Talk:Pelasgians

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pelasgians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll post proper comments within two days. -- Philcha (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Most of what you have said makes sense so I must wonder: why? You ought to do some re-editing of this article, why haven't you? 1. I must disagree with the sections on the quotations from classical authors, these are very useful and show the variety of theories starting in Antiquity. 2. As for explaining most terms, there's no need, at least not in detail. There's the hyperlink, one of the great features of Wikipedia and the web. 3. About the quotations: I would try and find better ones, that is from other editions/translations, because some of these are in very awkward English. 4.The major problem I find with the article is the lack of references and substantial evidence (either facts or deductions) about the origins of the Pelasgians (the middle section of the article). Plenty of theories are mentioned, and not one reference or a shred of evidence. 5.This is for those who have written the article: I would be very careful about defending one theory in one line and in the next the opposite. e.g. Pelasgian/Pelasgus and the etymology. Someone wrote that it must be non-indo-european; later on the text states that the etymology is clearly greek and comes from "flat", therefore, "people of the flat" or "people of the sea", etc. 6.There is some sort of obsession instead of a scientific approach that is about claiming that the Pelasgians were not indo-europeans and therefore not greeks.So it could be that they were not from the same wave of migration, and had a different accent (other tribes would immediately say, different tongue or different people!). They would still be under the designation of early Greeks. 7. This is another problem with many of these articles: there must be appropriate adjectivation/terminology: early Greeks, Minoan Greeks, Mycenean, etc, possibly for this period, Hellenes and early Hellenes are better terms

I will be reviewing the article in the future and making my contribution if someone like you makes some serious editing. I do not want to erase some of those very bad paragraphs yet because I do not have enough material from the web to include and create a good article, I would just leave blanks. This is not a good article, not yet, it is messy! We'll talk later. GFlusitania (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I apologise for taking so long to provide my first set of comments - I had to do some reading first to build up my background knowledge.

This is going to be difficult. Even after doing some reading, and despite the fact that I have a degree in Latin & Greek, I found it very difficult to follow this article. I think readers with no initial knowldge will be unable to learn much from it.

First I think the article has to explain some basic terms, for readers who are not familiar with the movements of "races" (physical / genetic types), cultures (artefacts, mainly pottery, architecture and religious items) and languages that created the East Mediterannean world. "Hellenes" is obviously the most important of these terms. Then the article must always make it clear which aspect of the "Hellene" vs non-"Hellene" is it discussing. It also needs to define the borderline between "Hellenes" and "Barbaroi", as the big quote from Herodotus states that the people of Attica were originally "Barbaroi".

I think it also has to give readers a lot more help with the geography - all those ancient names like Thessaly, Epirus, Thrace, Troad, Anatolia, Hellespont, Arcadia, etc. If I were writing the article I'd make a map with all the relevant regions colour-coded. Then I'd use Template:Annotated image to place notes on it, see for example Template:Annotated image/Spider main organs - this technique has the advantage that it's easier to edit than an image with embedded text, the text is alsways legible because its actual text, and the image can be used for other purposes. For example the map could show places with which ancient writers associated the Pelasgians, for example 1=Homer, 2=Hesiod, 3=6th-5th century BC summarisers of mythology (Acusilaus, Hecataeus of Miletus, Hellanicus of Lesbos) 4=5th century BC historians (Herodotus, Thucydides; probably), 5=5th century BC dramatists (tragedians, Aristopahnes), etc. I can help with this technique if it's used in the article, since I often use Template:Annotated image. Such a map will not be able to show town very clearly, and the text should say in which of the map's territories they are located. In particular the article also has to make it clear which Argos is being referred to at each point, as even undergraduate students of Greek history are likely to be aware only of the Peloponnesian Argos. The main text will also have to describe regions within regions, e.g. Pelasgiotis in Thessaly, Phthiotis, Acte. The same map can also be used with different annotations to explain the big quote from Herodotus.

The article should also relate modern place names to ancine tterriroties, e.g. Skourta.

The article needs to give dates for both the ancient writers and the events / peoples to whom they are referring. "Homer" is a particularly difficult case, as the Homeric epics were composed over a long period, transmitted orally and seem to have reached their "final" form in the 8th century BC. The point is that all these writers were descibing events / peoples from several centuries before their own time.

The descriptions of ancient writers' references to the Pelasgians need to be briefer. For example the article's comments on the Catalogue of Trojans include a few details in addition to the location ("fertile", "spearmanship", chiefs) that are irrelevant as they are not used in resolving the mystery of the Pelasgians. The big quote from Ovid is mostly irrelevant, and the important part is that Calchas addressed the Greek forces as "Pelasgian men" - but I'm not sure I'd include Ovid anyway, as he is generally regarded as a fantasy-writer rather than a historian. I'm also not sure Robert Graves is much of an authority on history. However I think the big quote from Herodotus should remain as it is (apart from needing wikilinks and other explanations).

There are several deductions that need to be supported by citations from "modern" classical scholars, otherwise they constitute WP:OR, for example:

• "Dodona,[17] which must be the oracular one in Epirus"
• that King Pelasgus' Argos in Aeschylus' play The Suppliants includes "all of east Greece from the north of Thessaly to the Peloponnesian Argos" - which seems to mean it included Attica. In this passage Danaids needs to be clarified, as it seems to refer to a specific family rather than to the ethnic term "Danaioi" as in the Iliad.
• Identification of Inachus with Peloponnesian Argos.
• "Herodotus also mentions the Cabeiri, the gods of the Pelasgians, whose worship gives an idea of where the Pelasgians once were."
• They colonized Crete and extended their rule over Epirus, Thessaly and by implication over wherever else the ancient authors said they were, beginning with Homer

Points about the ancient references that need to be clarified:

• The part about the Catalogue of Trojans also contains a source of confusion, as "they are mentioned between mentions of the Hellespontine cities and the Thracians of south-eastern Europe" suggests a location in the very south-east corner of Europe but the best-known Larisa is in Thessaly. Is there anything to support the idea that the Catalogue of Trojans follows a geographical sequence?
• Asius of Samos links to a disambiguation page, which does not link to an article. Do you mean the Asius of Samos listed in my ancient copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary? "(? 7th or 6th cent BC), poet; author of genealogies, satirical poetry ..., and elegiacs" If so, you need to identify him as a 7th or 6th cent BC poet and genealogist, cite the authority for this description (for dictionaries andother references works I generally use {{citation}} with contribution=....).
• Hellanicus of Lesbos wrote Phoronis.

The article needs more analysis of all the theories, both ancient and modern. For example:

• The fragment of Sophocles' Inachus has been used as part of a theory that Pelasgians were closely related to Tyrrhenians and that a group of Tyrrhenians from Asia Minor founded Etruscan culture by migrating to Italy. One of the Thucydides quotes also relates to this theory. But some recent analyses reject the idea of a Tyrrhenian migration from Asia Minor to Etruria (see "Additional sources" below).

Section "Theoretical interpretations" should probably be retitled "Modern aalyses", and possibly moved to the end, after all the evidence.

Section "Inscriptional attestations" looks irrelevant, as it is about the Roman-era inhabitants of Pelasgiotis and says nothing about possible pre-Hellenic inhabitants.

Section "Archaeological evidence" should explain at the start that these are analyses of sites described by ancient authors as inhabited at some time by "Pelasgians". The articles by scholars should be summarised as much as possible rather quoted in large passages.

Additional sources

I found these while trying make myself better-informed about the Pelasgians. You might like to look and see if these are useful.

• "Who Were the Minoans?" by Graham Campbell-Dunn (2006) suggests Pelasgians came from Sahara (desertified 3000-2500 BC) via Crete (Minoans). Campbell-Dunn presents linguistic and architectural evidence linking (in his opinion) Minoan culture to Nigerian Fulani and Yoruba cultures. However I'd treat this with caution, as the author is a retired scholar and may be indulging in a personal pet theory, and this appears to be the publisher's mission.
• The decline of Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climatic change suggests that Philistines were Pelasgoi, based on a quote from Iliad. Philistine cites pottery evidence that Philistines had Greek culture.
• Drews, R. (1992). "Herodotus 1.94, the Drought ca. 1200 B.C., and the Origin of the Etruscans". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 41 (1): 14-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436222. Retrieved 2008-10-26.  debunks Herodotus 1.84 claim that Etruscans = Tyrrhenians and that there was a massive drought around 1200 BC.
• A Near Eastern Ethnic Element Among the Etruscan Elite? also debunks Etruscans = Tyrrhenian.
• The Colonization of Samothrace ( A. J. Graham, Hesperia, Vol. 71, No. 3, Jul.-Sep. 2002), pp. 231-260; doi: 10.2972/hesp.2002.71.3.231)
  • "the historical identity of the Pelasgians is very hard to pin down, and a strong argument can be made that they are largely a construct of Greek historiography."
  • Herodotus 2.51.2–4 described the pre-Greeks of Samothrace as Pelasgians who had migrated from Athens.
  • ". . . Pelasgians—a name which occurs throughout Greece and which would appear to be used without any particularly precise application to indicate a population that was believed to be aboriginal."
• "Bilingualism in Ancient Society" by James Noel Adams, Mark Janse, Simon Swain (p 333) Odyssey 19.175ff: "Every Language is mixed with others; there (Crete) live ... noble Pelasgians".

• • The Pelasgians are nonetheless coming back today. Lots of publications by amateur

historians are revitalising the Pelasgic theory. Books popularising these ideas are widely read and commented, not only among scholars and specialists. It is interesting to note that some of these books rely on works published outside Albania, such as Robert d’Angely’s books published in France at the beginning of the ‘90s and partly translated in Albanian in 1998 (d'Angely 1998), or Mathieu Aref’s books (Aref 2003), translated in 2007). 1 Pre-war studies on the Pelasgic origin of the Albanians are also known through a small number of studies conducted during socialist Albania which are rediscovered today. Such is for instance Spiro Konda’s book on “The Albanians and the Pelasgic issue”, published in 1962, at a time when these theories were already not in favour (Konda 1962). It is said that the book was eventually published, but without the imprimatur of the Academy of sciences (Bitraku 2008). Another study was written during these years (between 1948 and 1983) but published only recently, in 2005, under the suggestive title of “The Pelasgians, our denied origin” (Pilika 2005). Finally, these ideas are also making their way into academic work. Arsim Spahiu’s book on “Pelasgians and Illyrians in Ancient Greece” is thus the publication of his doctoral thesis defended in France in 2005 (Spahiu 2006)

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/34/36/PDF/de_Rapper_2008_-_Looking_for_Europe_on_the_margins_of_Alba_.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.24.27 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall impression

At present the article is so far from meeting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria that a "quickfail" would be justified. However I don't like "quickfail" as I know from experience that a determined editor with access to the right sources can make dramatic improvements in a week or two. Please read my comments and the Wikipedia:Good article criteria carefully, and then let me know if you think you can improve this article to GA standard within 2 weeks. You may find it useful to ask fo comments and assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. -- Philcha (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA review

It's been 2 weeks since I posted comments, and there has been no response and no significant editing of the article. I'm afraid I have to say that this artcile has failed the GA review.

That's a pity because there is a lot of good material here, and the main task is to present it in a way that's most helpful to readers who are neither Greeks nor historians. --Philcha (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Next time someone submits this for GA review, I suggest it should be under category "World history" - submitting it under "Miscellaneous" creates a risk that potential reviewers will ignore it as it doe snot relate to anything in which they have interest of knowledge. --Philcha (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Review Response: Sad, only just bumped into this article -as I did not expect an extensive article about the Pelasgians on Wikipedia- and found it surprisingly excellent. I do accept the comments though, it is indeed hard to follow for people who do not have a background knowledge of the greek world. I hope in the future - when time will be more on my hands - to improve this article myself according to the points of your critique. Even though it failed the GA review I still think that the main creators of this article deserve considerable credit for excellent contributions to Wikipedia. --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - Please add review comments / responses above this line - - - - - - -

Dorians? Myceneans?

This article should say atleast 1 sentence on how the Pelasgians differed from the Dorians. Was it Pelasgian-->Mycenean-->Dorian? In the timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.26.98 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pelasgia. Etymology

I'd like to say that Pelasgia is clearly synonomous with Hellas. P is equivalent to C becomes Celasgia (eg Q and P celtic). s and g are both equivalent to s becomes Celassia. C is pronounced H in some cultures(eg germanic), hence Helassia..ie Hellas. So the Greeks did not call themselves the original Hellas without reason.

It just begs pointing out that Pelasgia -> Celasgia -> Celassia -> Helassia -> Hellas is quite a long shot, unless you can provide references to contextually relevant sources containing the intermediate links. It's especially rich to claim this synonimity in the light of the dismissal of Pelargians -> Pelasgians on the grounds that it's a "mere similarity of sounds" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.21.116 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgia I believe originated out of ancient Cilicia with possibly Tarsus as its capital. Pelasia again equates to Cilasia, or Cilicia. Pelasgia was I believe colonised by Indo European Cilicians(Themselves originally hurrians) and the people there had a sub stratum language which changed the Cilician to Pilacian..Pelagian. The same happened to the Q(C) Celtic and P Celtic language. An example of this is Cinc in Irish became pinp in Welsh, became five in English. And an example of H to C equivalance is the classic one between Hund and Cent..hundred. Much evidence points to the Phoenicians(or their close Northern kin) of Cilicia as being the source/creators of powerfull fleets in the mediteranean which initially colonised Pelasgia. --92.5.55.196 (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or the Pelasgians were simply Pelasgians and Hellenes were Hellenes (Ellenes), different people of different languages, as Herodotus said, and Hellenes came to the south with Doric migration, driving off the Pelasgian indigenes or assimilating them. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I am not per se a supporter of "Unsigned's" argument that Pelasgia and Hellas come from the same linguistic root (in fact I always have had a certain reluctance in accepting claims like these such as the claim of the appearance of "Alexandros of Ilios" in a Hittite treaty), still it needs to be pointed out here that the Pelasgians and Hellenes were not at all different people of different languages "as Herodotos said", dear Zenanarh, though the confusion is of course easily made :). For Herodotos actually claimed them to be a part of the Pelasgians which had split off very early on. This is actually said in the Wikipedia article itself and can also be found in Herodotos Book I §58 sentence 2: 'Yet weak after their separation from the Pelasgians from whom they were a branch, and have since grown from small beginnings to their present numbers by the addition of various foreign elements, amgonst which were the Pelasgians themselves.' The "Attic" race for example were originally, according to Herodotos part of the Pelasgians but then later became part of the Hellenes (Herodotos Book I §57 section 3). The fact that the original Hellenes split so early would explain why the "main" Pelasgians had a different language from the Hellenes, though most Pelasgians later took over the Hellenic language (being Greek) when they became part of it. It's all rather complicated but I hope this helps :) --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kretschmer used the word Pelasgian,for all the inhabitants of the lands around the Aegean sea.They came propably from the north after the great cataclysm.The pelasgian and greek myths for the cataclysm are quite similar.There are some linguistic similarities with the Phonecian deities Bell,Baal and the Celtic Belli.It's possible that the North-Semetic supreme god El (Phoenecian:Elyon) was not originally a Semetic god but a god of the area YS, who had the absolute control of the waters (YS-RA-EL).The etymology of the word πέλαγος (pelagos:open sea) remains uncertain in Indo-European therefore it's possible that the word Pelasgia is connected with the sea-people.193.92.181.203 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism???

The article says

Main article: Albanian nationalism
In 1854, an Austrian diplomat and Albanian language specialist, Johann Georg von Hahn, identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian. This theory is totally rejected by contemporary archaeological and historical circles, however it has retained staunch supporters among Albanian nationalists.[63]

Are you kidding me??? You have Hahn, Lochner von Huttenbach, Mathiew, Pilika, Konda, Buda, D'Angely, and Spahiu come up with volumes and you say here that this is Albanian nationalism??? What can I say, well done! There is not one single reference and I mean directly referenced (not "other sources") from the latter six (6)). To athenean: Please do NOT REVERT ME when I ask a reference on totally rejected by contemporary archaeological and historical circles with a liquidatory "tendentious". That totally rejected is either to be applied to all non-greek theories or not at all, your use of totally rejected sounds fishy. Don't be then surprized when this article doesn't pass GA Review you'll get that disclaimer of opinion ANY TIME if you keep doing what you're doing. The Trojan Horse has entered this article as well. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your tag placement is tendentious because it is common knowledge that this "theory" is completely rejected. All the "scholars" you quote are either from the 18th and 19th century, their work long since outdated, or pseudo-historians and Albanian national mysticists. Here's a suggestion: Why don't you ask Dr. Elsie and see if what he tells you is any different from what I'm telling you. And keep the trolling comments about "Trojan horses" to yourself. --Athenean (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the scholars that I mentioned are from the XVIIIth century. From the 7 scholars I mentioned only 1 is XIXth century (Hahn); Pilika, Buda, Konda and D'Angely are from second half of XXth century. Aref Mathiew and Spahiu have published in the XXIst century. I don't know what you call common knowledge, because it's not reflected in the article. And I have no idea what Elsie tells us about the Pelasgians because that is not his field of study. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears this small unhistorical paragraph creates several problems here, apart from beeing tottally useless for the article's meaning. I suggest to get rid of that, since it belongs to propaganda, mysticism and nationalism. Every dictators' secret dream needs to be seperated from scientific historical approaches, like in National Socialism and Occultism.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point Alexikoua. The paragraph has to be rewritten, not deleted. There are several non-greek theories and they have been presented. For the Albanian we have not presented or referenced to Hahn, Lochner von Huttenbach, Mathiew, Pilika, Konda, Buda, D'Angely, and Spahiu while their heavy books are there to show that albanians come from pelasgians. And what happens? They are labeled "nationalists"? Why are Georgiev's books heavier and not pointing out to the bulgarian nationalism? Or why shouldn't I say that the whole article points to the greek nationalism? All I'm saying is that the "nationalist" stamp is not well supported and the redirect to "main" is premature. However I do not dare change the article because if I do, I know that I'll be reverted and my references quietly deleted. I am looking for a nice way to represent theories that are not surpassed at all and are to be taken into consideration. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i think aswell the albanian paragraph is to be reviewed, first of all theories connecting albanians to pelasgians were born before hoxha, before even albania was created with an official flag, Alexikoua, and from non-albanian scholars. On the other hand, i consider tendentious the fact that someone has linked this theory with albanian nationalism, and this is actually useless for the article. The albanian connection theory should just say some scholars believed there's a connection and explain how, nationalism is not a scholar point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.188.6 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that this was a product of propaganda and it has nothing to do with serious academic research. This paragraph should be completely removed, as per wp:fringe too.Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply reports and does not take sides. Nor does it condone suppressing what has been published and the history of contention: it is certainly a fact that the theory has retained staunch supporters among Albanian nationalists, who I personally consider "fringe", but my opinion is irrelevant. The article must gives the broad picture without participating in localist squabbles on any side. The material has to be rewritten, not deleted.--Wetman (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that wiki simply reports, but this doesn't mean we have to create a wp:fringe concert.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

it might be consider that also this Encyclopedia is an expression of Albanian nationalisem ..?!

Great Greek Encyclopedia

(Volume XIX, page 878)

Forefather of today's Albanian, Pelazgians, have lived in prehistoric periods in the majority of the world, known to such time, conducting a very important civilizations and established acts with extraordinary value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.133 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted the usual cruft for the nth time [1]. This particular ip editor was a little more sneaky than the others, but there is nothing here. Athenean (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians-Hellenes

The name Pelasgian is used to identify all the inhabitants of the lands around the Aegean sea.They propably came from the north after the great cataclysm ,but around 4000BC there was a movement from Anatolia where the agriculture spread from Near East,to the big Greek plains at Thessaly (Pelasgiotis) and Thibe.(Compare:city.Larissa-Larsa,mount.Zarkos-Zagros,city.Thibe-Egypt.Thibe).The Pelasgian and Greek myths of the cataclysm are quite similar and the most older greek myths are connected with an area around Thibe.The etymologies of the names Pelasgian and pelagos(open sea) from Proto-Indo-European are not quite satisfactory.Amazingly there is not any satisfactory etymologie for the name Hellenes from Proto-Indo-European,but the name is connected with Pelasgian areas.In Homer originally the name is applied to the warriors of Achilleus and later to the rest of the Greeks.Achilleus was born in Pthia (Pthiotis) and there is an ancient city named Hellas in the area.Nearby there is an area which was called Graiki in ancient times and is connected with a cataclysm (Ogigis:Phoenecian word) and there was an ancient city named Graea which propably gave the name to the Greeks (Graekes),a word used by the Romans.(An ancient greek poet claims that the mothers of Hellenes were Graekes.)Propably these names are connected with a relegious cult.193.92.181.203 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians and hellenes could be the same thing , also was called graekes one of the epirotic tribues but the concept of to day Greekness is different , modern Greek and Hellene is not the same thing ...Pelasgians Hellene Illyrians Macedonians often express the same population , Albanians ore better "Shqiptaret" are their ancestors ...Pelasgians still live in to day Albanians and Arberoret ..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.19.210 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Albanians are the ancestors of the Hellenes, Illyrians, Macedonians and Pelasgians? I was under the impression all of them were considered ancestors of the modern Balkan populations. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard this before, not seriously presented for at least 25 years. The Pelasgians as ancestors of Baltic peoples, whose presence in Europe is way before 4000BP? Sources?LeValley 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

French scholar Luis Benloew came to the same conclusion in his book La Grece avant les Grecs )observed that “Many names of places ,mountains ,rivers and legendary personages which can not be explain by the etymology of Greek words apparently can be explained by a non-greek language .Only one language up to the present is able to cast light on the names of places ,and this is Albanian language.The author of this work He is compelled to support the thesis that the Albanian of our day are the descendants of the population which lived before of the Greeks in the region from Adriatic as far as the Halys”(x,xi,)

Halys in the eastern Anatolian highlands around 39°48′N 38°18′E39.8°N 38.3°E, flowing first to the west and southwest until 38°42′N 34°48′E38.7°N 34.8°E, then forming a wide arch, the "Halys bend" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.219.36 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. However next time please provide a reliable source and not a French philologist who born at Erfurt Nov. 15, 1818 and died at Dijon February, 1900. Thank you! A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

my opinion about this discussion page, i hope it will not be deleted

I personally cannot consider this article reliable, i saw the discussion page and it looks like its all a battle between Greeks and Albanians, fighting for the way a sentence is presented, and i found this to be funny tho, bye, and sorry to tell the spirit in wich the article was written cannot allow me to read it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some ancient authors about the pelasgians

"The name Pelasgians (Greek: Πελασγοί, Pelasgoí, singular Πελασγός, Pelasgós) was used by some ancient Greek writers to refer to populations that were either the ancestors of the Greeks or who preceded the Greeks in Greece[citation needed]"

There is a difference in time in the meaning of the term "pelasgians", you mean the older pelasgeans. Authors who wrote about them are Herodot (Histories II, 52 + 94 + 171; VII, 94 and VIII, 44) Strabo (Geography 5.2.4), Plinius (Natural History 4.10.20 about a later tribe of the pelasgians), Dionysius of Halicarnassos (Roman Antiquities 1.25.3 about the pelasgians in italy and various more times in the 1.book). --87.152.243.7 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fake Information

The reasons that why Wikipedia is faild in history topics articles, are such articles. This articles should be writen by trusted users who study history not by greeks. The whole article is manipulated and the references are superficial. React WIKIPEDIA. -  Euriditi  20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who write the article, but the source will be given would be reliable and strong right (I think you are opposed on wikipedian policies). I don't think there is anyone out there that do not support that Pelasgians are ancestors of the Greeks (for God sake), (What is the superficial about? 1 Users try to use factual sources, not blogs in any case, if you find any source as superficial, you have to provide it) Thank's a lot for racial personal attacks, too. --HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What else could a greek say. For God sake, the world out there, even you, could not believe what you are saying. Enjoy these moments, because soon all Albanian related articles are going to be corrected. -  Euriditi  16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

First we are talking about reliable sources 1-Apollonios Rhodios & Green 2007, p. 223 (Commentary on I.987).

2- "Pelasgian. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Retrieved 15 January 2008. "A member of a people living in the region of the Aegean Sea before the coming of the Greeks." 3 (plus Πελασγός is a well-known worldwide indigenous + hellenic name, so it couldn't be something else- "τοῦ γηγενοῦς γάρ εἰμ´ ἐγὼ Παλαίχθονος ἶνις Πελασγός, τῆσδε γῆς ἀρχηγέτης. ἐμοῦ δ´ ἄνακτος εὐλόγως ἐπώνυμον γένος Πελασγῶν τήνδε καρποῦται χθόνα. καὶ πᾶσαν αἶαν, ἧς δί´ ἁγνὸς ἔρχεται Στρυμών, τὸ πρὸς δύνοντος ἡλίου, κρατῶ." by Aeschylus) not just albanian magazines and second thank's again for your second personal attack, Im not going arase something because I hope someone see your above lines, thanks.--HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)