voted Berisha. Still, you're not that far off.--Theathenae 14:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK ALARM! It seems that when Theathenae can't prove his point he tries to scare away someone else who has proven their point. REX 14:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

REX do you dispute that Arvanites have their own history? MATIA 13:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA I believe it. But if it can't be proved then it shouldn't be included in an encyclopaedia. REX 13:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that it should be pointed out that one nations language being another nations language is not impossible. The Flemings of Belgium speak a language called Flemish which could accuratly be called Dutch which is the national language of the Netherlands. In fact on the page Belgium it is discribed as Dutch. Are we by calling the language of the Flemings Dutch denying their right to nationhood and self-determination? REX 14:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you believe it then why did you remove that phrase? I 've mentioned before that I have a lot friends who are Arvanites. One of them told me that he would bring me a book about Arvanites, but unfortunately he is too busy these days and we haven't yet met. I'd suggest if you believe it to check for sources that verify or deny it. I'm afraid though, that I don't understand the reason we argue about. MATIA 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

We are arguing because there is no proof. You can't add something to an encyclopaedia without being absolutly certain and that requires Reliable sources that someone else can check like I did: Ethnologue, UNESCO and Encarta encyclopaedia. REX 14:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA why are we discussing this? Every nation has its history. I would like to know why you reject my sources:

• Encarta refers to Arvanitic as a variant of Albanian.
• UNESCO RED BOOK ON ENDANGERED LANGUAGES: EUROPE refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian
• At the heading Ethnologue says Albanian, Arvanitika.

I mean its obvious. Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. REX 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check Anna Comnene that Theathenae mentioned, Bambiniotis (I think he was quoted about Arvanites or Albanians at a talk page, but I can't remember exactly when) and perhaps you can do what I did: ask any Arvanites you know about it and discuss with them too, the issues that may, or may not, trouble you. MATIA 14:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Anna Comnenos saying that Arvanitic is not a dialect of Tosk. If not, then it doesn't concern me. And just in case you are interested I have an Arvanitic background, I can't speak the language though. REX 14:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to say that Arvanitic is a varity of Tosk, not a dialect. It is a fairly neutral term which admits that Arvanitic could be a language in its own right. REX 14:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope you are not saying that Encarta, UNESCO and Ethnologue are wrong. Because I will NOT accept anything without sources. REX 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all I must apologise to REX and Damac, it seems that I've accidentaly erased part of their comments. I was checking the history of the talk page and I saw that. I believe that I restored them the way they were, I can't understand how this occured (software bug?) and I'm really sorry.

REX about the sources: I told you what I did, perhaps you can check for sources with the Arvanites you know. I can't help you right now, perhaps I could give you some sources to check, if and when my friends brings me that book. MATIA 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I'm in England now, there aren't many Arvanites here. That is if you exclude me. This book, what is it called (if you know that is). I may be able to find it here (that is unlikely though). Can't we just accept what UNESCO, Ethnologue and Encarta say, I mean books just transmit the author's POV. Didn't you say: UNO is the supreme law on the Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Can't we accept their view here that Arvanitic is a diaspora dialect of Tosk? REX 15:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected

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)

I am asking everyone (including Damac and MarkSweep) to read (that would be read again for Theathenae and REX) the whole Talk:Arvanites and also Talk:Arvanitic language. Thanks. MATIA 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why shouldn't he? Or anyone else? MATIA 08:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Summing up

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)

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)

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)

My dear friends, before we start worrying about Serbian and Croatian lets concentrate a little on the Chinese language. This language is made up of various dialect with enormous differences between them. Each of these dialects is referred to as a variety of Chinese. If we follow your way of thinking then that would be inappropriate because each of these dialects was never called Chinese. In fact Chinese is a term which was coined for all of them on the unification of China. Before that they were languages in their own right and some people still consider them to be so. The fact that Anna Comnena was speaking Greek in her works is of much significance because all we learn from her works was that then the Greek name for these people was Arbanoi, not the name that 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 Magyaroszag). So the fact that you say that they called themselves Arbëror is just guesswork. We have no idea what they called themselves. What is imporatant here is that credible sources (ie UNESCO) refer to Arvanitic as an Albanian dialect. Why can't we? All you do is just keep changing the subject and refusing to answer the question: Why can't we refer to the language the same way that UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue do? If you answer this question, the going around in circles as you call it MATIA will cease. REX 18:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps you should write to the UN, Ethnologue and Encarta telling them that they are wrong whereas you are right. My sources were compiled by professionals. They know what they were doing and this proves that the scientific establishment views Arvanitic as a dialect of Tosk. Even the Helsinki report implies that researchers and/or human and minority rights activists have referred to Arvanitic as an Albanian dialect. If you are so so concerned about the validity of the Helsinki Report how can you explain that it says the following:
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? You seem to think that they were called something else, what was it? Oh yes, Arbëror (you didn't prove it mind you). The Helsinki report also doesn't seem to have a problem referring to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians does it? Does that not mean that the language of the Arvanites' ancestors was Albanian given that their ancestors were called Albanians. Over the years the language of the descendants of these Albanians evolved into the four major dialects: Tosk, South of the Shkumbini River; Gheg North of the Shkumbini River; Arbëreshe in Italy and Arvanitic in Greece. REX 19:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll say it again. If UNESCO can call Arvanitic an Albanian dialect, so can Wikipedia. Even your quote from the Helsinki Report: most linguists use the word Albanian for that language proves that Arvanitic can be called Albanian. You are just trying to get politics involved aren't you? Wikipedia should be neutral like UNESCO. If all Arvanites resented the term Albanians then some of them wouldn't use the term Shqiptar to describe themselves (Helsinki report). You didn't really rebuff my arguments, did you? REX 19:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

You have run out of arguments and you are now falling back on that old gambit. That is just your POV anyway (that it is Albanian nationalism). My views are UNESCO's views (I want to say exactly what UNESCO says: Arvanitic is a variety of Albanian) while you want to publish POV unjustified far-right Greek statements. Is UNESCO run by Albanian nationalists? You can't continue promoting lies on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy prohibits that. REX 20:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Don't be silly, you don't know that all Arvanites resent being called Albanians. Some of them wouldn't describe themselves as Shqiptar if that was so, despite the fact that Greek extremists would like to believe the reverse. I am proposing that we use UNESCO's wording, Ethnologue's wording and Encarta's wording, whereas you are proposing something unheard of. Something entirely without references. I don't even want to say Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. I would like to say that it is a variety (linguistics) of Albanian (look up the term, please) which can have a slightly different meaning. This is my concession to you because I know how much you resent the UN and reject their wording (this will come in handy on Talk:Republic of Macedonia). REX 07:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

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)

Treat everything below this line as if it were an article. Fill in the details to give neutral statement of what the dispute is about and what everybody's position is.

---

Is Arvanitic a language or a dialect

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)

Second party's position

This is written by User:REX: We want to call Arvanitic a separate language from Albanian because we have a strong suspicion that they want us to. We don't care that REX's sources say otherwise. We'll just say that they are wrong because they didn't take into account the feelings of some Arvanites (we are violating Wikipedia plicy Wikipedia:No original research). We were hoping that REX's sources say that we are justified in calling Arvanitic a separate language from Albanian. Instead they say that we have cocked it up. So now we are going to pretend that these reports don't exist. (change this if you like, this is just what I believe that you are thinking).

---

Comments on dispute resolution

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)

Reading the RfAr that was just filed, if the issue is simply one of "language" vs. "dialect" then the best example of a compromise I've seen so far is the set of articles on the Chinese languages/dialects, for example Mandarin (linguistics). Note how the page title deviates from the standard conventions (e.g. French language, not French (linguistics)). This is deliberate, in order to simply avoid the issue of having to define Mandarin as a dialect of Chinese or as a Chinese language. This is an example of an issue that is unresolved in reality and that we cannot expect Wikipedia to resolve. If that is indeed the issue here as well, it's best to describe the situation in neutral terms ("linguistic variant" or "variety"), and then simply state that there is a debate and describe what it is about. Again, we do not need to settle real-world debates here. Our task is to take one step back and describe them in neutral terms. --MarkSweep✍ 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, REX believes that Arvanitic is a language but wants to use a different term and not the term language (for example variety). Please check Talk:Arvanitic language and then take a look at this talk page. I've just tried to read them again now and I can't understand why we should make all this fuss, and where exactly is the disagreement. MATIA 15:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

My saying that Arvanitic is a language but to refer to it as a variety is to compromise with you. UNESCO refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian. I could easily insist that we use that. It wouldn't be too hard given that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claims that Arvanitic is a language. Take it thie way. The offer is withdrawn. I insist that we use UNESCO's phrasing until you can come up with some proof to give your statements some credibility. REX 15:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Now lets see, Ethnologue and UNESCO both call this language Arvanitika Albanian. I mean they are credible sources and according to Wikipedia policy we should implement them. Shall we move the page Arvanitic language (which is clearly wrong, I apologise for moving it there) to Arvanitika Albanian? I also believe that we could add the links to the sources: UNESCO and Ethnologue in order to really bring everything out into the open. I mean who should we believe UNESCO and Ethnologue or MATIA and Theathenae? I think that UNESCO and Ethnologue should be believed beacuse as MarkSweep✍ says everything should be neutral, unlike MATIA's and Theathenae's POV (see NPOV). REX 15:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what the System requires. REX 15:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately REX anyone can read what I wrote here and in Talk:Arvanitic language, and verify if and how I cited Ethnologue. I must tell you again that I dislike it when you put words in my mouth and when you distort what I write. Yet again everyone can read what each of us wrote. I'm sorry for the way you are handling it with personal attacks. And I'm sorry that you don't show respect to Arvanites' history and language. If you do have Arvanitic background, I encourage you, again, to ask your relatives about those issues, as I have asked my Arvanites friends. MATIA 15:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh MATIA MATIA MATIA, the fact that you cited Ethnologue is absolutely worthless. Ethnologue refers to every dialect as a language. It even refers to Mandarin Chinese as a language and Cantonese Chinese as a separate language. While we know that the Chinese government officially recognises both these languages as dialects of one language. The Chinese language What I like about Ethnologue is that is calls what we call Arvanitic Arvanitika Albanian. How do you explain that? Why can't you accept the facts? Are you expecting us to accept that UNESCO, Ethnologue and Encarta are wrong and you are right? REX 16:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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) That's how I've explained it 3 days ago. Why do you keep arguing? MATIA 17:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not according to UNESCO and Ethnologue. Who do we believe? Them or you? REX 17:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, why do you change the subject by falsly claiming that I make personal attacks and that I don't care for the Arvanites' history and language? You cannot prove your statement that Arvanitic is a separate language from Albanian. That is why? I have read the entire talk pages Talk:Arvanites and Talk:Arvanitic language and I find no reason whatsoever not to call Arvanitic a dialect of Albanian. I have found many reasons to call it a dialect of Albanian. As UNESCO's Report goes Arvanitic (or Arvanitika Albanian to use the dialect's proper name) is a dialect of Tosk Albanian. Nothing that you say can rebuff this. I am willing to not push to make the POV name for the article Arvanitic language use the more NPOV name Arvanitika Albanian, which can be done I remind you as Ethnologue and UNESCO refer to it this way while there are no credible sources to support its current name, but I INSIST on not distorting the facts. Credible sources (UNESCO) refer to Arvanitic as a dialect of Albanian. That is why WP shall follow suit and say Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian. See variety, not dialect. That is for your benefit. That in conjunction with the fact that I am not pushing to call Arvanitic Arvanitika Albanian (which CAN be done I remind you) proves that I am not all bad (from your point of view at least). REX 17:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me quote what you said unlike MATIA's and Theathenae's POV. Does it look personal to you? Should I cite more of your quotes? Have I cautioned you not to jump to conclusions and read carefully? And have I told you to be careful when you mention my name? MATIA 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You are not proving my arguments to be wrong this way? That is because you can't. Anyway, as a sign of good will I now declare myself to be as open as a book. You can ask me any question and I shall answer it truthfully providing that it is relevant to the subjects that we are discussing (put questions next to a star *). This is how I differ from MATIA and Theathenae who refuse answer my above question Who should we believe: Ethnologue and UNESCO or you? REX 19:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Accept the facts

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 theNormans. 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)

Folks, please try to keep the discussion productive. In fact, I don't think additional debate will get you out of the current stalemate. Repeating myself: it is not our collective job to determine which POV is the "correct" one. This is not about who is "right" and who is "wrong". All relevant points of view should be discussed fairly and neutrally, but Wikipedia cannot and need not endorse any particular POV. I think the best way forward would be for you guys to make an inventory of the various points of view: please describe everyone's position in the "Dispute resolution" section above in a neutral, impartial fashion without making any value judgements, threats, snide remarks, etc. The faster you work this out, the sooner you can get back to editing the article itself. Thanks, --MarkSweep✍ 08:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is getting ridiculous. I wouldn't bet my last penny that MATIA and Theathenae have the guts to answer my statement above or to defend their position. I just proved their arguments to be totally baseless and factually inaccurate. MATIA will no doubt start complaining like he/she did on MarkSweep's talk page but he/she cannot defend what he/she wnats to say. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk. If they were to provide references for their proposals even thet would be acceptable, but they don't, they just axpect us to accept their word for it. Now I believe that MATIA will resort to the old gambit don't mention my name to avoid answering the question and to cause the circles that we have being going around to continue. REX 08:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA keeps saying check Talk:Arvanitic_language#just_the_facts (from MarkSweep's Talk page). There is no evidence there whatsoever to suggest that Arvanitic is a language in its own right. It just says that Arvanitic speakers and Gheg speckers can't understand each other. This is MATIA's tactic: to imply that he/she has evidence while in reality he/she doesn't. I ask now openly: prove to me here and now why we can't use UNESCO's phrasing? Are they wrong and you are right? This is just MATIA's POV. MATIA's deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy. This statement of mine stands until MATIA proves to us that the edits he/she proposes to make to the article are true. I say that they are just a sham! REX 10:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fresh Proposal

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)

just a few points

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)

MATIA, I suggest that you read the article language. It defines language as: a system of finite arbitrary symbols combined according to rules of grammar for the purpose of communication. Individual languages use sounds, gestures and other symbols to represent objects, concepts, emotions, ideas, and thoughts. Therefore any dialect can be called a language (ie form of speech) whereas you want to define Arvanitic as a separate language from Albanian altogether. That is why it calls Pontic Greek a diaspora dialect of Attic Greek but also refers to it as a language. If we do not make it perfectly clear in the article that the Arvanitic language is classed as a diaspora dialect of Albanian (a true fact) we will be supressing the truth. I don't understand. Are you rejecting my proposal? Because I also refer to Arvanitic as a language there. REX 08:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

REX, I had accepted the phrase Arvanitic is an Indo-European language sharing a common origin with the Albanian Tosk dialect, I find the phrases Their language, Arvanitic has developed separately from Tosk Albanian and has been heavily influenced by Greek over the course of the past five centuries, to the extent that it is today considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike. neutral and more explanatory, and I would suggest an addition like Arvanitika language belongs to the same language family as Albanian Tosk. You have been arguing very intensely the last days that Arvanitic is a dialect not a language. And today you say it is a language and want to mention it as diaspora. Check your fresh proposal and you'll see no mention of diaspora. Tell me please, are Arvanitika a language or a dialect? And please share your thoughts about my comments on UNESCO's red book. MATIA 08:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not mentioning it as a diaspora dialect for YOUR benefit (if you like we can mention it that way). The UNESCO report clearly says that this language is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian, not a separate language. You are distorting the facts. Arvanitic is not considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike. This phrase is just POV. There are no sources to suggest any such thing.

I ask you now a simple question: Is Arvanitic a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian? If you say NO, you are contradicting UNESCO without sources (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability), if you say yes, this whole discussion shouldn't be happening because we are agreeing anyway. Also, ARE YOU ACCEPTING MY PROPOSAL OF REJECTING IT? Note that if you are rejecting it I will need sources because Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability require it and I would like to know that you are not doing it just for the sake of being provocative. REX 09:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

REX please press the STOP on your tape recorder and answer my questions. If you read my comment you'll also see my suggestion. I also have some more questions, but I'm waiting for your answers. MATIA 09:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

a) What about it?
b) What am I looking for?
c) Subscribe then
d) (It is calling the language Arvanitika ALBANIAN. I guess that this proves that itis views as a separate language by speakers and linguists alike)
d 3) (I guess this means that it is viewed a a separate language by speakers and linguists alike)
4 e) (who denied that it is heavily influenced by Greek. It is even in my proposal above)
Comment for Mr Tapani Salminen: (by language he means a form of speech. The UNESCO and Ethnologue rports refer to ALL dialects this way. Check and see.)

I have commented on your points above. Can you answer my question now: ARE YOU ACCEPTING MY PROPOSAL OF REJECTING IT? Note that if you are rejecting it I will need sources because Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability require it and I would like to know that you are not doing it just for the sake of being provocative. REX 09:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

REX first of all, the way you invaded my comment didn't make it clear who wrote what. I had letters and numbers so you could put your answers like the way I moved them above your signature. In two words red book is poor on Arvanitika. Here on WP we already have more sources than UNESCO's red book (see nothing in his report). MATIA 09:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This makes no differece whatsoever. Other sources have also assisted us in writing the article such as Ethnologue and the Helsinki Report. Can you answer my question now: ARE YOU ACCEPTING MY PROPOSAL OF REJECTING IT? Note that if you are rejecting it I will need sources because Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability require it and I would like to know that you are not doing it just for the sake of being provocative. Also, if you are rejecting it, please explain it in a few paragraphs begining in something like: I reject REX's proposal beacuse ... REX 09:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

REX if you don't have manners don't make it my problem: STOP YELLING. Read WP:COOL, WP:CIV and then read what I wrote above, understand it, think about it, and answer. I'm not going to repeat myself. Let's start with discussing UNESCO's red book, shall we? MATIA 10:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I don't get your point above. I expect you to tell me if you accept or reject my proposal, unless of course there are some questions that you would like to ask. In those circumstances I will only be too happy to answer them, but the questions have to be comprehendable. You can't say something like why: do you say thet I don't have sources? I do have sources, check Talk:Arvanitic language (this is just a fictional example). It would have to be drawing my attention to the specific points that you are raising. So in any questions you may have, ask the question and quote anything relevant instead of saying look what I wrote above. If you do in the end reject my proposal, please explain it in a few paragraphs begining in something like: I reject REX's proposal beacuse .... So, having said that, let's discuss the Red book. (Also, don't you dicipline me again, when Theathenae behaves in that way you don't diciplice him. Is that because he is supporting your arguments. Double standards?) REX 10:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never disciplined you. You attacked me repeatedly and while most of the time I try to ignore it, sometimes it's hard to put up with. If anyone else, including Theathenae, attacked me, I'll correspond accordingly.
I told you my thoughts about the red book. When you are ready, you may share with me your thoughts about it. I'm trying, sometimes very hard, to end this dispute, and I'm interested in mutual understanding. MATIA 11:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are suggesting that the Red Book's report on Arvanitika Albanian is questionable because the author does not have many sources. All he has is published and unpublished material (of the language): little. I believe that he compiled the report based on the little published material he could find. What is important here is that we can rest assured that even that little information he could find about the language was vetted very carefully because he knew that every time there was a dispute over the status of the language, the researchers would go straight to his report and his report would be challenged. I also believe that you should note that I am not insisting on calling Arvanitic a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian (something that we would be justified in doing according to WP policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability), but calling it a variety of Tosk Albanian. Variety (linguistics) has a good ring to it: we are not using the very strong word dialect but we are neither classing it as a langusge in its own right (this is not endorsed by any group of linguists that we can find references from). Even Ethnologue refers to what we call Arvanitic as Arvanitika Albanian. (I'll suspend Encarta for now because you haven't subscribed. You can if you like, the first two months are free). I mean, they both can't be wrong. We can't say that Arvanitic is a language in its own right because it would be a violation of WP policy (read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability please). My proposal above has it in the most truly suttle way possible (the links with Albanian are not overly emphasised, nor are they severed altogether). What is said is true (accoring to my sources). I can't find anything to suggest that Arvanitic is a language in its own right. REX 11:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm! Silence is Golden! REX 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

oh well

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)

It is just a joke (I am stating the obvious now) which implies the way I see everything. The phrase above means: made a mess of everything. REX 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are we waiting?

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)

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)

Well O Sarcastic One, I insist that we implement my proposal until you do provide us with sources because that is what Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability) requires. REX 20:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Of course. MATIA's name is too holy to be played with but to even be mentioned. It would be like violating Commandment number 2. REX 22:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

REX if you have no manners don't make it my problem. WP:CIV, remember? MATIA 23:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. MATIA diciplining us and looking down on us from on high. REX 08:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"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)

No Chronographe, Us refers to the oppressed proletariat. REX 11:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

We are STILL waiting (for MATIA to produce something that doesn't exist)

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)

REX and his lack of manners

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)

MATIA and his hypocrisy

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)

keep the characterizations for yourself

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)

My sources will be verifiable, and their content is about the history of Arvanites and the language Arvanitika. Arvanites aren't a controversial topic and when I type and edit the sources I 've found, I'll publish them here. The phrase Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk is inaccurate, please do wait. MATIA 18:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

The proposal

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)

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)

No MATIA, you will accept my proposal above until you provide references. Wikipedia policy requires this. You cannot put POV on an article when the current sources indicate that the NPOV is the exact opposite. REX 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but you can't prove that it is untrue. All evidence suggests that Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk. What should we do? Accept your word for it lest I disobey the long awaited sources which may never come. We shall make the appropriate edits so that the articles conforms to WP policy and the sources we already have. What should we do. Make the article say the opposite because some sources we haven't found yet require this. When the sources you promised are produced then we may be able to say what you want, but to say it now would be a violation of WP policy. Also, you are not complaining about me because you have no evidence. When I asked you to produce some you gave me the silent treatment, therefore given that you can't prove these calamities of which you speak exist then I have no reason to believe that they exist. REX 19:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have commented your sources above on this talk page. I'm not going to repeat it, anyone interested can either wait for my sources, or check what I've written before. What you did (taking the edit-war to other articles) is a very small part of the evidence. If you wish to misinterpret my non-action or repeat the personal attacks, it's your call. I do wish, though, that you'll choose a new, different, way of approach. MATIA 20:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I shall always observe WP policy and UNESCO calls Arvanitic a dialect of Albanian. Case closed. This shall be entered on the article untill you prove otherwise. I do wish you would observe WP policy. I don't even know why you are so worried. I mean íf you do find proper sources then it may be changed. REX 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Two weeks should be enough. No sense in keeping this protected forever. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

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)

Facts

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)

Indeed.--Theathenae 11:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

REX, I do believe that you can do better than that. Read your sources. MATIA 12:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but you also removed accurate information I've added today in this article. I would suggest you cool off and revert your changes. MATIA 12:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you think that you are doing?

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)

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

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)

Civility, No personal attacks

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 Sidaway^Talk 14:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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 Sidaway^Talk 18:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Good-Faith

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)

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)

restoring part of my comment

...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)". +MATIA ☎ 21:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (originaly posted 16:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)).

MATIA is obviously unwilling to cooperate. This is obviously because he has no sources to support his arguments. He is a troll. I try to resolve this dispute, I ask for sources. And what do I get? Nothing! Just sarcastic wise cracks. Well no one can say that I didn't try. It is MATIA who keeps on disrupting Wikipedia. MATIA, you can either provide sources, or walk away. REX 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Indeed, you see you have never called me a troll. Oops, would you look at that. You know what I am thinking now? Ουαί υμίν Γραμματείς καί Φαρισαίοι υποκριταί. Truthful words, and still relevant today. Lord, you do indeed work in mysterious ways! REX 22:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

And again Ladies and Gentlemen, MATIA is caught lying. I believe that this affirms that old saying; we all earn the names by which we are known. REX 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reflections of Silence

MATIA has been active [6] since I made the post above [7], 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)

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)

Coo, I guess that the fact that the Arvanites had a Greek PM means that their language is not a variety of Tosk. Belgium had a Flemish PM, that doesn't mean that his language wasn't a form of Dutch. PS when do we actually get to see these sources of yours, or are they to holy to be seen by mere mortals such as me? I am hearing too many words and not enough facts (you do know the meaning of the word, don't you?)REX 22:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Not very helpful, we know that Arvanitic is a language, what else could it be? A peanut? They don't say that it is a separate language from Tosk though; au contraire, UNESCO calls Arvanitic a diaspora dialect of Tosk. You still haven't read that yet? You think that it's all lies? UNESCO is known for lying, isn't it? Whereas you always tell the truth. lol! REX 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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 ISBN 960-204-031-9 - 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)

Having checked your link about lying also labeled as truth I can see that you called me a troll before. +MATIA ☎ 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can +MATIA ☎ explain why UNESCO says that this language is a diaspora dialect of Tosk? GrandfatherJoe 07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Of course you don't Theathenae, because unlike you two I have legitimate sources. UNESCO clearly says that Arvanitic is a dialect of Tosk. You on the other hand have circular sources which involve word games and straw man arguments. You still can't explain why UNESCO calls Arvanitic a dialect of Tosk, can you? REX 17:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Counter-arguments to what exactly, to nothing? Your arguments are word games and straw man arguments. I'll say it again UNESCO calls Arvanitic a dialect of Tosk. Case closed! REX 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

personal attack removed

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)

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

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)

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)

Πο! REX 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Greek pressure in Cornwall?!--Theathenae 09:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal REX, now the f* word doesn't offend you??? +MATIA ☎ 08:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Albanian REX, would you translate Po! in English? +MATIA ☎ 09:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

UNESCO calls Arvanitic a dialect of Tosk Albanian. REX 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Counter-arguments to what exactly, to nothing? Your arguments are word games and straw man arguments. I'll say it again UNESCO calls Arvanitic a dialect of Tosk. It sais it plainly and clearly. Case closed! REX 13:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Whereas your proposal is more reasonable. Don't make me laugh! Britannica, UNESCO, Ethnologue ALL call this language a dialect of Tosk or a dialect of Albanian. What a pity your Magnificence has to be burdened by silly rules such as Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. <shout>It is the truth even if you dont like it!</shout> REX 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that you Greeks make problems from everything: Arvanites, Cyprus, Macedonia... That is a very bad characteristic of yours. --Bomac 13:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And whose sockpuppet are you?--Theathenae 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

I am noone's sockpuppet. Say that for yourself. Also, I am not Sterbinski's pupil.

However, I think that you Greeks create pittyful and unnecessary problems by yourself. And, I can assure you that attacking and insulting is not the way to solve them. Regards. Bomac 15:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So I guessed right? He is a teacher? Anyway, all these are irrelevant to this wiki. +MATIA ☎ 15:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Είσαι ρατσιστόμουτρο του κερατά.--Theathenae 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm not the one who peruses Nazi-promoted theories for intellectual fodder, Rexhep.--Theathenae 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The gentleman I mentioned died before the first Nazi was ever born. You do seem interested in the Nazi's though Theathenae, why? REX 16:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see from the last talks how much they are frustrated, indeed. Bomac 20:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA's unjstifiable POV pushing

MATIA has removed a fact which can be found in the Helsinki Report and when asked why he did so he said that [8] 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)

calumnies against MATIA (see also here)

ARVANITES HAVE NO RIGHTS! (according to REX)
MATIA HAS NO RIGHTS - not even the right to defend himself (see here)
+MATIA ☎ 09:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy, Greek extremism and double standards

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)

About REX's edit war

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)

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)

I've added the POV tag. +MATIA ☎ 14:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Brian Joseph, linguist

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)

REX and greek sources

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)

It doesn't help you to claim that you don't understand Greek or claiming that Greek sources cannot be used. If they can't be used why are you a translator from Greek to English? But don't worry. Brian Joseph is not Greek. So if you have a problem with Greeks (see Biris) we'll use BJ's english. +MATIA ☎ 14:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't say that Greek sources cannot be used. Wikipedia policy says that they cannot be used (a fact you choose to ignore). You're all for WP policy aren't you? This conversation should appeal to you :-))))))) REX 15:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_should_be_in_English, Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. +MATIA ☎ 15:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You should polish your English MATIA, only quotes can be used from foreign sources. Anyway, can you find a more credible source than UNESCO? Not a chance. You'll just have to accept their wording, dispite the fact that your agenda is against that. REX 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Brian Joseph on Arvanitika

• 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)

REX's perspective

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)

User_talk:Bomac#a_question, Talk:Arvanites#Hypocrisy.2C_Greek_extremism_and_double_standards, User_talk:Matia.gr#Hmmm and there are probably more scattered around here. +MATIA ☎ 21:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Ethnologue, Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO and the Arvanites of Epirus would appear to disagree with you MATIA. REX 21:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Whereas you can dictate to the Arvanites of Yanina that they MUST feel Greek. REX 22:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Rexhep's fan club

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)

Edit warring

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 Sidaway^Talk 14:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony is right, you three should be cool when editing and try to work something out. GrandfatherJoe 14:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, I've just blocked those three and now I find a new editor, Thrakiotis (talk · contribs), and GrandfatherJoe (talk · contribs) continuing this sterile revert warfare. Please, both of you, stop this. It makes you both look just as bad as the three I have blocked, and only fuels the suspicion that you may be sock puppets of the blocked editors. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting this stupid thing over with

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)

Some advice

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 Sidaway^Talk 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

facts against yet another calumny

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)

TAG ATTENTION PLEASE

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)

Where did that happen, pray do tell? In your dream, maybe? I don't get it. Everything I said can be found on the Helsinki Report. I never used the phrase ethnic Albanians, MATIA. You are lying (as usual). I also think that it's fair to point out that a consensus was never reached, there was always dispute, from the top of the talk page till the bottom. You also say all the facts. Which facts? You haven't provided a single source to support your arguments and you directly contradict the word of such reliable documents such as the cited report. You are a liar, there is no doubt about it. Gee, it's so sad the lengths you will go to try and discredit me. So sad :-))) REX 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

language vs. dialect

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)

Thank you very much. +MATIA ☎ 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

In other words, Arvanitika is perceived by most of its speakers as the language of the Pelasgians, by some other of its speakers as an Albanian dialect, by the vast majority of influential lingusts (such as the ones who wrote Ethnologue, UNESCO report, Helsinki Report etc) as an Albanian dialect. As for the other aspects, they currently are nil. The language is spoken by a few thousand people who are in their eighties, and in thirty years or so, it will be a dead language or dialect. The Greek government's assimilaion policy (the one mentioned in the Human Rights report) will be complete. The Greek state has succeeded in killing yet another language or dialect, and culture. REX 12:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Notice

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)

If Arvanites are ethnically part of the Greek people then this article is pointless! --213.100.205.149 00:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

POV - October 25th

MATIA, I would like you to change this article to the way you would like it. Then I'll review it and comment on the POV parts. If you do not respond to this message I'll take the initiative and make all the changes I think are appropriate. REX 10:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

REX, I'll try to assume good faith and suppose that you didn't notice that I'm going to wiki-vacations (that is I'll probably be offline for some days). Please, act in good faith, and use this subsection (as I've asked you before (14:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)) and point out what parts of the article are POV, according to you, and for what reasons. Thanks in advance and good luck. +MATIA ☎ 12:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, you know how I want the article to be and why. It is fully explained at my additional statement on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/REX, please read it and comment. I have no idea how you want this article to be or the Macedonian one. All I know it that you object to the current version, that doesn't mean much. I don't even know what we are disgreeing over. REX 12:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked you in your talk page the following: if you believe the article is ok remove the POV tag. If you believe that I or anyone else have written POV into this article, leave the POV tag and explain what you think is (are?) POV.

Check the arb. case I'm involved. Are these the reason for the POV? Write them and back them up. If I was wrong, remove the POV (or add other reasons). +MATIA ☎ 12:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen your "evidence", it's no good, It doesn't explain to me whay I am wrong. Check my additional statement and comment. I'll make yet another concession, I won't even ask for sources :-/ Just tell me what you object to and why. You know what I don't like, the supression of the fact that the Arvanites of Epirus call themselves Shqiptar etc. Why don't you want to include that, POV? REX 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA

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)

MATIA, I've been reading yourBrian Joseph links, and you lied, he calls Arvanitika a dialect, many many times. My personal favorite is this one: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian. Will you please accept my moderate compromise, so that we can get this thing over with! Rex^(talk) 11:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

REX's vandalism

• 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)

Arvanitika has NOT evolved seperatly over the past five centuries. Provide evidence of that! The Helsinki Report indicates a slightly different version of events. I also prompt MATIA to read the Ethnologue statement that 150,000 (2000) people speak Arvanitika. Where are your invisible sources. Why don't we discuss your defarmatory lies about me on the Greek Wikipedia. Why don't you present any counter arguments? The sources say that. Deal with it! My revert was justified. Do you have ANY sources to support all that? If so, bring them. Rex^(talk) 13:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Brian Joseph calling Arvanitika a dialect/variety of Albanian

• link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented. Without discussing the very difficult theoretical issue of what the difference is between a language and a dialect, it is important to note that most of the attention that has been paid to dying speech forms in recent years has been to whole languages that are threatened, not to marginal dialects of languages that are otherwise thriving. Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. … While it is certainly true that there are some

such cases of loss in Arvanitika, some of Trudgill’s claims may be overstated in the light of the full range of Arvanitika dialect diversity, as Hamp has shown.

• link 2: In a sense then, looking at an on-going contact situation such as that mentioned above involving Urdu, Marathi, and Kannada speakers in Kupwar is more crucial for understanding the Balkan Sprachbund than are constructs from modern syntactic theory. Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund, for these typically village-based situations approximate the contact situation in the Balkans 600 years or so ago in ways that an examination or comparison of the various present-day, generally urban-based, standard languages cannot. What one sees in examining the urban standards is perhaps the aftereffects of the contact from several centuries ago, but it is not such a direct window on the conditions that gave rise to the Sprachbund effects.

• link 3: Arvanitika is to be considered a

dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect).

• link 4: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian.

I believe that it is now perfectly clear that the above, in conjunction with the Helsinki Report and UNESCO and Ethnologue and Encarta and Britannica Arvanitika is a dialect of Albanian regardless if MATIA and Theathenae like it or not.

Also, the Helsinki Report says that the Arvanites of northwestern Greece (Epirus and Western Macedonia) call themselves Shqiptar

Also, Ethnologue says that there are 150,000 speakers of Arvanitika.

Can MATIA and Theathenae explain themselves, they have not provided ANY sources to support their edits, all they do is revert and then not be able to explain why. So much for MATIA, I at one moment in the past had thought better of you, silly mistake of mine, to think that you were neutral. Even if God himself verified what I say above, I bet you wouldn't believe it. GET SOURCES! Rex^(talk) 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I choose not to believe anyone who comes on Wikipedia claiming to be Greek, and then slaps an Albanian flag on the end of his name tag. Tacky, to say the least.--Theathenae 13:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No counter-arguments, Theathenae? Of course not, you don't have any. This will prove to be MOST useful :-) behold the eagle of Skenderbeu Rex^(talk) 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's actually ripped off from the Byzantine eagle, but don't let that stop you, Ρετζέπ Μπογιατζίου.--Theathenae 14:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah right! I know it's Roman! Rex^(talk) 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it a rather ugly flag myself.--Theathenae 14:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It's not a sissy flag and another one I know, but do not car to name. Rex^(talk) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your puerility amuses me greatly.--Theathenae 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well you started it quote: I find it a rather ugly flag myself.--Theathenae 14:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC). Rex^(talk) 14:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What? I can't even express an opinion on a matter of taste now? Whatever happened to your UK human rights charter? Ts ts ts...--Theathenae 14:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said you couldn't. I was getting at the fact that you seem to think that you can critisise flags, but I can't. Tut tut! Rex^(talk) 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Skanderbeg was proud of his connection with Byzantium, that's why he adopted the double headed eagle as his emblem in his fight against Ottomans. (quoting WP: "Voltaire thought the Byzantine Empire would have survived had it possessed a leader of his quality", I haven't read that part of Voltaire myself, I've added many other things I've read about Scanderbeg on the related wiki and various links on the buttom)

Brian Joseph clearly states that Arvanitika and Tosk share a common origin, and he also calls it a dialect, variety etc. We could name this common origin as "ancient Arvanitika" or "ancient Albanian". But if you read BJ you'll see that Arvanitika (apart from the greek words) is closer to that "common origin" than modern Albanian. And Arvanites called their language Arvanitika during those last 6 (or howmany they are) centuries.

+MATIA ☎ 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, that's original research, it's your own conclusion. Brian Joseph doesn't SAY it, it's made up by YOU. Rex^(talk) 21:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I had proposed the phrase "Arvanitika language belongs to the same language family as Albanian Tosk" in early September (this is a copy paste from Talk:Arvanites). You REX didn't accepted it. As for your claims on my original research, check Trudgill or BJ: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/publications/1999comp.pdf

+MATIA ☎ 22:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting me again. Come now MATIA, that thctic is stale by now. I have read that thin many times. NOTHING in there says that Arvanitic is not an Albanian dialect. NOTHING! Therefore my wording complies with Wikipedia policy and you are unjustified in removing it. Is it not true for me to say that Arvanitic belongs to the same language family as Icelandic (Indo European). What do you want? Tell me, I want this thing over with. Rex^(talk) 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, the status of Arvanitic as a language or a dialect is disputed. Why can't we be neutral and use the form that ALL OTHER languages use in these circumstances X (linguistics), just like Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) etc. Rex^(talk) 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If Macedonian language is good then so is Arvanitika language. See also Talk:Arvanites#language_vs._dialect. +MATIA ☎ 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, but UNESCO, Britannica and Encarta all say that Arvanitic is a dialect and Macedonian a language. WP:V? Also, AAT is the Code for ARVANITIKA ALBANIAN, I suppose Arvanitika Albanian language will do. Rex^(talk) 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Albanian chauvinism strikes again

The Albanian chauvinists à la User:REX/User:Rexhep_Bojaxhiu/User:GrandfatherJoe/User:Albanau/User:Tpilkati etc. are at it again. The President of the Hellenic Republic was forced to cancel his trip to Albania yesterday after the failure of the Albanian authorities to guarantee his security against Albanian extremists whose ultimate aim is to annex Çamëria (the Greek region of Epirus) to a Greater Albania.[9] Truly disgusting.--Theathenae 09:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You realize that comparing editors to potential assassins might be considered a personal attack, and result in you being blocked? (I haven't read the above comments to know whether this is tit for tat, but in the end it doesn't matter; that would just result in everyone getting blocked.)

Anyway, the reason I'm here is that +MATIA has asked me to evaluate some of his sources for the dialect/language debate. (BTW, I have no interest in either Greek or Albanian. I once tried swimming to Greece, but never made it, so I haven't even been to the Balkans.) All the sources MATIA provided except one agreed that Arvanitika was an Albanian (Tosk) dialect. One called it a sister dialect to the Standard Albanian dialect; another said that it was more precisely a group of dialects, not a single dialect. The one exception used the word "variety", perhaps to avoid the issue. However, these were all based on narrowly linguistic conceptions of mutual intelligibility, not on ethnolinguistic conceptions of self identity. One source specifically brought this up, but didn't try to resolve the issue.

In cases where speakers of two mutually intelligible speech varieties consider themselves to speak different languages, as in the case of Malaysian and Indonesian, or standard Hindi and Urdu, or Serbian and Croatian, then this is usually spelled out explicitly. Anything less is misleading. Calling Arvanitika and Albanian separate languages contradicts normal linguistic criteria; calling them dialects of the same language ignores the ethnolinguistic facts.

How about something along the line of "Arvanitika and standard Albanian are mutually intelligible varieties of Tosk Albanian. However, the people have distinct ethnic identities. Arvanitika has been stronly influenced by Greek, and they consider their language to be distinct from Albanian"? I don't know if that's an improvement, but from what I understand I don't think it misstates the case. Unless this has already been resolved? kwami 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. Had an edit conflict with Mik2 below. S/he makes some good points. Ethnicity is identity, not ancestry.

What is all this fighting about?

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

Rex, no, not all linguists would call Arvanitike a dialect. Most linguists are concerned with the grist of a language (the grammar and such), and they would call A a dialect based on mutual intelligibility. However, there is also an entire field of sociolinguistics. There are many many linguists would do not try to reduce a language down to its grammar, as if it were some sterile abstraction that could exist outside the people who speak it. Their conceptions of language are often ethnolinguistic, and many of them might call A. a language. (I say might, because I don't know any linguists who refer to it at all!) As I said above, any responsible linguist would cover both sides of the issue. If Wikipedia tries to present A. as either a dialect or as a separate language, without any clarification, then yes we would indeed look foolish. We need to do both. kwami 20:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

about the edits by user 67.101.31.233

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)

Explain myself

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)

• The term Arvanitis dates back to the byzantines and I think it's an arvanitic not a greek term, like Arberor - I'll proove these later
• Since Arvanites left Arvanitia (their terms) let's say 500 years ago, and as Brian Joseph (among others) prove that Albanian has evolved since then and Arvanitika has kept some archaic forms and inherited some Greek elements - the two languages(or dialects or whatever anyone wants to call them) have developed seperatedly. Notice as well the distance in km (or miles). Back in 1500 AD they didn't have TV, internet, wikipedia etc (compare with Colombus, he discovered America and it wasn't known for decades)
• While I agree with you about "Modern Tosk" (sic) I don't know if the word modern is ok or we should use something more apropriate
• Check also my other response. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 10:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point:

• I don't know about Arvanitis. As I've said, we could say that it is the Greek name for them, but the Albanian Singular Masculin name is Arvanit, Albanian Singular Feminine is Arvanite and Albanian plural is Arvanitë, but i thought that we agreed that their names for themselves was Arbërorë.
• I don't want to sound lika a parrot, but saying that it evolved on its own is original research. In the Helsinki Report it indicates that the Arvanites and the Albanians were the same thing with only local differences until 1830 (well not in those exact words). Therefore, Arvanitic has not been isolated from the rest of Albanian for 500 years. This is a hearsay statement of mine now, but I know that the Arvanitic translation of the Bible (the one advertised in arvasyl.gr) is in fact a Tosk Albanian version (written in 18**, I can't remember the exact year) which was used by "Albanians" in Greece and Cameria, so you cannot say that all links had been severed. Without unquestionable evidence of a seperate evolution, I think that it would be best to avoid mentioning the whole thing.
• "Modern Tosk" is so far, the best i can think of, except Brian Joseph uses Shqip. That is a little misleading in my opinion because Shqip (Modern Standard Albanian) is based on the Tosk dialect, but has a deep and apparent influence from Gheg. I would recommend that Shqip be used, the only problem is that it excludes all other Tosk (the real Tosk) dialects (ie Shqip is not even Tosk, it's almost artificial). Modern Tosk will suffice, I think. It's not the most pleasing of words, but it is true as all we know is that Arvanitic is seperate from Tosk Albanian now. When it became seperate is unknown. 500 years ago, 300 years ago, 5 years ago, who knows? Modern Tosk is quite vague as it could mean anything and therefore is true and accurate in all cases. See Modern English and see how many years back it dates. If that can be used, the modern Tosk certainly can be used.

I'm glad we're actually discussing instead of screaming :-) Rex^(talk) 12:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Origin of name

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)

There are many related (or almost related) names Arnaut, Arbanitai, Arvanites, Albanitai, it's a big list and I 'll try to write it. If we stick to byzantine sources Arvanites and Albanians are both recorded. If we go back, then it's Ptolemy's Albanopolis and Arbon which seems related to Arbanitai, and Arvanitai. It's a long story and I'm still trying to sort it. +MATIA ☎ 23:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

REX try to let me write it first and then dispute it. +MATIA ☎ 00:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

reverts

Matia, if an admin blocks Zogu for violating 3RR, s/he will have to block you as well, for you are equally guilty. (Actually, you violated 3RR first.) They cannot block Zogy for vandalism, because Zogu has not been vandalizing the page. You may not agree with Z's edits, but that's a difference of opinion.

Zogu, I would suggest that you engage in discussion on this talk page to justify your edits. (For one thing, it is appropriate to link Arvanites to Arvanitika language, where the dialect/language debate is discussed. Linking to Albanian only might be construed as censorship. Also, you appear to be removing useful information, such as the history of the people and the status of their language. Repeated removal of information, without showing that it is incorrect, will be construed as vandalism and will get you blocked.) When a page is in dispute, as this one is, it is considered polite to discuss your ideas here first, and to try to work out any disagreements before you make changes. At the very least, you should give evidence for your opinions.

If the article as it now stands is the concensus version, then I suggest that everyone who supports it revert Zogu if s/he doesn't justify the changes. However, it would be wise to discuss it here. For example, Zogu says that the Arvanites belong to the Albanian rather than the Greek church. That should be easy to verify one way or the other. If there are repeated, unjustified reverts of consensus, then I or another admin might block the reverter for vandalism. However, that won't happen if both sides violate witiquette. kwami 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly did I violate wikiquette? See also this, that and that.

Are the removal of paragraphs vandalism? (some of those paragraphs that were discussed thoroughly, long before I started editing this article and can be verified even with google - wasn't this a simple vandalism?). I also disagree with some of the paragraphs that are here, but I didn't delete them.

WP:3RR "the rule should not be interpreted to mean that such vandalism must be left standing by a user who has already reverted three times."

I might report him if I could figure out who is who.

• Special:Contributions/67.101.31.233
• Special:Contributions/Kastrioti
• Special:Contributions/213.243.81.146
• Special:Contributions/Zogu
• Special:Contributions/Lekë
• Special:Contributions/210.211.69.2

+MATIA ☎ 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that they are all the same person. One IP is from Australia, one is from Russia and one is from the United States. Unless this person owns a private jet, it's impossible that they are all the same person. IMHO none of these users have been vandalising. See Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism#What vandalism is not. Your don't vandalise messages probably woulden't make them stop as as far as they are probably concerned, they are not vandalising, but adding valid information. I must say, most of the time, I agree with their edits. All these users appear to be newbies (like you wisely pointed out), so you can't really expect them to have grasped the concept of consensus yet. You have been here for months and haven't yet (from your ignoring the consensus at Talk:Arvanitic language). A word of advice, don't oversuse the don't vandalise templates. I know it probably makes you feel important when you do, but if someone is not vandalising, then it is just a personal attack. Also, don't edit war. Edit wars are harmful. Rex^(talk) 08:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As Rex said - voilating 3RR and personal attacks. (I once saw someone get blocked for a month once in arbitration, merely for calling someone a troll!) I've called people vandals and trolls too when it probably wasn't justified, so I can relate, but still, it makes it hard to take action against one side if the other isn't squeaky clean. And as I said to Zogu, continual reverts without justification could be taken for vandalism, but that's only if the editor shows bad faith, and not just because a newcomer gets resentful when someone reverts their edits without discussion. kwami 09:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kwami can you please explain to me why this wasn't a simple vandalism? I don't get it, please explain it to me. Thanks.

REX did you agree or disagree with Zogu's edits? I've pointed to you what's going on, on your talk page yesterday but you didn't do anything. Can you please clarify your comment. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 14:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have said before, that I agree with Zogu's edits. That doesn't mean that I am going to promote them, personally I agree with them (except that bit about the church), but as you are so dogmatically obsessed with promoting your POV, what else can I do? I'll consent to your POV within limits. However, Arvanitic does NOT share a common origin with Tosk, it shares a common origin with modern Tosk (or as BJ calls it, Shqip. ie standard/literary Albanian) AND Arvanitic has NOT evelved on its own for the past five centuries. Find proof of that! That's your original research and is very unlikely anyway. Rex^(talk) 15:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've come across articles and deleted three quarters of the material in them, because I thought it was wrong, unsupported, POV, irrelevant, etc. Sometimes I was right, but sometimes I was wrong. That in itself is not vandalism. It would be vandalism if I knew it were correct, and just didn't like it, or if I were following someone around and reverting them as a form of harassment. Now, if the history of the article has been confrontational, it's certainly considerate to try to figure out what's going on before making changes. But lacking tact isn't comparable to blanking an article and replacing it with YOU ALL SUCK! or the like.

Since Arvanitika is mutually intelligible with other forms of Albanian, and if you were to draw a family tree, A would be a sub-sub-branch of Albanian, it's entirely reasonable to say that it's not a separate language. Calling it a separate language is POV. Of course, if it's the POV of the speakers themselves, we need to respect that, and to report it. But not everyone is going to agree: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, ... This could certainly be an honest difference of opinion. And even if you can't see how someone could possibly believe what they're saying, well, people sacrifice their lives for all sorts of crap that I couldn't imagine anyone taking seriously, so that's hardly evidence of dishonesty. To make a community work, we need to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Newcomers especially will take some time to settle in. Often they're kids who don't know how to work with someone who holds the opinion you do, because they've never had to do it before. It's only when they demonstrate bad faith, either through hostility or refusal to work together, that we take action. Or if we have evidence of fraud, say that the editor is a sockpuppet or the like. Otherwise it's best to invite them to come in and talk, and ask them to support their arguments. Even then, I've come across editors who were mentally incapable of supporting the simplest assertion with evidence, or incapable of understanding that anyone could honestly disagree with them, and while that's pathetic, it isn't dishonest. I don't see anything Zogu's done that's vandalistic. S/he's made changes that are unsupported, but not unreasonable. They may be wrong, but that's what discussion and references are for. I've told Z that deleting information without showing it to be wrong or unsupported needs to be done with care, and not repeated against consensus without at least discussing the evidence. Certainly if I contributed to an article by removing some stuff I thought was wrong, and were accused of being a vandal for it, I would be offended, and I would not be inclined to cooperate with the person who attacked me. kwami 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

last change

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)

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)

discussion from Kwami's talk page

I'm moving this over so everyone has access to the discussion. kwami 19:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that REX and Theathenae have agreed before on the "common origin" and REX continued to disagree with the "evolved seperatedly for 5 centuries" (my conclusions from the talk pages). I think that they have a common origin and linguistically it is (and it 'll be expanded) analysed in Arvanitic language. Do you disagree with any of these? +MATIA ☎ 14:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never agreed in saying that Arvanitic and Tosk share a common origin (i have agreed that Arvanitic and modern Tosk (Shqip) share a common origin as per Brian Joseph), nor have I ever agreed in saying that it has evolved seperatly for 500 years. Find proof of that! I know that it is not true, read the Helsinki Report. Rex^(talk) 15:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kwami could you help us? +MATIA ☎ 15:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor edit last night to Arvanites that addressed just this. I don't know if it's still there. The way I see it, there are several dialects of Arvanitic, and these are Tosk dialects. (Ignoring ethnolinguistic considerations, of course.) Saying they share a common origin with Tosk makes A sound like a cousin to Tosk, rather than a daughter, as if Albanian were comprised of three branches, Gheg, Tosk, and Arvanitic. I think that pretty clearly misrepresents the situation. I simply said that "the Arvanitic language is a form of Tosk Albanian". Readers can then look up Tosk and Albanian and decide for themselves what that means; it bypasses the language/dialect debate altogether, but without being misleading as to how close Arvanitic and Albanian are to each other. Then I said that A has "been under Greek influence for centuries". I don't think that's being contested (is it?), and of course maybe not all A dialects have been equally influenced by Greek. It also doesn't deny that A and other forms of Albanian may have continued to influence each other while Greek was influencing A. kwami 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right Kwami, check this pdf. Look at the charts, it's clear that Arvanitic is a variant of Tosk and derives from Tosk. Therefore, saying that Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk is accurate. Rex^(talk) 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Note, though, that this article speaks of the Arvanitic language, not 'dialect'. Rather like Hindi/Urdu. Standard Hindi is a form of Urdu, and Standard Urdu is also a form of Urdu. Urdu is, in turn, a form of Hindi (in the broad sense). Hindi and Urdu are dialects of the same language in one sense, separate languages in another; sisters in one sense and daughters in another. No single word is going to capture their relationship. kwami 20:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, however, no Arvanitic language exists. However, UNESCO, Britannica and the University of Ohio above, all speak of an Albanian dialect. No evidence exists that it is (or can be) a language. Quite simply, there are no sources that call it a language, so the article title being Arvanitic language, isn't that POV? I think it is, calling what UNESCO calls a dialect a language in its own right. That's POV at it's worst. Rex^(talk) 20:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Yes, UNESCO calls it "a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian". As I've said, in the narrow linguistic sense, it's a dialect of Albanian. However, your third source says "Arvanitika is generally regarded as an endangered or even dying language". That alone refutes your argument. What you're saying is that Croatian, Ukranian, Macedonian, Indonesian, etc. are not and cannot be languages, because they're intelligible with something else. But culturally, socially, ethnolinguistically, they are separate languages. I don't know any Arvanites, but if they have a separate language identity, than most linguists would have no trouble speaking of the "Arvanitic language", even if a paragraph later they describe it as a "Tosk dialect". It's not an either-or proposition. I think the article should make clear that, as far as communication is concerned, it's a dialect of Albanian, but its speakers (some? many? all?) consider it to be a separate language, just as we would say for Croatian or Indonesian. At least, I assume we have evidence that Arvanitic speakers think of their idiom as being separate from Albanian? Or do they consider themselves to not be ethnically Albanian, but admit that they speak Albanian? kwami 21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, opinion is divided, even amongst Arvanites. In sourthern Greece, they say that they have nothing to do with the Albanians, whereas in northwestern Greece they call themselves Albanians and their language Albanian (the call themselves Arvanites in Greek though, see the infamous helsinki report). Rex^(talk) 21:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd think it would make sense for them to use 'Arvanite', since that's Greek for Albanian, or a derivative thereof, regardless of their ethnic identity.

If opinion is divided, there is less of a case for considering Arvanitic a separate language. But note that this is the case elsewhere as well. I know a Ukrainian who says Ukrainian is a "dialect" of Russian. There are non-nationalist Serbs and Croats who say they speak Serbocroatian. Plenty of Indonesians admit their language is Malay, and there are both "Hindi" and "Urdu" speakers who call their language Hindustani. Yet all of these are recognized as separate languages, because they're reinforced with official status. The vast majority of the world's languages have no official recognition, and some would call them 'dialects' because of that. But if Albania and Greece were still part of the Ottoman Empire, with no official recognition, would we want to call Albanian and Greek 'dialects'? And note that official recognition is not always enough. Moldavian has official recognition, and there are even a Moldavian-Romanian dictionary to "prove" it's a separate language. Yet most Moldavians consider their language to be Romanian, and the Moldavian dictionary is widely seen as a farce.

If opinion is divided, then that should be made clear in the article. Neither side should be made to look stupid. kwami 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Alvanos (Αλβανός) is Greek for Albanian. Rex^(talk) 22:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the OED, the λ and ρ were variable, and Ἀρβανῆτες is also recorded as a Greek word for Albanian. Ἀρβανητία was also a word for Albania. Maybe a bit like English for Anglisc, but essentially the same word. kwami 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Some scholars, who have not studied specifically Arvanites, may call Arvanites as Albanians. The word ethnic in that copy-paste from Bri. is the possible pov. Perhaps we could say Albanians (without the ethnic) in the Albanian language article, and have a wikilink there to Arvanites (who are the majority of people who spoke a language that was close to Albanian and lived in Greece etc, and are the settlers etc). As for the copyvio I still believe that copy-pasting a phrase from a commercial encyclopedia should be avoided, and we should check this (if the phrase hasn't changed) with a wikipedia expert on copyrights. +MATIA ☎ 22:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the copy vio should be avoided. I assume that's already been taken care of?

As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're saying. What's the other way around? kwami 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As REX said an Albanian in Greek language is an Alvanos. In an english book about Scanderbeg for example you'll might see Arnauts, Albanians, Arvanites etc grouped in one term "Albanians". In another english book about the 1821 revolution you'll might see Arvanites, Maniots, etc grouped in one term "Greeks". It's like seeing earth people from the Mars and then zooming into the Arvanites, if you don't zoom on them you'll might see them as... Europeans :)

The first paragraph of that Helsinki report (which I'm trying to crosscheck with various books) points out, that they have a very big problem (they loathe etc) if you call them Albanians (and as I've noted somewhere in the past, they'll probably react as if you have offended the honour of their mother). +MATIA ☎ 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, do you have any idea how absurd it sounds saying that Britannica is POV. You yourself have emphasised that the Arvanites are not Albanians, why are you now trying to include them in the Albanian language article? Do you have any idea how inconcistent that is? It is not a copyvio, as it is a sentence. Copyrights don't apply to sentences. They apply to names, pictures, logos etc. You didn't think that that bit about the Greek and Italian enclaves was a copyvio, did you? I would also like to ask you what is your authority for saying that Britannica is POV. Are there no ethnic Albanians in Greece? What about the Shqiptar of Epirus? You pretend they don't exist right? What about the Chams and the 600,000 ethnic Albanian immigrants? They don't count, do they? Either Arvanites are Albanians, or they are not. Make up your mind. If they are not, then the Albanian language article is not refering to them. Rex^(talk) 22:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anything can be POV. I think WP is the only encyclopedia that has NPOV policy (accurate is one thing, pov is another). That's why we should avoid weasel terms (not some scholars: Biris said that, Kollias said the other etc). I'm not trying to include them there. The settlers and the greek people who spoke Arvanitika are in a very wide sense speakers of Albanian language. The Albanian immigrants who came to work in Greece are ethnic albanians. +MATIA ☎ 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Helsinki Report says that there are c. 30,000 Arvanites in Epirus and Western Macedonia who call themselves Shqiptar and their language Shqip. Why are you pretending that thye don;t exist? Are thay second class, because ou don't approve of their views? Rex^(talk) 23:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Biris(1960) have no mention of Arvanites who self-identify as Shqiptars. I also have access to Kollias book and Arvanites who also use the term Shqiptar in their dialect of Arvanitika are mentioned in Arvanites. I don't hide them or pretend anything.. +MATIA ☎ 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So? The Helsinki Report mentions them, and that's sufficient. We cannot pretend that they do not exist because MATIA wishes it so. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. The Helsinki Report takes precedence over Biris and Kollias. What a shame, I guess we will have to add the Shqiptar to the first paragraph of the Arvanites article. WP:NPOV remember. Rex^(talk) 23:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on, English is my native language, but I'm not English. Ethnicity, nationality, and language are be independent variables, though they're highly correlated. And yes, any reputable encyclopedia in NPOV. And that 'correction' of the copy vio, Rex, you didn't even try! Yes, of course all that enclaves-in-Italy stuff goes too. (Keep the information, of course.) That's also cut & paste. Don't just give in grudgingly so Matia "won't grumble"; I'd grumble too. We should be concerned with producing something of our own rather than parroting EB like all those Wikipedia mirrors that parrot us.

From the Helsinki report, I would say that Arvanitic is several dialects, with limited intelligibility in some cases both with each other and with Albanian Shqip. Although traditionally considered ethnic Albanians, which is still the case in some areas, they consider themselves to be very much of Greek nationality everywhere, and today in the center and south are strongly opposed to any Albanian identity whatsoever. All that should be included, including the Shqiptar stuff. Of course it should.

But whether that makes Arvanitic a dialect of Albanian or a separate language is so hopelessly POV that no answer is going to be acceptable. Calling the language Albanian implies an Albanian identity (although that wouldn't have to be the case), and calling it a separate language denies the many Arvanites who consider their language to be Albanian. For language classification, Arvanitic is a series of Tosk dialects, just as Standard Hindi is a register of Urdu (or Hindustani, as it's now more often called). Whether people take offence at that is irrelevant: Cladistics does not reflect ethnic sensibilities: Arvanitic is Tosk. However, ethnolinguistically it is much more complicated. Arvantic may be Tosk cladistically but still not Albanian ethnically. Both need to be covered unambiguously.

Cladistically Albanian. Nationally Greek. Ethnically divided. Can't cover than with a single word. kwami 00:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The cladistically part is already analysed in Arvanitic language. The sociolinguistic part is missing for the time being. I have access to Kollias' and Moraitis' book and I've seen at least two differences between their books and the H report. +MATIA ☎ 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No MATIA, it isn't analysed sufficiently since Theathenae POVized it. The H report in in English and takes precedence over Kollias and Moraitis. Those books represent their authors POV whereas the Helsinki report is in English and it's purpose is to be NPOV. The content of those books is imputed "selectivly" to us by you and is therefore only advisory. You cannot exclude what the H Report says. Also, the sociolinguistic aspect would be original research as I have not yet found any source which discusses it. The sociolinguistic aspect does not exclude the fact that it is a dialect from the point of view of the Arvanits of Epirus and Western Macedonia. That will be mentioned as well i trust. Rex^(talk) 15:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually Mik2 wrote it that way, you thanked him/her and I checked it in Kollias. Would you agree to insert back in the phrase from Helsinki report about the sub-dialects that you removed? +MATIA ☎ 15:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about Theathenae. And do tell me, which bit about the subdialects did I remove? Subdialects exist, and we know it (Ethnologue mentions sub dialects). I'm talking about the fact that you selectivly exclude the Shqiptarë from the first paragraph! Rex^(talk) 15:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek-Arvanitic Writings

For easy reference:

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)

This is the link Kemla was referring to: [10].

I am surprised that no one talked about the contents of the link Kemla provided. Of course, I should not be surprised being that this discussion page looks more like a warzone. Moreover, Aldux is of no help being that for some strange reason archaeological evidence of writings are somehow unimportant or at least "unworthy" of some sort of mention. So much for basing history on some semblance of physical evidence.

I am aware that this so-called "sensitive" topic is so radioactive that any slight mention of the Arvanites being either completely Greek or completely Albanian will lead to heated controversy beyond belief. Yet, if there is archaeological evidence that shows Greek-Arvanitic writings, then why should they not be included in the article? The more people know about the Arvanites, the better.

Frankly, I find the Arvanites to be Greeks through and through (and not just merely "Hellenized Albanians"). The incessant arguments over their origins will only lead to greater confusion for the average reader. Moreover, any form of "compromise" established between two or more groups will ultimately weaken or decimate any form of historical accuracy (in exchange for "appeasing" a particular group(s) that only cares about deluding itself into false historical complacency).

If people have a problem with Arvanites themselves showing their history through archaeological evidence, then this article will only fail to address the history of the Arvanites in an historically accurate fashion. If the Arvanites are Greeks and have proof of their origins, then the least Wikipedia could do is give their physical findings/proofs some mention. Simple. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/10/05 8:19 P.M. EST

If you are an Arvanitis or if you want to learn more about them, try Biris book. It's about 25-30$ and it is one of the most NPOV books I've ever read (Biris uses a very scientifical approach). The only reason I didn't remove the reference on ancient greek inscriptions is that I've seen something similar somewhere (perhaps at the book Kollias has written). However, I wish you could understand how little this addition help people understand who are the Arvanites. Just for the record, Aldux is one of the very good admins and editors here at WP. As you say: Simple, over and out. +MATIA ☎ 01:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not an Arvanite (though I do appreciate the book recommendation). I am actually half Cretan and half Greek-Cypriot (though it does not matter to me since I am still completely Greek). Anyway, I apologize if I do not understand the supposed "insignifance" the ancient Greek inscriptions have on Greek-Arvanite history. I guess that just because something is small, it should not be given any attention. Kiss historical accuracy good-bye for the process of defenistration has been complete. I am in no position to judge your rating of Aldux as an administrator/editor. Yet, every time I edit something pertaining to the Greeks that is worthy of one's time and energy (with content that is informative and historically accurate), I end up having my edits removed by Aldux. Wonderful. I get insulted for my "insignificant" edits and I get badgered by Aldux for providing good edits. Don't mind my social commentary. Send Aldux my regards. - Deucalionite 12/10/05 8:52 P.M. EST

You just have to get more experience with wikipedia. I'm for historical accuracy 100% but this article lacks many things about Arvanites. Arvanites and Albanians are not known to write (Arvanites sometimes used Greek for writing and Arvanitika for oral communications, Albanian poetry and literature is about two centuries old), but they are both known as good soldiers. Taking that in mind you'll understand why the ancient greek inscriptions that might be related with arvanitika can be considered by many readers as pseudoscience (check WP:NPOV). I'm sure we'll be in touch. +MATIA ☎ 02:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaining more experience with Wikipedia requires one to become "wikified" (Western Europeanized). Of course, I am not implying that you are "wikified" being that you are honest enough to state that you are in support for historical accuracy. However, there are some "wikified" people here that could care less about historical accuracy even though they have Ph.D's and graduate degrees (I could mention a few names, but I am in no mood to do so nor do I care).

The Greek-Arvanitic writings should be included in the article because it expands on not just the literary record of Arvanitic history, but also on the archaeological record. However, one must check if the archaeological artifacts with the Greek-Arvanitic writings are authentic and not mere modern fabrications. If such confirmation data were to be collected and presented, then would you be more inclined to place the information about the writings in the article?

Also, just because Arvanites and Albanians were good soldiers does not prove that Arvanites were Albanians. The Sfakians were excellent guerrilla fighters and yet their military capabilities did not change the fact that they were Greeks. Just so you know, those who consider physical (well-documented, well-analyzed, and well-dated) archaeological evidence as "pseudoscience" are usually those who distribute pseudoscientific information. The Albanians have a huge case of Cognitive Dissonance and are scrambling for any "evidence" or "interpretation of evidence" in order to justify their existence. Granted, I can understand one's urge to possess an illustrious heritage and past. In a sense, it hurts for a proud populace to not have a glorious ancient past. However, social reality dictates that an illustrious past can only exist if the present time is filled with achievements in fields of knowledge and practice. For the Albanians to go off in a propagandistic fashion stating how Arvanites were Albanians is not news to me. When you deal with people who have extreme cases of Cognitive Dissonance, you need to expect the worst.

Of course, a common counterargument to what I have stated so far comes in the following package: "Well, the Greeks were propagandists too and they assimilated this people and that people and people over there blah blah blah, which is why the Arvanites were Albanians." To be honest, there are those who do not know that to the Greeks "assimilation" has a different meaning than what the standard definition of the word provides. When it comes to assimilation, people expect to see an innocent native non-Greek people being forced to become Greeks. However, social reality dictates that the tenets of Greek "assimilation" entail the unionizing of scattered Greek tribes into a more standardized Greek mainstream. Besides, it is not the first time that existing Greek tribes underwent a Hellenizing process in order to befit a more culturally superior Greek form (blame the Athenians for that trend). Even in medieval times the Maniots followed the tenets of "Romiosyni" (in short, they were "Hellenized" in the medieval sense of the word) during the age of the Greek Byzantine Empire. However, this does not prove that just because the Maniots were "Hellenized" in the medieval sense that they were not Greeks to begin with.

People have exploited the so-called grand "differences" between Greek tribes and have given modern populations a heritage that does not rightfully belong to them (example: F.Y.R.O.M.). The Albanians are no exception to this little fact of social reality. I, at first, assumed that the Albanians were in fact descendants of the Illyrians. However, as I conducted more research, I realized that the Albanians have claimed things that just do not belong to them. The claims were so outrageous (Socrates was Albanian, Odysseus was Albanian, Alexander the Great was Albanian, the Epirotians were Albanians, etc. etc. etc.) that I had serious doubts about the whole Albanians being Illyrians thing. Moreover, the claims have a legacy going back to Enver Hoxha who struggled to establish a "legitimate" history of Albania by any means necessary.

I have read the contents of this discussion warzone and realized that too much time is spent trying to "compromise" with Albanians and their "evidence." It would not be right for a person of your intellectual caliber to spend so much time arguing over useless propaganda and half-truths while ignoring a potentially important piece of archeaological evidence that could shed light on the history of the Arvanites (and possibly put a definitive stop to the useless ramblings of "Arvanites were Albanians").

I am probably going to expect people stating this little phrase to me one of these days: "But Deucalionite, you are an obviously blatant case of unadultered Greek bias." Tell me something I don't know. I am fully aware of my biases, but social reality dictates that every human being has a bias. Even neutrality is a bias because not all neutrally-minded people are historically accurate in how their understand social history. As they say, the bias of no bias is a bias in of itself. I digress. The point I am trying to make is that if a person is going to follow in the way of a certain bias, then the least the person could do is base his bias on reality or on realistic processes. Of course, I am in no mood to debate over empiricism even though it is needed to an extent (along with the subconscious "gut-instinct" that extends a person's understanding of his/her surroundings beyond the five common senses).

Anyway, I could write in this warzone until the arrival of Terminus. To repeat a question I asked earlier, if confirmation data on the writings were to be collected and presented, would you then be more inclined to place the information about the writings in the article? Answer at your best convenience. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/12/05 12:16 P.M. EST

More data on those findings are needed. I've rewritten your addition and moved it at a seperate section (Arvanites#Ancient_Greek_inscriptions). I must tell you that there are archaeological findings of Byzantine and Ottoman era (inscriptions in Arvanitika for example).

Arvanites self-identify as Greeks. While that's more than enough for me, they also have their history and their culture that are all the proofs that may be needed.

If you read more carefully my previous comment, you'll see that I've written they were soldiers, not writers. They fighted instead of writing poems or novels.

In that article I'm mostly interesting in Byzantine and Venetian historical records. While there can be many theories for X, Y, or Z people, the historical records are not just theory, but facts. Of course facts should be cross-checked, but that is easier than proving a theory for something that is not recorded by historians. I have many notes on Arvanites, from the various books I've found at libraries, that I haven't yet presented. Perhaps I'll try to do so within the next days. +MATIA ☎ 01:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

== Famous Arvanites ==

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)

First of all it is Arvanitic not Avranitic. Secondly this is a carefully selected and verified list of people. Third, vandalism of this article will be reported instantly. +MATIA ☎ 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

First of all it is Arvanitic not Avranitic

Firstly I’m quite aware its “Arvanitic” as I used the word several times in my initial post and unintentionally misspelt it once, its called a typo

Secondly this is a carefully selected and verified list of people.

Carefully selected by whom? By nationalistic fanatics in search of foreign history?

Third, vandalism of this article will be reported instantly

The only one vandalising this article is you and several others by adding historically incorrect misinformation, it is a violation of the wikipedia rules to intentionally add false unsourced information to articles. (see: Reliable_sources Verifiability)

Botsaris phara was from Souli, the oldest historical records for that phara date around 1500

Yes precisely he was a souliot, I suggest you read up on Souliotes

Pangalos was from Eleusina or Agkistri, both the general and his grandson has declared repeatedly their Arvanitic identity

Sources/Links:

Krieziotis was from Karystos an Arvanitic village

Sources/Links:

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).

If you keep making these assertions you are going to need to back them up with some authentic verifiable evidence from non biased NPOV sources.

(for example Mercouris Boua, an Arvanitis war-leader who fought the Ottomans). Most of these...

Most is not all, each and every one of these historical figures ancestry needs to be proven to be Arvanitic from an authentic historical source or it will be permanently removed and belive me I will personally go through the Arvanitic article with a fine tooth comb and remove anything which is innacurate and/or false.

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)

Listen Matia.gr stop basing your judgements of these particular Historcal figures lineage on Arvanitic folktales. Some of the less well known people you stated may very well be Arvanites but what you need to provide is Authentic verifiable NPOV evidence, I’ll give you some more time to find evidence that clearly states that these people were Arvanites, if you cant I will remove their names from the article, Simple as that. E-mail adress 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Eleftheria Arvanitaki

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)

response to User:E-mail adress and some questions

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)

questions for User:E-mail adress: are the refugees from the 1922 disaster at Asia Minor less Greeks? Pontioi are less Greeks? Cretans are less Greeks? Eptanisioi (Επτανήσιοι) are less Greeks? What about the "native" inhabitants of Athens (Γκαγκαραίοι), are they more Greeks? (keep in your mind, before answering, that Γκαγκαραίοι were Arvanites). Read these carefully, along perhaps with previous discussions in that huge talk page and please explain your position. +MATIA ☎ 12:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pay attention MATIA and Stop straying from the preliminary subject and building strawman arguments, here we are discussing the “arvaniteness” of the people who you have listed as Arvanites. Im not interested in discussing the Greekness of the various populations you have mentioned, if you wish to discusss them go to the GreekTalk Page. E-mail adress