Talk:Origin of the Albanians

Too much about language

I think most of the text about language would be better in the relevant article. Origin of a nation and origin of a language are not necessarily the same. See for example the turkish language of the present day Turks of Turkey. The language is Mongolian and the people are locals. The same with Romanian and Spanish.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Albanian language is often the main area of discussion in scholarship about the origins of the Albanian people. Without the language, Albanians would not be classified in scholarship as an Indo-European people, yet alone would any areas of study exist about them. As for Turks and their language just to clarify they speak a language that belongs to Turkic language family and not Mongolian which belongs to the Mongolic language family.Resnjari (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

IE are not a race but a linguistic category. Albanians, Greeks or Serbs who were "turkified" and speak turkish (and even feel turks), still have the same origin with the rest balkanians, and certainly don not have a Central Asian origin. Equally, Afroamericans who speak english and only english, are not of english origin. I mean, origin of people and origin of language can be different, unless it is proven that they overlap.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Skylax, no one in this thread brought up the outdated and discredited concept of race apart from you, so i don't see the point of wh ere your going with this. As for "turkified" the foundational population group of most modern Anatolian Turks (who today are around 50 million people) are Orthodox Greek speaking Byzantines that after embracing Islam linguistically switched to Turkish. There is a book i recommend to you about the four centuries process: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century [1] by Speros Jr. Vryonis (1971). Even today there are Muslim Greek speaking people in Turkey, but due to Islam they identify as Turks (see Greek speaking Muslims). The process of "Turkification" or becoming Turks has most affected Orthodox Greek speaking people for the past millennium in the Balkan and Anatolian regions.Resnjari (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I know the work of Vryonis. He lost his proffessorship in USA because of this.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad your familiar with the work and have actually read the whole book, because its a big thick text of hundreds of pages. On Vryonis' career i've have never heard that his career suffered due to publishing this scholarly work. If anything his bio shows he was active well after publishing this book. Unless you have evidence, rumor and innuendo don't count. His study still counts and has not been refuted apart from the margins on how the process differed within Anatolia.Resnjari (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that there is some point in what Skylax said about most of the text about language would be better in the relevant article. There is a scientific consensus perfectly summarized by John Van Antwerp Fine and quoted in this article:"the present-day Albanians, like all Balkan peoples, are an ethnic mixture ". Therefore the origin of Albanians and origin of Albanian language are different and not directly related topics so this article should not extensively (or maybe at all) deal with language and its origin. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Scholarship often discusses both in the same context. If you remove the linguistic factor whats the point of having this article? I should also note that other similar articles in English Wikipedia are structured that way i.e Origin of the Romanians etc.Resnjari (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That is very good observaton Resnjari. I completely and fully agree with you. There is absolutely no point on having this article. I don't about all other non-Balkan people, maybe some of them are not mixtures like Balkan ones. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFF EXISTS does not mean this stuff should exist too. Having an article about the origin of Albanians is the same as having an article about the ethnogenesis of Manchester United fans. I think this is the first time you and I agree about something. Thank you very much for your very good observation. I propose to delete trough renaming this article to Hypothesis about the origin of Albanian language, just like Template:Albanian language suggests so? Or to rename it to Origin of Proto-Albanians? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My point was if one was to remove the linguistic factor in a hypothetical sense. You'll be hard pressed to find wide support for that. What will most likely happen if this article got deleted and the linguistic content got moved to the Albanian language article or some alternative article is that people then will start placing DNA content on that article and then disputes will arise whether that should be there or whether this article should be revived to allow space for that stuff and more time will get wasted on bs like that. We have what we have, its imperfect but it does the job. Renaming this article will also be difficult. Its the most neutral sounding name on the subject for the article pagename. "Hypothesis about the origin of Albanian language" wont get far on that front. You can try as wiki rules allow for it via a pagemove nomination. On the Albanian language template, its layered that way for easy reference to the subsections of this article and so on.Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Resnjari. I interact with you for many years on wikipedia and I know your editing pattern very well. I knew from the beginning that you will avoid to put your money where your mouth is on this matter. Re your statement: You'll be hard pressed to find wide support for that. On wikipedia the decisions are reached through consensus grounded in arguments and wikipedia rules. Not through wideness of support. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

tsk, tsk, tsk Antidiskriminator. You talk big, so do something big. Its simple, initiate an RFC on the matter. Then i'll engage in the process and so will others. As for my edits its great that your fan of my work. :)Resnjari (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Good evening everyone. This thread is not helpful. It is predicated on a false equivalence between the Turkish case and the Albanian one. In the latter there is a mountain of multidisciplinary evidence demonstrating that elite dominance mediated language replacement not accompanied by demic replacement occurred. No such evidence exists for Albanian aside from hand wavey statements with no real evidence like the one Antid is trumpeting above. I must add that I personally do believe a language replacement via Albanization did occur in certain regions but that is just my personal view. Even in the Turkish case however, the ethnogenesis of the group does indeed have language taking a critical role. One thing more: simply equating ancestry and ethnicity, as Skylax has done above, will not help you be taken seriously in a discussion informed by modern scholarship. Cheers.--Calthinus (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Calthinus. My point was just to reduce the language section here and move it to a better place. The rest of the discussion above are irrelevant. However, "modern scholarship" does connect ancestry and ethnicity when history has a place in the national identity. You could ask, for example, a Jew about that, although you probably realized that some of us are trying to find historical roots as old as possible, even inventing non-existing manuscripts. Cheers again and happy new year.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember Skylax30 you brought up the other "irrelevant" stuff and made it part of the discussion. And you got a reply. On people trying to find "historical roots as old as possible", i didn't see anyone here express an interest or be obsessed with classicism in an attempt to find purpose in who they are. Not everyone engaged with or originating from the Balkans is silly with those kinds of things.Resnjari (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comments are pretty bizarre. Jewish ancestry happens to be shared at a high level (as per halakhah you're automatically a Jew if your mom is; dna testing has shown largely shared ancestry on the dad's side), but there is no equation even here as non-Jewish groups such as Idumaeans (including Herod) were absorbed as well as a married in convert here and there. So no, as a Jew I would have to say your statement is a flat out fallacy. And by the way, let's not pretend Greeks have some sort of match between ancestry and modern self declared ethnicity/nationality. That would be quite ridiculous after millennia of absorbing Anatolians, Slavs, Semites esp in Cyprus, Lazy in Pontus... (and very possibly racist).--Calthinus (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to pretend anything about Greeks, just read. Start with this [2], continue with this [3], and if you have questions don't hesitate to ask. But not here, as it is off topic.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to pretend your news articles say that Greek ancestry bidirectionally equals Greek ethnicity when we all can read it. No one disputes that some Greeks descend from the ancient ones. The equation though, smacks of fringe nationalist lunacy.--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Skylax30, and the Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones up north fall under that grouping? I see nothing in those articles you cite about those communities, yet many modern day Greeks descend from those people and not Rhomioi stock. Anyway this article is about origins of the Albanians, nothing about something else.Resnjari (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, PM me when you publish your paper on genetics.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Skylax30, what genetics are you referring too?Resnjari (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually we have no clues apart from some sporadic phonological stuff from various languages. There is no archaeological evidence to support a certain proto-Albanian connection & no 3rd part literature. Alexikoua (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not so. The Albanian language is not "sporadic phonological stuff" contrary to what some people think. If it was the case scholars would not devote the time or day to researching the Albanian language, yet alone the topic would not attract attention like it has here. On archeology, most peoples around the world are in a similar situation and other indigenous communities of the Balkans like the Aromanians Alexikoua who are found in places like the Pindus and Zagori also lack archaeological evidence and there is no 3rd part literature and so on. And yet its through their language that research to their past is made. The case is similar for many other peoples around the world.Resnjari (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Origins about the Albanian language can only be traced on "sporadic phonological stuff" from other languages. That's what I've said & this is why this article mentions lots of information about language (not the Albanian but links and possible origins of this language with the past). Don't put words on other people's mouth.Alexikoua (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, still persisting with this and no i did not place words in other peoples mouths, i just quoted them back at the people who said them. As has been pointed out other articles like Origins of the Romanians are structured in a similar way. Scholarship treats Albanian origins with the context of language. If a few editors in here don't like it they have range of options available like commencing an RFC, a pagemove etc. Otherwise no need for further trolling.Resnjari (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It's reasonable to rely so much on language. Skylax may provide something useful for addition. "Origin of the Albanians" is a topic of various interpretations in scholarship. This can't be called trolling. Alexikoua (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yo Alexikoua scholarship has spoken on this matter for a long time. If you don;t like how the article is arranged or even existing open an RFC or further as a few others have suggested. Otherwise all this here is just trolling. That's about it.Resnjari (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Controversial topics such as this one are open to various interpretations, though nationalism isn't helpful. For example Matzinger is negativelly portrayed among Albanian extrememists (some of whom serving in education). We can find much authochtony trolling among the later cycles.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua are you implying here something with your comment about "Albanian extrememists" ? Is this more trolling? Content within the article is sourced to scholarship. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about "authochtony " and other rubbish. Stick to the issue. Either you open a RFC or a pagemove. Otherwise what's the point of this 'discussion'?Resnjari (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Resnjary: You need to stop this trolling circus. Skylax filled a topic for discussion and in case he provides evidence there is nothing wrong on that. A talkpage is for this job.Alexikoua (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, @Skylax30 went on about 'turkification' or refering to people's Jewish heritage etc as the above comments show. Nope, all i see is trolling here. Either a RFC or a pagemove is opened, or this is a waste of time with people trolling about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The case of turkification is a valid example: origin and language should not be confused. RFC or pagemoves deal with diferrent issues. Trolling arguments can be considered those in favor of a herrenvolk gallery here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, can you please clearly elaborate what you mean and what you are exactly referring to by this comment "rolling arguments can be considered those in favor of a herrenvolk gallery here"? so no one misinterprets you going forward before i make comment on other matters.Resnjari (talk)

This isn't really sporadic, we are talking about decades of WP:RS research by Hamp, Keep, Demiraj etc. As Ive said the Turkification case is a bad comparison because there is a body of research concerning lang replacement via elite dominance there and no counterpart in the Albanian case.--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Turkification IS a good comparison because the so called turkocracy in mainland Greece, was mostly Albanocracy. The real Turks (i.e. turkic speakers muslims) were a minority. The "dirty job" was done by Albanian muslims. I think that William Leake said that during his stay in Epirus he met only one Turk and two Turkish women. The Epirote N.J. Cassavety, in 1913, describes the way Greeks were forced to speak Albanian The Question of Epirus, p. 237 --Skylax30 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (Edited 13-1-2019) --Skylax30 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, cool story. Relevant?--Calthinus (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Skylax30, Cassavety was not an academic, but a diaspora type of the early 20th century advocating for inclusion of southern Albania into Greece. He was after all the "General Secretary of the Pan-Epirotic Union in America". Apart from WP:AGEMATTERS issues with that source, no need to use past irredentist propaganda common among the Greek right wing (then and now). As was explained to you Turkification is not an applicable example. Wikipedia is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You might not be able to "explain" to others. We just post opinions here. Btw, you are invited to comment on the expertise of British WW2 agents who dropped out of school (Hodgkinson) on Skanderbeg. --Skylax30 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Skylax30 have you read Cassavetes' views on "Arabs" and "Ethiopians"? --Calthinus (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Skylax30, what do you mean by "dirty job"? Can you elaborate as i don't understand what you mean? Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

For example, [4]. Take no offence, mate. If you want to talk history, we talk history.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Skylax30, yes i have read the article. I am the kind of person who looks at the whole context, not just the aftermath. Blame goes to all sides, as you want to talk history, the uprising by Orthodox Greeks targeted Muslim civilians [5] with both physical violence and destruction of property and only thereafter was there a large Ottoman military response. Anyway WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not the purpose of this thread.Resnjari (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Cassavetes isn't RS, though I remember Calthinus made selective use of him in Chameria estimates and the number of "Albanophone Greeks".Alexikoua (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As I have explained a gazillion times, I used Cassavetes for Virgili's stats when Virgili wasn't available. Remind me how this comment was constructive?--Calthinus (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You mentioned something about author X and I replied. That's the definition of contructive editting.Alexikoua (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

......--Calthinus (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Cassavetes is not used as source here. He was a witness, or expressed opinion of witnesses. In this capacity, he is cited by few research papers. Anyway, he is not the only one who talked about forced albanization.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30, your way off. Those that referred to "forced albanization" often were either making land claims to southern Albania or viewing the issue from a irredentist or nationalistic perspective. The modern (and neutral) study to date of the Greek minority of Albania realting to demographics of Albania's deep south is this: Leonidas Kallivretakis (1995) - Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Αλβανίας υπό το πρίσμα της ιστορικής γεωγραφίας και δημογραφίας [6]. Kallivretakis says this on page 34 "Στα πλαίσια της επιτόπιας έρευνας που πραγματοποιήσαμε στην Αλβανία (Νοέμβριος-Δεκέμβριος 1992), μελετήσαμε το ζήτημα των εθνοπολιτισμικών ομάδων, όπως αυτές συνειδητοποιούνται σήμερα επί τόπου. Είναι ενδιαφέρον καταρχήν το γεγονός ότι οι ντόπιοι Έλληνες που βιώνουν μια πραγματικότητα και δεν αντλούν την εμπειρία τους από επιτελικούς χάρτες, χρησιμοποιούν χαρακτηρισμούς που λαμβάνουν υπόψιν την πολυπλοκότητα του φαινομένου και αποφεύγουν τις απλουστεύσεις. Έτσι τα χωριά χαρακτηρίστηκαν αυθορμήτως ως Ελληνικά, Αλβανικά Χριστιανικά, Αλβανικά Μουσουλμανικά —με ιδιαίτερη μνεία των Τσάμικων— και Βλάχικα. Οι χαρακτηρισμοί αυτοί συμπίπτουν σε σημαντικό βαθμό με εκείνους των πηγών του 19ου αιώνα. Περισσότερο πολύπλοκες είναι οι περιπτώσεις που σχετίζονται με τις πόλεις, τα μικτά χωριά, τα νέα χωρία και τις μετακινήσεις πληθυσμών που έχουν λάβει χώρα τα τελευταία χρόνια." and Even today series academics who have no nationalistic axes to grind like Konstantinos Giakoumis in 2018 [7] say this of Kallivretakis' study: "From Greek historiography, important and rather well-balanced contributions can be quoted from scholars whose studies and public interventions aim at smoothing the divisive forces of nationalism in the Balkans. Such type of historiography highlights matters related to minorities, holds theses often deemed as cosmopolitan, in juxtaposition to other ‘nationally-minded’ scholars. Leonidas Kallivretakis, for instance, has conducted the earliest historical geography and demography account of Albania’s post-socialist period (1995), in which he looks at matters with the cold blood of a disengaged scientist.". Its up to you whether you want to continue on this bandwagon of "forced albanisation". But apart from the 3 Greek speaking villages of Himara where communist authorities attempted and failed in their attempt, the "forced albanisation" claim is fringe. There is such a thing as Orthodox Albanians and Aromanians and they 'defacto' are not Greek due on account of their shared religion with the Greeks.Resnjari (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax: Indeed there was a process of expansion of Albanian speech from late Ottoman Empire. Take a look at some recent academic papers [[8]] (universities in Albania today tend to ignore the usual PRA era stereotypes and even use tampoo terms such as Northern Epirus without brackets):

Η κάθοδος του αλβανικού στοιχείου στην Ήπειρο είχε σύμμαχο την αυτοκρατορική εξουσία, ήταν μαζική και από θέσεις πολυσχιδούς ισχύος. Η νέα θρησκεία του Αλβανικού στοιχείου λειτουργούσε ως αυτοκρατορική ιδεολογία σε ανοιχτή αντιπαράθεση με τον χριστιανισμό. Η εγγύηση εμπιστοσύνης προς την Πύλη, στην προκειμένη περίπτωση δεν εξαντλούνταν μόνο στην αλλαγή πίστης, αλλά στην αντιχριστιανική αφοσίωση που ήταν κατά κόρον ανθελληνική. Χαρακτηριστική περίπτωση η περιοχή της Λιουντζεριάς στο νομό Αργυροκάστρου, γενέτειρα του μεγάλου ευεργέτη Ευάγγελου Ζάππα. Τονίζουμε ότι στην εποχή του Ζάππα η διγλωσσία είχε δώσει το παρόν της στη συγκεκριμένη περιοχή με γλώσσα προέλευσης ή ταυτότητας την ελληνική. Κατά την Αλβανική Αναγέννηση, δεύτερο μισό του ΧΙΧ αιώνα, διαμορφώθηκε εδώ και η αλβανική εθνική ταυτότητα. Το χαρακτηριστικό για τους κάτοικους της περιοχής σημειώθηκε πριν και μετά το Δεύτερο Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. Όσοι πρόλαβαν και διατήρησαν την επαφή με την Ελλάδα, διατήρησαν και ενίσχυσαν την ελληνική εθνικότητα. Μέλη της ίδιας οικογένειας τα οποία έχασαν την επαφή αυτή, αναδείχτηκαν σταθεροί Αλβανοί με αυτόβουλη την απώθηση ακόμα και της ελληνικής γλώσσας. Το φαινόμενο βάθυνε από γενιά σε γενιά με αποτέλεσμα η ελληνική γλώσσα να υποχωρήσει εντελώς.

Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, are you kidding me ! Apart from not placing a page number (its page 68), that piece of text is by Panayotis Barkas, a person who has interchanged his role as a politician from the Greek minority in the Albanian parliament and being involved in the education sector. Heck there is heaps on the Albanian side who also have done the same and blab on about the whole of Greek Epirus as being places where Albanian gave way to Greek. I mean while we are at it are we going to place fringe from Barka in his works that asserts that Albanians are of mixed race with the Arabs who came to the Balkans with the Ottomans or that Muslim Albanians are really Albanised Greeks [9]! Please no need for fringe. As you @Alexikoua brought up Lunxheria, credible academics like Gilles De Rapper who did heaps of research about the area [10] (and as cited before Kallivretakis) do not back up such fringe.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjary: Lol, you are kidding me! A fully wp:RS that meets wp:ACADEMIC & wp:SECONDARY. P. Barkas is a professor in an Albanian university. ocnal.com? Oh needless to say you attempt to reject wp:RS with wp:TABLOITJOURNALISM? (some who calls the... albanian police to arrest Barkas, that's very funny.) Don't do that again in an encyclopedia. For future reference publication by the University of Gjirokaster are wp:RS, whether some Albanian journalist with naitonalist tendencies like it or not. If you still disagree there is always an wp:RSN else we have typical wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aleixkoua, you ignored Giakoumis down below. He is RS beyond doubt. It does't matter if Barkas is a professor. So are many people in Albania who are academics and engage in fringe. Being an academic in no way disqualifies that Barkas is fringe and writing from a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perspective. The news article also is points out that fringe and refers to the dispute Llalla has with Barkas. Alexi, you should have a read of Giakoumis.Resnjari (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually once again Giakoumis who has looked at many works like those of Barkas states the following p.144 [11]: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatus is apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009; Karagjozi-Kore 2014), but also of Greek historiography (e.g. Koltsida 2008; Koltsidas 2008; Pappa 2009; Karakitsios 2010; Xynadas 2012; Ismyrliadou 2013; Karkasinas 2014). It is interesting to note that such proclivities are very evident to select historiography produced by members of the Greek minority in Albania (Barkas 2016)."Resnjari (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see what this has to do with the work I presented here. Barkas is the chairman in an Albanian university and history professor. According to your rationale we should remove all academics which have been "clearly pro-Albanian" [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well as Giakoumis shows Barkas is fringe and engages in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS content, not unbiased historiography. Giakoumis is clear about the work that Barkas engages in. As for Albanian academics do you know how many professors/academics there are that engage in that kind of thing that one could rewrite the whole Northern Epirus and Greeks in Albania articles from scratch (Giakoumis notes the problematic ones). I take that your ok with those kinds of Albanian academics who write like Barkas?Resnjari (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS arguments perfectly apply on you. Apart from wp:IDONTLIKE and excessive wp:BLP violations (frindge claims is your "personal" interpretation), you still need to explain why academics termed as "clearly pro-Albanian" are immune from frindge [[13]].Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Barkas is fringe, not to mention a whole host of other academics from both Greece and Albania. Giakoumis who has no axe to grind points this out clearly.Resnjari (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion (Giakoumis doesn't claim that). Still you fail to adress why "pro-Albanian academics" aren't frindge. By the way does Giakoumis also mentions Xhuvi in the same line (about authors with a certain pro-Albanian tendency)?. You need to avoid wp:BLP violations it's against building an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No not my opinion, but what is noted in RS. Once again Giakoumis, p.144 [14]: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatus is apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009; Karagjozi-Kore 2014), but also of Greek historiography (e.g. Koltsida 2008; Koltsidas 2008; Pappa 2009; Karakitsios 2010; Xynadas 2012; Ismyrliadou 2013; Karkasinas 2014). It is interesting to note that such proclivities are very evident to select historiography produced by members of the Greek minority in Albania (Barkas 2016)." Barkas is fringe writing from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perspectives, its very clear. Also i accept all the others that Giakoumis notes too. They ought not to be used as well whether they are academics from Greece or Albania.Resnjari (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet again excessive BLP violations. You... accidentally posted that Xhufi also falls in this category & let me remind you that you already added him in various articles. Though Giakoumis doesn't mention any Barka's publications as department chairman in the University of Gjirkoaster or any author in general as frindge. That's something you need to conveince the community in wp;RSN. Good luck on that.Alexikoua (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

From memory i only ever used that academic once. On your part you have made extensive use of Koltsidas many, many times on multiple articles. As for Giakoumis he is clear on the others and he focuses on Barkas from the others citing with all examples of scholarly works and their problems. The book he refers to is mentioned in the article (full ref p.151), its Barkas biggest work to date. Don't fluf about other works not being mentioned. One then can make the claim for all the other academics and their works. As i said academics similar to Barkas could be used to rewrite the whole Northern Eprius and Greeks in Albania articles. Barkas is fringe.Resnjari (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you are expert in identifying authors as "fringe", how about that Albanian who claimed that he discovered a 13th c. "albanian" manuscript, but failed to produce any photo of it? Of course, "fringeness" is something relative. You cannot call "fringe" something that is in high consumption in Albania.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the definition of whataboutism. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Also Skylax30 seems to overlook that i supported the removal of that fringe and provided info for why instead of just saying its fringe like others did without something substantive.Resnjari (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Content issues can be discussed separately or taken elsewhere, such as WP:RSN. Dekimasuよ! 20:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Origin of the Albanians → Proto-Albanians – Simply per WP:CRITERIA.

• Proto-Albanians meet WP:CRITERIA better than current title in all of WP:CRITERIA characteristics. The real topic of this article are Proto-Albanians. Proto-Albanians is recognizable and natural title, as defined by WP:CRITERIA policy. Precise and concise.
• Proto-Albanians are topics covered by thousands of sources (more than 700 only English language sources only on GBS). Including sources used in the article.
• The current title is wrong, misleading and violates WP:NPOV. In the above discussions there is a consensus reached that according to reliable secondary sources Albanians are like other Balkan people, mix of different ethnic groups. In case of Albanians they descend from Slavs, Vlachs, Greeks, RomanoItalians, Celts, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Gepids.... and Proto-Albanains. The current title corresonds to POV myths of Albanian nationalism. Precisely to myth of origin, of ethnic homogeneity and cultural purity. The current title may serve as magnet for editors who might try to misuse wikipedia to promote antiAlbanian POV. Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose - other wiki pages with similar names that deal with the topic of origins of a particular ethnic group exist: i.e Origin of the Székelys, Origin of the Azerbaijanis, Origin of the Kurds, Origin of the Huns, Origin of the Basques, Origin of the Romanians. There is a misrepresentation on the part of the filer. The article on Albanian origins is not about Albanian nationalism and nor does it contain content about those things as a separate article exists that treats the topic in its own scope. Nor does the article refer to or promote "ethnic homogeneity" and "cultural purity". The article is based on WP:RS scholarship. The current name: Origin of the Albanians allows for the topic of proto-Albanians to be treated, as does scholarship, within the context of origins of an Indo-European ethnic group, their language and modern Albanians. I do agree on one thing with the filer that the current article is a magnet for certain editors over the years who try to misuse and push their anti Albanian POV. Often that has entailed denying the existence of Albanians or pushing various WP:FRINGE POV. That however had nothing to do with the pagename of the article. The current requested pagemove is more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS than anything else.Resnjari (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You Resnjari do understand that:

• examples you brought are not about Balkan ethnic groups - while RM rationale is clearly based on the fact that there is a consensus reached that according to reliable secondary sources Albanians are like other Balkan people, mix of different ethnic groups.)?
• Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not valid argument here,
• there is consensus reached that Having an article about the origin of Albanians is the same as having an article about the ethnogenesis of Manchester United fans?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator what does geography have to do with anything for the existence of such articles? There is similar origins article on the Romanians whose country Romania often gets placed within the confines of the Balkans. Your argument does not suffice. Anyway why can't an article on the origins of Albanians exist? It is a topic discussed in RS scholarship. As for the rest of your comments they just ooze of having a personal axe to grind and fall into the area of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose attempt to change the long standing consensus title.--Calthinus (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I understand that the current version has serious structural issues. Proto-Albanian usually refers to 16th-18th Albanian literature/speech per Matzinger.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  That would be astonishing. For Orel, Hamp etc, Proto-Albanian is spoken during Roman rule.--Calthinus (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus yep indeed. This pagemove is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Comments like "Proto-Albanian usually refers to 16th-18th Albanian literature/speech" just further confirm this.Resnjari (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Matzinger and Schumacher are top Albanologists [[15]]. All scholar views should be part of this article. It's really sad that Matzinger's work was removed in NINJA fashion recently. Scholarship tends to reject PRA stereotypes and that's reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That content was restored within the article. Prior to that the previous stable version was restored until certain issues as the above threads show were hashed out. During that process when it went to the stable version many of my edits were also removed (the bulk of them were my edits to begin with).Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyway on the matter of Matzinger, he does not refer to Proto-Albanian as having formed in the "16th-18th Albanian literature/speech." In one publicly available study [16] where Matzinger discusses his position on Proto-Albanian, he locates its formation within the inner Balkans from a period stretching from late antiquity (late Roman period) for a few centuries until the early medieval period (see pages 11-12, 17, 18). Its in line with other scholars like Orel, Hamp and so on.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In one occasion this "supposed" proto-Albania language has some Slavic loanwords. It appears your knowledge of German is really bad, but it's ok. Matzinger is a top scholar as soon as cherry picking is avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You said what you said in your previous comments. My German is ok. I know who Matzinger is and yes he is a top notch scholar and so is Hamp and Orel and many more coming through after them. All i see is a cherry picking of a favorite scholar by you and a distortion for what he wrote. No where does it push the WP:FRINGE that Proto-Albanian as having formed in the "16th-18th Albanian literature/speech." But this topic of origins has been discussed outside Matziger as well.Resnjari (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also unlike you i provided citations from Matzinger that referred to those issues.Resnjari (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also unlike you i provided citations from Matzinger Yes, the usual endless accusations. You need to read the discussion before launching another one. I've provided a linguistlist.org/ url. You need to focus on content and avoid this disruptive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah no accusations, just facts. As for your linguistlist.org/ link, that does not suffice. You made a serious claim and could not back it up by saying its in so and so book in so and so page. All that link does is refer to a book written by Matzinger and Schumacher. Heck i can do that. Out of respect to editors in here i at least gave page numbers and a source. As i can get a digital copy of the Matzinger and Schumacher text, what page etc. You provided nothing thus far. Please give it a rest with the projection of saying others engage in "disruptive editing". All one sees here is yourself making fringe claims based more on personal views rather than what scholars say. If those claims are going to be made at least own them and not pass them off as the positions of scholars.Resnjari (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, as per other good examples like Origin of the Romanians. Anyway literally Origin of the "X" is better to be understood in common language like "proto-" that may have also other specialized meanings. I really the change is someone's great wish, I could at least imagaine "Albanian prehistory" as per Hungarian prehistory.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

Quite erroneous Resnjari blindly reverted everything about Matzinger recently with the excuse "back to stable version" (not to mention trolling comments in a failed -bad faith- report with obvious boomerang effects). It's a huge step finally serious scholarship like Matzinger are in this article. Matzinger should stay and additional inline reference is needed. This P.R.Albania-era stereotype sooner or later will vanish since scholarship tends to completely reject those "authoctone" myths. Alexikoua (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope i reverted to the stable version of the page as others had done. While the stable version of recent times existed it not only temporarily removed your edits but mine too (the bulk of content as added by me by the way). Its was so consensus could be built in the talkpage in what one hoped would be good faith. As with previous comments of yours here this new comment: "This P.R.Albania-era stereotype sooner or later will vanish since scholarship tends to completely reject those "authoctone" myths"" just goes to show from what perspective your approaching this topic. Content in this article is cited to RS scholarship and not something fringe. Once again we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You reverted all inline references about Matzinger because it was against your personal POV (yet again ninja is called "stable version"). That wasn't a cool move, but since you finally being to accept wp:RS and avoid a stubborn denial that's good step. Modern scholarship is going to be added no matter if editors prefer those PRA stereotypes and insist on filling bad faith (and BOOMERANG) reports.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As there was a ongoing talkpage discussion my revert of my edits was in good faith. The stable version of the article at the time was that. I fail to see what is personal POV. When there is no consensus, a good faith measure is to revert to the stable version of the article until issues are sorted out. The rest of what you say is just trolling as you did not get your way with POV pushing.Resnjari (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Its a big step forward that the so-called autochtone nonsense gets replaced by serious scholarly work like Matzinger. This obsessive Matzinger removals had to stop and no wonder after a childish 3rr report against me disruption subsided and problematic issues were immediately sovled due to mine insistence.Alexikoua (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

what "autochtone nonsense"? The article is sourced to RS scholarship. Matzinger is not the only scholar to have written on the topic. All one gets from your comments is that you have a intense dislike of this article and if you could get away with it would rewrite probably only using one source affirming your view (as you have outlined ad nauseam).Resnjari (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't say inappropriate words. The article is in much better state after my personal initiative to add important conclusions from modern scholarship. I don't know why you personally dislike Matzinger but it's ok since you avoid this kind of NINJA now. POV pushing should be fixed & all productive editors should contribute in order to deal with such issues.Alexikoua (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What "inappropriate words"? Your main contribution was to add some extra info. At least two thirds of recent additions are mine. I never said i disliked Matzinger. In previous comments i said he is a fine academic. However the article is not written with sources coming from one academic that ones likes to the detriment of other RS sources. This topic of Albanian origins is by no means a settled matter within the scholarly world and hence should reflect the wider RS on the subject to maintain neutrality.Resnjari (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

By removing a certain scholar like Matzinger with the excuse "back to stability" isn't exactly a product initiative. This article is in need of large scale improvements else it offers the wrong impression that the Illyrian-Albanian connection is a 50-50 posibility. Some editors may interpret those improvements as "intense dislike". That's their personal POV.Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yo Alexikoua, i've lost count of how many times this has been said to you, but when the stable version of the time was reverted, out of all editors who would perceive it as a 'loss' it would have been me as at least roughly two thirds of that content added was mine. I did not sook about it and preferred the stable version until issues were sorted out to maintain good faith in the talkpage. That's what being a responsible editor is about. As for the rest of your comments its just trolling. Its self evident that you have a wp:idontlikeit outlook with any RS scholarship that even remotely discusses anything to do with a "Illyrian-Albanian connection". Oh well, i guess everyone has their schtick.Resnjari (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

oppose Different topics? There is no nationalistic narrative in this title, as title does not imply a single origin. According to WP:TITLE Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. This specific title complies with these criteria hence it is perfectly suitable. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, on formal grounds. The proposed term "Proto-Albanians" is itself ambiguous, since it is attributed with several meanings by different authors, some using it in reference to ancestors of modern ethnic Albanians, others using it as a general designation for various ancient proto-historic populations on the territory of modern Albania, not to mention occasional uses for later periods, and also some alternative uses in reference to ancestors of Caucasian Albanians, and so on ... The proposed term "Proto-Albanians" might be a good candidate for a disambiguation page. Sorabino (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, I believe that th article title is fin and self explanatory. It would be better to reflect the mixed origin of Albanians in this article itself and not concentrate only on the linguistics. I know that as Resnjariri said above, most of the reasearch relate to Albanians is done on linguistics basis and we lack of information further information about their origin. But we all know from the sources that Huns, Romans, Illyrians, Greeks, Goths, Thracian, Slavs with tha Bulgarian and the Serbian Empires most from Early to High Middle Ages, Turks etc. Duelled on that land. Othon I (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Question - Would Ancient Albanians as new artilc name resolve concerns some editors expressed here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That would bring up many more issues due to the word "ancient" and invite all sorts of POV. Anyway scholarship does not use the word ancient, its mainly "proto", carrying the connotations of the first, early.Resnjari (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree and could not find out better that "Origin of the Albanians" or "Albanian prehistory", although you might say why I am following Hungarian or Romanian related examples, but there has been also boiled hot waters...if you could bring up other possibilities based on other well-established title's regarding other nations, then I could say an opinion about them.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC))

Prehistory more connotes an era like the neolithic and stone ages. Scholars really have not placed Albanian (as we know it today) as having emerged back then, only from the late Roman period encompassing a few centuries until the early Middle Ages. I'm not aware of other name formulations for pagenames on things like this, but editors may be aware of articles. Origins, although imperfect does the job for this subject matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I see, but my comment was not meant to your reaction, but for the question asked, just asnwered right after you. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC))

KIENGIR, its all good ! :-) Resnjari (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Re Antidiskriminator overall I think this page's title does effectively imply "Origin of the (proto-)Albanians". Just as is the same for Romanians and the corresponding pages for Serbs, Croats, etc. All of these pages concern ethnogenesis, not irrelevant ancestry admixtures that happened later. --Calthinus (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link with Alba / British Isles

"Elinus son of Dohe had three sons, Airmen, Negua, Isacon. As for Airmen, he had five sons, Gutus, Cebidus, Uiligothus, Burgundus, Longbardus. Negua had three sons, Saxus, Boarus, Uandalus. Isacon, moreover, one of the three sons of Elenus, he had four sons, Romanus, Francus, Britus, Albanus.

This is that Albanus who first took Albania, with his children, and of him is Alba named: so he drove his brother across the Sea of Icht, and from him are the Albanians of Latium of Italy."

This is a typical irish genealogy going from adam to the current ruler at the time. It's from an ancient irish text, the book of Leinster, but there is a lot of scottish and irish record with similar associations with albania. Should this link be mentioned as a possible origin? http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/lebor1.html