Talk:Arvanites/Archive 5

Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussion at the Archive 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Adjective

I think we should use the term "Arvanite" as an adjective rather than "Arvanitic". If you check the GHM report, the only adjective they use is "Arvanite". --Telex 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex please check the rest of the refs to gain a better prespective of the adjectives (or whatever else) that are in use. talk to +MATIA 07:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the adjective issue really. Both forms seem to be in use. But in general I agree with Matia we shouldn't over-value the GHM report at this stage. Unfortunately I haven't got my other articles here right now, and I honestly don't remember what Trudgill or Tsitsipis used in their English. By the way, with a short test googling I hit on these two papers: [1], [2]. Comments? The first has some interesting remarks on the relationship between Albanians and Arvanites. The second is unfortunately access-restricted, but maybe someone could dig it out through some other channel. (As for the usage issue, the first uses "Arvanite" as an adjective, the second apparently "Arvanitic".) Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the first one was criticized in that mailing list with Brian Joseph comments. (somewhere in the talk pages archive lies a link... ) talk to +MATIA 09:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good find: Interesting discussion here [3] - although I haven't seen anything specifically addressing that paper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw I couldn't find at Trudgill&Tzavaras neither Arvanitic nor Arvanite (he uses Arvanites, Arvanitis for the people and Arvanitika for the language). talk to +MATIA 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just not bother about that adjective issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So what should be done, because at present, the article is quite inconsistent. --Telex 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let it be. I don't think that we should change all occurances of Arvanite to Arvanitic, unless you think it would look better. talk to +MATIA 11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The article formerly described the religion of the Arvanites as Greek Orthodox; I've changed that to Greek Orthodox. I think it's better to wikilink to Eastern Orthodox Church, as that article actually describes the religion, the doctrine and the history of the religion. Church of Greece, merely describes the Orthodox Church in Greece as an ecclesiastical organization and its structure. --Telex 23:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That is correct name--Hipi Zhdripi 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I've gone on record repeatedly as one that is skeptical about the "related ethnic groups" field in the infobox in general, and my personal preference is to leave it out. Nevertheless, I think we should offer 87.203.*.* a bit more of an explanation for leaving it out, if (s)he wishes to have it. I mean, after all, if ever two groups were in fact related to each other, it surely is the Albanians and Arvanites, let's be realistic about that. As for the reasons why I personally don't like the box, see Talk:Greeks. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A) The Arvanites are not an ethnic group - B) It's original research. For the position of the Arvanites within Greece, see User:Telex/Ethnic identity in Greece. --Telex 11:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the scholarly literature does call them an ethnic group, I thought we had established that? (I think whatever definition of "ethnic" one uses, any group that is defined historically by a distinct language will probably always qualify. And the common English usage, I think, does not treat "ethnic" groupings as necessarily mutually exclusive, so identification as Greeks doesn't entail they can't also be an "ethnic" (sub-)group themselves too.) But I generally like the approach in your draft there, of distinguishing groups on several different levels of "distinctness". Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps both Lukas and Telex might be as frustrated as myself in the un-sophisticated manner in which the term 'ethnic' is included to demarcate between peoples. Occasionally, some ethnic statistics for Greece, include a slot for Arvanites and Vlachs. I (and probably nearly all Greeks) are baffled, if not totally disagree with this crude assessment. Such statistics imply the existence of a culturally cohesive entity that enacts the separate, i.e. non-Greek, activities of an ethnic minority. But these are constituent peoples of the Greek nation - as surely as the arm and the lungs are constituent elements of a person's body. Whatever they enact, other Greeks tend to identify with it as their own - though not necessarily 'of their own village'. In this respect, the Greek nation (το γένος) is unthinkable without Arvanties and Vlachs, as it is unthinkable without Cretans, Corfiots, Rumeliots, Pontians, or Macedonians for that matter. Politis 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• As for the term Albanian, it encompasses different tribes, and specifically the Tosks and the Gheks. Unlike the Gheks, many (or most) Tosks feel quite separate from the Kosovars - many (or most) Tosks seem to oppose a 'greater Albania' since they would immediately become a minority, especially since a huge percentage of them are Orthodox by religion. Also, the two groups speak different dialects, though, naturally, it is Albanian. But they definitly exhibit different morphological types. In this respect, it might be more appropriate to seek morphological, linguistic and to a degree religious comparisons between the Arvanites and the Tosk Albanians. I sign off by proposing that ethnic entities can be interpreted as consisting of a series of collapsable demarcation parameters; often these parameters depend on the prevailing socio-political winds. Politis 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, in the modern world, the distinction between Tosk and Gheg is of little or no significance. Consider it like the North-South divide in the United Kingdom. --Telex 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To 87.202.*.*

Anon, please please please use edit summaries and use this talk page if you want to insist on changes that you know have been disputed by others. Sterile edit-warring is disruptive, even if it's done slowly enough not to touch 3RR. Also, you reverted blindly, erasing an unrelated change made in the meantime by Matia (the Category:Arvanites entry). I don't suppose that was on purpose; if yes, please please discuss this with us! If you persist in these tactics, you run the risk of other editors adopting a policy of just reverting anything you do on sight. For the moment, I'll leave in the "related" box (I'm pretty neutral on that one), but reinstating the category. (someone was faster than me.) -- Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites

I saw the text you quite rightly pointed to in support of Albanians seeing the Arvanites as an Albanian minority. Their text is not researched, it merely gives an impression of something that had no other echo than during the Berish presidency. The authors are not experts and make mistakes; for instance, the Arvanitiki language has not "been led to oblivion". If they cannot search what happens in Greece, how can we trust them with Albania? Finally, the article is about Arvanites, not how the rest of the world views them. Likewise, over 20 percent of Albanian citizens are Greek Orthodox; do we have to point out that some Greeks view them as ethnic Greeks? Politis 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• As for your last question: yes, we should, in the context of an article about the "Northern Epirus" issue, but that's unrelated to this article.
• As for "been led to oblivion", it's a somewhat imprecise statement of what linguists describe as ongoing language death, but it's not really wrong.
• As for the verifiability issue: I appreciate that the article is not an ideal source, as it deals with the question only with a single sentence in passing. The problem seems to be that the fact is just so obviously ubiquitous (just google through Albanian internet fora and the like, or look at the behaviour of Albanian editors right here!) that few academic sources would bother to invest much study in it. I know those first-hand observations aren't WP:V. But as a source, what we have here is hardly worse than what we have for, say, the immediately preceding statement.
• As for the relevance: it's not about how "the rest of the world" views them; it's about how they are viewed by the major most closely related group, of which they have been considered a part in the past, and of which readers might reasonably expect them to be considered a part still. That is relevant.

We can always ask some Albanian editor to help out and find some Albanian source that expresses this view. Shall we? I'm sure they exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we include this perception, it needs to be further down the text and contextualised in no more than a couple of lines. Also, I am not aware of any Albanian immigrants in Greece approaching Arvanites as though they are the same people and getting them to see themselves as a native minority. Arvanites are quite tough and, since they are an integral part of Greece, they would tell them in no uncertain terms where to get off. I could give you examples but that would be POV. Therefore, this preception originates from a particular political circle in Albania and can be dated to the mid 1990s.

Just take the British example. There are English people born of one or two Scottish parents. But can we seriously accept a Scottish person from Glasgow speaking of a native Scottish minority in England? Or can we accept figures of a native English minority in Scotland? Would we include such views if they appeared in the mid 1990s? We are all aware that we can find anything on the internet, but to include it would challenge anyone's sense of rationality. Politis 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of perception by Albanians was just where it should be: In the paragraph that summarised their perception by themselves, by other Greeks, by the international literature, etc. As for Albanian immigrants regarding Arvanites as part of their own group, I checked the study by Botsi, it contains evidence for exactly that. As for your British example, I can't follow you at all: English/Scots individuals do not constitute a notable coherent group in the first place. Arvanites do. There is no "English-person-of-Scots-heritage" collective identity, but there is an Arvanite collective identity. If the description of such an English/Scots identity were ever an issue, then yes, of course we would describe all sides: how they see themselves, how the English see them, how the Scots see them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of Botsi study. However, if I included my own overview, then we would have a picture indicating that there is no issue (that would be considered private research). But since the issue is not one of Greece and neither is it part of Greek-Albanian relations and exchanges, we should move carefully. As for the English / Scots issue, if someone was to publish a few lines pertaining to a "English-person-of-Scots-heritage" collective identity - how would we react? Probably by stating that someone is creating an artificial issues. That seems to be the case with the Arvanites / Albanian subject. But since some people may have their point, the question remains open, rather than shut. Politis 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

link removed

The link removed lacks serious content, and I'm not going to accept not credible "sources". talk to +MATIA 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

this article is a powerful symbol of subjectivity in the English version of Wikipedia

As a registered member of Wikipedia I have the right to contribute to the making of the article, the right of editing the article, the right of questioning the neutrality of the article and the right of expressing my views and thoughts, without being harassed.

To begin with I would like to express my great disappointment with the neutrality of the article - for my part, the article is a powerful symbol of subjectivity in the English version of Wikipedia. We should rely on what's widely and generally accepted in world literature, and not apply to literature or material concerning the view of Greeks or Albanians regarding the Arvanites and the Arvanitic language.

Thank you!

--Albanau 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Albanau, fix the article then. What exactly is the problem? --Telex 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish that would be possible without being harassed or discriminated, [4]. That was happened in my last attempt of correction and neutralization in accordance with discussion in April 2006, [5]. --Albanau 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Harassed? One revert does not harassment make. I can see you made one attempt to introduce a change, and it didn't find favour. So what? Okay, I also see a somewhat aggressive edit summary by Matia there. Then I see you making these wholesale unspecific accusations every few weeks, for several months now, without doing anything constructive. Well, whatever. Make changes or propose changes now and I promise I'll make sure they are given fair consideration. What is it you want changed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

History Section

Well it seems the controversy will never die. However, I did my best to clean up the article as much as possible. Yet, the content in the section "Arvanites as Albanians" was quite confusing and fails to really shed light on the origins of the Arvanites.

The questions I hope one can answer entails the following (please no insults and no useless commentary):

1) If the Albanians were mercenaries, then what makes one assume that the Arvanite mercenaries/nomads were of Albanian descent? Just because the Albanians were mercenaries that fought in military campaigns in 1043 AD under the command of George Maniates? To be honest, Greeks have had a history of being mercenaries too (at least since ancient times with the Persian Empire).

2) What makes the Despotate of Epirus the supposed "ancient homeland of Greek-Albanian unions" or the "homeland of Albanians proper"? What if the Despotate of Epirus utilized the same social policies as did other Byzantine territories where they separated the main Greek population from foreign mercenary populations? Case in point, the Sclavinai.

3) Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that the Albanians today are experiencing significant levels of cognitive dissonance whereby they are having difficulty establishing a history of their own? Wouldn't this obviously compel Albanians to conjure up a history for themselves out of thin air?

4) Whatever happened to discussing about the locals of Arbanon? What if the descendants of the Greek locals of Arbanon took the name "Arbanites" because they came from that specific area?

5) Has anyone noticed how Albanians tend to consider anything that begins with the prefix Alb- or Arb- to mean Albanian? Case in point, is Grenada Greek because the name linguistically begins with the three-letter prefix of "Gre-" (who knows, but you get the picture)?

6) Is it just me or has anyone noticed the high levels of Albanian cognitive dissonance lately? I mean, I at first assumed that the Albanians were in fact the descendants of the Illyrians. However, this misperception on my part was eventually removed as a result of Albanians claiming things that rightfully belong to Greek history. The boldness of Albanians today is mindboggling. Odysseus was Albanian, Alexander the Great was Albanian, Socrates was Albanian, the fustanella was Albanian, the Souliotes were Albanian, the Epirotians were Albanians, etc. etc. (guess everything except the kitchen sink is Albanian). I think that the whole "Arvanites were Albanians" is an attempt by the Albanians to create an imaginative historical continuity based on anything they could find.

I hope someone answers my questions. Or not. I think something fishy is going on with the whole "Arvanites are Albanians" argument. The Greek sources may be interesting, but they conflict (in a large or small extent depending on interpretation) with other sources already existent in the article. I think that the viewpoints of the Greek authors be placed in the "Authors" section specifically. Over and out. Deucalionite 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I strongly oppose Deucalionite's proposal to split the history section into an "Arvanites as Greeks" and an "Arvanites as Albanians" section, as if these were two conflicting theories. They are not. The ancestors of todays Arvanites were Albanians; they later acquired Greek self-identification. There is absolutely no disagreement about either point in the literature, for all I can see. I'm cutting down the whole section, there's too much OR and speculation in there for my taste. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Was Thopias an Albanian? (check the epigrams he left) Was Comnenus too? (check his genealogy if you wish) Do you want more names? Common people are not exactly mentioned in history, so every "editor" may claim whatever he can, but history is preserved (more or less) for the leaders. Yet, we don't have the equivalent of Borza (see Macedon) for Arvanites - Elsie and whoever else, are more careful (most of the time) about it, and thank God when they are becoming fringy they can be cross-checked with various historians.

When they became "hellenized" and whether they were or were not bilinguals in Greek and Arvanitika all the time, if they were Albanians but not Greek too settlers are theories... talk to +MATIA 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must call for WP:NOR here. Give me a single, modern, reliable, scholarly text that characterizes the early settlers as anything different from Albanians. It may be "just a theory", but in a whole year of repeated edit-warring we've never seen any other. We'd need at least one source, reliably quoted and summarized, specifically claiming that the characterisation as Albanians is inappropriate. Thanks for sending me Biris, but could you please point me to a page if there's anything in that direction? - Even the book your translated passages are based on is titled "The Albanians in Greece".

As for the rest of the "history" section, here's why I cut it down so much:

• There were a lot of rather moralizing, speculative statements, such as "did not benefit the people of the region", ... "immigrations appear to be an escape reaction from social oppression that became intolerable", ... "made the people feel disoriented", ... "saw immigration as the only solution to their problems", "ever more violent rulers" ... Do we really want that? Sounds like trivialised left-wing rambling to me.
• Many statements were redundant, both internally within that section and in relation to other stuff already elsewhere in the article.
• Some questionable stuff:
  • Is it really plausible that the Arvanitic folk-songs provide information about the social structure before the upheavals of the 13th century?
  • Creation of the Despotate of Epirus a confirmation of an ethnic "bond" between Greeks and Albanians? That hardly sounds like mainstream historiography. Byzantine politics didn't normally place much attention on ethnic relations at all.
• Some questionable stuff in the old history section:
  • Alternative origin theories (Dorian/Pelasgic), marked as unsourced months ago, have still not be substantiated

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that the section also still needs some thorough copyediting, but I guess it's better if we first work out the main lines of content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that in Byzantium the citizens were not discriminated (or as you said ethnic relations didn't matter in their politics). How exactly that conflicts with what I said about Greeks and Albanians not being very different? talk to +MATIA 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't immediately see your comment here. It doesn't conflict with that, it conflicts with the plausibility of the statement in the current text that wants to present the existence of the Despotate as evidence for some particular social set of relations between these groups. Which seems pretty thin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

to Matia

To Matia, just about your arguments re. self-identification of medieval Arvanites as Greeks:

• What I see in Biris in the context of Scanderbeg, Thopias and others, all I can see is that they were trying to construct for themselves an ancient (i.e. Ancient Greek) identity qua Albanians, not a Greek identity qua Arvanites, as opposed to Albanians. See the difference? Whatever Scanderbeg or Thopias believed about their ancestry, they seem to have believed that they shared it with all Albanian-speakers, not just with a specific group of Hellenized Arvanites distinct from Albanians proper. So it strengthens rather than weakens my claim that we may properly call them Albanians.
• In Biris, p.23, first paragraph you sent me, I read (my transl.:) "Of the Byzantine writers who mention the Albanians [sic, 'Αλβανούς'], George Paxymeres, Mazaris and Nicephorus Gregoras characterise them as Illyrians". Now, look up Mazaris, the passage is specifically discussed in that article: Mazaris is talking of 15th-century Peloponnesian groups, i.e. Arvanites in our sense. If Biris summarises Mazaris' talking about Arvanites as talking about "Albanians", that means even Biris himself considers medieval Arvanites to have been Albanians. Okay?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I believe in expanding articles to reach NPOV (aka I disagree with "summarising" of sourced content)
• Χρη γινώσκειν ότι ο ναός αυτός κατελύθη από σεισμούς παντελώς έως θεμελίου εις την διακράτησιν και εν ημέραις αυθεντεύοντος πάσης χώρας Αλβάνου του πανυψηλοτάτου πρώτου Κάρλα Θεώπια...
  • You must know that this temple was destroyed by earthquakes completely, when the ruler of all the land of Albania was his majesty Carlos Thopias...
    • Kollias has a pic with the phrase (in Greek) "These are the signs of Carlos Thopias" (or something similar)
• Did Scanderbeg and other tried to connect to Ancient Greece, or among them were Greeks too? I find the last more probable (but perhaps both things happened).
• The ancestors of Arvanites were (mostly) called Arvanites by others. When they didn't call themselves Arvanites, they used Greek variations.

talk to +MATIA 12:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course about your reading of the Thopias quote - but then, what is it supposed to show? That he used Greek for his official business? Well, of course. It's not as if he had much choice, did he. That says pretty little about his ethnic identity either way.

The Scanderbeg thing as related by Biris seems pretty clear to me: he speaks about the supposed ancestry of his whole ethnic group, i.e. Albanians, apparently using "Albania" as the geographical definition (but I don't know in what language the original was written, it's obviously a translation). Biris himself evidently assumes that Arvanite and Albanian are synonyms when dealing with that period.

What it all boils down to is: Of course these guys were also Greeks, in the cultural-political-religious sense of "Romioi". But that doesn't stop them from being also Albanians in the ethnolinguistic sense, and it is this ethnolinguistic identity that people like Scanderbeg seemed to be interested in. If you wanted to show they were not Albanians, you'd have to demonstrate that as early as before the migration, there was already a conceptual division between to-be-hellenized-proto-Arvanites-who-were-going-to-move-south on the one hand, and non-hellenized-Albanians-proper-που-θα-κάθουνταν-στ'αβγά-τους on the other. And I still cannot see the slightest indication that such a thing existed prior to the 19th or even 20th century.

As for expanding or cutting down articles: Please see "Aquilina's Carnot law" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, what you are saying is that they self-identified as being part of the same millet as the Greeks - the "Rum" millet. Therefore, things change, as the Arvanites could not have identified as "Greeks", but as "Romioi" in the context of their millet. --Telex 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems interesting to me, so i decided to add my comment. i'm talking about Scanderbeg and the term 'Romioi'... why his original surname was Kastriotis? doesn't this seem a greek name? why he used the byzantine double-headed eangle, the emblem of the Paleologus family, at a time that the scholars say that the byzantine empire ended its millenium life as a greek nation state? apropos, the term 'Romioi', or 'Rums' (as the Turks say) is still applied to the Greeks, not to the Orthodox in general... I am aware that in the first centuries of the turkish occupation of the Balkans, it meant all the eastern christians, but later other millets were established. i am curious to know if in the 16th-17th centuries (for example) the Arvanites were considered still part of the 'Millet y Rum' or not. --Hectorian 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

comment on Albanau

Instead of trying to do something good, he results in PAs. I don't know why I expected something better after his talk page edits at Scanderbeg (and the lack of adding article content there too). talk to +MATIA 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not article Skanderbeg. Do you have dispute with me concerning the article Skanderbeg, we can discuss it at the article's talk page and not here. Kindly read carefully, the excuse me part, and in addition to that if you have sense of humor you would understand. Furthermore, the neutrality and factual accuracy is disputed, it's all over the talk page, so delating the templates is wrong.. Albanau 17:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

Ok, I've been asked by a couple of people to comment on this. I'd like to point out firstly that considering that I voted keep on Albanisation, I may not be considered a neutral party here.

That out of the way, the lead reads perfectly to me. The history section is a bit higgledy-piggledy, I note that it seems to have been translated from the Greek. This is probably a bad idea with such a contentious article. I would advocate starting from scratch using English language sources where possible.

Demographics section seems ok, might want to link to Arvanitika. In the language section, "Greek state institutions are reported to have sometimes followed a policy of actively discouraging and repressing the use of the Arvanitic language". Drop the "are reported to have sometimes" replace with "have". In the Minority status section, 'Many Arvanites are also reported to be strongly opposed against the idea of obtaining any kind of officially recognized "minority" status', either drop this or source it. In the Folk culture section, I would recommend dropping the "Folk".

Some of the stuff in Names could be split out into a "Related groups" section?

There are my initial thoughts. - FrancisTyers · 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The situation of the history section is that a big chunk from el: was recently translated but not yet optimally integrated. But the current discussion, apart from how best to clean up the history section, is mainly about whether the lead section should also contain a statement that they "are descendants of Albanian settlers". Albanian editors have in the past requested such an addition, Greek editors dislike it, my own take is that the references do not yield any good argument to reject such a statement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Providing the controversy (and I'm guessing there is one) is covered in the article, I see no reason to include or exclude it. Perhaps the "settlers" is causing a problem, it might be changed to "are descendants of Albanians settled in Greece" ? - FrancisTyers · 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a controversy among editors here, but not really one in the literature as far as I am aware. It's not so much about the "settlers", it's about the "Albanians". Some of the Greek editors don't like to use the ethnic name "Albanians" to be used avant-la-lettre for the medieval populations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I see, well, what were they called before they were called Albanians? I know Serbian editors sometimes have a problem with using Bosniak rather than Bosnian Muslim. I mean, presumably this is how they are characterised in the literature, as being descended from Albanians right? We should go with whatever the scholarly consensus is on the matter. - FrancisTyers · 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus is "Albanians", as is that their language is "Albanian". This is why Arvanitika is in more danger of extinction than Vlachika. --Telex 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the second count you are wrong (their language is Arvanitika). Regarding the first count, if that is the case then I see no problem with FP's suggestion. - FrancisTyers · 17:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites called themselves either Arvanites or Greeks in medieval times. I believe that the correct thing to do is/was to write in the intro who the Arvanites are, but if we should also write who they were then write it down correctly and not as some Albanian editors imagine. talk to +MATIA 07:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thread continued in new section below Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And what is scholarly consensus on the linguistic classification of Arvanitika? --Telex 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a separate language, which is why we have the article at Arvanitic language. Why is it a separate language? Because the people who speak it say so. Its really like Albanian though (insert comparisons here)! - FrancisTyers · 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even read the article Arvanitic language, have you? --Telex 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

it is not logical

It is not logical to apply "Albanian" identity to a group that had Arvanitic/Greek identity in a time that the Albanian identity (of Albanians themselves) was almost non existant. talk to +MATIA 07:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(Continuing thread from above:) This seems all to have been gone through earlier (see Talk:Arvanites/Archive 3, towards the bottom). Point is: The medieval "Arvanitic/Greek identity" you are talking about was the Albanian identity of the time. As the article states, apparently all Albanians called themselves "Arvanites" then, they just changed the name later but that doesn't mean they changed identity. So we still have no indication of a separate Arvanite identity at that early stage. The ancestors of today's Arvanites were an integral part of the same group that is today called Albanians.

That leaves us with the purely semantic question of whether it's appropriate to use the modern name in retrospect. And here it's not a matter what you or I find logical, it's a matter of what the literature does. I repeat my challenge: Find me one source that explicitly claims calling them Albanians is inappropriate.

Apart from that, I personally could live with a solution where this is kept out of the introduction (as you said: state what they are, not what they were). But then we should strengthen the point in the history section. It might also mean we'd have to live with continued challenges from Albanian editors; I could understand it if they wanted to insist on the point in the intro. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you seen sources describing that Arvanites find highly offensive the Albanians labeling? Btw, what do you think about the Jirecek line? And please keep in your mind (and everyone else interested) that we are editing Arvanites not Albanians. talk to +MATIA 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly seen sources describing the identification of the modern people as Albanians as offensive, but nothing arguing against the identification of the medieval ancestors, sorry, no. Not the same thing. And I'd be opposed to shying away from clearly stating the latter just because of the hypothetical possibility that some readers might confuse it with the former and have their precious national sensitivites touched.

As for the Jirecek line, of course we know that parts of the Albanian area were under Greek cultural influence, but that doesn't mean that no non-Greek ethnicities could have constituted themselves in that area. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not my style to "shying away" etc. I agree more or less with the rest.

On your comment on Jirecek line, I'd like to repeat that we cannot force albanian identity on Arvanitic people, before even the Albanians had such an identity (it happpened long after Scanderbeg - even if we suppose that Scanderbeg started it). The US Stade Dep called Arvanites as Albanian settlers or something like that, but thank God they've changed that line.

I believe, since the Arvanites also exist today, and they did use that name for themselves in the past too, we should work the article in that direction. This article shouldn't describe Arvanites as an Albanian this or that, but it should describe what they are, what they were, what they've done, what they are doing etc. Arvanites not Albanians. Perhaps the Albanian editors would be interested in writing at Albanians that they were called sometimes Arvanites. But scholars who have actually studied Arvanites (and not just mention them in two lines), aren't simply labeling them Albanians or Albanian settlers. And for WP shake, we should write down that medieval Arvanites were bilinguals too. talk to +MATIA 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Matia, I don't think they all were bilinguals, just the Tosks were. According to Biris (p. 27), the Byzantines used to refer to the Tosks as "Albanoi" and to the Ghegs as "Illyrioi" (apparently the terms "Tosk" and "Gheg" came about after the Ottoman conquest). He is unclear on whether "Arvanites" used to refer to both groups collectively or not. --Telex 09:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably an over-simplification. Mazaris, for instance, uses "Illyrians" for Peloponnesian Arvanites, i.e. Tosks. And the reference of "Albanoi" in the earliest sources (Attaleiates) has been disputed, it might be referring to entirely different peoples. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is more than just interesting - this should be the focus of your quest. Excellent point Telex - I had forgotten about the Tosk-Gheg and that Ghegs aren't related at all with Arvanites. talk to +MATIA 11:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself, but please look at the following works in the reference section. Just the titles should make it clear:

• Poulos (1950), The settlement of the Albanians in Corinthia
• Ducellier (1994), The Albanians in Greece (13th-15th cent.): A community's migration
• Jochalas (1971), On the immigration of Albanians to Greece: A summary
• Vranousi (1970), The terms 'Albanoi' and 'Arbanitai' and the earliest references to the people of that name in the sources of the 11th century
• Also R. Elsie here ([6]): "The Albanians entered post-classical recorded history in the second half of the eleventh century, and only in this age can we speak with any degree of certainty about the Albanian people as we know them today. [...] In the middle of the fourteenth century, they [sic, i.e. Albanians]] migrated even farther south into Greece, [...]"

Given the massive amount of evidence of consensus in the literature, I have to ask for very concrete counter-evidence. Who is it that says we can't call the settlers Albanians? Not Biris, for all I can see. Please give me a one-sentence summary of whatever their counter-position is, concrete enough to integrate it in the text, supported by a literal quotation, author and page. I'm afraid at this stage of the debate nothing less will do. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lukas the titles aren't good enough - sometimes we can loose the point. However I disagree with the intro as I've written below. talk to +MATIA 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you Lukas seen in these or in any other work, evidence that Arvanites didn't identify as Greeks? talk to +MATIA 11:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The literature calls them Albanians, period. All the literature. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (both for the irrelevant and for the All), but let's leave this for now. talk to +MATIA 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I really want to know now. If there are grounds to reject the "Albanian settlers" formulation, in the liteature, then where are they? You should be able to name names here. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Βρε Λούκας θα με τρελάνεις; Στα σύγχρονά τους (μεσαιωνικά) κείμενα (ή στην πλειοψηφία τους) αναφέρονται ή όχι σαν Αρβανίτες; talk to +MATIA 13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Θα τρελαθούμε κι οι δύο μας σήμερα, και θα συντρελάνουμε και εταίρους... All Albanians were called Arvanites. That doesn't stop modern scholarship to use the modern name for them retrospectively. Just as Greeks are called Greeks retrospectively, even for periods when they weren't called so by contemporaries. Common practice. But we are both repeating ourselves. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Threads removed

Two threads from 7 June removed to Archive for being troll-bait. [7] Please let's all get back to focus on the real issues and on what the literature says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

tags

As long as Albanau's intro stays, I support the tags he originally placed. talk to +MATIA 09:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-identification

Does this old rule apply here too? I mean if Arvanites themselves resent the term "Albanians" for any reason or are otherwise offended (which appears to be evident), then why couldn't we use a footnote or just elaborate on the issue in the text that follows? I presume the dispute is as to what they USED to be referred, so it is not a current term, so it does not deserve being in the intro.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

More or less it is treated in the main article, and yes my strong oppose is for the intro - I've added some instances of the word Albanian myself later on - however the intro is already unballanced towards "Albania" instead of being an intro for Arvanites. talk to +MATIA 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not as much anymore :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This thing is going on for almost a year. Perhaps it's about time it stops. talk to +MATIA 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll nevertheless test out an intransigent position here. Let's see:

• No, the principle of self-identification does not apply. Arvanites have every right in the world to define who they want to be today. But they do not have the right to expect us to censor their history according to their likings.
• Especially not if the POV allegedly preferred by the Arvanites has never even been proposed in the literature, and we don't actually know what it is supposed to be. I'm still waiting for those quotes, and I won't give in until they are provided.
• If we are going to take national sensitivities into account, then those of Albanian readers count just as much. Albanians have every right in the world to regard the medieval settlements as part of their history too. Members of their nation were expanding across the Balkans. What's wrong about them wanting to see that represented here?
• The thing about the Albanian settlers is a very simple, entirely undisputed fact of fundamental importance for the definition of the topic of this article. Apart from the Greek sensitivities (which I personally find entirely misguided), there's no good reason not to have it in the intro. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neither I (check my edits) nor the Arvanites would try or have tried to censor their history. I'm starting to believe that you don't understand something about it (that would include Biris), yet I'm confident that you'll complete the puzzle eventually. talk to +MATIA 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree to entirely misguided regarding Greek sensitivities. I couldn't care less if they were Berbers. I, my self, like Albanians and have nothing against them. "Albanian" is NOT a current term, even if self-id doesn't apply. I am not an expert on the issue, but this is evident. Lukas, you may suggest whatever alteration you wish in that regard within the main article body and not in the intro. My humble opinion, ofcourse.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term Arvanites

According to Babiniotis 2002 (Dictionary of Greek language) and Stefanaq Pollo and Arben Puto, The History of Albania, 1981, the term Arvanites originates from a specific place. Babiniotis writes [translation by Politis]: "Arvanitis ...person who speaks Arvanitika. SYN: Arnaoutis, Kolias (from Nicolaos). 2. Colloquially, denotes a person who is headstrong and obstinate. ETYM: Medieval origin from a toponym Arvana from the Albanian Arbena. Arvana was the original name of the mountain range stretching between the rivers Mat and Ischmi, west of lake Ohrid. The people of that region were called by the Greeks Arvanitai…” He states that the Arvanite are Greeks of remote Albanian origin, they are found in various parts of Greece (districts of Corinth, Argolida, Attika, Boiotia, Thespotia and some islands). Since the 14 and 15 centuries their fate has been interlinked with that of the struggles of Hellemism.

Stefanaq Pollo and Arben Puto concur with the origin of the name, “...The Byzantine writer of the eleventh century, Michael Attaliate [writes] that among other tribes the Arbanites (Αρβανιται), inhabitants of the country of Arbanon (Αρβανoν) took part in 1078 in the revolt of the Duke of Dyrrachium, Nicephore Basilakes, which is confirmed point by point by another writer of the timie, John Skylitzes. ...The name of Abanon was at first that of a small region with Kruja at its centre and which kept the historical name of Arbeni until quite late. It was a regional name.... In the ninth century, when the Byzantine power was re-established,, the Arbanon region consisted of a distinct diocese..." They state that it expanded, merged and developed into the Arbanese bishopric and went on to gain distinct autonomous status. This meant they needed their own name, Albanoi... They say that the word Arbanitai is of geogrpahic inspiration, liked to the region where they lived. They write that, “The name Arbanite or Albanian in the 11th century was, therefore, not so much of ethnic foundation, but of political and religious foundation. It could not be applied to all the inhabitants in the Albanian linguistic area, but only to the populations of the indeginous and [the by now] Catholic province of the Arbanon. The Albanians from other regions continued to be called by scholars and contemporary chancellors in both the east and the west according to the pollitical and religious community to which they belonged, Romaioi or Graeci or Skavinoi, or Sclavinus or Bulgaroi or Bulgarus.”

• Therefore, indeed the term refers to Greeks of ancient Albanian stock; we cannot identify it primarily as ethnically Albanian but as a term given by Greeks to the inhabitants of a region.

The cultural links between Greeks and Albanians are more complex (I would say more interesting) than nationalist gun slingers make out. For instance, the ethnically Greek Albanian, Constantine Christophoridis (1830-1895) published a translation of the Bible from the original Greek into Albanian, as well as other books. He wrote: “If the Albanian language is not written, there will shortly be no Albania on the surface of the earth nor will the name Albania appear on teh map of the world”. [re: Histori e Shqiperese, 1984. p.37] He advocated a single Albanian alphabet. Politis 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't want to purposely include controversial information to the article, especially not your expectation about the origin of the ancestors of the Arvanites. You know why the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed? Because of the users with Greek background refusal of accepting the fundamental and essential fact that the ancestors of the Arvanites were Albanians and not Albanian-speaking, albanized or albanophone Greeks.

An article from the encyclopedia Britannica regarding the Albanians in Greece writes following:

The origins of the Albanians (Albanoi/Arvanitai in Greek) remain uncertain. They appear to be the descendants of the Illyrian populations who withdrew into the highlands of the central Dinaric chain. Their name may originate from the valley of the Arbanon (along the Shkumbi River) in the theme of Dyrrachion (Durrës/Durazzo), in which they were first noted by outside commentators. Their language probably evolved from ancient Illyrian (formerly classed with the Hellenic group of Indo-European languages but now generally recognized as an independent member of the latter family), but it is heavily influenced by Greek, Slavic, and Turkish, as well as medieval Italian. For reasons not yet fully understood, the Albanians began in the 14th century to advance into the western coastal plain, where they served both Byzantine and Serbian overlords as well as ruling independently under various warlords and chiefly families; they were also present in considerable numbers in Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, serving as soldiers and as farmers, colonizing deserted lands. Albanians arrived in large numbers in the Peloponnese during the reign of the despotes Manuel Kantakouzenos, who brought them there to serve as soldiers and to resettle depopulated regions. The impact of their presence on the region's existing ethnic and linguistic structure remains debated.

You can find on the book Albanian identities: Myth and History, in chapter The Perception of the Albanians in Greece in the 1830s and '40s: the role of the press, by Elias Skouliads from the University of Ioannina, page 179: writes following: the term 'Alvanoi' was also used to describe the Arvanites.

--Albanau 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From Britannica's article:

• The origins of the Albanians (Albanoi/Arvanitai in Greek) remain uncertain: so, nothing clear about the origins
• Their language probably evolved from ancient Illyrian: so, nothing clear about the origins of the language
• For reasons not yet fully understood: confusing...
• The impact of their presence on the region's existing ethnic and linguistic structure remains debated: again not clear at all...

Not to mention that it says formerly classed with the Hellenic group of Indo-European languages but now not... hmmm... why academians in the past classed them along with the Greeks (if they were totally distinct)? I bet u know that Hellenes is how we call ourselves... --Hectorian 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, especially that Pollo & Puto quote. Of course, nothing of that contradicts what I've been saying: By the time the settlements in the south took place, there was an ethnic group which everybody in the literature today identifies with the modern term "Albanians", no matter how they were calling themselves at the time. And those guys who went to settle down in Greece to become the ancestors of today's Arvanites differed in no way from the other members of that same ethnic group who were left behind in what is today Albania. Guys, what else are we squabbling about still? Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness ;-) --Telex 17:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Luka, you're probably right. What I don't get, is how this info is not evident in the article and why we have to put it in the intro as well, while it is NOT the current term. Examples from within the article:

2nd par Foreign sources sometimes still refer to Arvanites as Albanians...

2nd par Many Albanians, on the other hand, regard Arvanites as an Albanian minority group.

History section: While most historians regard the ancestors of today's Arvanites as part of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors to present-day Albanians...

I also don't get why we must tolerate pov-tags as a pov-push for something that is npov, but this is another story... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. All these different mentionings of "Albanian" could be slimmed down quite a bit, if we could just bring ourselves to mention the Albanian connection once and for all, simply as a matter of course, as every sensible other author would. But since every possible way in which Arvanites could conceivably be related to Albanians has been objected to and disputed ad nauseam here, it has until now been necessary to very very carefully introduce and discuss and weigh and hedge and justify and source and attribute every single one of them. Relation in terms of historical descent, in terms of language, in terms of self-perception, in terms of perception by others, in terms of shared ethnonyms. The more Greek editors object to each of them, the more often the word "Albanian" will in the end appear in the article.

As for the tags, well, I do think until we agree on something here they should stay. The old history section was de-emphasizing the Albanian connection in its wordeing too much. Say about Albanau what you want, but where he has a point he has a point. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Lukas. Will you do me the favour and count how many times we mention Albanians in the intro? What happened and suddenly you don't see the connection in an intro that you wrote to solve the (*&*(&%^*&%$%^#&^$ dispute? You wrote the new intro, you've changed your mind lately and now you say I (and whoever else) dispute etc ad nauseam? Is this some sort of joke I don't get, or you weren't talking about me? talk to +MATIA 06:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading it again, I think that your idea "The more Greek editors object to each of them, the more often the word "Albanian" will in the end appear in the article." is unacceptable. Please explain yourself, and if you really meant that you'll edit that way, do reconsider it. talk to +MATIA 07:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, don't get me wrong, I don't really want to use the "A" word much more often there. :-) But it's true, the fact that I had to use it so often in the February version was exactly because there had been so much debate before. If a point is strenuously disputed, it will end up being bolstered up with an extra amount of sourcing and arguments, and in the end get more weight in the text than if people just accepted it as a matter of course. - I'm currently considering if it would be a good idea to move some of the "calling them A. or not" stuff out of the intro to releave it from the over-use of the "A" word, but then maybe put the "settlers" bit back in? As for the point below, I think Albanau's English is at fault, "immigrants" is not the appropriate term. "Settlers". Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Immigrants? What's next Albanau? talk to +MATIA 09:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! How about: Colonists? :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

history section must be improved

I propose the erasement of following unnecessary nonsense:

While most historians regard the ancestors of today's Arvanites as part of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors to present-day Albanians,[5] some Arvanite authors have argued that the settlers were not ethnic Albanians in a true sense. They hypothesize that Arvanites were either descendants of originally Greek populations who had only intermediately become Albanized; or that they were descendants of some other Thraco-Illyrian tribes and as such related but not identical to Albanians proper;[citation needed] or that Arvanites are descendants of the original pre-Greek "Pelasgian" population and as such actually autochthonous to southern Greece. These views have no echo in mainstream scholarship to date.[6] Some Arvanites characterise the Arvanite settlement in Greece as the modern Dorian invasion[4][7].

Besides, that the theory is incorrect prestented. The Arvanites Pelasgian theory is that Albanians and Greeks are the descendants of the Pelasgians that develop two different identities, Greek and Illyrian (Albanian), and that Albanians (Arvanites including) are brothers with Greeks.According to the books of the Arvanite author Aristh Kolla. I think this theories are very unnecessary and lack encyclopedic value.

--Albanau 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote that passage, but it was based on an inexact understanding of what the alternative views were. I'll try to make a new synthesis shortly. The "Doric" and "Pelasgian" ideas should be minimized until someone cares to actually summarize them correctly. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To use your terminology if you want "unnecessary nonsense" to be erased, then revert yourself. talk to +MATIA 09:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If this goes - as suggested by Albanau, then we certainly have to remove all 'un-encyclopedic' theories, including that, Albanians consider the Arvanites an ethnic minority - a fact that is so thinly researched as to read like POV. But I agree that Albanau has a point about the wording and it could do with some re-phrasing. For instance:

"Most historians consider that the Arvanites and today's Albanians share similar roots amongst the medieval Albanian populations [5]. Other Arvanite authors forward a Pelasgian theory that Albanians and Greeks are both the descendants of the Pelasgians but developed at an early stage two different identities, Greek and Illyrian (Albanian), and that Albanians (Arvanites including) are brothers with the Greeks. A few Arvanites propose that the Arvanites were the descendants of Thraco-Illyrian tribes - hence not identical to Albanians proper;[citation needed]. These views have no echo in mainstream scholarship to date[6]. Some Arvanites characterize the Arvanite settlement in Greece as the modern Dorian invasion[4][7]." Politis 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's about time we add what the Albanians did to their Arvanites brothers in Suli, what General Katsimitros did in response to Mussolini's invasion, etc. talk to +MATIA 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

further erasement or rewritting, section "minority status rejected"

I propose the erasement or rewritting of the section "minority status", as it take a political stand on matters involving rejection and recognition of minorities and minority status by the Greek government. --Albanau 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah, if you can't prove the opposite then delete... talk to +MATIA 09:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy with that passage either. It's somewhat repetitive, and the emphasis on Berisha is really extraneous to the topic of the article. My idea is to merge that section with the "calling them Albanians or not" stuff from the intro and shorten it down. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

According to CIA The World Factbook the Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece. --Albanau 09:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Helloooooo. Read the refs in that section. As long as you try to delete these, I'll expand them using sources. Unless Lukas agree with you that this article is a fringe view on Arvanites - then perhaps we 'll make it a simple redirect to "Albanian brothers" (sic). Just when this article look that it reached a good level, Lukas changed his mind about the intro and now we see an ever enlarging concordance between you two... talk to +MATIA 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They used to. They used to recognize the present say "Muslim" minority as Turkish (at the expense of the Pomaks and every other non-Turkish group), and only recently (when it is in fact too late, as every non Turkish group has been Turkified) decided to revert to the Lausanne terminology [8]. --Telex 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on Telex, the greek gov is irrelevant. talk to +MATIA 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is not about minorities in Greece but Arvanites

There are articles dealing with minorities. This one is about Arvanites. Please focus. The minority issue of the Arvanites was introduced by the then President Berisha and forwarded to a degree by Gens Polo (son of the Albanian historian Polo). But I have no idea what Albanau is proposing, opposing, rejecting or forwarding! Politis 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tightening prose

Please Matia, I'm not deleting any concrete information here. I'm just tightening the prose. All the stuff you've been restoring was preserved, I'm just trying to summarize. This article is simply too wordy. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For instance the Levy quote: "...in no way consider themselves an ethnic minority" - we're already saying that, why let Levy repeat it? That's just a feel-good quote if used like that. The only new thing that the quote contained is the dating to the early 19th century, and I summarized that a sentence or two below. Besides, you placed it at a point where it totally distorted the meaning of the next sentence. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the repeated removal of that quote. I'll revert it (if you don't) and expand it. talk to +MATIA 10:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Literal quotes should only be used if they actually add something new to the text. Their purpose in an encyclopedic article is not just to reaffirm something that's already stated just to make readers feel good. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)