Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:19, 14 February 2006

Consensus draft?

Based on the previous discussion, I've drafted the following to document what I think might become a consensus, with a few open questions at the end:

1. The article should clearly reflect the self-identification of Arvanites as ethnically Greek.
   1. It should not label Arvanites as an "ethnic minority" or an "Albanian minority".
   2. It may describe other views, including that of some Albanians who regard Arvanites as ethnic Albanians, and it shouldn't label such a view as inherently wrong or bad-faithed (though in conflict with the group's self-identification).
   3. It should not take over the claim that Epirus Arvanites (as opposed to the southern ones) "are regarded" as nationally Albanians, because that claim is poorly sourced and we don't have evidence that it is shared by the group in question.
   4. It should generally refrain from making absolute statements about people's stances, hedging statements where appropriate ("most Arvanites" etc.)
2. The article should clearly reflect the scholarly consensus that linguistic affiliation and ethnic affiliation are different things.
   1. It should reflect the scholarly consensus that Arvanitic is a "form of Albanian". The formulation may leave open whether that means:
      1. "a separate Arvanitic language, side by side with Standard Albanian, within an "Albanian" language family",
      2. "a separate Arvanitic language, as an emergent Ausbausprache".
      3. "an Arvanitic dialect group within a single Albanian language".
   2. It should mention that many Arvanites object to seeing their language linked to Albanian, and it should mention that Arvanites do not regard Standard Albanian as their Dachsprache.
   3. In the absence of sources to the contrary, the article should mention the self-designation of Epirus Arvanites as "Shqip(-tarë)", but it should not be worded so as to imply the claim that this means national identification with Albania.
3. The article should reflect the scholarly consensus about the historical/geographical origins of the Arvanites from territories of Epirus and modern Albania.
   1. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the only serious theory we can report on is that the ancestors of the Arvanites came out of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors of modern Albanians.
   2. Other hypotheses (Non-Albanian Epirotic origins; separate Thraco-Illyrian origin; autochthonous "Pelasgian" southern Greek origin etc.) may be mentioned, but must be evaluated strictly in light of the Reliable Sources policy; if necessary treating them according to Misplaced Pages's policies on non-scientific fringe theories.
4. The article should reflect the scholarly debate about the etymological origin of the name "Arvanites".
   1. It should mention that both name stems "Αρβα-(νίτης)" and "Αλβα-(νός)" have been attested since antiquity, and have been used more or less indistinguishably over a long time, with reflexes of "Αρβα-" also being used as an endonym of Albanians.
   2. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the article should present as a strong majority position in international scholarship that both name forms are cognate.
   3. Other hypotheses, about "Arvan-" etymologies independent of "Alban-", can be mentioned as a serious minority position insofar as they have been proposed by prominent linguists (Babiniotis, apparently?)
5. Not yet determined: Should the group be characterized as a "linguistic minority" in the first sentence? (If not, what else?)
6. Not yet determined: Should the first sentence enumerate all the names (including "Shqip" and the Albanian names?) Alternative: Only use "Arvanites (Greek: Αρβανίτες)", and leave the discussion of all the different exonyms and endonyms to a separate paragraph.
7. Not yet determined: Should further editing, based on these guidelines, proceed from Zogu's version (closer to the previous versions), or from Lukas' version (rewritten parts), or from Matia's preferred older version from December?

If we can agree on something along these lines, I suggest we archive this talk page, put a version of these guidelines (updated where necessary) in a prominent, permanent place on the new talk page as a document for later editors, and request unprotecting. We should also put a Template:Controversial sign up in the article to point to this discussion. Lukas 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comments by MATIA

Good job Lukas. We could use Template:ActiveDiscussion perhaps that'll save us from the reverts. I'm willing to work towards a better article, that will satisfy some of Zogu's concerns. talk to +MATIA 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd now say we can safely request unprotecting, then as a first thing (for practical reasons) make it provisionally identical to Zogu's temporal page (which lacks most of the really contentious bits), and then gradually start working in whatever bits are needed from my draft and from the pre-edit-war version, or new material, in the light of the principles above. The remaining editorial issues can be worked out in the process, that's just a question of how to arrange stuff within the article structure. Lukas 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are paragraphs missing from Zogu's version, and he haven't provided reasoning for that (as he didn't provide reasons for the revert-war he participated). I understand that these (long ago before edit war material) won't be cut. talk to +MATIA 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If they don't contain anything contrary to the consensus, of course not. If in doubt, I'd say it's sometimes safer to just write a paragraph from scratch than to cut-and-paste old material. Lukas 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna leave a message to the various editors, hoping that we'll hear their opinion here. talk to +MATIA 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, let's wait for input before we ask for unprotection. Lukas 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope so but I must also notice that most of the editors involved didn't participate in the conversation the days the article was protected. talk to +MATIA 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

input from Zogu

I am skeptical of unprotection. Somehow I have feeling that revert war start again, when they start revert back to anti Albanian version. Much better agree on one version as soon as possible and then have page unprotected and use that version. Someone should make proposal version and we can amend that until is good. Matia has not yet makbe proposal. She criticice my proposal, but make none herself. Zogu 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to read again all my previous comments, if you believe this is needed, Zogu. talk to +MATIA 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Unlike Matia claims, no paragraphs have been deleted in my versionthat have not bee explained (apart from a incoherent list of words). I make that proposal and think that it would be better not to unprotect page until a version is agreed on. I also encourage you to read again all my previous comments, if you believe this is needed, matia. Zogu 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To get back to point, as I am actualy interested in finishing this, I think that Arvanites are a linguistic minority as helisnki report say that Arvanites are those whose mother tounge is Arvanitika. It refers to the people of Arvanit families who can not speak the language as people of Arvanit ancestry. As the language is characteristic of these people, they are linguistic minority and as the language is characteristec of these people, then what they call themselves in their own language should go first in forst paragraph. Zogu 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand that the current version, which contradicts the books I've mentioned in the article, cannot stay protected forever - the Arvanites are not an ethnic Albanian minority. If you are interested about Arvanites I 'd suggest Biris book for start. I will bring later quotes from books (unless someone else does this first) which show that the language doesn't make someone an Arvanitis - you may want to read what I've written in phara (this paragraph is summaries from Biris and Kollias). I'll also add (when I can) details about the demography from Moraitis, the position of the woman in an Arvanitic society etc. talk to +MATIA 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Matia, all your assertations are baseless. How do I know that you tell the truth about what is written in those books. I not speak Greek. The point is that me must agree on a version that is acceptable before unlocking. That way we avoid revert wars. What happen if page is unlocked? You (or someone else) revert back to anti Albanian version (which you have yet to explain why you were reverting to - you say I not explain my one revert, but you complain that I do something that you do two times) and then revert war continues. How is that helpful? We shuld agree on acceptable version (without anti Albanian remarks and without the "ethnic Albanian") and then you can improve. I have given proposal which you reject with straw man, you give no real reason. You say I remove paragraph, you not specify what paragraph. I would be happy to unprotect page not and add my proposal but you say no. Tell me, if page is unlocked, to which version will it be reverted? The anti Albanian version? Why you reject my proposal? Zogu 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read again the above draft. Can you please tell me how have I written the article if not based on those books? Could you also tell me which books specialised on Arvanites have you read? talk to +MATIA 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read helsinki report. Very accurate and verivyable resource. I just find it very strage that you revert to version which say "linguistic minority" and now you say that your sources say that they are not a "linguistic minority". I see four possibilitys here. Either you are falsifying what is written in those books, or you had not reached that section at that time (and you conviniently found it now :)), or you are anti Albanian and are you disagreeing with everything I say, or you are making blind reverts (like you say I was :)). The helsinki say that arvanites are those whose mother tongoues is arvanitika. I am not insisting on this and we can just call them a "people". That is true too. However, we still use their name in their own language in first paragraph with Albanian and Greek for comparing. I still you should make proposal version at say /test2. It is not that hard work. Zogu 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zogu if you can't understand those books because you don't speak Greek then that's your problem. You express an opinion about the Arvanites but you're not even able to speak their vernacular language. Your only motive is blind nationalism, plain and simple. Miskin 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

comments by Macrakis

Lukas, thank you for your synthesis. I agree about "the scholarly consensus that linguistic affiliation and ethnic affiliation are different things" but I think you should add "political loyalty". I believe part of the issue here is that Greece defines itself as a nation-state, fusing the question of ethnic identity with the question of political loyalty. This is exacerbated by the confusion between the English word "ethnic" and the Greek word "εθνικό" (national). Clearly, Arvanites who are loyal Greek citizens do not want to be viewed as members of a different "nation" in the political sense, and so the term "ethnic group" becomes unusable. --Macrakis 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not call them "people"? Zogu 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "people" is just as problematic a term as "nation", because it has political implications. Personally, I think "ethnic group" is just fine, but as I say above, because of its ambiguity in a Greek-language setting, and because of the political history of the notion of "ethnic minority" in Greece, it is difficult to use it in that context. --Macrakis 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because like most of your claims, that would be a POV, Zogu. The article will be reverted to its previous version, based on the sources written by Arvanites. If you still have a point to make on status of the language then take it to Arvanitic language but don't edit here. Miskin 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the article will not be written solely based on sources written by Arvanites. It will give prominent and preferential treatment to self-identification of Arvanites, but it will be based also on international scholarly literature where that exists. - That said, I do share Macrakis' concerns that "people" is not a very good choice. Lukas 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: To make that more precise: I'm not sure whether Zogu meant "a people" or just "people" (given the fact his English isn't perfect). "A people" would be wrong, because it would imply separateness in ethnic terms. "People" is of course possible, but useless without some qualifying attribute. Lukas 14:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

input from Bomac

Well, as I know, Arvanites were always declared themselves as related to Albanians... Bomac 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, that statement isn't helpful as long as you can't source it. Question is, as long as the reference situation is as it is, would you accept an article along the lines set out above? Lukas 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is why on earth did those people edit(war)ed that article without one reliable source. Neither these are a matter of compromise with these editors nor WP:NPOV and the rest WP principles. talk to +MATIA 12:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is why on earth did matia edit(war)ed that article without one reliable source and the rest of WP principles. Matia add anti Albanian dada without resource and say that Arvanitika is not albanian dialect. She also say that arvanites are linguistic minority and now she say they are not. I have source, helsinki and unesco. What a pity matia accuse others of same thing she do :) Zogu 12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is why you two guys keep bickering about past edits instead of discussing the facts. :-) - By the way, for some reason I always thought Matia was a "he". Care to enlighten us? Lukas 14:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

more comments by Zogu, MATIA and Lukas

Reliable sources

I have noticed that Matia always link with WP:RS in an atempt to say that unesco and helsinki are not reliable sources but hers are. I can tell that Matia has not even glance at that page because if she did then she would have noticed that gidlines and what that page says about sources in other languages. I can not find any reason in that page why helsinki and unesco are not reliable sources, but that page reises serious questions over wether matias sources can be used. As far as I can see, when matia quote forein sources she must include original text next to it. So matia is in violation of this policy because she not do that. According to policy online sources in english (like helsinki and unesco) are to be given preference and we can do in this case because they are written by expert linguists (like Banfi). I also think that matias sources may not be able to be used because they may are partisan sources as they may reflect the pov of the arvanits of south greece (that probably what authors are). Zogu 13:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Specialised sources by experts are needed for specialised topics, and non-English sources are used all the time for such topics. Do read what you cite more carefully please. talk to +MATIA 14:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, they should include next to it the original-language quotation, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. :) Zogu 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Matia, I don't agree with Zogu in his interpretation of WP:RS as forbidding the use of non-English references. English language material is to be preferred where there is a choice. But if a particular claim or POV is documented only in sources in some other language, then the absence of English material is no reason to ignore that position. That goes for Greek as well as for Albanian material (if anybody wants to quote Albanian sources.) O yes, and the clause about quoting the original wording is meant for cases where a translation of a literal quote is to be included in a text, not for cases where a foreign source is just used as a reference.

Lukas 14:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Venetian historical records are in Italian and those of Byzantium (χρυσόβουλα) in Greek, they are cited in the Greek books I've mentioned and if one finds a good book in English I'll be interested. talk to +MATIA 14:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

unlocking?

Have we agreed on version yet? I think that my proposal should be used as it is the same as matias (unsourced) version except the unsourced infomation has been taken out and the agreed points above have been used. If matia waznts to propos more changes do it now, please so that we can fix it get the page unlocked and use that version. This is taking so long. Zogu 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A single version should be agreed before unlocking so we can use that and avoid the edit wars that wuld certenly follow if the page is unlocked without a version being agreed. Zogu 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Omitted passages

I think Matia was disputing that any of the passages you omitted had been unsourced. For technical reasons, could you please point us others to the exact passages that are in question here? It's a long article, and it's a bit difficult to compare versions across two different pages, where you can't use a "diff" view. Lukas 16:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I make diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39220644&oldid=39220039. If matia think I deleted something with a source, please tell me what it is and present the source. Zogu 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also my version now say "linguistic minority". We havn't decided what to change that with yet. Why not plain "minority"? Zogu 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I see three major differences: One is the one bit that's really objectionable to the Albanian side, about "trying to invent" etc., i.e. ascribing inherently evil motives to the Albanian view. Yes, that should be left out (see point 1.2 above). Then the list of Arvanitic expressions - they don't really do any harm, but could just as well be moved to the Arvanitic language article. Then, a number of minor formulation details, all of which will be subject to further tinkering in the light of the principles above, but none of which really presents a serious problem right now, as I see it. So, yes, I'd suggest the Zogu version would be a place to start from. Lukas 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, about that one still contentious bit about the Epirus Arvanites and their self-identification as "Shqip" and what that means in terms of national identity: Before anybody starts to argue about exact wordings for that again, I think the only way we can get out of the mess is if we accept that the Helsinki report doesn't answer the question well, and read up on its sources ourselves. Can someone actually get hold of the Banfi thing? The paper quoted in the report (Banfi 1994) is unfortunately just an unpublished conference paper, apparently, but the following is likely to contain the same story:

Banfi E., "Minoranze linguistiche in Grecia: problemi storico- e sociolinguistici". In Minoranze e lingue minoritarie. Vallini C. (a cura di), Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, 1996, p. 89-115.

Unfortunately, our university doesn't have it. Lukas 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

request

Please see the test. talk to +MATIA 17:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First, find your own page and don't replace mine :) Also, you didn't say what was wrong with mine. Your current version is just as pov as the version you were reverting to and we will have to start all over again. What is the source for this dubius theory of Despotate of Epirus which is not mentioned in helsinki and again I have to rely on your words. Why start version with Arvanitic history. Start it with how they are today, not how they were. You need history section. Also your version include offensive anti Albanian propaganda. Please prepage proposal that has realistic chance of been acceptable, not just revert back a few months. Zogu 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a proposal and you wanted to see basic differences, so I did a proposal and I asked you in a nice way to check it. Perhaps you should move Arvanites/test to User:Zogu/test, right now it is in the namespace of the articles, I couldn't have realized that it is "your page".

To get back to the topic: If you want you may read a history book about Byzantium, at the time the main population moves occured that place was called Despotate of Epirus. The Albanian hero Scanderbeg, also used the term Epirus and Epirots frequently - it doesn't mean Greek or Albanian, it's a wider term that was used at that time. My suggestion is to start with who they are, they are not a minority of any kind, and most of them aren't speaking Arvanitika today. I don't believe that "my version inculdes anti Albanian propaganda", perhaps you could be more specific. talk to +MATIA 19:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I sorry. I saw that bit about "invent Albanian minority" and I think, what she try to do? I have added the Depsotate of Epirus to my version, so I think it is OK now. Are you sure about the D of Epirus claim though, I have heard of that state, I am not sure if the Arvanites have anything to do with it. If you are sure that it is reliable source, then OK. The dif now is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39235884&oldid=39226349 and you can see that they are almost the same except different order and anti Albanian propaganda is gone. Zogu 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ancient Greek inscriptions"

Just a note about the passage on the "Ancient Greek inscriptions": It's sourced, but it basically falls into the category of Pseudo-science (see point 3.2 above). I'm currently preparing a different article that's going to deal with just those inscriptions, from a different angle. This happens to be not just any odd inscription, which some other people say is Greek. At least one of them is an extremely famous one, being the earliest inscriptions in Greek! Saying that this is Arvanitic is a bit like saying that Beowulf is Chinese. You guys might just want to wait till that new artile, which will be at Dipylon inscription, is ready and then judge how to deal with it. If this stuff is to be included, it might go together with that further down that presents the various writers on Arvanitic and Kolias' claim about Pelasgic. Until we have decided, I vote for provisional exclusion.

And besides, if you guys now start all over quibbling over details of wording, I'll take the matter in my own hands and write the whole article from scratch. Take that as a threat. :-) (Seriously, sometimes that makes things easier.) Lukas 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I've now created a temporary user page at User:LukasPietsch/Inscriptions with a comparison of the accepted Greek readings and the "Arvanitic" readings. That's of course "original research" and not meant to go into the article in this form, just to serve as an internal point of orientation for our discussion. I think it'll be absolutely safe if we treat this stuff as pseudo-science. Lukas 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Form of Albanian?

Thanks for your proposals, Lukas. While they go a long way towards addressing the core issues, there are some important points that need to be clarified. No one is disputing the close genetic relationship between Arvanitic and Albanian, but defining Arvanitic as a "form of Albanian" is as problematic as defining Croatian as a "form of Serbian" or Urdu as a "form of Hindi". While they obviously descend from the same parent language, their speakers today identify with separate ethnonations. And, in the case of Arvanitic and Albanian, that parent language was not called Albanian, but rather Arvanitic, according to the contemporary Byzantine Greek sources. Thus, using your proposed wording would constitute an anachronism, as the Arvanites have always called their language Arvanitic, not Albanian. In fact, the wording should be reversed, as it is modern Albanian that is a form of mediaeval Arvanitic, and it is the Albanians who changed their name to Shqiptarët in modern times, in a process of nation-building of which the Arvanites were never a part.

That said, the question of the identity of the language was resolved by consensus months ago, with Arvanitic being clearly included in the family of languages for which modern linguists, in the interests of convenience perhaps, use the simple name Albanian - see Arvanitic language. I believe it unnecessary to disturb this delicate consensus in order to placate every disgruntled nationalist with a bone to pick.--Theathenae 15:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I can see your point. This still leaves us with the necessity of finding some formulation that we can use here as a quick characterization (and then point to the main article Arvanitic language. In the light of what you say, do you think the following would be okay: "...who speak Arvanitic, an Albanian language"? That would both imply some kind of separate-language status, express the relation to Albanian, and at the same time be compatible with the idea of treating "Albanian", in this instance, as a name for a language family, not the single language. Lukas 15:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, predicating it like that is problematic in my view, as Arvanites do not view their language as an "Albanian language", in the same way that Croats would reject calling Croatian a "Serbian language". Why not just use the formulation in Arvanitic language itself: "Arvanitic is on the branch of the Indo-European language family labelled Albanian by most linguists today, although Thraco-Illyrian was formerly the more common name."? Let's not forget that Albanian as the name of the language group only gained currency when the hypothesised link between Thracian and Illyrian was found to be rather weak, necessitating a name change.--Theathenae 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Problematic. First, it's simply too long for a first paragraph, which must be designed to give the clueless foreign reader a first rough orientation. Second, "Thraco-Illyrian was formerly the more common name" is, to the best of my knowledge, simply wrong (I'm not aware that that term was ever used, at least not internationally and during the last 100 years). Third, with all due respect, it's certainly a matter for Arvanites to decide what their ethnic identity is. But it's not up to them to decide what the classificatory status of their language is. That's up to the scholarly community of linguists. And, as I said above (point 2 above), there's a clear consensus about that in the literature. Lukas 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you are proposing would be equivalent to going through Misplaced Pages and inserting sentences like "Catalan is a form of Spanish" and "Dutch, a German (rather than Germanic) language".--Theathenae 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the difference is that in the case of Dutch and Catalan, the separate-language status is beyond doubt, whereas with Arvanitic it is very weak, and for us to be even as much as implying separate-language status is really not much more than a bow to ethnic feelings, not a reflection of the scholarly literature. 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of no known link between Thracian and Illyrian. In biology, when there were some species of which there was little known, biologists used to put them all in the one genus, a "trash-can genus". The same situation was here: We have Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, of which little was known, so some linguist had the idea to make a trash-can family, "Thraco-Illyrian", which from what we know now, it seems that it has as much sense as a Persian-English language family. bogdan 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a few delightful points:

• Arvanitika can be described as a form of Albanian because there are neutral sources describing it as such.
• The contemporary Byzantine sources give us the contemporary Greek name for those people (as they were written in Greek), not what they called themselves in their own language.
• The Helsinki Report refers to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians, therefore, so can Misplaced Pages.

You do realise that your views need not be taken into consideration as you have not cited a single source, but have give your own selective original research version of events. Notwithstanding the fact that many relevant, reliable and neutral sources describe the Arvanites as ethnic Albanians. For example the US Department of State (, ), I still think that Lukas's version is surprisingly pro Greek. Also, as people are disputing your version, how can you claim that there is a consensus when people are divulging from it? Sincerely, --anon 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to insist that the ethnic identification is a matter separate from the classificatory status of the language, which Theathenae was discussing. As for the ethnic identification, can I ask you to re-read point 1 in the outline above and state whether you think the US sources you quote contradict that? Lukas 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not as separate as you think. If they were, we would not have a separate "Macedonian" language, and we'd still speak of Serbo-Croatian rather than Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and even Montenegrin.--Theathenae 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That doens't stop a Mexican Spanish, a Canadian French and an Australian English existing, so what's your point? --anon 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't disagree with it, it is not inaccurate. Especially since the in the US context, "ethnic" means descent, so the US sources aren't calling them "an Albanian minority", if that's what you're worrying about. The last thing I would want is to violate the proposal. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in Thathenae's original research reasoning. This may change if he actually cites a source. --anon 16:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course, Misplaced Pages policy permits the great linguist Thathenae to declare Arvanitika an Ausbausprache contrary to the current scholarly consensus. -- anon 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern politics, history and linguistics are three different things. It is interesting however to note that the States Department of the USA, in the version currently online (1999 till 2004) have removed the false labeling "Ethnic Albanians" and replaced it with a description about the language. talk to +MATIA 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First sentence?

Folks, I hope you do realize that everything we've been quibbling about in the section above only refers to the first introductory sentences. Because that's really the only place where we're more or less forced to give a description/definition of what/who the Arvanites are in our own authorial voice. Everywhere further down, whatever views are expressed will be attributed to others.

Therefore, for a change: Let's have a constructive competition for a good first sentence. I suggest we do a kind of brainstorming: Not discussing and criticizing, but just making proposals (for the moment). Here's mine:

• Arvanites () are a population group in Greece whose linguistic heritage is Arvanitic, an Albanian language. Lukas 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Arvanites () are the descendants of Orthodox Christian settlers from the Despotate of Epirus (today's southern Albania and NW Greece) that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages, principally between the 13th century and 15th century. Zogu 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Arvanites () are ...

• Arvanites () are ...

about the lock

Shall we ask the article to be locked in the version that doesn't call them an ethnic Albanian minority? The discussions are very good and I would really love to see the light at the end of our tunnel, but... talk to +MATIA 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to use Template:Editprotected and clarify the edit you want the administrator to make. There has to be consinsus to that change of course, so what is you proposed change (in detail)? Zogu 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also you seem to have not understood what protection is? It is not endorsment of current version. The current version seem to be all you can think of! I oppose reverting it back to your version. We could revert it to Arvanites/test if you like, I will not oppose that. Zogu 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Im sure it can stay in current version for a few more days. If neutral source US department of state can call them ethnic Albanians, then so can Misplaced Pages. Until we have agreed on compromise version. Zogu 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure, you are sure. And a few days after we have a consensus (unlock and correct the article) someone will come back and label them again as "ethnic Albanian minority". The same thing is happening since autumn... talk to +MATIA

What happend to WP:AGF? Let's find consinsus now, not worry about what might happen. Why you not like Arvanites/test, it seems fine to me. Zogu 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

straw poll for provisional reverting and re-locking of the article

I believe that the article should be reverted to one version back and remain locked till the discussions are finalised. Editors may sign below with agree, disagree and four ~. talk to +MATIA 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It makes absolutely no sense to unprotect, revert, and reprotect, nor is this supported by the page protection policy. Also, such a course of action would be just an extension of the revert war which led to the most recent protection. The fastest and most productive way forward is for you all to reach a compromise. As I've said before, this should be easy, provided that you realize that Misplaced Pages's role is not to determine the Absolute Objective Truth, only to report, fairly, on the various views that have been put forward. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Let's see it then as part of the discussions. talk to +MATIA 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine as a straw poll. I just want to say that I think there's been some good progress. Once you have a workable version of the introduction that you all more or less agree on, please let me know. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. . agree - talk to +MATIA 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
2. . oppose - matia's version contains anti Albanian propaganda. Zogu 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. . oppose - We can't make decisions for Arvanites, since they declare as related to Albanians. Bomac 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
4. . oppose once we start quibbling over what the live version is like, we've lost focus. I don’t know if I have suffrage, that's for the admin to determine . --anon a.k.a. 70.86.127.130 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
5. . oppose - not because of preference for this version, but simply because it's a waste of energy. This or that version will be gone in one or two days anyway - and whether or not we will then have another edit war has nothing to do with it. But I do think we are close to the point where we can request unlocking for good. Lukas 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
6. . oppose - matia's version contains anti Albanian propaganda full of Greek chauvinistic claims.--Pjetër Bogdani III 19:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with test?

I have asked many times what is wrong with Arvanites/test and matia not tell me. I say that this version has all agreed qualificasios above and I asked for comments and matia not give any. Specificly what is wrong with it and why can it not be used. I would agree to unprotection and to use this. Zogu 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see matia took the time to anser marksweep but is ingoring me. I ask her again (hoping that she will assume more construvtiv atitide then the one she has had so far) to say her obdjections to my proposal arvanites/test after I have asked her many times. What is wrong with it why can it not be used? If there is a problem, it can be fixed, but it can not be fixed if you don't say what problem is. Zogu 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall we just start editing together at Arvanites/test, and then get the main page unblocked? I don't know what Matia thinks, but as I said earlier, to me the "test" version seems good enough as a basis to work from (though certainly not as a final result).

Procedural suggestion: when we resume editing, I think this would be a good guideline: Any material that has been the object of previous revert wars should not simply be re-introduced exactly in one of its previous wordings, but preferentially it should be re-written, double-checking possible sensitivities it might touch on. Lukas 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we evade the question of the identity of the language entirely and simply refer to the relevant article which treats the matter fairly and presents all conflicting points of view.--Theathenae 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you suggest a concrete formulation? Let me repeat one thing that I think people tend to forget: the article is going to be read by clueless foreigners, not just by Greeks and Albanians. We need to have a formulation that addresses the link to Albanian in some way, in the first sentence. Saying that they were "people originally from Epirus" and that they "speak Arvanitic" is simply not enough - the reader won't even know why then all the talk about not being Albanians further down in the article! The readers shouldn't have to first click on the Arvanitic link in order to find out that Arvanitic=Albanian is a potential issue. (Ceterum censeo Arvanitic language must still be re-worked too.) Lukas 10:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you must. "Arvanitic, which descends from the same parent language as modern Tosk Albanian." This is neutral, as Arvanitic is clearly distinct from modern Tosk, but of course shares a common origin with it.--Theathenae 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd still prefer "... a form of Albanian", "...an Albanian language", or maybe "... a language closely related to Albanian". Your formulation, in its specificity, doesn't seem to me to match the consensus in the linguistic literature, which - like it or not - actually describes Arvanitic as part of Tosk Albanian, not a sister to it. Lukas 11:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two are clearly unacceptable as they are offensive to the Arvanites. While foreign linguists may not ultimately care whether or not Arvanitic is labelled Albanian, the Arvanites clearly do. The third option is less absolute and could be considered if put in the right context.--Theathenae 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Brian Joseph shows the "sister thing" pretty good (keep in mind that some people refer to the "modern" Tosk - aka standard Albanian - and the "ancient Tosk" with the same name). talk to +MATIA 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read policy: Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. This is not about accepting your assertations on Arvanitic. It is about writing what can be found in the sources. As the scholarly consensus is A, then Misplaced Pages shall write A. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT the place to spread assimilatative propaganda. It is where we cite sources. Cite a source, then your views will be taken into consideration. --anon 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Create an account or log in, so we can talk as human beings. talk to +MATIA 12:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your mind if I provided documentation of Greek and Arvanite scholars calling Arvanite a "form of Albanian"? - That said, I'm still hesitant to concede that linguistic terminology should give way to people's lay opinions in such a way. Lukas 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you retracting your third proposal?--Theathenae 11:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The wording with related could be used perhaps at the middle and not at the intro of the article. talk to +MATIA 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I think this is pretty close to Zogu's version. Few things should be worked out, and many more things will be included (as I've mentioned before), so that a clueless reader can learn who are those people. talk to +MATIA 11:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it ignores the crusial point that the Arvanites in north Greece name themselves Shqiptar and has fringe theory about Arvanitika. I has resource and so it should be used. Regards, Zogu 11:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fringe theory??? I highly encourage you to compare Lukas changes and my additions here with your version. talk to +MATIA 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Arvanitika is part of Albanian language (dialect/form) according to all resources. You say that it is a related languge without resourse. That is fringe theory. Zogu 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Since they don't call themselves "Arvanites" but "Shqiptar", then it means that they're not Arvanites but ethnic Albanians. Therefore they don't have any place in the article. Isn't that right? Miskin 11:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, beacause the source which give that information say "the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia". I don't see why you obdject. I agree we not call them "ethnic Albanians" and say that they identify as Greeks today. We just add the information from the resource that the Arvanites in Epirus and western Macedonia call themselves Shqiptar and not Arberor. It is a regional variation there is no proof that there is any difference. Zogu 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The source later on states that Arvanites are the people who describe themselves as such, simply because they don't claim Albanian ethnicity. Furthermore all Arvanitic scholarly sources refute the existence of such ethnic group. So this becomes a POV. Make your changes on that current version, because it's by far the most reliable at the moment. Miskin 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was based on that version! I took your version and made 3 changes to it. This is all explained above. Also, stop trying to use your personal research. Cite a source. I have cited a source so it can be used. Look at diferences with your version http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arvanites%2Ftest&diff=39220644&oldid=39220039 Zogu 12:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're constantly removing the part which states that Arvanites abhor being called "Albanians". This is clearly mentioned in the Helsinki report, or do you want me to copy-paste it for you? You're also removing the part which mentions that Albanian nationalists regard Arvanites ethnic Albanian. This is something that was taken to a political level between Greece and Albania, so you're probably aware of it. So, what exactly is unsourced there? 'YOUR' version removes that sourced information, and it adds a POV in the head which erroneously implies that the Despotate of Epirus was Albanian. Miskin 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No I have not. My version state very clearly that Arvanites don't like being called Albanians. I remove that POV about the Albanian nationalists because there is no source. It is also POV, there where it says they try to "invent" an Albanian minority. That implies bad faith. If they do (doubtful until you cite source) they do it out of ignorance, because they think they are Albanian minority. Anyway, I will not obdject when you cite source. I have not implied anything about D of Epirus. Change that if you want. Zogu 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)