Talk:Origin of the Albanians

Lack of Greek loans

One of the reasons for the lack of Greek loans could be also Epirus. Epirus according to Strabo was non-Greek, non-Illyrian and was between the two cultures. —Anna Comnena (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Strabo is a primary source no matter what he writes.What you say does not really stand.Megistias (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Epirus according to Strabo was non-Greek, non-Illyrian - this is what Strabo said. Nut of course, it is a great possibility that Illyrians living in cities were all hellenized or romanized. Only people from mountains and remote places could have managed to keep their language. That is why Albanian language could be considered as a relative to Illyrian, all original words in Albanian are from such remote areas as 900-1000 meter above sea level, yet they have a great amount of Roman loans + Gothic (which is weird). —Anna Comnena (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

there are more authors...modern too...and evidence than strabo...perhaps you need to revive the old 'epirotans are pelasgians' theory.. so anyway what are the 'ancient epirotan' loans in albanian?87.202.4.77 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

placenames like 'dimale' are better proof of possible albanian illyrian continuity than early greek loans87.202.4.77 (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Strabo Epirus was not Greek... Thats actually a POVish statement if we adopt it today, some ancients said they were barbarian some others they were Greek, none Illyrian. There were also ancient Greek authors that stated that Elians, Acarnanians were also barbarians (practically imposible, but the term barbarian didn't had simple ethnic basis). The fact is that we had inscription written in the local NW ancient Epirotic dialect from early 4th B.C., plus an overwhemingly large number of secondaries that state that the region was Greek speaking from the ancient Dark Ages.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the term barbarian originally referred primarily to being Greek speaking or not, and there were many non Greek speaking communities in Ancient Greece (Pelasgians). What do you mean by "secondaries"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean secondary sources Wikipedia:SECONDARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Ancient sources use the term barbarian but it's not always based on a linguistic ground. For example Athenians, also used this term to deride other Greek tribes and states (such as Epirotes, Eleans and Aeolic-speakers) in a pejorative and politically motivated manner.(Barbarians#Origin_of_the_term). Moreover, Epirotes wrote their own distinct dialect of ancient Greek (Northwestern Greek-Epirotic), something that the Pelasgian didn't.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the difference is that clear archaeological evidence exists that northern Greece (ie Epirus and macedonia) in prehistory was a seperate cultural and socio-economic entity to Greece proper (central and southern Greece). It is highly probable that this area was only secondarily Hellenized from the south.

Epirotians could well have been barbarians, but not the "proper" Illyrians, which were rather discreet set of tribes in what is now northern Albania/ Montenegro. Just like Pannonians or Dalmatians weren't strictly speaking "illyrians" Hxseek (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology

This article would be enriched if we add an archaeology section. Ie about the Komani culture and the interesting debates regarding its connection, or lack thereof, with 'proto-Albanians'. I can place something in a few weeks. Hxseek (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Albanian endonym

"the Albanian endonym being shqiptar, from the term for the Albanian language, shqip, a derivation of the verb shqipoj "to speak clearly", perhaps ultimately a loan from Latin excipio.[12]"

The above can not be correct. Robert Elsie needs to learn better Albanian. One's language is called x because one call oneself x and not the other way around.

"shqip(t)oj" does not translate "to speak clearly"...."shqip(t)oj" translates "to pronounce" i.e pronouciation versus spelling. "flas paster" translates "to speak clearly" "flas rrjedhshem" translates "to speak flawlessly"

On the other hand Shqipe and shqiponje are the word for eagle and this is what our elderis know to derive our name from.It is bizarre to have other outside poeple impose explainations on our origins. cant one dicide for onself what they call themselves and why?

Robert Elsie can contact me if he wants some lessons in Albanian language. --Besnikalushi (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed sometimes a very strange experience on Wikipedia when you know something and people doubt you. Please don't get too worried about that because it happens to everyone, and I think experienced Wikipedians totally understand, even if they change your good work and seem not to care. You have to keep in mind that there of constantly hundreds of edits claiming to be by experts, quite often arguing with other people claiming to be specialists. As a community we just need a way of cross checking. The worst cases always come when a source contains a mistake, which can of course happen. You really have to be calm about it and try to find another source. Basically on Wikipedia the aim is only to say what has been said somewhere else, not to judge whether what is published is wrong or right. Do you think you can find a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou but I am the source!my grand parents are the source, my great grand parents and so on! my authority derives from being an Albanian (a literate Albanian) and no one from outside can understand Albanian langauge better than an Albanian which speaks in adition Greek and Italian and can clearly see the influences and fusions.

I challenge the defination of source as aplied by wikipedia.You say "it has to be said somewhere" but it seems that in adition "it has to be said by an westerner".It seems that only Westerners can clasify as a source.

However from a lingustical point of view, are you telling me that Shqipoj/Shqiptoj translates as "to speak clearly"? I will be damded, i dont know my own mother tounge then!!!an albanian dictoniery will conform my resevation! your source Robert, an non Albanian comes and teaches Albanians their own language!!!Probaly we should teach the English the meaning of their own language by intoducing a meaning of our choice!How does that sound to you?

I will change it...because that is how Albanian people know and want the origin of thier name.You can not impose an explaination from outside(cultural imperialism)and get rid of the explaination that the natives give about themselves. --Besnikalushi (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, really, I know this always sounds strange to people when they learn it, but this happens to EVERYONE on Wikipedia, not just Albanians. And yes it can be infuriating if you do not see the reasons this has developed, but there you have it. Concerning the sources you mention, your mother is presumably not published, so a dictionary is better. Do you have a dictionary you can cite? You are welcome to edit articles about English also of course. By the way, I might not be the best adviser, because it is possible that when the sourcing problem results purely from the linguistic ignorance or Wikipedians, there is perhaps a way of calling on people of a certain language? I did a bit of a browse around: [1]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove maps

Please do not remove maps that show Albanians in the VIth and VIIth century. Albanians did not come from the moon in the XIth century: they were there. sulmues--Sulmues 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

no they didn't come from the moon nor they were here. albanians came from today's azerbaijan. It is funny as you accept "albanoi" and other similar words as possible origin, but you forget the 1:1 match - albania in azerbaijan... truth is one, and you may twist it as much as you want - azerbaijan will return always again because it is clear what is the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.209.193 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The map needs to go, since it is scientificly wrong: a school atlas of a communist regime of 1970... ignoring the entire western bibliographyAlexikoua (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) latin language(surrounded by red color ,from 100bc to 1400 ad)

year100 bc [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y100bc_zps3h1zq0yk.jpg[/IMG] year0ad [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y0ad_zpsezyku57g.jpg[/IMG] year100 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y100ad_zpsa8jidptd.jpg[/IMG] year200 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y200ad_zpswp0y06ig.jpg[/IMG] year300 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y300_zpsdrgk9s0r.png[/IMG] year 700 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y700ad_zps11uezvgs.jpg[/IMG] year 900 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y900ad_zpsqmvxzzuc.jpg[/IMG] year 1000 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y1000ad_zpsbn3mqnyh.jpg[/IMG] year1200 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y1200ad_zpsvxxmvxbv.jpg[/IMG] year1300 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y1300ad_zps21egcd3i.jpg[/IMG] year1400 [IMG]http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/viitorulprimar/y1400ad_zpsrhaileb1.jpg[/IMG] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemadgearu (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Stephanus of Byzantium

"In the 6th century AD, Stephanus of Byzantium in his important geographical dictionary entitled Ethnica (Εθνικά) mention a population called abroi from Adria Taulantii and a city in Illyria called Arbon, with its inhabitants called arbonios and arbonites."

• Stephanus mentions ancient nations in an anachronistic manner, mentioning Chelidonioi, Cimbri and others. They are not claimed to exist at the time. The Cimbri were ancient as where the others and faded long before his time.
• Ethnica, Epitome, page 9,line 7, :Αβροι εθνος προς το Αδρια Ταυλαντινων προσεχες τοις Χελιδονιοις ως Εκαταιος βαυρνεται δ ως Κιμβροι ους τινες φασι Κιμμεριους Σκομβροι και ουτοι εθνος ως Σοφοκλης.
• Ethnica, Epitome, page 110,line 21, : Αρβανιον πολις προς το Ποντω το εθνικον αρβανιος και το θηλυκων εν κοινω γενει Αρβανιος ακτη. City of Pontus.
• Ethnica, Epitome, page 111,line 14, : Αρβών πόλις Ιλλυριας,Πολυβιος δευτερα, το εθνικον Αρβωνιος και Αρβωνιτης, ως Αντρωνιος και Ασκαλωνιτης...
• Arbon, with its inhabitants called arbonios and arbonites. Abri are irrelevant and were even in a different part of Ethnica.

Megistias (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He repeats what Polybius mentioned and that does not warranty claiming that a city was there or that he even claimed it.Megistias (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pliny

Pliny mentions Liburnians in Scardona, which is in Croatia. He may have to be removed alltogether, Croatia is far from Albania and they were mentioned as Liburnians. Its kind of over-reaching to try to link a similar-sounding name with Albanians. Megistias (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbo

Arbo was a Liburnian island Perseus edu "The Libyrnides are the islands of Arbo, Pago, Isola Longa, Coronata, &c., which border the coasts of ancient Liburnia, now Murlaka."

• Polybius, Histories,2.11,Of the Illyrian troops engaged in blockading Issa, those that belonged to Pharos were left unharmed, as a favour to Demetrius; while all the rest scattered and fled to Arbo. Pharos is an island, and so is Arbo.Megistias (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Late antiquity usage of the ethnonym

Aigest, you removed the small section 3 times, diff, diff, diff. In the arguments against Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arguments_against_Illyrian_origin, there are now 5 paragraphs, the first for example speaks of the Albanoi of Ptolemy, and then goes on to the middle ages. The removed section pointed out that even the ethnonym was a misnaming during late antiquity.

• So please readd it.Megistias (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can not understand the connection with the arguments regarding origin of Albanians. Let's take for eg that part of Albanians were called greeks (misname due to religion) in middle ages. Does this prove anything on the origin? No! Does this disprove anything on the origin? No again! It is not an argument either for proving or disproving. Moreover if you look on the history croatians, bosnians, serbs propably have some kind of Illyrian mixture in their origin. Does the fact that they are called Illyrians in middle ages prove that they derive from Illyrians? No! Does this name/misname disprove their origin? No again! Returning to Albanians in middle ages for byzantine chronicles sometimes they are called Illyrians, (eg Laonikos Chalkokondyles or Mazaris)but does this prove anything on their origin? No! Does this disprove anything? No again! None is based on name Illyrian to prove anything about the origin, the argument is only related to specific name Albani and Albanopolis with it exact location and it is expressed above with its pro and counter view. I repeat again none has brought the mention of general (name/misname) Illyrian to prove anything. It can not constitute an argument. Another eg. Visigoths are not mentioned in middle ages in Spain, but for sure they participated in Spanish people ethnogenesis. Does this mention or non mention constitutes an argument on the origin? No again. Hope I was clear Aigest (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Ptolemy's Albanoi/Albanopolis is just a geographical term. Are there any sources that these people are actually related to modern Albanians? Otherwise just mentioning the primary source in the article may be original research.--Ptolion (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Illyrians ceased to exist, and only the term existed, used by the Byzantines geographically. If we ommit that paragraph then we would have to add, and perhaps add it still, that the Illyrians ceased to exist as a nation or in any other aspect. The only remnant of them is a few words. Regarding Albanopolis, its mentioned in related articles and there is no ethnic link between them and Albanians of today, its a way of explaining the Toponym.Megistias (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you both missed the point. The argument Albanians don't originate from Illyrians because in middle ages other ethnies were called Illyrians is hilarious. It is like sayin that actual Greeks don't originate from old pagan Greeks because in middle ages all christian orthodoxes with Greek rituals (before indipendence of other churches) were called greeks. Do you guys notice the absurdity of this argumentation or it's just me:)

P.S. Albani and Albanopolis arguments are mentioned by all historians and linguists dealing with this topic, with their pro and counter views as in the article, but this Illyrian misname argument is really absurd Aigest (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a simple issue, Albanopolis and the such is a geographical term and so is the Illyrian term in Late antiquity. That is why the section belongs there. Illyrians(only a few words remain) faded in all aspects while the Greeks remained in most.Megistias (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is different, 1. Illyrians is a general term while Albani and Albanopolis are specific ones making specific reference to tribe, location and to actual Albania name itself (it is obvious to be used as argument) 2. The arguments Albani and Albanopolis are used by all scholars (see sources on the archives of this talk page) 3. Moreover name Albani was used for another hypothesis (Caucasian Albani) so does count as an argument itself 4. No scholar uses the name/misname as Illyrians by Byzantine historians when referring to Albanians in middle ages, as an argument for proving Illyrian descendance, I can not see why it is brought as an argument against this?! .. so in the end it is not the same and I can not understand why do you mess things up here Aigest (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Aigest, you're missing my point. There are currently no secondary sources cited for Ptolemy or that he was referring to a people related to modern Albanians. I'm sure they were related, but we need something we can reference.--Ptolion (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ptolion, I am not trying to build up a study of my own, I was just referring to other scholars for their arguments one example here 1950'[2] or here 2000'[3] or here 1860'[4] etc (see archives here). So in the end it was presented as an argument for their origin (wright or wrong is another point). But the misname as Illyrians?! No serious scholar would be based on that for proving or disproving see arguments above on that). Aigest (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked to come and look. Sorry but this is not my field, and my first reading is quick, and so I thought it might just be a good idea to try to summarize and see if I understand. If I understand correctly:

• Aigest is worried that the discussion about the term Illyrian being used loosely in post classical times could be read as implying that it was used to apply to Albanians, which goes beyond what any sources say?
• Ptolion and Megistias do not believe it implies this, and is simply good context information, showing that the term Illyrian was disconnected from classical usage during the Middle Ages, implying only that naming in general got mixed and that the field of theories is relatively open?
• Then as often on Wikipedia there is the sourcing rules sub-discussion, which is possibly making discussion a little awkward. Aigest argues that because the Illyria comment implies certain things, it needs sourcing for what it implies. Ptolion points out that in his opinion even the classical terms similar to Albanian are not being sourced well?

From what I read so far this seems like a discussion with lots of possible resolutions, but maybe I am missing something. Once again apologies for how rough this is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument is quite valid since it is claimed that the term 'Illyrians' wasn't used as an ethnonym but as an archaism. Fact that account as a counter argument for the Illyrian-Albanian theory. Byzantine sources used very often archaisms to describe people, for example the Turks were termed 'Persians'.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly states that the fact that by late antiquity "Illyrians" had become an archaism devoid of meaning is an argument against Illyrian origin of the Albanians. That's what the source says, that's all that matters. Everything else is a bunch of OR. Athenean (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you are missing a point, how come a name/misname could be used as an counter argument?! Ok, let me put another example, Romaoi (Romans) was the term for byzantine population (as an archaism just like Alex says above) but does this imply that actual Italians don't descend from Romans? The fact that in middle ages many populations in the Balkans are called Illyrians does not prove or disprove anything. Returning to the actual sentence, could be summarized like this : Albanians could not descend from Illyrians because many populations are called Illyrians in middle ages (?!) This is not an argument, this is forcing to sentences together without logic. How could they(Albanians) not descend from Illyrians, since many are called Illyrians in middle ages?! What is the connection or disconnection here? Again when presenting arguments or counter arguments we should rely on author otherwise it became OR, the term Albania, Albani, Albanopolis have been put forward by scholars when proving or disproving the origin of Albanians. One eg is Hammond (from archives in this talk page)

'Albanoi' as a people appeared first in Ptolemy 3.12.20. In his description of the Roman world, the southernmost part of the province Illyricum included Scodra, Lissus and Mt Scardus (Sar Planina); and, adjoining it the northernmost part of 'Macedonia' included the Taulantii (in the region of Tirana) and the Albani, in whose territory Ptolemy recorded one city only, Albanopolis or Albanos polis. Thus the Albani were a tribe in what we now call Central Albania, and they were an Illyrian-speaking tribe, like the more famous Taulantii, in the second century A.D. Men of this tribe appeared next in 1040, alongside some Epirotes (their neighbours on land) and some Italiotes (their neighbours across the sea), in the army of a rebellious general, George Maniakis. Two chieftains of this tribe, Demetrios and Ghin, pursued an independent policy in the early years of the thirteenth century...The gap between Ptolemy and Acropolites is bridged by the mention of "Ducagini d'Arbania" in a seventh-century document at Ragusa (Dubrovnik). These Ducagini instigated a revolt against Byzantine rule in Bosnia and in particular at Ragusa, but they had to submit after the second unsuccessful intervention at Ragusa, to which they were said to have come "de terra ferma," i.e overland (15). The name 'Ducagini' is evidently derived from the Latin 'dux' and the common Albanian name 'Ghin'; indeed an Albanian chieftain in 1281 was referred to as "dux Ginius Tanuschus"(16). Moreover, the leading family of northern Albania from the thirteenth century to the Turkish invasion in the fifteenth century was called 'Dukagjin' (Lek Dukagjini the codifier was one of them), and their properties lay between Lesh (Lissus) and the bend of the Drin. It is here then that we should put the ‘Arbania' of the seventh century. The conclusion that 'Albanians' lived there continuously from the second century to the thirteenth century becomes, I think, unavoidable... N. G. L. Hammond Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471

So as you see this has been put forward as an argument by notable scholars (we all agree Hammond is RS do we?). But looking through the sources none of serious scholars puts an argument saying "Albanians descend from Illyrians because they were called Illyrians in middle ages (they were called so by Chalkokondylis, Mazaris etc)" this is not an argument or even a counter argument. Of course Illyrian became an archaism, but if the remaining of Illyrians this tribe Albani kept the name Albani for themselves (in the end none knows how Illyrians called themselves) the generic term Illyrians simply dissapeared and the new name was used now for this population with their specific name Albani, so it the generic term Illyrians does not constitute a pro or counter argument and no serious scholar uses it. Aigest (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Aigest, am I correct in saying that your concern is that the mention of the term Illyrian as an archaism is being presented as an argument for something? I looked at the wording removed and it certainly didn't look very obviously like it was being presented as an argument? It just says that the term Illyrian was no longer used in a clear way. If the text said more than this then maybe I would see your concern more clearly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern was that it is presented in the section Arguments against Illyrian origin link [5] and I was was explaining above, this (name/misname Illyrians in middle ages) is not an argument pro or counter for the origin. None is denying that the archaism Illyrians was used in middle ages for various populations, but this does not make a pro or counter argument as I have stated (look above for my explanation on the names Illyrians, Albani, Albanopolis or even the archives in this talk page for sources). Am i clear? Aigest (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Alban- related names are common ethnonyms of ancient tribes, as well as toponyms. Albanopolis is a toponym, of an obscure town and an even more obscure people that appear in the 2nd century AD, vanish and never reappears. The name at the time was not even Illyrian, the indoeuropean Alb- and Greek -polis in composite word for a settlement. 10 centuries later, similar words by the Byzantines are used but this means nothing as it is an attributed toponym and now just an exonym for Albanians.

• What Hammond thinks, as well as others is clear as the migrations of Albanians come from above Epirus Nova into it during the middle ages. Epirus Nova (most of modern Albania) had Greeks and Romanized populations. Illyricum was above it. But your the quote, Aigest is irrelevant to our discussion. The article itself points out that Albanians originated from the north and were not a coastal people. So that would be Kosovo and above. Northern Albania, the part that was Illyricum is the stretch.
• There is no doubt that only a few words survive from the sum of all that the Illyrians were.
• Illyrians vanished and the name became an "exonym" used in a geographical sense by the Byzantines. That section speaks of the term Illyrians in late antiquity and thus is perfectly relevant. Illyrians and the toponym-exonym issue has to be clear.Megistias (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that wiki readers and rules are interested in our personal opinions. Just as you have yours, I may have mines. The concern here was abut the representation of the facts. Arguments pro Illyrian and against Illyrian descendance have been presented in respective sections. According to the discussions we had in this talk page before, these arguments should have been taken from the authors who explicitly mentioned these arguments when dealing with Albanians' origin. Those who support the Illyrian descendance make the connection Albanian-Albani, those who oppose it don't. But most of the academics support the connection of the name Albania-Albani one eg [6] or archives here [7]. Did Albanians always used it for themselves, or did they took it from existing tribe, this is another story, but the fact remains that the connection Albania-Albani (in the end it is the national name) has been used widely regarding discussions Albanian origin. But the fact that Albanians have been called Illyrians sometimes in middle ages has not been put forward as an argument pro Illyrian descendace by serious scholars and I don't see why it should be mentioned as an argument against by serious ones(see explanation above). Aigest (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am happy to say I can follow most of this, but the bad news is I do not understand the disagreement. I'd say that the fact that a lot of ethnic seeming designations in the Middle ages were fuzzy geographical archaicisms is not necessarily relevant to any argument about origins as such? But I agree with Aigest (if I understand) that if there are sources out there who think that behind the fuzziness a theory can be developed, well then those sources can be mentioned. Megistias, why do you think it is important to mention the word Illyria beings used for Serbians etc? That seems to be the bit I don't get yet. Sorry guys for being slow. Hopefully my not being familiar with the argument can be a positive eventually! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the source where it's taken from (Mardugearu and Gordon) uses it as an argument. That's all that matters. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What we are getting boged down with is the issue of "Illyrian descendence " of Albanians and other (eg all former Yugoslavs). The problem, as Megistias identifies, is that the ethnicity and culture were always in flux. The Illyrians were but one stage in a constant metamorhposis of western Balkan peoples, which emerge in the Iron Age and end, strictly speaking, with the Roman 'conquest'. The tribal organizations, chieftainship, burial methods, and settlement pattern which charracterised these people, (which was far frm unifrom, anyway), changed quite clearly during Roman times. After this, Illyricum's leading strata aspired a Roman culture and a Latin lingua franca. Yes, obviously Romanization was not universal, but even the non-Romanized provincials were settled around and dependent upon the Roman cities. From the 4th century, there is again a change. The Antiquity model of society and centralized Roman rule declines and communities develop rather more autonomously around the rule of local potentate, who, by the mid 5th century, were the local Bishops. By the mid 6th century, this again changes significantly, as many cities seem to just disappear. Until the 10th century, the is almost a black hole in much of the Balkans. Clearly, this was a time when there was a Slavonization in many areas. But even this was not a concrete, entirely uniform and coherent process, but reflected the orientation of the Balkans to a more middle Danubian culture, ie the plcae where Avars ruled from. The Albanians emerged in 11th century politically. This does not mean that they came from somewhere. Biologically speaking, they were always there. Even if we accept that Albanian is some offshoot of Ilyrian (which is hard to prove because we know very little about Ilyrian), this does not equate with a continuous Illyrian-Albanian ethnicity. There is clearly too much discontinuity and change to even begin to seriously entertain the idea Hxseek (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That all seems correct to me Hxseek, the names were in flux, but if there are arguments in reliable sources that suggest ways of looking through the flux, I guess they need to be mentioned unless they are really clearly fringe theories? Of course that does not mean that they need to be strongly emphasized.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a sensible way to look at it would be to begin with a mention of what might be termed 'generalist'/ introductory sources, then delve into more highly specialized stuff. Like the Romanians article, it would benefit from splitting the arrticle into literary, archaeological and linguistic evidence. The curent state of the article can integrate the sections which focus on Dacian, Illyrian, anti-Illryian, etc into one languge chapter. Hxseek (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion does feel like one that might be fixed by a re-structuring.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a restructuring is necessary, but then is the risk of WP:SYNTH. Anyway this article is about the origin. Of course Albanians are not Illyrians, just like Romanians are not Dacians or Italians are not Romans and so on. The question here is from which population the today Albanians derive from. All agree that Albanians derive from old populations of Balkan (Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or Dacians), but since Greek is out of question they don't agree if they derive from Illlyrians, Thracians or Dacians hence the theories represented in this article. Explaining that the Albanians are not Illyrians, or Albanians are not Thracians etc is unnecessary. I think we all agree that this affirmation is absurd. I want to point also to another issue in this article, which can be improved. Actually there are two theories of Illyrians descendance. On is that some Illyrian tribes (most notably Albani) withdrew in the mountains in what is today part of Albania and Kosovo area up to Naissus, limiting contacts with the population in the fields and cities which were under Roman and then Byzantium rule. Restricted in mountains area they delt mosty with herding and kept intact their language, but under heavy influence from Latin especially in terms of technology, government and city affairs. The other one (less supported )is that of Jirecek, that half Romanized Illyrians under the pressure of Slavs, spilled through the areas between Dalmatia and Danube unnoticed to North Albania. Again they were herding tribes and restricted themselves into mountains. The restriction on the mountains and the loss of many original words in favor of latin terms would explain the loss of maritime terms, greek loanwords etc. These two theories actually are not represented in a summary form (see Bessoi theory for eg) but only with arguments pro and counter, so the reader would just imagine what the theory wants to say. This form is somewhat confusing, very schematic for my taste. Aigest (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To get back on topic, Late antiquity usage of the ethnonym. That small section is sourced and relevant. Aigest's opinion is that it is irrelevant but the source disagrees, and so do the many logical points made. Lets stay on topic. The many theories are presented and they should be presented with detail, as they are. Megistias (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I remain with my opinion that late antiquity usage of the ethnonym is not an argument pro or against. Anyway since the source you brought is not visible (only snippet view) can you give the full paragraph of that sentence. Is he giving his personal opinion or is he saying what others say. Aigest (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you remain with it, and also that you know for a fact that Illyrians was used by the Byzantines as an exonym for Slavs in a certain era, and the fact that such archaisms were common.Megistias (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aigest and Megistias, whether you think the late antiquity usage can be used as an argument is not so much the point as whether it can be sourced that someone thinks it can. Is there an RS source which makes the link or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He uses this, The wars of the Balkan Peninsula, Megistias (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this was an archaism and that the term was used here and there. But Aigest's opinion seems to be that it doesn't matter that the term was thus used, that its distanced from being an argument against Illyrian origin. But it remains relevant as the last and external element of the Illyrians, that once existed but by that time did not, other in the habit of archaisms of the Byzantines.Megistias (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Megistias, I am not following the answer. Have you got a source saying that the term Illyrian was used to mean Albanian?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, its not that. The term Illyrian was not used for actual Illyrians anymore, the people became extinct, and the term was used to refer to other ethnic groups, non- Illyrians, by Byzantines, (and before that it was used in a provincial identity manner).Megistias (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This (diff) is what I think about Megistias' work on trying to represent that Illyrians have no connections with the Albanians. --sulmues (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, plz focus on the topic. This is your personal view anyway.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, what could drive you to link an attack you made against 3 people, that is offensive and demeaning. There is a topic here we are discussing.Megistias (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to drive the point, Aigest, but Albanians do not 'derive' from either Illyrians, Dacians nor Thracians. They are a much later ethnicity. You, like many other editors, confuse their 'Balkan' biological descent with ethncity and political formation. All Balkan countries, even the Slavic ones, derive from Palae-Balkan peoples. So this is not new. Hxseek (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess all Balkan peoples of today "derive" from the Balkan peoples of classical times in various complicated and imperfectly known ways. The problem when trying to agree on how to word these things can be on very fine points. To totally deny a connection between classical and modern Greeks for example would be controversial. To totally equate them, equally so. Neither position is ever likely to give a stable consensus. In the case of Illyrians and Albanians though, the connection between ancient and modern is certainly far less clear (as everyone here seems to agree): even if it is real, no one can show it conclusively so far. Anyway, I think I understand Megistias and Aigest, but I still do not quite see why this passage is so important to either of them. Aigest is right that proof of uncertainty is not proof of no connection, but the quote as removed did not claim to be proof of no connection. It was just "context" which helps the flow of the discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

nobody denies "a connection". The point is that this is too silly to feature in an encyclopedia. There is also "a connection" between each Albanian and Mitochondrial Eve. "Newsflash: Albanians descended from prehistoric people". There isn't a single individual on the planet who is not "descended from prehistoric people". We can explain this obsession with the Illyrians in Albania, but that explanation is a topic of 19th to 20th century history, not of "origin of the Albanians". The question of the "origin of Albanians" is one of a medieval ethnogenesis. It does not concern antiquity any more than the Bronze Age or the Paleolithic. --dab (𒁳) 09:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The hammer has hit the nail on the head Hxseek (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. What is the practical up-shot of dab's post concerning what should be in the article? Does it mean there should be no mention of anything before the Middle Ages? Are all sources concerning speculation going further back really just "silly"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually we should add a section dedicated on the medieval ethnogenesis, which is substantiated, and is missing. We have all sorts of origin of Albanians data elaborated in the article but that. The medieval ethnogenesis parts are scattered all over, we can add them all up in a section, and add whatever else exists. Megistias (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it this is basically what Hxseek was suggesting concerning re-structuring, which certainly seems to make sense. So you could then also have a section also for any available good enough RS material going beyond the middle ages. Is that what you mean?

Not really, current structure is fine and has been worked on for a long time. But we can add an ethnogenesis of the Albanians during the middle ages, when it actualy occured.Megistias (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i think the structure can be tidied up. There is a lot of redundant information and formatting in the way it is set out now: Dacian/ Thracian origin, illyrian origin, arguements against Illyrian origin. Most of this revolves around language and toponymic evidence. It would be better to include it all into one linguistic evidence chapter. And as I said earlier, there is nothing on archaeological evidence in the article. I think it would be a good possible approach to set the page up like the Romanians page, which is very academic and well sourced.Hxseek (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys for being a little late on the topic, but returning to my previous point as far as I see from the link provided by Megistias the author (Madgearu) does not use this late usage as an argument pro or counter about origin (as Megistias does), probably for the same reason I had stated before. It can not be an argument pro or counter. It has no meaning to use it in the section where specific arguments by the scholars have been presented with bullets, otherwise is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Aigest (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As suspected before (it can not be an argument pro or counter) proved from what we can see from the link provided by Megistias, "Late antiquity usage of the ethnonym" is not an argument used by scholars (Madgearu's book in this case) but from Megistias extrapolating it from the text clearly a WP:SYNTH. Any other opinion on this specific argument? Aigest (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The above mentioned user jumps to conclusions out of context and unrelated to the subject and the source. I will remove that sentence since it is very obvious it is irrelevant.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian language at late Roman period

Citing Wilkes "Alongside Latin the native Illyrian survived in the country areas and St. Jerome claimed to speak his sermo gentillis (Commentary on Issiah 7.19" page 266 Wilkes book Illyrians link here [8]. Apparently Madgearu doesn't know the work of Wilkes or even St. Jerome (his reference to his Illyrian language is known and used by specialists of the field) and his copy pasted quote brought by Athenean are simply not true. I'll remove them Aigest (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Are you saying that Illyrian didn't die out at all? What's next, that it is still alive and well and spoken by 10 million people? There is nothing controversial about the statement I inserted. Illyrian is a dead language. Madgearu is a reliable source. Athenean (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The default position would be that we don't know whether Albanian is a descendant of the language of the Illyrians (assuming they had one language in common) or not. What's the evidence that Illyrian died out (i.e. that the modern Albanian language isn't a descendant of it)? Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I simply stated that Madgearu sentence was dead wrong. Don't you consider Jerome period (four to fifth century AD) Late Roman period?! Or do you think that Madgearu is more competent on Illyrians than Wilkes?! Aigest (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? Fourth to Fifth century BC is the Late Roman Period. As for Madgearu being "wrong" that is of course just your own OR. Athenean (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you brought is that There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language in the late Roman period.Madrugearu A 2007. p.146" here [9]

Since there is the clear reference of Jerome (347 – 420 A.D. or fourth to fifth century AD so Late Roman Period ) known to the scholars to the point that it is used in the same article above that section and also the opinion of Wilkes (an authority on the Illyrians) cited above in page 266, I simply stated that this particular sentence is not true at all. All this misunderstanding came as a result of using authors which are not specialized on the topic they are talking about. Aigest (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No it's not wrong. "Late Roman Period" includes everything between 300 and 600 AD. Can you show me that Illyrian was still spoken in 600 AD? You can't, because it had died out by then. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently includes everything does not conclude the years before 420?! Can we redefine Late Roman period here in wiki just because this particular scholar is ignorant in this specific topic?! Please don't do word games. It is obvious that the sentence is dead wrong Aigest (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look up Late Antiquity, and then come tell me that Illyrian was still spoken. Athenean (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to tell you that Illyrian was still spoken in Late Roman period, St Jerome & Wilkes have taken care of that Aigest (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Jerome is from 370-420 AD. The Late Roman Period extends to 600 A.D. You have shown that Illyrian was spoken as late a c. 420 A.D., not 600 A.D. Unless you can show that, there is nothing wrong with Madgearu's sentence. And would please learn how to use indent correctly? One ":" equals one indent, two "::" equals two indents, and so on. Otherwise it is very difficult for other people to follow this disucssion. Athenean (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding I suppose. Madgearu's exact own words reported by you are There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language in the late Roman period.Madrugearu A 2007. p.146" here [10]. He didn't say There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language at 600 AD or There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language after 420 AD at his book. These interpretations are yours personally. Since author was referring to the Late Roman Period (which you yourself admit that includes everything between 300 and 600 AD) he is dead wrong because others, namely a saint Jerome (do you doubt its words?) and an authority in the field Wilkes (or do you doubt him too?) say differently, that's why his sentence its dead wrong. Maybe after seeing our debate here he will be enlightened enough to change that sentence in his next book:) but up to now it is wrong for the above reasons. P.S I didn't used indent in my first sentence and I am keeping the same format (just like you), any other person which will participate in this debate can use them double or triple just to be identified immediately. Aigest (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proof for the existence of Illyric or Dardanian type languages into the 7th century might exist in the names of Sklavene chiefs. Musokios, Perbundos, etc certainly don't sound Slavic, but have a Dardanian sound to them. I am no expert in this, and have unfortunately have found no 'expert' discussion papers on it apart form one Romanian scholar who thought that Musokios was Dacian. Hxseek (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Newhost19

The edits by Newhost19 are a tendentious attempt to discredit Georgiev's theory for the well-known national-dogma reasons. If Hamp disagrees with Georgiev, that does not mean he "refutes" Georgiev's theory, only the he himself disagrees with it. "Refute" implies that the rest of the scientific community agrees with him. Interestingly, that Hamp connects Albanian with Balto-Slavic is completely omitted. The stuff about "for the fullest demolition, di Giovine, Tracio, dacio ed albanese" is not properly referenced, it's just a bunch of names being dropped. Furthermore, http://groznijat.tripod.com/balkan/ehamp.html#16 does not claim "demolish" anything, Newhost is just making this up. Lastly, this [11] is entirely unacceptable. www.alb-net.com is not a valid source, and the essay does not even mention Georgiev. Thus, there is nothing to suggests that his theory is "politically motivated". I find it especially ironic that pro-Albanian editors accuse Georgiev's theory of being "politically motivated", as if these editors are not politically motivated themselves. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section to be more in accordance with the sources given, and removed some of the more SYNTHy and "creative" interpretations of the sources. Athenean (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

some of the genetic section isnt that good..the editors who added some material couldnt tell the difference between some suppositions by the authors of the papers and their actual findings..85.73.217.158 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

or other misinterpretations85.73.217.158 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Genetics section is simply atrocious, which is not surprising. Athenean (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, although I am one who would not dismiss 'genetic evidence', too many people on wiki equate haplogroups with ethnic groups. All that the genetic evidence shows is that Albanians (like all other Balkan peoples) have evidence a of genetic continuity with peoples who lived in the Balkans many thousands of years ago. Hardly surprising and something few would doubt. It tells us nothing about the actual conditions which generated a specific Albanian ethos in the Middle Ages. Hxseek (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Genetic evidences are the only ones which can be trusted. It would be insane to dismiss it. It's because people forget, lie, don't know, don't care, that we can't trust their words, but have to rely on facts. Have this last sentence in mind while interpreting genetic evidence. If someone says he is Albanian, that doesn't mean he is. You can't say that Albanians are this or that, because some genetic analysis of a certain man (which claims to be Albanian) indicates so. First thing we have to dismiss is that he is Albanian. Only when we have genetic data WE can tell HIM, if he is Albanian or not. Anyway, evidences suggest (so far) that Albanians are of Asian origin, and Kosovars are of African origin. You must not mix these two. Bye, Seculla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.66.65 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Albanian mythology

There's nothing on Eliade's book about any influences and in fact even the word Albanian is found only once in the abbreviations page and nowhere else [12]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also interesting that the source you are using, Bonefoy, does not make any claims about Paleo-Balkanic origins, in fact the word "Paleo-Balkan" does not appear anywhere [13]. Although he does mention the "Albanian Polyphemus" [14], which would imply Greek influence. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I miss something in Bonefoy, p.253 there is only the bibliography. No statement of whatsoever. Whoever put it as a reference should provide an inline citation for the claim. Aigest (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH again

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The sentence

The Illyrians as a people went extinct, so did their languages by the 6th century.[62] Today, almost nothing of it survives except for names.[63] Ancient Illyrians were subject to varying degrees of Celticization,[64][65] Hellenization,[66] Romanization[67][68] and later Slavicisation.

Sources are from [62] Linguist.org [63]Wilkes (1992): "Though almost nothing of it survives, except for names, the Illyrian language has figured prominently…" (p. 67) [64]A dictionary of the Roman Empire Oxford paperback reference,ISBN 0195102339,1995,page 202,"contact with the peoples of the Illyrian kingdom and at the Celticized tribes of the Delmatae" [65]Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere [66]Stanley M. Burstein, Walter Donlan, Jennifer Tolbert Roberts, and Sarah B. Pomeroy. A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture. Oxford University Press [67]Epirus Vetus: The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province (Duckworth Archaeology) by William Bowden [68]The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (3-Volume Set) by Alexander P. Kazhdan,1991,page 248

More WP:SYNTH that the sentence above is difficult to be found. Aigest (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources are perfectly reliable, so it seems to me that you just don't like them... :) I will add them back, also per NPOV. A Macedonian (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's wp:synth not an issue of wp:rs. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The material as such is reliable, but much of it probably doesn't qualify under WP:SYNTH since it is used here very explicitly as an "argument against" something (that's what the section is about). These items can only be used if their authors are in fact proposing whatever it is they're saying in the context of such an argument. Besides, I fail to see what all those references about Slavicization, Romanization, Hellenization and whatnot have to do with anything (I mean, even if it is only our OR synthesis that those X-izations are somehow an argument against Illyrian-Albanian continuity, how would that argument even work?). -- That said, why do we have "arguments pro" and "arguments against" sections in the first place? The existence of such sections is usually a warning sign that an article has been being butchered by POV warriors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the above authors uses that sentence as an argument against Illyrian origin. The author of the sentence just bundled together sources. It is like saying Illyrian were not extinct(X) Albanian continued from Illyrian(Y) and they were not ".....ized"(Z) sentence, which can be very easily constructed and put under pro-arguments. But this is not the case since both sentences are WP:SYNT and OR. Aigest (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you've failed to notice that what's WP:SYNTH is the atrocious "Genetics" section. Of course, considering it is mostly your handiwork, that is hardly surprising. Athenean (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean. It is better for you to reread what wp:synth is and that paragraph falls exactly under that, since that paragraph is your handwork.Fyi genetic section does not try to prove anything, unless you think that it proves any conclusion of anykind different from the sources used.Aigest (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The genetics section is a pointless, unreadable, incoherent mish-mash of unrelated items (e.g., what is the pottery diffusion map have anything to do with genetics or the origin of the Albanians?), and will be dealt with at the appropriate time. As for your claim about Madrugearu's quote, I advise you to actually read what he says on p. 146: The Illyrian tribe of Albanoi and the place Albanopolis could be located near Kruje, but nothing proves a relation to the medieval Albanians, whose name appears for the first time in the eleventh century in Byzantine sources. With this edit [15], you are truncating the sentence in half and altering its meaning, which is intellectually dishonest and disruptive. I will re-enter the above text from Madrugearu verbatim once again, and the first editor who tampers with it again will be reported for disruption. Athenean (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It was the fault of the editor who entered Madgearu in pro Illyrian arguments in the first place (which appears to be you Athenean, why did you put it there?) even weaseling the words (the term "absolutely" you used is a strong word and is not used in academic writings). As for the genetic section, well... science does move on and on wiki there are may articles on them take a look at Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Bulgarians etc. and you will be surprised. Genetic studies are also under way right now and when there will be something regarding Albanians will be put there. FYI that "pottery" thing is the movement of J2B group in the Mediterranean area according to J2B distribution and archaeological findings (genetics + archeology together smth more solid than just genetics), more simple to you: people who distributed Cardial Pottery in Mediterranean area and yes it is present among Albanians, part of them descend from those people. If you don't agree with those findings take it with Battaglia et al(2008). Aigest (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, this article Origin of the Albanians was created years ago in 2003 or 2004 by User:Bogdangiusca when he was about 22 years old. He was young and inexperienced and a little too opinionated because he was aware of only some of the data and publications. I can't speak for Bogdan, but he appears to have been nearly convinced at the time that the Albanian language is linguistically descended from Daco-Thracian. Bogdan is the guy who back then framed that part of the article (and part of at least one other article) in the form of arguments pro and con. Well Bogdan was new to Wiki back then. Years ago I realized that the argument section doesn't fit Wikipedia, but it was too much work for me on my own to have removed that section and reformulated it in a more Wiki style. It was Bogdan's responsibility if anybody's. So I'm adding my recommendation to Future Perfect's observation/remark, that the argument section should be rewritten in a more Wiki way. 76.208.183.100 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

By preteding that there was a continous Illirian-Albanian presence in the region just by using the very general term 'medieval Albanians' is a bad idea. The chronological gap between the two should be clearly mentioned (hope Sulmues doesn't make any additional blind revert on this).Alexikoua (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My reverts are carefully measured. Madrugearu and Georgiev are some of the very few guys that User:Bogdangiusca has brought over and over to counter the hundreds of historians that sustain an illyro-albanian continuity. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgian theory

I neither support nor reject this theory because I don't know enough of it. However I made these edits to enter a doubt on the references:

1. It's not well referenced that the theory is dead.
2. Page is needed for the reference from Schwandners.

Thank you. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Made another edit to reference where Malcolm says that the pelasgian theory would be rejected by modern linguists, which is unreferenced to a modern linguist who rejects it openly: if that's the case we can't have this in an "obsolete theory" paragraph. Still can't find the reference as to where would the Albanian nationalists TODAY would endorse these theories, so pointed out to only the Albanian early 20th century publicists. As far as I can read, Malcolm talks about Chekrezi, Dako, and Noli who lived in the beginning of the 20th century.--Sulmues ^(talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pelasgian "theory" is completely rejected by serious academics. Only in nationalist circles does it still retain support. We don't need Noel Malcolm to tell us that "it would be rejected by today's linguists", because it IS rejected by today's linguists. It is also obsolete, not "another" theory. Athenean (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was the only reference I saw, and I would like to have better ones from linguists. Changed to "obsolete" back, since I don't have any new linguists who support it. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Still problematic. I noticed you changed "Another obsolete theory..." to "A theory". The Pelasgian theory is obselete, it's not just "another theory". It's interesting how you are quick to label the Caucasian theory "obsolete" and "debunked", but are unwilling to do the same for the Pelasgian theory. Also you are wrong about the Pelasgians. We do not know if they "preceded" the Hellenes, or if the Hellenes were Pelasgians originally. In fact, we don't know anything about them, so the best we can say is "autochthonous inhabitants", which is how the ancient sources describe them. Athenean (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because I don't have references for the obsolescence of the Pelasgian theory, and as long as I have a reference I'm not quick to judge. Regarding the pelasgians, they precede the Hellenes according to the very first sentence of their article [16]. And how come you are so sure that the Albanians are not coming from the pelasgians if you know so little about the latter? --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference provided states quite clearly that the theory is obsolete, so stop playing games. As for the Pelasgians, the burden of proof is on the claiming that the Albanians descend from the Pelasgians, not the other way around. Athenean (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does it state it? It says that "modern historians would reject it" and that's what I entered in the article. We have to stick to sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, they do reject it. The only reason he uses "would" is because the theory is so fringe, that most scholars can't even be bothered to actually reject it. Stop playing word games. The title of the source is "Myths in albanian national identity". Myths. Get it? Athenean (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the title of the book. Written by a sociologist and by Noel Malcolm whom you have several times rejected. Now that I am using him correctly you want me to say "another obsolete theory" when Malcolm himself doesn't say it. It would be OR if I do. And that's why we have it under "obsolete theories" anyways. However from there to state myself that it is an obsolete theory is far fetched. I guess it is Ok to put "Obsolete theories" or "Other theories" or "Non-mainstream theories" in the paragraph title, but my wording should be coherent with what the source says. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the Pelasgian "theory" is in fact a "myth" and nothing more. There is no OR on my part, only an ORish attempt on your part to make the Pelasgian myth appear more respectable. It's bunk and you know it very well, so stop this.

Your revert and entry of the old wording is disruptive, Athenean, I entered references there. Please review those references before you bring old versions. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The "old" version is far more encyclopedic that yours. At least I read and understand the sources. It looks like I have no choice but to ask for mediation by Future Perfect or DBachmann, and you will once again be humiliated like at Bardyllis, remember? Athenean (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How about I remind you of this, where you are specifically asked to avoid grave-dancing? And why would be your version more encyclopedic? --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. That refers to ZjarriRrethues' interaction ban. Since I am not interacting with him in any way shape or form, there is no "grave-dancing" on my part. My version is more encyclopedic because I call an obsolete spade an obsolete spade, not a "non mainstream" spade. That's weasel wording to make a debunked theory appear more respectable (in contrast to the "Caucasian theory" section, where you are very very keen to use words like "obsolete" and "debunked. Athenean (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if I call it obsolete, your version doesn't reference to a specific page where the Albanian nationalists would be still linked to the pelasgians theory. The book as I referenced makes a review of early 20th century Albanian publicists. In three pages (77-79) Malcolm talks only about them, not today's nationalists. That's just your original research, so if you write something in Wikipedia, make sure to reference it properly, not with a book and that's it. You need to fully cite. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

In order to reach higher statuses serious sources should be used for this article. Just entered the first one. [17] --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Shaban Demiraj is a WP:RS per several comments of FPS on him. [18] [19], [20] --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) A review of the book can be found here. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC) As a reminder for the last thread, Demiraj rejects the Pelasgian theory fully. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Caucasian theory is based on Serbian and Greek prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.238.24 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE

This edit [21] by Kushtrim123 is a classic example of WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE. It is WP:CHERRY, because he cherry picks a source that backs the theory he prefers (the Illyrian one), while ignoring those sources that back the Thracian/Dacian theory. I could just as easily have found and used a source that backs the Thracian/Dacian theory. More importantly, it is WP:UNDUE because it gives undue weight to the Illyrian theory, which is far from proven and in competition with the Thracian/Dacian theory. The lede should present a summary of the article, and since about half the article is taken up by the Thracian/Dacian theory, the edit is unacceptable as it gives far more weight to the Illyrian theory. Moreover, John Van Antwerp Fine is a specialized source on the early Medieval Balkans, which is exactly the time period covered in this article. He is a far better source on this subject than a book on political parties in post-Communist Europe, which is very far from the subject of this article. And Fine makes it quite clear that both theories need to be considered equally. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are mentioning Fine and you agree to use it, how do you explain Fine's words:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. Perhaps (keeping in mind the frequent ethnic mixing as well as cultural and linguistic evolution) we should retain this view. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493 p.10

Three sentences. First sentence, case status among scholars (Illyrian thesis). Second, his personal opinion. Third, other hypothesis(Thracian, Dacian). Is this right? Aigest (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for feedback from the school that wants the 50%-50% (we don't know) theory, and then make the appropriate changes. Since we want Fine, fine. It seems like John Antwerp says clearly that the contrasting of the Illyrian-Albanian theory has been done often for nationalistic purposes.--Sulmues ^(talk) 12:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cherry-picking. You need to read the full passage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you even the full 4 pages should be read, but is what I stated above true or not was the question? Aigest (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the context many of the frequent instances of people asserting the Illyrian-Albanian thesis are just as much determined by "modern nationalist reasons" as the challenging of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Slipped like a snail Fut:) I wasn't excluding nationalistic on both sides, my questions were different and you still didn't respond accordingly;) Aigest (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine sources

This edit [[22]] explains that the Byzantine term 'Albanoi' doesnt necessary have an ethnic meaning. Something that's in full accordance with the rest of the passage (even if it's 11th or 12-13th century..Alexikoua (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very easy to understant part: the title of the section is Byzantine references to "Albanians" and this part, which should be added inside is: Moreover, for a long time Byzantine sources name all invaders that came from the area of Arbanon, as Albanoi, regardless their real ethnic background. It's far too obvious this should be there without a question in a seperate subsection (please don't start flooding)Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't insist on that, because both authors are not related. You should not cherry pick one sentence regardless of author opinion. The references of XIth century are explained and accepted from scholars. You are moving on OR ground. Aigest (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't say a word about a specific author (?). This simply belongs to this section as a seperate paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading use of Hammond position

The purpose of the section (11th-13th century references to Albanians) is the first times when Albanians appear in the Medieval sources.

..It was in this period that the flow of immigrants from the northwestern area began (see Maps 11-13). It became a flood in the fourteenth century. They went as mercenaries, raiders and migrants. The great majority of them were speakers of Albanian, but others joined the movement. Whatever their language, they were described by the Greek and Latin writers as ‘Albanoi' or ‘Arbanitai' or 'Albanenses', and the reason for this collective term can only be that they entered the Byzantine world through the district which the Byzantines knew as 'Albanon'. Thus the Vlach-speaking Malakasii, who invaded Thessaly in 1334 were described as 'Albanoi' by Cantacuzenus 1.474 no less than the evidently Albanian speaking 'Albanensium gens' which raided Thessaly in 1325 (18) . ....

It is clear that Hammond refers to 14-15th century authors. Moreover in difference from Attaliates reference of 1040 which is disputed(see article), Hammond states clearly that the great majority of populations were indeed Albanians. On Albanians article you can create a section regarding different appellatives of Albanians (Laonicus eg calls them Illyrians so does Mazari, Barletius says Macedonians or Epirotes etc ) The use of Hammond in early Medieval references to Albanians is misleading. Aigest (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice then we have to change 13th to 14th, and please don't use such irrelevant terminology like 'early medieval'. Early medieval is a period prior to 1000 AD.Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you have no clue what that section is about. As explained above those are the first times that albanians appear in medieval sources. Prior to 14&15 century sources there are principality of lbania 12 century and kingdom of albania 13 century and other events also with a lot of ref to albanians and their political entities soy our insistance in putting it in that section is weird and outside the section logic. Following your logic one may come here amd claim that " I have sources claiming Greeks being called Albanians in 18&19 century so let,s extend it further" lol, out of section topic and idea. If you are fond of that sentence, above you can see my proposal. I would also like you to stop preaching on others

. you are not in that position especially after falsifying the sources when you claimed that hammond was speaking of 13 century sources .Aigest (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ducagini d'Arbania

@ Alex, what you are doing is exactly OR-ing. You will need an author to say the whole sentence and not outside the context. What Hammond really says about the reference of 1040 in his book is expressed in the page 57 of his book.Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas

Author Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1976 ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471

'Albanoi' as a people appeared first in Ptolemy 3.12.20. In his description of the Roman world, the southernmost part of the province Illyricum included Scodra, Lissus and Mt Scardus (Sar Planina); and, adjoining it the northernmost part of 'Macedonia' included the Taulantii (in the region of Tirana) and the Albani, in whose territory Ptolemy recorded one city only, Albanopolis or Albanos polis. Thus the Albani were a tribe in what we now call Central Albania, and they were an Illyrian-speaking tribe, like the more famous Taulantii, in the second century A.D. Men of this tribe appeared next in 1040, alongside some Epirotes (their neighbours on land) and some Italiotes (their neighbours across the sea), in the army of a rebellious general, George Maniakis. Two chieftains of this tribe, Demetrios and Ghin, pursued an independent policy in the early years of the thirteenth century ...... "The gap between Ptolemy and Acropolites is bridged by the mention of "Ducagini d'Arbania" in a seventh-century document at Ragusa (Dubrovnik). These Ducagini instigated a revolt against Byzantine rule in Bosnia and in particular at Ragusa, but they had to submit after the second unsuccessful intervention at Ragusa, to which they were said to have come "de terra ferma," i.e overland (15). The name 'Ducagini' is evidently derived from the Latin 'dux' and the common Albanian name 'Ghin'; indeed an Albanian chieftain in 1281 was referred to as "dux Ginius Tanuschus"(16). Moreover, the leading family of northern Albania from the thirteenth century to the Turkish invasion in the fifteenth century was called 'Dukagjin' (Lek Dukagjini the codifier was one of them), and their properties lay between Lesh (Lissus) and the bend of the Drin. It is here then that we should put the ‘Arbania' of the seventh century. The conclusion that 'Albanians' lived there continuously from the second century to the thirteenth century becomes, I think, unavoidable (17).

So for Hammond these people mentioned in 1040 sources are Albanians for sure, mixing later Hammond text not linked with these reference to Attaliates constitutes WP:SYNTH and it is OR-ing and misleading because of the misuse of sources.

In this particular case (references to Albanians), for those who oppose the link between Albanians and Illyrians, maintain that 1040 references is disputed since the same term is used for some populations in South Italy, while 1078 reference for Albanians from the same author (Attaliates) is undisputed. See this view expressed here by Madgearu who is not certainly a supporter of Illyrian thesis.

As explained above this is the risk of WP:SYNTH and OR-ing which you have done actually Alex and that's why I will rv to the exact version. Aigest (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Aegist please wp:idonthearit can became very disruptive. I've already invided you to check Origin of the Albanians. Also let me present you here this map . As we see Albanians from 5-10th century, according to the Dacian theory were spotted west of Albania. Monopolizing one theory as you claim is simply typical wp:povAlexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?! How is that related with what I said above??!! Aigest (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dacian hypothesis

Aegist please wp:idonthearit can became very disruptive. I've already invided you to check Origin of the Albanians. Also let me present you here this map . As we see Albanians from 5-10th century, according to the Dacian theory were spotted west of Albania. Monopolizing one theory as you claim is simply typical wp:povAlexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

West of what?! Where do you see the monopolisation?! Nevermind, things are a little more complicated than you think. Take a look at the mess in Origin of the Romanians article. That is related with Dacian hypothesis also. Albanian language shares with Romanian some words. As historical "regrets" persist, Romanian scholars need this Dacian-Albanian connection to prove that Romanians have always lived in Carpathia region never leaving the area and Albanians were Dacians who left the area, that's why there are shared words in Romanian and Albanian. On the other hand Hungarian scholars maintain that Dacians migrated(abandonment of Dacia Traiana) south when they meet Illyrians (Albanians) and they coexisted some centuries together (Vlachs were known for shepherding in Medieval times) and later during 10-12 centuries AD they moved north in Carpathia. Both hypothesis have their pro and counter arguments but in the end of the day we don't know where exactly were Romanians during that time. Were they north or were they south?? Your map is the Romanian version (they were massively in north). Apparently even Yugoslav scholars don't believe that do you notice the differences?

Alex, take a look at Dacian language article. The old hypothesis (1901) was not functioning, since there are some key differences between Albanian and Dacian, so Romanian scholars created another hypothesis: that they were separated around 300 BC. Now where in heck were supposed to be Albanians around 300 BC in your map? Oh and another thing, according to recent works of Romanian and Thracolog linguists (Olteanu) Dacian appears to be a Centum type language. It is too early to speak, although his claim is gaining support, but it appears that Dacian-Albanian hypothesis needs another version. Curious to find out what Romanian scholars will create. Aigest (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dacian and Thracian are definitely satem languages. Albanian also appears to be satem. The Dacian/Thracian hypothesis appears to explain the linguistic affinities of Albanians. Also what is the explanation of Gothic- Albanian similarity? AFAIK, Goths lived on the Carpathian mountains, which means that they somehow had contact with ancestors of Albanians. Also, the etymology of Carpi, Carpathians appears to be of Albanian/Dacian/Thracian/Slavic origin (regardless of scientists views). There are sources that state that there were Thracians/Dacians who were not Romanized, while the same can't be said for Illyrians (as they were Celticized,Helenized,Romanized, and much later Slavicized). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Check this: Vladimir Orel, Albanian Etymological Dictionary (Brill 1988). In "Preface" the author states (page X):

Proto-Albanian, as demonstrated by its vocabulary and isoglosses linking it to other Indo-European languages, is connected with a certain type of material and spiritual culture and with a certain territory. There are serious reasons to believe that this territory did not coincide with the contemporary Albania, i.e. with the ancient Illyrian coast of the Adriatic. On the contrary, numerous proofs [...] seem to corroborate the original settling of Proto-Albanians in Dacia Ripensis and farther North ...

Daizus (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is one hypothesis, and it is part of the article. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgiev is presented as a "chief proponent", whereas he's only one of several scholars supporting it (as G. Schramm, Vl. Orel, G. Weigand, I. I. Russu and many others). Also I don't think there's something "Romanian" about this theory justifing the claim "Romanian scholars tend to favour the Thracian hypothesis" (and also see Aigest's reactions just above). What about Namibian scholars, do they support it or not?

My point is this theory is held by scholars coming from different backgrounds and with a variety of arguments. It's unfair and unbalanced to suggest otherwise. Daizus (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgiev (1960) is presented as a chief proponent of Dacian hypotheses because others after him have just repeated his words (Orel being an example), Weigand (1920) and Russu (1960) proposed Thracian hypothesis, while Russu also has proposed Thraco-Illyrian group. Aigest (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Orel did not just repeat Georgiev's words. To be sure, Orel did not write anything of Proto-Albanians being Dacians or Thracians, only of them coming from somewhere else. Unlike Georgiev and others, he has few etymologies related to Dacian, Thracian or Illyrian. Daizus (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Romanian scholars have largely adopted this theory because as almost all Albanian-Romanian cognates found only in these two languages are loanwords from Albanian to Romanian, if Albanians aren't from the region of Dacia that means that the Romanians aren't descendants of Dacians too, which is one of the most prevalent arguments of Romanians in the Romanian-Hungarian academic disputes about several regions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's any relevance for such claims in Romanian-Hungarian disputes I would expect a discussion in articles dedicated to that topic. In an article about Albanians, this is unbalanced and insinuating.

Your other claims are demonstrably incorrect. Many Romanian scholars do not say Albanians come from Dacia (roughly modern Transylvania, which is the object of Romanian-Hungarian disputes), but from Dardania, Dacia Ripensis or Dacia Mediterranea, provinces which were all south of Danube. To be sure, Hungarian scholars use the Romanian-Albanian common features as much (or even more) when arguing the Romanians came from south of Danube.

Also, what most Romanian scholars say is that some common Albanian-Romanian words are not later borrowings, but are inherited in each language from a pre-Roman word stock. And this may lead to different conclusions, that Albanians are Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians (as some of these scholars believe Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian were closely related languages). Daizus (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the ethnicity of the linguist that support the "Illyrian theory" is not so prominently mentioned, there is clearly something going on here. Athenean (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See Fines references on that political issue in this talk page archives. But you would like to see this author saying the same words of mine regarding Hungarian-Romanian scholars (or immigrant vs. autochonous supporters) Aigest (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in that quote Fines doesn't emphasize Romanian nationalism. In the same book (page 10): "Recently the Albanian-Illyrian identification has come under more serious challenge from linguists." Linguists, not just Romanian linguists.

Also, contrary to what some may believe, Romanian authors are not against an Illyrian origin (example: [23]). If you still want to make a big fuss about it, then make it right and say that Romanian authors support both theories, not just one. Daizus (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you are saying. I will try and change that! —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We have this source from Orel, and we have this link from Hamp that we can see for ourselves. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. In Orel's Historical Grammar check sub-chapters 4.1 "Selected lexical glosses of Albanian" (p. 250) and 4.2 "Selected semantic fields in Albanian" (p. 261) for an attempt to localize/define the homeland of proto-Albanians. For a tentative conclusion see page 267.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to list the arguments of each theory and detail each argument with further bibliography (e.g. on the lack of ancient maritime terminology - Georgiev, Hamp, Orel et al) Daizus (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why this stupid article

Why should an article about the origin of the Albanian people exist, there is no such an article about similar European and proto-european populations, I don't understand and it is nonsense to create such an article about the Albanian people... The article should instead be renamed "History of the Albanian people" or something similar... I would like to delete this article, can somebody help me do it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasaruss (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think this article can be used for personal purposes and that the information may come from unreliable sources or books written from unknown authors. Given the fact that there aren't any official studies concerning the origin of the Albanian people, I find this article false and I am concerned that this article can easily be manipulated giving sources that can threaten it's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"...there is no such an article about similar European and proto-european populations..." Yes there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_on_the_origin_of_Croats etc.

turkish defters, dechanski hrisovulji and michael ataliotae confirm that albanians came here during the turks. the wikipedia page about european haplogroups can find 19% of native balcan blood in the albanians. on the other side, the illyrian gene is bigest in bosnians. so cut this national-romantistic lie would you pretty please?89.205.2.29 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"In this study we first examined the extent and nature of Sout-East European paternal genetic contribution to the European genetic landscape based on a high-resolution Y chromosome typing involving 681 unrelated males from four modern states: Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro (including the province of Kosovo), and Macedonia."

Results and Discussion:

"One-third of the studied SEE Y chromosomes has the derived P37 C allele and is classified to haplogroup I1b* (xM26). A detailed survey demonstrates that I1b* (xM26) lineages reach maximum frequency in South-East Europe and that I1b* (xM26) STR variance peaks over a large geographic region encompassing both southeastern and central Europe. I1b* (xM26) frequency peaks in Herzegovinians (64%) and Bosnians (52%) while preserving substantial (30%) frequencies in all SEE populations with the EXCEPTION OF TWO reproductively isolated and non-slavic speaking populations: - Kosovar Albanians and Macedonian Romani."

>>High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic (and other) Populations<< http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964.abstract.89.205.2.29 (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Greek influence in Albanian mythology ?!

This statement i consider inapproriate and unproven instead i propose :"Albanian mythological figures can be traced back to homeric time" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatet e zanat (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. Can you prove that? Senshi 02:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clausangeloh (talk • contribs)

Dinoguy1000 :"Albanoï" back in the 2e c. in PTOLEMY Texts : this article is a BIG Anti-Albanian propaganda!!!

--Wikip01 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)"Albanoï" back in the 2e c. in PTOLEMY Texts : this article is a BIG Anti-Albanian propaganda!!!

Who is blocking the article to be the one to write what he wants?

I thought that Wiki is a collaborative project and impartial.

Who is the one who stinks Serbo-Slavic propaganda here?

WHO ARE THESE "only autoconfirmed users" who CAN EDIT ALBANIAN ORIGIN ??? Can we know WHO IS BEHIND THIS PROPAGANDA ???

WHO ARE THESE "ONLY AUTOCONFIRMED USERS" who CAN ONLY EDIT ALBANIAN ORIGIN ??

--Wikip01 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)WHO ARE THESE "ONLY AUTOCONFIRMED USERS" who CAN ONLY EDIT ALBANIAN ORIGIN ??

Can we know WHO IS BEHIND THIS ANTI-ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA ???

--Wikip01 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Can we know WHO IS BEHIND THIS ANTI-ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA ???

The Greeks and Yugoslavs, who else?

This article states that the Albanians were first identified with the Illyrians (in other words, the Albanians were first identified with the Albanians...) in the 18th Century. No other ethnic group is so persistently defamed and denigrated in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.82 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

lol.

crap

such a romantic nationalistic wanabe irredentist crap. broadening it's historical claim on serbia, croatia, montenegro, macedonia and greece with little or no proof. arbanasi means landworkers and nothing more. there is arbanasi willage in bulgaria and so what? albanian nationality appeared 100 years ago with the help of the europeans. they are the same as all the balcan nationalities. some illyrian, some tracian, some slavic, some aromanian. mix of cultures with romanian language. how can wikipedia allow this kind of writings? i guess there is nobody at the top?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.225.8 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Source? Macedonia's school book? Not reputable for being filled with propaganda. For now, all the one listed have been studied by neutral sources. These are the conclusions. What you're claiming is original research.

albanian is a latin term for White Serbs that lived in poland that came from caucasus serboi that lived in caucasian albania.79.126.237.2 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

you skip the serbian period, turkish, veneto, bulgar, roman, macedonian, hellenic and go directly to pelasgians. where were you all this time? in cryogenic capsules? hillarious. and the scientific community just sits and picks their noses. unbelievable.79.126.237.2 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Albania is also the name for Scotland. Considering your logic, why shouldn't Albanians be of Scottish descent then? The scientific facts, like genetic studies, linguistic evidences etc. are what this article is all about. They're all referenced from reputable sources, and they're not original conclusions in this Wiki. They're all results of multiple studies. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"15th century AD, when the Albanian ethnos was already formed"

Can this ridiculous claim be supported by serious non-albanian sources? How can an ethnos (nation) exist before they write "we are a nation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.127.159 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the definition of Ethnic group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group "...through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture..." Do all ethnic groups have (or ever had) a nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.213.78 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Great article

Great and informative article. So much work has been put into it. I really enjoyed reading it. Why isn't it marked as "good article"? --Barzefutz (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some political issues as you can see in this talk page. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Movements of Albanians in Illyria chronology

Recently I was reading Vladimir Orel's etymological dictionary, in the preface (here's the page [24] ) I read this particular sentence: "The Proto-Albanans migration to Illyria via the Eastern Slopes of the Balkans must have taken place before (but not considerably earlier than) their contact with Romance speakers at the end of the Proto-Albanian period in the history of the Albanian language". A page before ([25]) clarifies that Proto-Albanian precedes the contacts with Latin "before the I-II centuries CE" Shouldn't this be included? Perhaps added somewhere at "Thracian or Dacian origin"?

Archaeology

Little mention of archaeological finds has been made, which show continuity of population in Northern Albania, from Roman period to medieval, although there are indeed some finds suggesting movement from the Danube Gates region toward Albania during the 7th century 119.225.114.161 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Orel's quotation

The phrasing it seems that Albanian-Greek isoglosses are surprisingly high is a slanted and misleading rephrasing of Orel's actual quote. Firstly, there is no 'apparently' or 'perhaps' when comes to isoglosses, either they are present or they are not. Second, of what 'reconstruction of other proto-languages' is the editor talking about? Orel in this section deals exclusively with Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek forms (or with Albanian and Greek direct comparisons), and historical phonetics is not a matter of opinion, as far as I'm concerned. First I'm not allowed to insert a direct quotation of a scholar because 'to personal in interpretation', and when I insert his direct quote now it gets distorted 'ad libitum'. Really?? Etimo (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But you still cannot present Orel's claim about isoglosses without saying that they are Orel's claims. There is, as you say, no "apparently" about the isoglosses themselves, but there is when it comes to what is a "surprisingly high amount". --T*U (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And what is that supposed to mean? It is 'surprisingly high' because Orel supports the theory of those scholars who claim a "north origin" for Albanian (thus away from Greek-speaking people) and to him this is a surprise because it challenges his personal convictions, but this doesn't mean the isoglosses are not a fact!! Read the whole chapter again (I'd recommend you to read the entire book), and you will understand his position and why he says 'surprising' as well. Etimo (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point: It is Orel who finds it surprisingly high. You cannot then just say that it is surprisingly high. It must be said that it is Orel who finds it surprisingly high. --T*U (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it mate. Let's make a step back. Orel maintains that the original Albanian Urheimat is not the Adriatic coast region because of the lack of indigenous sea-faring original lexicon (and not even in the Balkan Alps for that matter). This is the theory he supports!! BUT, his theory is shaken/challenged/weakened by the SURPRISING FACT that Albanian shares common words with Greek (isoglosses) more than it shares with any other linguistic group (with the exemption of Balto-Slavic, although the gap is not huge), and THIS surprises him because he doesn't expect that, but he's forced to admit it!! Isoglosses are not a personal opinion, because they are compared scientifically, and no author has ever dreamed of accusing Orel of 'unprofessionalism', so it would be very naive if we start engaging in it!! I hope I made myself clear Etimo (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not accusing anybody of anything. I just state that "surprisingly" is such a subjective word that you have to state who is surpriced. You cannot just say that the amount is surpricingly high. You have to say that Orel finds it surprisingly high or similar. I could suggest "However, in a reconstruction attempt of proto-dialects by V.Orel, he finds the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses surprisingly high," etc. --T*U (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not contesting the fact that we should write 'Orel is surprised..', that's obvious. The problem is that the phrase according to a reconstruction attempt of proto-dialects of various languages by V.Orel.. is senseless because: 1) Orel does not 'reconstructs proto-dialects of various languages' he deals with Greek and Albanian or Proto-Greek and Proto-Albanian concrete words (e.g. Alb.ag ~ Gr.augè both meaning 'dawn' is an example of Alb.-Gr. isogloss). 2) The term 'Proto' doesn't mean theory, it denotes the different stages of a word according to historical phonetic laws, which are not a matter of opinion, but a scholarly established fact, no matter if you support the 'Northern Europe' theory, the 'Daco-Baltic-Illyrian' or the 'Martian origin' of Albanian (for that matter). Albanian-Greek isoglosses ARE, not SEEM TO BE. It's like saying PIE 'p' 't' 'k' seem to become 'f' 'th' 'h' in Germanic. Does that make any sense? Etimo (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1) Your last edit started: "the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses is surprisingly high" not mentioning Orel, so it is good that you now state that you are not contesting to mentioon who is surpriced. 2) If you read my suggestion, I have proposed to strike out the "various languages" bit. 3) If you have problems with the "reconstruction attempt of proto-dialects by V.Orel", please suggest another way to mention what he was doing. I take it that we do agree on the rest, which would now be: "However, ... smth Orel smth ... , he finds the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses surprisingly high." Or? --T*U (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention Orel because whoever wrote the article already supports the theory of a 'montainous' or 'away from the sea' origin, (which is the same of Orel's), so I was phrasing in the spirit of the article. Anyway, these are only minor details. My proposal: However, in view of the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses, which V. Orel considers surprisingly high (in comparison with the numerous Indo-Albanian and Armeno-Albanian ones), the author concludes that this particular proximity could be the result of intense secondary contacts of two proto-dialects. In the last part you have the exact words of the author (i.e. a direct quotation). I think this could work out well Etimo (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Only one thing: It sounds a bit as if we already have met Orel. Maybe we should say "... which the linguist Vladimir Orel considers ..." to present him better (and wiki-link him). --T*U (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to meEtimo (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology section

To sum up, the specific section points to the Illyrian-Albanian discontinuity rather than continuity, and should be in specific parts re-written:

1. It start with a theory rejected by mainstream scholars.
2. Then continues with a Roman-medieval archaeological analysis and concludes that "most of the west Balkans (including Dardania) appears to have been depopulated after the early 7th century from almost a century.", i.e. the historical link with Illyrians is broken.
3. After that we have "Another aspect of continuity" (or better discontinuity) ... the tombs in the 7th century, such burials are in a Christian context (placed next to churches) rather than reversion to a pagan Illyrian past. Ok again the link is broken.
4. At the end again the Komani culture stuff, which is rejected by mainstream bibliography per same section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide reals studies rather than just webpages? This is an article that needs a broad range of views and it is not just informative. It is first of all scientific. The latest source you added on the "Pelasgian theory" section is from some webpage of an Aromanian society in US. It's like if go to edit the "Origin of the Greeks" and put as a source the webpage of the Macedonian league of US, or Vatra's webpage. You tend to blurry everything that is related to Albania, but you cannot pretend to be reliable with sources like this.

There are archeologists, Albanians (Ceka), or Croatian (Stipcevic) that have studied the Komani culture which are never mentioned. The only one surprisingly are the Serbian, Romanian, or Mecedonian. If you don't have any real scientific source, which is fine, jump to another article. You are not obliged to edit everything that is related to Albanians.

By the way, the theory of Pelasgian origin was mainly pushed by a vast nr of Greek authors of 19th century. I will come soon with a list. I think you know that too, it is just that you don't like the idea.

Mondiad (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) What's really weird is that you claim that a top graded, professor of the University of Oxford [[26]], Peter Mackridge, is [[27]]... a biased source. Before reverting you need to explain what makes such an author non-rs. Moreover, per Mackridge, all these that claim about the Pelasgian link are not to be treated seriously (some Greek 19th century authors too, who used it for political reasons). In general ancestral connection with mythical people is at least ridiculous and can’t be regarded as a scientific approach. Alexikoua (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The supposed Konami hypothesis, which by the way is unknown outside of Albania and the western world is heavily questioned and rejected without hesitation:

"Archaeologists in Albania, a country cut off from western Europe between 1945 and 1991, have made much of the sub-Roman Komani culture (see Chapter 4 below). These (undocumented) peoples, they deduced on the most tenuous grounds, were a link between the prehistoric Illyrians and the Albanians first mentioned in an eleventh-century Byzantine chronicle."

To sum up fringe theories such as this one should be treated with heavy caution.Alexikoua (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In general ancestral connection with mythical people is at least ridiculous and can’t be regarded as a scientific approach..really?? Coming from a Greek?? Irony abounds..Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etimo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancient & early medieval references

There has been an edit warring lately about the "albanoi" and also "arbonios and arbonites" in the same section. The user Thanatos666 keeps on claiming without any veryfying source or references that "arbonios and arbonites" were mentioned in singular form.If there is no source for this there is no need to give pov data. I want to remember that in greek language there are many plural ethnic names ending names that end in -es.Example epirotes, arvanites etc...The same thing can be said about the ethnic plural names ending in -os gallos(french), irlandikós etc... About albanoi, im going to give the references here that they are named in different western bibliography as an illyrian tribe.Here [28],[29],[30], [31], [32].I hope that this sources are enough.Lunaur (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Lunaur is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Egad.... /facepalm/

• On your imaginary unknown/uncertain grammatical number of the Greek -es suffix-es (i.e. pertaining to Stephanus' τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἀρβώνιος καὶ Ἀρβωνίτης, ὡς Ἀντρώνιος καὶ Ἀσκαλωνίτης):
  In e.g. monotonic Modern Greek, it's ΝΟΜ sg Αρβανίτης, NOM pl Αρβανίτες, while in polytonic Ancient Greek, it's NOM sg Ἀρβωνίτης, NOM pl (EDIT:)Ἀρβωνῖται (NOTE: I'm contrasting the declension of the words in question; I'm not claiming they're the same word in two different forms; they could be or they could be not, but that's not the point here). To say the least, you're erroneously confusing Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, the romanisation and probably the phonology thereof.
  • And then you're doubling down claiming the same about the -os declension group. WTF?!?! Seriously dude? Γάλλος, Ιρλανδικός could be plural?!? Who knew?!?! Go ahead and "correct" these articles 1, 2 then; and then the grammar books...
• On "Ptolemy also mentions the Illyrian tribe[citation needed] named Albanoi":
  I've added the cn tag because, as I've said many times, Ptolemy doesn't say anything like this, again as I've said many times, check the cited text. If I'm wrong please show me where he does and I shall correct it myself. You could perhaps reword/rephrase but you're not allowed, among other things, to misquote/misrepresent the sources. I've now, btw, added a similar tag elsewhere for similar reasons.
  • On Albanoi being an Illyrian tribe etc. outside the scope and context of Ptolemy's text and the quotation thereof (per your cited sources above):
    Serious scholarly views on the Origin of the Albanians and even of the name thereof itself, is the raison d'être of this article. Do you get the importance of this? If you want to present, to add to the article, that some secondary or tertiary sources claim x, y, z, do it at the proper place of the article and in a proper way; preparing meanwhile yourself of course, for other editors reacting.

The fallacy/argument from ignorance you have been using is, to say the least, something from your personal ignorance, not from a universal one... ;-)

PS To other editors: please take a look at Lunar's edits; they include many other, let's say, interesting things, apart that is, from the ones he has written above.
And then please comment and intervene.
For god's sake, semi-edit-warring on account of, inter alia, basic Greek noun/adjective declensions is pretty lame, it's a huge waste of my time...

PPS Btw the "ar sg forms" part of my last edit summary should obviously read "are pl forms". Trying to respond to so many things within such a short space, I had run out of it, so trying to abbreviate, I erred.

Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Igonred trolling.Please follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks.What i edit here are not of your personal bussines.It's a good thing you mention other editors because i would like to hear their opinion too.

You don't have a source saying whether they were mentioned in singular or plural that's why i suggest not to hurry and add something like you did, even if they were mentioned in singular.Otherwise a "citation needed" tag should be added. The term "epirotes" in ancient and medieval greek was used in plural. However i propose to change the text into a more neutral form. About albanoi please understand that wikipedia accepts the reliable sources as i presented.It does not only accept primary sources.Please follow WP:RS You asked for a citation and i gave that citation.Albanoi are considered an illyrian tribe in modern western bibliography. This article should be as clear as possible for the readers, thats why by adding references we can clarify the parts which need a citation. If you oppose this idea please bring the references that in the same time and in the same place,2 century, there were living a different ethnicity aside from illyrians in the area of Albanopolis.Lunaur (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Lunaur is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• 1.Enough is enough!
  This is the relevant part of the cited definition: τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἀρβώνιος καὶ Ἀρβωνίτης, ὡς Ἀντρώνιος καὶ Ἀσκαλωνίτης.
  It's singular! End of story.
  I don't have to include a source explaining and verifying the declension, grammatical gender, number and so on and so forth of every word inside a cited and quoted text written in a language that you obviously don't understand.
  

• 2.You, you, are accusing me of trolling and personal attack! Egad... /doublefacepalm/
• 3.I've reworded/rephrased to emphasise that it's not Ptolemy's words, to differentiate clearly what he said from what the cited sources you've added claim.
• 4.Learn wiki syntax. E.g. in this case the Citation templates. Also more importantly provide the important details thereof in each and every case. The way you've added citations is miserable; I (and/or other editors) now have to do much more work, something YOU should have done...

Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop reverting reasonable and substantiated edits. As I've many times explained (also see 3 above), Ptolemy does not say they were Illyrians. Please stop edit warring. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A thing I had missed, now discovered after going through your older edits, is the removal of an almost verbatim quotation of a cited source (of course this was a personal pov sentence according to you Lunar) and a removal of a phrase that could have easily been provided with a reference to the same source (pages 1-2). This of course will also have to be remedied, reinstated, in due time...
PS. À propos, I had not reverted this edit of yours despite not being a simplification fo the text (as your edit summary claims), at least according to my reading of the latter; I don't think the end result is wrong per se, but it has altered the meaning of the passage. Perhaps again this edit has to be reconsidered?
PPS. Going through your contributions to other articles is also interesting; I may be seeing things, but a trend seems to be (re)appearing... Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days

This edit-warring had to stop somehow! Favonian (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK although I had already started to fix and insert/complete the syntax/form and bibliographic details of the recently added sources.
Now please, you and other editors and/or administrators, read the entirety of the relevant edits and edit history (I hope I don't have to list and explain in detail each and every edit) and the discussion above and then comment; i.e. the actual content of the disagreement, of the edit-warring; something already requested above... Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone should intervene here. Why do we have to be selective in regarding to the sources? Albanoi are mentioned as an illyrian tribe. The references are given.16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Lunaur (talk)

• Certainly not by Ptolemy at the cited passage and then there's among other things this.
• And yes other editors should intervene; us two coming to an agreement seems improbable (mind the self-referential paradox)... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ptolemy is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It is unacceptable to use it to push a nationalist POV. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• A.At last, someone else has commented!
• B.Please elaborate explaining who's done what when and how, according to your view. I dare say that laconizein is not philosophein in such a case... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not here to analyse any actions. I just stated my opinion that Ptolemy is a primary source and it should not be used to advance the view that he mentioned the Albanoi as an Illyrian tribe. This should be left to secondary sources to analyse. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1.Well the thing is he didn't say any such thing about them (we have also put them under 'unknown ethnicity' which makes things contradictory). I.e. the most important thing in this case in my opinion, primary source or not and use thereof, is the misrepresentation of the source. Had he written anything relevant I personally would have no problem, in fact I would agree (or put in another way, I couldn't care less about whether Ptolemy's Albanoi were Illyrians or Martians) having the relevant part of the passage read for example:
'According to Ptolemy(reference) the Albanoi were an Illyrian (or Chinese or whatever) tribe living in Albanopolis'.
In any case please see the 2 actual phrasings and please explain where you agree/disagree with each one; you could also propose a different phrasing. Otherwise your intervention would be of no help to end this dispute.

2.This not the only difference/disagreement in this semi-edit-war, in this dispute. See previous talk section and the article's edit history.Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct in your assessment that he does not mention that they are Illyrian. But that doesn't really matter. Because Ptolemy is a primary source and we don't quote primary sources, especially in controversial matters involving the ethnic origin of people. This is why I said before we need a secondary source to interpret the primary source of Ptolemy. If some academic mentioned that Ptolemy said that we could quote him. Otherwise any such mention is out of the question. By the way, what are the two phrasings you are mentioning? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A. Among other things I have to remind you that the section before us is titled 'Primary sources' and the subsection 'Ancient & early medieval references to people of unknown ethnicity'  :-" We have every right to quote what ancient sources say. Then come the medieval refs etc.. Then comes a scholarly presentation and analysis. The structure of the article imo is very good; congrats to whoever constructed it. B. I'm obviously referring to my phrasing vs Lunaur's phrasing; you know the phrasings of/inside the latest of the edits that were going reverted back and forth causing the page protection, the call for intervention etc..... Am I writing on the right talk page??? :D Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am I to understand that you expect me to read through all that mess? Can you not just simply tell me what the two alternatives are? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, to be frank, I actually think that when intervening in an actual disagreement and dispute, one has to, among other things, actually go read through all of it... That's what I do or at least that's what I think I must do. :-"
But anyway, here it is (I remind you again that this is not the only disagreement).
PS Btw I also think that instead of referring to the map, the passage should refer to Ptolemy's text, the Geography. Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I had seen that diff. I agree with your version. I simply thought there was yet another version hiding somewhere in another section. I just can't bring myself to read through all the catcalls, facepalms, edit-warring accusations and all that stuff. I try to skim through all that as much as I can. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK next request:
please also check the latter part of this; I don't object to the use of 'ethnic name' instead of 'ethnonym', but clarifying that the terms are in the singular number is imo something obviously necessary and not... (see previous talk section).
PS To cut a long story short the final request will then be to see whether this should be reverted (removal of a practically verbatim quotation of the source claiming personal POV) and then whether the cn tag should be removed using this (same source, different pages: 1,2). That's it for now. Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The removed part could be readded, but rephrased. For instance, I didn't see in pages 1 and 2 of the Fine reference that the Albanians would have retreated to the mountains of Northern Albania. The reference only mentions "mountains" without specifying which ones. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1.You haven't commented on the grammatical number part/issue (different edit). Please do! 2.That's partially true. I had already thought about it, thinking that there should be a clarification inside the ref not the text per se. Fine talks about mountains, mentions i.a. the northern part of Albania (page 1), and then goes on about mountains "concluding" (page 2, middle of) that's this is how&where Vlachs and Albanians retained respectively their Dacian and Illyrian character/origin. My cause for concern and for the need of clarification (inside the ref) was not that he doesn't mention Northern Albania (he does) but whether citing this could be considered SYNTH or whatever (recall that prior to this the wikiarticle paragraph and the cited/quoted pages of the book/source (page 11) are about the Dacian Origin of the Albanians hypothesis while in page 2 it's the Illyrian one). Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the connection to page 11. Don't forget, this is neither my area of expertise, nor of interest. I only came here to help eliminate the edit-warring, so please give me some leeway. I had only looked at pages 1 and 2. Now looking at page 11, for starters, the phrase: Thus it would have been a region whose indigenous population would naturally have fled is a close paraphrase from page 11 of Fine and should be modified. Second pages 1 and 2, when they mention fleeing to the mountains, cover the Illyrian theory so strictly speaking it is synthesis to connect it to the Dacian theory. Not only it is synthesis but noone knows what would have happened to the people after they left the Morava valley. It is not clear that they would go to the Albanian mountains. They could have gone somewhere else for shelter. Conclusion: We cannot mix details form pages 1-2 and page 11. As far as your comment: You haven't commented on the grammatical number part/issue (different edit, please let's deal with one topic at a time. This is bad enough as it is. We don't need additional complications. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1.Just to be clear, here's my disclaimer: I'm also neither an expert nor particularly or very strongly interested in this.
2.a.The first part is sourced and should reinstated (EDIT: with a slight rewording so that it wouldn't constitute plagiarism). Do we have an agreement? b. Now to the second part ie for example.... I've already pointed to the possibility of regarding this, adding said ref, as SYNTH (or whatever). The possibility on the other hand and hence the use of phrasing of this kind for example..., seems reasonable to me, seems fine within this context or at least easily solvable through rewording/rephrasing; it's also not unreasonable imo to assume, that interested parties might be able to provide in the future relevant references, so we could just stick with it as it would be after reinstating it, i.e. by not removing the cn and or tags. In any case, I can just say to hell with it, go ahead if you must and remove this completely; one could argue that this or something of the sort is already implied in the text and in the sources...
3.Would I sound too pedantic if I were to point out that the gr.number request came first and that is arguably the most trivially easy thing to actually respond to (and hence to edit-war and argue over this is, as I've many a time said, ridiculous...)?? :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with proposal 2a., i.e. I agree with reinstating the first part, subject to suitable paraphrasing. As for no. 3., I haven't looked at it in any detail, so I can't comment. Bear also in my mind that we have sockpuppetry involved. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

1.See 1-2(minor rewording)-3(fixed typo), 4, and if necessary, comment and/or edit. 2. Yes I had been informed about the sockpuppetry allegation at my talk page by a thoughtful IP editor (and later about its conclusion/verdict by you...). Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The references given were from historians, so i think that we should change "according to some modern views was an Illyrian" → "viwed as illyrian by modern historians". The term "according to some modern views" is too vague and does not represent the fact that this tribe is not mentioned in any book as any other ethnicity asside from illyrians.17:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Lunaur (talk) Lunaur is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't use such negative existential statements so freely, so trivially, when reasoning inductively, but well, that's just me... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ducagini in the 7th century

Highly dubious. See Talk:Dukagjini_family for discussion.--Zoupan 19:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Update, Makushev published this as part of a "14th-century manuscript", which is not used in scholarship. Removed.--Zoupan 00:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I put it again. I don't see any single reason to remove this source that still remains valid until contrary is proved. Herakliu (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Herakliu: No, you don't put it again. It is unvalid, taken from an alleged 14th-century manuscript made up of legends.--Zoupan 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I may sound harsh, but you don't minimally possess the authority do decide if this source is invalid. It's your opinion against Makushev, Hammond and Gegaj. I will be obliged to report you if you persist. Herakliu (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Authority? Please report me. If you refuse to identify Reliable Sources and choose Undue Weight, this is your problem, and not mine.--Zoupan 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. Both of these two criteria are respected, or maybe we start to doubt about Hammond? Apart from the fact that you aren't giving any argument except for, "it's false, it talks about legends etc.etc.", your personal impressions and opinions that couldn't be less relevant in the context Wikipedia operates. This is my final edit, next time this will go to the attention of administrators. Herakliu (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Following the advice of EdJhonston, I thought it was good to continue the discussion here.

@Zoupan:You are talking to me citing "common sense", a thing you clearly lack judging from the numerous messages you wrote to me. You made 5 points, 4 of wich are completely irrelevant to the veridicity of the source or just made up by you in order to suit your agenda ( (1)14th century, (2)Gin Tanusio are the irrelevant ones; the false ones are (3)made up histories and legends, (4)not used in scholarship, the document doesn't contain any strange history of magics or mythology, it's just a historical account with a chronology coherent in space, time, situation and circumstances; and unfortunately for you, yes, it is used in scholarship). The only semiserious thing you wrote in so many messages is that there is a mistake in chronology (precisely the part more removed in time, the oldest), a thing that if taken seriously as an argument would consequently invalidate the majority of historical sources we use today in order to write history. But that's exactly the work of a historian, to tell apart mystifications from truth, in order to give an accurate account of facts. But nobody sane of his mind would say that the Bible is all a farse just because it contains obvious mythology in it (same discourse could be done with an insane amount of old documents and sources we use today).

Now, unfortunately Wikipedia put me in condition to reason with people possessing an IQ many STs below mines, or that simply have a pathetic and obvious antiAlbanian agenda, therefore you are effectively blocking this page of wikipedia being enriched with a legit source used in scholarship.

Don't even think for a second I will back down from this. Herakliu (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Herakliu, if you have questions about the usability of sources, they can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The people who disagree with you are expressing surprise that you want to make a large change to the history of Albania based on what might be considered a 'thin' source. Whether something is trusted as valid by the majority of scholars is an answerable question. Consensus is the best way to determine that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Smashed at RS board.--Zoupan 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Map of E-V13 and study by Cruciani, et al.

Some editor is trying to remove this image from inclusion in the article. This image is accurately based on the study by Cruciani [33]. The anonymous editor is claiming certain sampled locations are excluded, but that is not a reason to remove an image with a proper source.173.238.79.44 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The frequencies on the map are based on scarce samples and are overally misleading with just one sample location in each country and many countries excluded. Why then the map should be included? There can be plenty of sourced content, but misplaced. The best place of that map is the article of the haplogroup, where the sampled locations are listed. Here it is better to replace with a sentence, stating that the highest levels of the haplogroup belong to the Kosovar Albanians. The map shows Albania with higher levels of E-V13 than Kosovo and Peloponese simply because of lacking dataset from these regions. QLao (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The map is based on the data of the study. Just because you have issues with the study is not a valid argument against its inclusion in the article. The Cruciani study has samples from Albania, northern Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, southern Italy, Sicily, northern Italy, etc. Thus, the map is completely valid. The map also does not show Albania has a higher frequency of E-V13 than Kosovar Albanians, but only of the frequencies of the populations sampled in that specific study, which includes Albanians from Albania and thus is useful to include in this article. The Albanians from Albania sampled in the Cruciani study had greater than 30 % frequency of E-V13. Every other study has shown that the highest frequencies of E-V13 are exactly like those in the map - Kosovo Albanians, Albanians in Macedonia and Albanians in Albania. Albanians have the highest frequency by far in Europe of the subclade of this haplotype, which is what the map shows, and it decreases steadily as one travels further from the Albanian area (Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia), and is absent among many Europeans in northern and western Europe. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Anyway, I didn't ask you to explain if the data is based on the study or is it sourced. I am asking you to explain why is the image accurate and suitable for the article. See, the frequencies of Albanians in Y-DNA haplogroups in European populations, Kosovar have the highest E-V13 and the map is unrealistic, you can see there many areas of Greece, the Balkans and Kosovo having different and higher levels of E-V13 than Albania and what the map shows. That's why I say the map isn't objective and unsuitable for the article. QLao (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that Kosovar Albanians and Albanians in Macedonia have higher frequencies, based on other studies. This map is only based on the Cruciani study, which is why I stated this in the insert of the image. You seem to be having trouble understanding that a reliable source, especially a peer-reviewed academic study, is allowed to be included in the article, regardless of your own opinions on the study. The map is accurately based on that study, and shows that Albania has greater than 30%, which is what the sample in the study said. Parts of the map like Kosovo and Macedonia, where Albanians have even higher percentages, are also shown to be +30%. The other locations are all based on the sampled populations in the study. It is relevant to showing the uniquely high amounts of E-V13 in Albanians, and neighbouring areas, and is the only image available from the study. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So you confirm that Kosovo and Macedonia have higher percentages, but just because this is based on one sample location in Albania you think is suitable to be included here? That represents misleading and subjective frequencies to represent a topic of the Albanians and the Balkans. The whole western Balkans, including Kosovo, is not sampled by the study. QLao (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally I'm not a fan of the map and agree with QLao. It's also important to note that there are pockets of heavy concentrations of the haplogroup in Southern Greece -- higher than any Albanian population except that in Kosovo, breaching 40% -- which aren't shown... --Yalens (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Claim not supported by inline reference

I've removed the specific inline [[34]] due to the fact that it's not supporting the correspondent text.Alexikoua (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroup J2b

I don't understand why my (added) content regarding haplogroup J2b among Albanians is being removed, when I cited multiple sources backing up my claims. Is this not how Wikipedia is supposed to be?! This is very relevant, as this is one of the main Y-DNA haplogroups among Albanians and the same sub-branch as Albanians was recently found in an ancient DNA context from Bronze Age Croatia, dated at 1500-1700 BCE. Trojet15 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: The problem with your edits seems to be well illustrated by your own description: "multiple sources backing up my claims". There is nothing wrong with the sources, but none of them are actually expressing the conclusions you present. Please read here about original research and here about synthesis. Neither original research nor synthesis is allowed in Wikipedia. What you will need is reliable sources expressing those conclusions. Your personal conclusions are as worthless as mine or any other editor's. --T*U (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you T*U for looking into this. I see a lot of IPs and new accounts pushing the same edits. I may have to open an SPI. Unfortunately, I'm still on vacation. Dr. K. 18:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Tu-NOR. What conclusions did I make? All I did was add under haplogroup J2b that the same J2b sub-branch, J2b2a-L283 (which is one of the main Y-DNA haplogroups among Albanians), was found in an ancient DNA context in Bronze Age Croatia. You have an issue with this? Trojet15 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15, I don't think TU-nor needs to repeat himself, does he? I highly recommend you check the following: Original Research (click here) and Synthesis (click here). If you have any questions regarding the rules, feel free to ask and we will be glad to help. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes he does. He accused me of "expressing​ conclusions". I did none of that. How many times do I need to repeat what I actually added. I believe it can be seen here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782165791

I see a great deal of bias here. I'm starting to lose credibility to Wikipedia administration. I added something very relevant to the topic (Origins of the Albanians) under the Genetics section, which is based on scientific paper, and not a hypothesis by a linguist. Trojet15 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: Please read again: I have not "accused you" of expressing​ conclusions, I have said that you have presented them. You stated a fact based on sources, and presumably "found in an ancient DNA context from Bronze Age Croatia" is not just a random fact, but a fact that you find relevant to the article. In your statement you present an implicit conclusion that the find in Croatia is relevant to the origin of Albanians. I repeat: What you will need is reliable sources expressing this conclusion. I will remind you about what WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (my bolding). --T*U (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole. Now you say: "I have not accused you of expressing​ conclusions". What is this from your first reply then: "There is nothing wrong with the sources, but none of them are actually expressing the conclusions you present." BTW, I didn't even make any conclusions, besides pointing out what was found in an ancient DNA context from Bronze Age Croatia (Dalmatia), and how it compares with the Albanian J2b. (My actual edit can be seen in my previous reply). Look "TU-nor", I understand you will undo anything that in your mind implies a connection between Albanians and Illyrians, as this was one of them. This is also pretty evident based on your previous edits on the subject. And it's quite unfortunate for the Wikipedia administration to allow this. (It raises the question how fair they are, and who they it's actually controlled by).

DNA analysis of ancient populations is only getting started. The edit I made was one of them. Scientific facts will come out sooner or later. We will soon not have to rely so much on the theories of Slavic or Albanian linguistics and historians on these matters. Trojet15 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: I'm afraid I do not see any hole...

First a grammar lesson. In the text "none of them are actually expressing the conclusions you present", the subject for the verb "are expressing" is "none of them", and the verb connected to "you" is "present". So I repeat: "I have not "accused you" of expressing​ conclusions. What I have "accused you" of, is "present[ing] ... the conclusions" You are presenting the conclusions that are not expressed in the sources.

Then you say that you did not even make any conclusions. Superficially that is true, but as I tried to explain, you presented an implicit conclusion. I will try to explain the principle again. Let us assume that an article about A tells us (with a reliable source) that A has the property X. Let us further assume that we have a reliable source saying that B has the property X. This fact is admissible in the article about A if and only if the fact is relevant, and it is relevant if and only if a connection can be established between A and B. And now we come to the point: That connection has to be sourced. If you just enter the fact "B has property X", you are implicating that there is a connection. That is an implicit conclusion, exactly what WP:SYNTH is saying: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.".

Your allegations about biased editing does not really deserve an answer. Anyone can inspect my contributions. Feel free to report me. --T*U (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor, there is no point to report you when it appears that Wikipedia is administered by your friends. (Me thinks there is a reason why this topic was all of a sudden blocked from editing, without even having the dispute on the "Talk" section first). You're talking about conclusions presented, which my edits expressed none, but were rather based on what my sources were presenting. I can point you to many such conclusions presented in this article when the source doesn't even present it. However, I do not want to change the subject, but I would rather like to reach an agreement of how do we present the edits I made regarding haplogroup J2b in Albanians which there is already a section about and relevant to the topic "Origins of the Albanians". I believe wholeheartedly this agreement can be reached, assuming Wikipedia doesn't show bias. Trojet15 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That is quite simple. You can add it to the article if and when you find a reliable source that makes the connection and establishes the relevance of the Croatia find for the origin of Albanians. Without such source, you cannot add it. And if you still have not understood what synthesis is, I cannot help you. --T*U (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor, I already did that. Apparently you have a problem with it, as you were so quick to delete it multiple times. I do not need to repeat myself again and again about the situation. So I shouldn't bother with you. This needs to be addressed with the Wikipedia administration. BTW, I very well understand what synthesis is. Apparently such things can be interpreted in different ways here, as it's evident in this article. Trojet15 (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Repetitions are necessary when there is lack of understanding. You need a reliable source that says that the Croatia find is relevant to the origin of Albanians. So far, you have not. --T*U (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

TU-nor, Yes, I did. It's relevant to Albanian J2b, which is one of the main Albanian Y-DNA haplogroups. Why even have an (outdated) section about genetics under this article, and even one about J2b when it's irrelevant. All I'm editing is some updates about it based on sources I provided. But you are too quick to undo it because in your mind it implies a scientific connection between Albanians and Illyrians, which I never even mentioned (as the my reference didn't either). I have nothing further to add with you, so please do not reply to me with the same excuses. Trojet15 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: Yes, it is quite obvious that the two of us will not get any further with this. But if you want to proceed, there are some options. The simplest one is to ask for a "third opinion", which you can read about here. What is probably a better choice, is to open a "request for comment", see here. Then you will probably get input from more people, and you may have the chance to create a consensus for your view, regardless of the page being protected. --T*U (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is E-V13 = E-V68 used for E1b1b1a?

"In human genetics, E-V68, also known as E1b1b1a, is a major Y chromosome haplogroup " - you write on Wikipedia. Then, here there are strange formulations - no sense ! What are THEY HIDING ?