Talk:Origin of the Albanians

Misuse of Belledi et al's abstract

Belledi et al, geneticists, not linguists, state in their abstract that "Albanians are clearly different from all other Indo-Europeans linguistically". This is the sort of clumsy statement that one might often see about historical linguists from people whose field is not historical linguistically. You see it is at once true and false. It is true because Albanian is on its own branch of Indo-European that no other living language belongs. But it is false because it in English (not the native language of the authors, nor of Skylax) can be read to mean that Albanian is more different from all other Indo-European languages than the remaining members of the family are with each other. This is flagrantly false. Albanian lexically has some surprising things, but it is nowhere near as divergent as the Anatolian languages or Tocharian, and is also usually considered less divergent than other "eccentric" branches like Armenian. It is entirely inappropriate that Skylax is insisting on using the abbreviated abstract of genetics paper to make a point about linguistics; more bizarre still his rants about "censorship". --Calthinus (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It is more bizarre that a user, claiming to be expert, wants to cut in half a phrase from a source, becouse "he knows better".--Skylax30 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It is even more bizarre that you are using an argument that is entirely a strawman :). Geneticists cited for linguistics makes a quote immediately suspect if it sounds off, likewise economists for biology, sociologists for physics... Alas, don't take it from me.

Calvert Walkins, in Ramat and Ramat, The Indo-European languages, page 31: "A number of archaic features in morphology and phonology set Anatolian apart from other branches, and show it was the earliest to hive off".

The morphological features of Hittite, the best known Anatolic language, are strikingly different from all the rest of (non-Anatolic) Indo-European. For example, most Indo-European languages differentiate nouns grammatically by gender, or did historically in fairly recent times (English does not, but Old English did; same deal with Persian). Well, Hittite had no gender distinction and instead distinguished animate versus inanimate (see Hittite_language#Nouns), and has from the earliest stages of the language over three centuries ago, being the earliest attested IE language. Well this seems very enlightened (not sexist), but it's not typical of IE branches. Other such examples are manifest. That is why scholars think Anatolian was the first to branch off, and some even seriously propose (and many others disagree) the prospect of Indo-Hittite whereby Anatolian is a "sister" to Indo-European. Literally nobody proposes that Albanian was the first to branch off. Albanian has a few debatable phonological peculiarities but even these are disputable : Albanian's proposed preservation of PIE laryngeals is also disputed, because there is some evidence that Albanian actually may have had laryngeal insertion instead, leading to a counterexplanation for hte presence of h in this small set of etyma (these appear in ancient Latin loans too: Latin admissarius > Albanian hamshor; Latin arcus > Albanian hark, etc...). I hope I don't need to go on? --Calthinus (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

CLOP

The text "The theory of Illyrian descent became the principal pillar of the Albanian nationalism in the 19th century, replacing the previous romantic theory of the "Pelasgian origin". Its importance was that it claimed historical continuity in Kosovo and other areas contested by Serbs and Greeks.[64]" violates WP:CLOP, IMO. Please have a look though, coz I am not very certain. Maybe an attribution would solve the problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

May need to be better written. Going through it there are parts of the sentence that are taken from the book in whole like "historical continuity in Kosovo", "areas contested by Serbs and Greeks" which goes into Plagarism territory. CLOP problems are more with the rest of the sentence.Resnjari (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: has a point here. The content was placed in a very improper place. I am not sure whether it should be allowed on this article at all or not, as similar content is not covered on similar articles. For instance, a similar addition of @Resnjari: was not accepted on Pelasgians. Thoughts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think your referring to @Alexikoua's opposition on the Pelasgian talkpage [1]. Yeah i remember that well. It will interesting to see the comments on this.Resnjari (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

For or against

I faill to see why the following argument is against Albanian-Illyrian continuity. This appears more suitable for the "for" section: "The Albanian language is a close relation of both Messapian and Illyrian that as such Albanian words in certain instances have been able to explain Messapic and Illyrian words.[88] Examples include the Illyrian tribe".Alexikoua (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well Alexikoua because the source that you placed states the following [2] p. 1790: "Consequently, Albanian cannot be regarded as an offspring of Illyrian or even Thracian but must be considered to be a modern continuation of some other undocumented Indo-European Balkan idiom. However, Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and also Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin ), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed some light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words." Its why your addition was moved to the section about it being against an Illyrian origin as that whole section from the source is against the view of Albanian having an Illyrian origin.Resnjari (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A source can provide arguments both for and against. It's fine if you believe that the "for" arguments are too weak for inclusion in the correspondent section. Matzinger states that those Messapian - Albanian evidence is quite few by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no interpretation for it being a "for". The source speaks for itself. The sentence is quite clear i.e: "Albanian cannot be regarded as an offspring of Illyrian or even Thracian but must be considered to be a modern continuation of some other undocumented Indo-European Balkan idiom." The whole section expands on that view, hence it being in the 'against' section. With evidence, its scant either way due to a limited corpus of Illyrian words and Messapian.Resnjari (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Matzinger doesn't state that this happens simply due to the limited corpus. There are more serious issues that make this hypothesis problematic.Alexikoua (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember in your edit summary the source by Klein according to you was the most "recent" scholarship [3] which comes after Matzinger. As for problems, the origins of the Albanian language will continue to be contested. All one can hope for is that scholars engaging in research and debate have the multilingual skills necessary for the endevour and do it in a way that is devoid of nationalistic jibberish (and i'm not talking about just the Albanian here, but much more wider in the Balkans who still have 'ideas' that Albanians and their language are an invention of the 20th century).Resnjari (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Intermingling

The geographic coincidence might be one argument (though contuinuity is still a serious issue), the source states something else Even very common words such as mik "friend" (<Lat. amicus) or këndoj "sing" (<Lat. cantare) come from Latin and attest to a widespread intermingling of pre-Albanian and Balkan Latin speakers during the Roman period, roughly from the second century BC to the fifth century AD [[4]] Skylax' edit has (some) merit about a widespread intermingling of pre-Albanian and Balkan Latin speakers during the Roman period. No need to avoid that.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Alexikoua, Skylax's edit was reverted because the editor was changing a piece of text that is already sourced. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I assume this means you are not against addition of the intermingling of pre-Albanian speakers as the source states it (I fail to see where I'm against the geographic distrubution of Illyrian-Albanian speakers) Alexikoua (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As it was POV pushed repeatedly, i want to see something here first and roughly where it would go into the article to avoid disruption.Resnjari (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way the inline doesn't support the existing version. The concept "that the Albanian language is spoken in the same region where Illyrian was spoken in ancient times" might be one argument, but simply saying that because Albanians live in a region once inhabited by some ancient group means nothing about ancestry. Even children's books avoid too naive explanations.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This page isn't about "ancestry", it's about ethnogenesis. Unless you're a racialist, obviously ancestry does not equal ethnic group history. I.e. for example Greeks can have an ethnogenesis at some point, absorb many Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Bengalis whatever, and still be Greeks, and their ethnogenesis has not changed, because that was still the origin of the sociological unit. That's what ethnogenesis, i.e. origin of ethnic groups is. Not about some sort of biological subdivision of humanity. --Calthinus (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is about origins however simply the existence of a specific ancient population in this area means nothing about "the origins of the Albanians" especially when the source doesn't state this it's OR.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does. Everything in Adams from page 9-11 discusses origins of the people in the context of their language.Resnjari (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, Adams was recently replaced by Harding. I'm not sure why. However, I doubt if Adams uses such quality of simplistic arguments for ab Illyrian-Albanian connection (Albania's people in most territories were Illyrians in the Classical Age.).Alexikoua (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

So then going by what you say there, in another matter Klein (most recent) replaces Matzinger?Resnjari (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The wording is problematic: when saying that people X lived once where people Y are living now that's not an argument on it's own. Something's missing. I fail to see that in Klein & and rest.Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in your reading your overlooking things like this recent edit on the Illyrians page where in your edit summary [5] you claim its not in the citation when it clearly is.Resnjari (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you have run out of arguments to support your position about this topic.Alexikoua (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope i stand by what i have said.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to follow wp:BRD. I'm afraid that simply saying that because this is about Albanian genetics it doesn't warrant inclusion of typical pictures with typical white race people raising Albanian flags.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

I simply wonder why pictures of modern day people have been recently added in the dna section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, they were added to the section about DNA discussing modern day Albanians. Can you explain why is this an issue (otherwise your edit will be reverted)? The article is about Albanians and the pictures are of Albanians.Resnjari (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me but the article is about the "origin of the Albanians" & the section about genetic studies. By the way there is no reason for us to believe that those in the pictures belong to the specific DNA categories. In case you have access to RS that states that the specific persons in the pics belong to those "genetic DNA categories" I'm ok (raising a flag proves nothing about genetics). By the way they look like typical Caucasian people (feel free to add them in "Albanians" article but nothing can be added without concensus here.Alexikoua (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua has a point here. Genes only poorly correlate with phenotype -- Finns have substantial Siberian input yet look like Swedes, half of Hausa people have a Y-haplotype quite closely related to the dominant one in Western Europe but you'd never guess looking at them, etc.--Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what i meant here. The section refers to modern day Albanians, so i thought i picture or two of modern day Albanians would suffice. Nothing about them looking "Caucasian", having "flags" or "proving genetics".Resnjari (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't responding to you, just was agreeing the pics shouldn't be in the section (I made this mistake once years ago myself on a diff page). The "Caucasian" comment was unfortunate since it could also refer to Peoples of the Caucasus, i.e. cringey. --Calthinus (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

My response wasn't also to you either, it was to @Alexikoua.Resnjari (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay just being sure. Awk :) --Calthinus (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images.Alexikoua (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua maybe if your referred to this in the first place instead of going on about "Caucasian people" and so on the thread would not even be here.Resnjari (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We need to follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images. The pictures were removed because there are completely irrelevant to the subject. Images of people with typical Caucasian characterics prove nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't go into 19th century style polemics about a 'Caucasian race' or as you put it "typical Caucasian characterics". Eugenics, which used such terminology is a discredited practise and if your interpreting the section on DNA and Albanians in those terms i really feel sorry for you. The whole section on DNA and Albanians is about what DNA clusters people who identify as Albanians posses, how much or little they resemble other peoples in the area and has that been a long term or more short term development in relation to habitation within a historical context. The section has nothing to do with Albanians being "Caucasian" or whatever that outdated concept means. If your removal of the images was based on flimsy reasonings like that i am really inclined now to place back those images.Resnjari (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears you misunderstood something: Caucasian is widely used as an alternative for white people. [[6]]. Try to calm down and avoid 19th century polemics.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, i misunderstood nothing. In your most recent post there you just placed a link to an outdated 19th century map about 'races' by Carleton Coon! @Alexikoua, no one mentioned "typical Caucasian characterics" or "raising a flag proves nothing about genetics" about the pics. The DNA section of the article does not discuss anything about Albanians being 'white people' or 'Caucasians' or the pics for that matter and i fathom as to what made you come to such a conclusion. Its only yourself who brought up this kind of thing here. Pics were added to show some Albanians in a generalised sense as the article is about Albanians after all and that section does discuss modern day Albanians. Pics were ok. I can only deduce by what you have written thus far that removal of the images were based more on wp:idontlikeit reasons then anything else.Resnjari (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

C. Coon was born in 20th century (LOL). I assume you need to present a decent argument in this topic and to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics. Such pictures are unaccaptable in genetics section & non-Albanians can also raise Albanian flag or any other flag.Alexikoua (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed Coon was born in the 20th century and his ideas on race are outdated and discredited yet there you go placing a link map by by the guy intended in your comments to make a point about the meaning of "Caucasian". I fail to see the humor. All i see is you having deleted the pictures based on wp:idontlikeit as this comment "to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics" shows. Indeed anyone can hold the Albanian flag but the pictures are not of "non-Albanians" but modern day Albanian people. So what if they a holding symbol that is associated with them. How does that preclude the pictures by default? This article is about Albanians, not some other ethnic group. So again @Alexikoua why is placing a picture of Albanians in a section which refers to modern day Albanians "unaccaptable"?Resnjari (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to intervene much here as the topic is not of any particular interest to me, but I wish to remind everyone that this is a collaborative project. If some editors want to add decent content, all of it should be added. In other words, if you all do not agree on the addition of the said pics, as you agreed on the addition of content of Resnjari, Alexikoua, and Calthinus, I am willing to revert back to the stable version. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

per wp:BRD a addition of controversial nature should have consensus. Needless to say that the images are a recent addition and were added without approval.Alexikoua (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and your recent additions need approval too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The pics are only "controversial" for @Alexikoua who made it all about a flag and "typical Caucasian characterics". No one else made it about that. @Ktrimi991 is right if you want to go back to the stable version, then all our edits from the past few days go.Resnjari (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The pics are of low encyclopedic value and add nothing to the article. And you can't demand that Alexikoua's addition of relevant sourced info cannot proceed without consensus while adding those pics without consensus. Can't have it both ways. Khirurg (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Khirurg, please explain how those pics are of "low encyclopedic value and add nothing to the article"? I just keep seeing wp:idontlikeit reasons. The section is about modern day Albanians. Why shouldn't there be pics showing modern day Albanians in that section?Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

How about you explain to us what these pics add to the article? In my opinion, they add nothing. They are just pictures of random individuals. Also please explain why Alexikoua's additions require consensus, but these pictures don't. Khirurg (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg, they show randomly modern day Albanians. Other articles have such pictures. The section discusses modern day Albanians, why not have a random picture or two of the sort? On @Alexikoua's additions you can;t have it both ways i like the content but one does not don't like pictures of Albanians.Resnjari (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Khirurg nothing useful from this recently added pictures. I have the feeling that the motive is somewhat racist here: genetically pure Albanians can raise the national flag, white race characteristics etc. etc..Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. "Racist". Do you even know what the word means? You have inferred all by yourself without evidence that apparently what the pictures mean to you. I'm pinging Shikuesi4 to see what the editor who added the pictures has to say about the motivations behind the pictures. But i'm getting the sense this may have to be taken to one of the forums etc for further comment. Having pictures of Albanians is not racist or whatever preconceived conceptions you have stated there.Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional arguments "against"

The pre-Albanian-pre-Romanian co-existence is included in a list of arguments against Albanian-Illyrian continuity in the work of Matzinger. There is further explanation on the issue in his work (about a pre-/Albanian population that possibly arrived from the east). It's certainly not a personal created POV. This may be merged with the Dacian hypothesis, but I would be very reluctant about a full removal.Alexikoua (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There has been much discourse on this issue and simply adopting the view of Matzinger is not in line with NPOV. Another view is that the Romanian ethnogenesis occurred in Kosovo, yet another that Romania was settled by Illyrians in Roman times, et cetera. Not only Albanian vs. Serbian/Greek, but also Hungarian vs. Romanian scholarship has to be considered here. The best way to handle it, imo, is a section that is not under any "side" regarding the "Relationship between Albanians and Vlach populations". And all info from either "side" about this should be moved there. Arguments about what this means are the only thing that can remain in "Arguments for/against" sections. --Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I admit that theories like Romanian ethnogenesis occurred in Kosovo, yet another that Romania was settled by Illyrians in Roman times sound very interesting, however I can't cofirm them in western scholarship. If such theories have some merit I can definetely agree that this part should be moved.Alexikoua (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua they float around. Here's another one, see the map attached, a theory currently popular with many Romanian scholars, that Albanian ethnogenesis occurred in Kosovo which was part of a much wider area also inhabited by proto-Vlach people. See map. --Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

One Romanian view on the issue which has proto-Romanians and proto-Albanians both in Kosovo and Northern Albania prior to Albanians being pushed south in the Middle Ages

.

Alexikoua: Some more Hungarian/Romanian views here [[7]].

Also, Stadtmiller's theory about Romanians coming from the Morava-Kosovo region and it's relevance to Albanian ethnogenesis, summarized by Malcolm [[8]], here : The main area of the Balkan interior where a Latin-speaking population may have continued, in both towns and country, after the Slav invasion, has already been mentioned: it included the upper Morava valley, northern Macedonia, and the whole of Kosovo. It is, therefore, in the uplands of the Kosovo area (particularly, but not only, on the western side, including parts of Montenegro) that this Albanian-Vlach symbiosis probably developed. [71] All the evidence comes together at this point. What it suggests is that the Kosovo region, together with at least part of northern Albania, was the crucial focus of two distinct but interlinked ethnic histories: the survival of the Albanians, and the emergence of the Romanians and Vlachs. One large group of Vlachs seems to have broken away and moved southwards by the ninth or tenth century; the proto-Romanians stayed in contact with Albanians significantly longer, before drifting north-eastwards, and crossing the Danube in the twelfth century. [72] --Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the input of Pasztilla here would be very useful as I cannot read Hungarian and he obviously can, and much has been written on this in Hungarian I believe.--Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see the point & agree to move that piece to a more relevant section. Thanks.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, Calthinus actually there is a very detailed PHD [9] titled The Origin and Spread of Locative Determiner Omission in the Balkan Linguistic Area by Eric Heath Prendergast done at the University of California, submitted in 2017. In it it refers to Aromanians and Romanians having stemmed/or being closely associated with proto-Albanians see pp. 79-80, 96-100, 135, 149-152, as per new analysis of certain common linguistic features. Additions for the article? Resnjari (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari Yeah looks great. --Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus indeed, Romanian-Albanian, then Romanian-Cuman coexistence has a huge literature that recently (last few decades) have been strengthened further with linguistic researches. At the same time, only a few Hungarian scholars were deeply involved in the topic (István Schütz, Ambrus Miskolczy et al.), I am more aware of Romanian sources. What do you need exactly? Pasztilla (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Pasztilla wherever it concerns the origin of Albanians, i.e. this page, is what is of interest. Thanks a million!--Calthinus (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

That is huge! :) Pasztilla (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh... right. Umm, well, either source discussing theories concerning (a) discussion oh the hypothesized Romanian-Albanian coexistence/symbiosis in the Kosovo/North Albania/Praevalitana-Dardania region, (b) Romanians possibly having some influence from Romanized Illyrians whether they crossed the Danube in the 12th century or the 2nd, or (c) general discussion about Hungarian/Romanian views on the origin of Albanians and the differences between the two sides --- would all be very interesting and useful here. --Calthinus (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Could we create a "Relationship between Albanians and Vlach populations" section? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)