From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Fustanella IS Albanian in Origin[edit]

Fustanella (for spelling in various languages, see chart below) is a traditional skirt-like garment worn by albanian nations in the Balkans (Southeast Europe), similar to the kilt. In modern times, the fustanella is part of Balkan folk dresses. In Albania it is used now days like a traditional wearing and it was word by the Royal Gard in 1924-1939 meanwhile in Greece, a short version of the fustanella is worn by ceremonial military units like the Evzones.

Fustanella is an Albanian National Wearing and there are references for that. One reference is from Jean Pierre Edmond Jurien de La Gravière (19 November 1812 in Brest, Finistère – 5 March 1892) a French admiral and he cites : Albanian wearing become a life style and was in mode so much as the ottomans of high levels wore proudly the white fustanella of Albanians of South. Even greek themselves when the second son of Ali Pasha, named Veli Pasha that was ruling in that time Morea, adopted fustanella as a symbol of bravery and made it the elegant uniform of palikaris.

There are no references that fustanella was a greek national wearing. There are references that show fustanella is an albanian national wearing that is adopted latter in the 18th century by greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newalbin (talkcontribs) 14:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"The fustanella was originally thought to have been a southern Albanian outfit of the Tosks and introduced in Greece during the Ottoman occupation that began after the 15th century." (then links to pro-Albanian sources)

First of all, there was no Albania in the 15th century. Albania was created by Austria in the early 20th century.

Second, to this very day "Southern Albania" is populated by majority Greek population. The Greeks still refer to southern Albania as Northern Epirus (it is occupied Greece; in fact, Albania and Greece are still officially at war and have been for decades).

Thirdly, the article first says that the Fustanella dates back to the Byzantine Empire and even to Ancient Rome and Greece. Please explain to me why then someone added the contradictory statement that all the sudden the Fustanella was an "Albanian" invention only introduced "to Greece" from the 15th century. The fact is that the modern Greek borders did not exist then (obviously) and "Greece" was indeed almost the entire southern Balkans and western and northern Asia Minor which was heavily populated by Greeks up until the 1920's (See: Greek Genocide).

The Fustanella is 100% Hellenic in origin. Just as the Albanians are now Hellenised so to were/are the Turks, Bulgarians, Serbians and indeed much of the world.

For Albanians to deny their Hellenization would be to deny their Byzantine flag (symbol), Orthodox heritage (now mostly Islam) and their very culture, folk dance and food. It's absurd! It would be like the English to deny their Germanic ethnicity and Germanic cultural heritage (food, attitudes, music, art, etc).

Much like the Slav-Macedonians, the Albanians actively attempt to appropriate Greek culture, and make it their own. Such is the way of the Balkans, where you have many peoples with little to no roots/history and nations created by far-away powers who knew nothing of the realities in the Balkans (Such as was the case with Austria and Albania). --Nikoz78 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

For the first poing there do not exist any concept called "greek" or "greece" before the year 1821. There is no greek nation till 1821 when germans and King Otto created greek nation. So it is illiterate to speak for a "greek nation" before 1821. Albanian nation existed before medieval times. Remember here that the first appear of word Albania is in 1271 when is created for the first time Kingdom Albania. There is no record or original document of this time to prove the existence of Greece, greek nation or the concept "greek". Greek nation is created only in 1821 and before this date is illiterate to speak for "greek nation". Newalbin (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
For the second point in the region of Korca, Kolonja, Permet, Skrapar, Berat, Lushnje, Fieri that are albanian areas of south Albania there is not even one greek living. Noone albanian ethnic from those areas of Albania speaks greek language. Epir never spoke greek language. Greek language is used only after 18th century in Greece when germans convinced orthodox albanians of south Albania that they were greeks and not albanians.
For the third point again we need to know better what is greek and what is not greek. Before the year 1821 there are no greeks in Balkan because simply they did not exist. Greeks are created in 1821 by germans with ethnic albanian orthodoxes that lived on the regions where today is called Greece. In the so called wrongly period of Byzantine Empire there are no original documents of that time that can prove the existence of greeks. There have been no greeks in the so called Byzantine Empire. Word "albania" and "albanians" surely appear too many times in the document of that time meanwhile words like "greek" and "greece" do not appear at all. The fall of Byzantine empire is dated in 1453 meanwhile the ethimiology of creation of word "greek" and "greece" dates later than the year 1560.

There have not been "helens" in ancient times. Word "hellenes" is nothing more than ethimiologically deformed word "illyrians". First of all there is no link between word "greek" and word "hellenes" those are two different words have no connection between them. At the other hand word "hellenes" derives from the deformed word "hellas" that is the albanian word for "hyllas". All these words like "hyllas" "hellas" "helios" "ilios" "yll" "diell" are the same word that is used for the word "star" or "sun" and all those words ethimiologically are of albanian origin. And this shows that the ancient "hellenes" are nothing more than ancient illyrians. Word "illyrian" together with the word "yll" "ill" "hyllas" "hellas""helios" in the albanian language of today all of them are explained with the word "yll" meaning "star" and "ilirians" mean people that have come from stars.Newalbin (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hellenisation is a false concept. It never existed in ancient times. The term Hellenistic was established by the German historian and member of the Grerman parliament Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884).Newalbin (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ancient greek culture never existed. The term Ancient Greece is a false concept because word "greek" and "greece" are created 3 000 years latter than the period called wrongly Ancient Greece. The right word to be called that period is Ancient Illyricum.Newalbin (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This is pure communist propaganda. Of course there was a greek nation before 1821. As for Newalbin's ridiculous claims he can take them to the circus. They have no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


Do you still have queries about fustanella's?

Here is a heated argument's page on "men in skirts",
or more likely "who were the men who wore their skirts first".

Modern foustanella probably originated in what is now southern Albania, where a substantial Greek minority still lives.

Be full aware of Greek chauvunist written, when mention southern Albania and saying what is now southern Albania then mentioning the Greek minority who's existing are not clear before 1900s, the claim become that the kilt originates from the Greek minority in southern Albania and then was spread over to Greece. This is very unlogical and the line I have therefore erased and for the reason that this a claim by Theathane, inveted by him, it is a untestable and untrue theory, is not just false, it's misleading. His arguments (which is invented and false) do not represent any current views of credible scholars.

look here and scrol down the Cambridge university press regarding the origin of the kilt foustanella.

frosina have a good article on the kilt also and have literature reference, see. --Albanau 02:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Foustanella or Fustanella?[edit]

I've checked the spelling of the word in a number of dictionaries and online, and it appears that fustanella is by far the most common spelling in English (see for a comparison). I've changed the article name and spelling accordingly. -- ChrisO 10:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Albanian & Greek[edit]

Stop manipulation. Word "fustanella" is an albanian language word. It comes from the word "fustan" and word "fustan" is also an albanian word composed from two other albanian language word "fus" and "tan" meaning "to enter" and "all". Which means purely "to enter all body in it". Word "fustan" is an albanian language word that shows the real purpose of use of "fustan". Stop manipulations. Greeks did not exist before 1821. Greek nation is created in 1821 by germans and before the year 1821 all greeks were albanian orthodoxes that spoke pure albanian language. "greek" concept is a falsification of the history.Newalbin (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In Greek, fousta means skirt, while foustanella means the kilt. In his last edit, Albanu seemed to say it was the other way around in Albanian. Is that true, Albanu? If so, we should add that to the Albanian etymology section at the top. So far, we have Albanian, Italian, and Greek versions of this name that are very similar. Are there any others? Maybe we should make a table of the different like they have at Count. --Jpbrenna 16:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that term from Latin. Did they use the batons to beat the wool? The fustian article says the name is derived from a suburb of Cairo. And I had always thought that the Greek foustanella were made from strips of starched linen. Were/are they actually made from wool?
No idea. Just the etymology I stumbled across in my Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας by Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης.--Theathenae 16:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fustǎ (singular feminine noun) is the most common Romanian word for a woman's dress. The DEX says the Romanian word is from New Greek. There is also fustanelǎ (short white dress/skirt) in Romanian, also from New Greek. Very common words in those parts of Europe. James 007 17:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My source for the info added to article: American Heritage Dictionary, as well as Online Etymological Dictionary. The ultimate etymology, as you can see, is uncertain. James 007 17:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Greek dictionary claims foustanella is the diminutive of foustani, "skirt" - and -ella is clearly a Latin or Italian diminutive. If fustanella itself (not just fustagno) is in fact not Albanian or Greek at all but Italian, perhaps the Italians themselves introduced the garment (or at least the fabric) to southern Albania? Just a thought.--Theathenae 17:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The part about the dimunitives is true, and I consider the second part very likely. I'm all in favor of the "Originated in ethnically mixed region of what is now Southern Albania, original wearers impossible to determine" option. We could add " probably derived from Italian" to that. --Jpbrenna 22:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Read the comments here, Jpbrenna. Being in favour of the "Originated in ethnically mixed region of what is now southern Albania, original wearers impossible to determine" option makes you either a "Greek chauvinist" (according to Albanau) or a "petty Greek nationalist" (according to Decius). Don't say I didn't warn you.--Theathenae 22:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and it also makes you "lame", even if you can walk perfectly well.--Theathenae 23:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nobody said you were lame, just the edit war. Speaking of lame, I just got done editing a Star Trek article in Latin. Time to get away from this computer and go for a jog. Αντίο! --Jpbrenna 00:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Albanau made a mistake, maybe just swapped the places of the words accidentally. The kilt is actually named: (një) fustanellë (undeterminate form) fustanella (determinate form of the noun in Albanian), while the dress is called fustan, ((një) fustan / fustani in both it's forms). Also looked up the Italian translation in the Garzanti Dictionary. Found out that it was fustanella too (no o), but the names for skirt or dress are very different, respectively gonna and abito. Jonosphere 22:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The national costume of Greeks - Albanian origin[edit]

The Greeks have adopted the national costume of the Tosks, and is not as Theathenae try to imply that the modern fustanela originates among the Greek minority in southern Albania. --Albanau 18:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who originated it, but the article should also carry the category:Albanian clothing. James 007 18:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the new edit: The modern fustanella originated in southern Albania, and I'm willing to accept in the article. --Albanau 18:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae have now gone crazy and wrote insteed: The modern fustanella originated in the Ottoman territories of what is now southern Albania. This not NPOV cause it was written by him to misslead readers! The land that is today Albania was controlled by the Ottoman Empire from 1385 until 1876. --Albanau 19:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Fustanella was always Hellenic in origin (like most Albanian/Turkish food and folk culture it was appropriated from Greek/Byzantine culture). Also, "the Greek minority in southern Albania," is false, as the Greeks are still the majority there right now in 2011. --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


It strikes me as particularly odd that a Kosovar Gheg like Albanau would be so insistent on the "Tosk" origins of a cultural artifact to which he has no connection as he is not even from Albania, let alone multiethnic southern Albania. Considering the prevailing Kosovar Albanian attitudes towards ethnic diversity, I can only think of Pan-Albanianism rearing its ugly head yet again.--Theathenae 18:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Lame edit war[edit]

I direct your attentions to this article: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. James 007 19:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seemed like a perfect candidate, so I added it. Check it out! --Jpbrenna 19:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice one Jp. I also like that overview that you gave of the situation. ;) James 007 19:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey Albanau, doesn't User:Theathenae seem suspiciously like a Greek propagandist, though he/she claims to be an Aromanian (and maybe also an Arvanite)? For example, I'm pretty sure Aromanians should also have the words fusta and fustanella in some form, but he/she has been curiously silent regarding them... James 007 19:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a rather petty remark, Latin Lover. I have both Aromanian and Arvanitic lineage, and I take equal pride in both. These groups are not self-contained universes of the Albanian and Rumanian national narratives within Greece. They have intermarried with the monolingual Greek-speakers and with each other for centuries, and have been fully integrated into every aspect of Greek life. Moreover, they have arguably contributed more than monolingual Greek-speakers to the creation of the modern Greek state. They didn't have Hellenism imposed on them; they actively and consciously pursued it. It therefore follows that the Arvanites are not an "Albanian folkgroup" as Albanau was taught in Kosovo i Metohija, any more than the Aromanians are a subset of the Rumanians. We have thrown in our lot with the fate of Hellenism, and if you don't like it, it matters little in the larger scheme of things. We will still be who we are.--Theathenae 20:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you avoided my question about the Aromanian words. You are no Aromanian, I'm quite sure. You may have some on your tree, but that's not the same thing. James 007 20:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the level of Greek influence on Aromanian, it would be impossible to isolate the Greek loanwords of Latin origin from the specifically Aromanian words of Latin origin. We use both fousta and foustanella, but I cannot know if they developed in Aromanian independently of Greek. Highly unlikely and ultimately irrelevant, as everyone in Epirus wore them and used the same word for them. Dad would probably say the foustanella was Vlach or Arvanitovlach, but then he would, wouldn't he?--Theathenae 20:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But of course, I can't possibly be a real Aromanian if I'm not Bucharest-compliant and endorsed, can I?--Theathenae 21:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Bucharest. I was talking about that Greek skirt that you're wearing. It looks like Albanau has realized how lame this edit war is. James 007 21:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your schools were closed down in 1948. The battle for our hearts and minds ended long ago in the only way it could. They won, you lost. We belong to the enemy now. Just get used to it.--Theathenae 22:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was born in Kosova 1986, five years later after my birth, 1991, me and my family moved to Sweden due to the widespread poverty and social and political instability in the region. I never attended in any school in Kosova, or any school that teached the Albanian language here in Sweden . At age of 14 I've went to an Albanian institution in one of the city I lived in before. There I've came in contact with L'Houngan and other's such as Ullmar Qvick (today the most respected swedish author on Albanian studies.) This two people had travelled alot in Albania during the time when it was under communism regime, they told me some very intresting stuff about Albania and the Albanian people. From there arouse inside of me a strong interest on Albania, since then I have become more serious in Albanian studies and Wikipedia have help me to improve myself dealing with neutrality. Unfortunately the english wikipedia have become the nationalist Bible and here is nothing to learn about neutrality anymore, people like you Theathenae are nationalist editors that are damaging the project. I've know your IP-adress is, look also here here]. In the swedish wikipedia your name is Arvantís. You are a Greek living in Sweden, i've know that, you have tried to edit swedish articles about the suliots, arvanítis and many others but the administrators in swedish wikipedia are so good in dealing with nationalist like you, they restored the text. Is that why you dealted the interwiki link on the article here. I've let the template NPOV on the article Arvanites and Arvantic since they are written from your point of view. When you misrepresent academic opinion we have every right to revert you. Above you mention Aromanian and compare them with Arvanites, you are of course the right of your point of view on the talk page but not on the article. here you have delated the line are a people of Albanian origin from central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages and change it to are a people originating in central Albania that settled in various Greek lands during the Middle Ages. Arvanites means Arbanites which simply means Albanian in old Albanian language, Arber or Arban is basicly the same thing, in Albanian language often does turn 'e' and 'r' into 'a' and 'n', for example Zeri or Zani means voice. Another thing, in the article Arvanitc you even mentions the language as 'Indo-European language originating in the Balkan peninsula' rather than specifying that it's a varitey of the Albanian Tosk and that it's orginates from Albania, which should have sounded an alarm bell in others mind, like Decius if he have read the article. You cannot claim Theathenae that Arvanites are Greeks, a pure Arvanítis is a pure Albanian, they have no Greek origin they have a Albanian origin those who haves Greek origin are not pure Arvanitis but Greek-Arvanit. --Albanau 02:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I make a distinction between the Arvanites and the Albanians is that the Arvanites themselves do not identify as Albanians, and in fact would consider the term highly offensive. Much like the 50 million Americans of German ancestry do not identify as Germans today. The Arvanites arrived in Greece well before the advent of your style of Albanian nationalism, so asking them to identify with your cause is rather futile. The only nation they have known in modern times has been the Greek nation. Indeed, rather than welcoming them as "brothers", the Arvanites of Attica display particularly xenophobic attitudes towards the throngs of illegal Albanian immigrants. And Arvanitic itself is barely 50% intelligible with Tosk, hardly enough for it to be classified as a mere dialect of it. It is completely unintelligible with Gheg. Finally, your mention of the word "pure" in relation to ethnicity is itself enough to exclude you from Wikipedia.--Theathenae 08:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Whole Point...[edit]

Of the lameness thing was to inject some humor and get everyone to step back, take a deep breath, have a laugh and possibly come back to the table more relaxed to hammer out a better article. Obviously, it didn't work ;) --Jpbrenna 20:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep reverting here fellas. I'm going to focus on getting United States Army Air Force moved to United States Army Air Forces, the technically correct name. I don't consider that a lame name debate, since there was only officially correct name, even though numerous colloquial ones were employed. But then again, no partcipant in a lame edit war ever considers himself an "unlawfully lame combatant," even when he is one. --Jpbrenna 20:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't joke about Iraq if I were you, Yankee Doodle ;)--Theathenae 20:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You forgot Poland (not to mention Romania), who also deployed troops there. Look, as long as the US & other troops are there, everyone can unite and focus on shooting at Yanks & assorted Crusaders instead of shooting at each other. It's called a "peacekeeping" mission. It's sort of like the ancient scapegoat of the Hebrews, onto which the people could unburden their sins (or in this case, the excess ammunition contained in their AK-47's). In fact, that's exactly why GW & Condie Rice sent me to this forum. Psst, over here! Everybody top fighting and focus on getting the American! Here I am, catch me if you can! <scampers away> --Jpbrenna 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I have to say guys, the earliest evidence of the Fustanella is not Southern Albania, but 5th century BC Slovenia, evidenced here. Another one was found in the outskirts of present day Durres. picture here. We dont find it in "Northern Epirus" until the 2-4th century AD[[1]][[2]] Considering the fact that Fustanella is a latin term, this very much supports the idea that it originated in Northern Illyria and spread southward seeing that Romanization played a big role in northern Illyria. According to Encyclopedia 1911 states; The picturesque national costume, which is derived from the Albanian Tosks Or a University study which states; "Albanian warriors introduced the foustanella" into the Peloponnese region.

Also has anyone read Lord Byrons memoirs which states;

The Albanians, in their dresses,(the most magnificent in the world, consisting of a long white kilt', gold-worked cloak, crimson velvet gold-laced jacket and waistcoat, silver-mounted pistols and daggers,)

or his poem

"Childe Harold's Pilgrimage" (1812)


The wild Albanian kirtled to his knee, With shawl-girt head and ornamented gun, And gold-embroidered garments, fair to see:

Also, note that the fustanella has also been used by Arberesh of Southern Italy. Whom have not been in Albania for over 5 centuries. Tpilkati

More attention should be giving to Albanian Fustanella in this article. That way Wikipedia can gain the neutrality. I added a line at the top depicting the importance that the Fustanella has among the population of Albania. Fieraku

The fact that "Fustanella" is a Latin term in origin does not PROVE the Fustanella origins. The Greeks still call White Sauce "Béchamel" sauce (which is a Turkish word) but is completely Byzantine Greek in origin. There are countless examples of this. --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

fustanella in albania[edit]

""""It strikes me as particularly odd that a Kosovar Gheg like Albanau would be so insistent on the "Tosk" origins of a cultural artifact to which he has no connection""""

Actually the fustanella was used in North Albania too, and even by Montenegrin Albanians. There is countless of old pictures to prove it. Just Ask.

""""They have intermarried with the monolingual Greek-speakers and with each other for centuries""""

Not as long as you think according to Encyclopedia Britannica 1911[3].

""The Christian Albanians have long lived on good terms with the Greeks while retaining their own customs and language and rarely intermarrying with their neighbors. They played a brilliant part during the War of Independence, and furnished the Greekswith many of their most distinguished leaders.""

""Like the Albanians, the pastoral Vlachs seldom intermarry with the Greeks; they occasionally take Greek wives, but never give their daughters to Greeks""

""""They didn't have Hellenism imposed on them""""

Mostly true I think, but a little note:


""Owing to their deficient intellectual culture they are regarded with disdain by the Greeks, who employ the term j3M~os to denote not only a shepherd but an ignorant rustic.""


""The process of their Hellenization... has been somewhat slow; most of the men can now speak Greek, but Albanian is still the language of the household. The Albanians, who are mainly occupied with agriculture, are less quick-witted, less versatile, and less addicted to politics than the Greeks, who regard them as intellectually their inferiors. A vigorous and manly race, they furnish the best soldiers in the Greek army, and also make excellent sailors.""

""""The reason I make a distinction between the Arvanites and the Albanians is that the Arvanites themselves do not identify as Albanians, and in fact would consider the term highly offensive.""""

You can make that very clear by adding a few lines and explaining the current situation. But to change the truth of where they came from does not serve that purpose.

""""The Arvanites arrived in Greece well before the advent of your style of Albanian nationalism, so asking them to identify with your cause is rather futile.""""

Where exactly in the articles of Wiki is anyone asking them to identify with this famous "albanian cause"??? They are just saying a simple matter of fact about their origins. Its not like those propaganda magazines the greek church is spreadin in North Epirus to fuel greek nationalism among the greeks there.[4]

Here is an old picture of Otto in fustanella, the turkish inscription talks about the dress's albanian influence.[5] Here is an 1881 drawing of Woodwille: Albanians of Shkodra (North Albania)in fustanella, celebrating Ramazan.[6]

Proud men in skirts[edit]

On the last revert in the beginning of the article: To the statement "Most people would recognize foustanella as Greek Army Ceremonial dress", Kastrioti indicated "not exactly true. When foreign experts refer to the foustanella, they say "the Albanian/Greek kilt" b/c apparently both countries wore it since ancient times". I believe that Wikipedia's role is first to inform and then to set the records straight. Since I (and apparently Kastrioti by replying "not exactly true") believe that most people do recognize foustanella as Greek Army Ceremonial dress (since Athens has had more tourists than Albania and they actually still wear it), I will make a last change and not bother anymore. As I noted in the beginning, this discussion on men in skirts is too much. Please note that I have made other, more important changes, (like replacing the word octopodes at the end of the article -a nice joke-) so I urge anybody who does not like some changes to modify them individually instead of reverting. --FocalPoint 17:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Population in the Ottoman Balkan Vilayet Yanya[edit]

A book, Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913, by author Edward J. Erickson, regarding the population Population in the Ottoman Balkan Vilayets, 1908. source.

Greeks were not the only majority of the provinc Yanya, the other majority were Albanians and Vlachs. --Albanau 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The census indicates otherwise. --Telex 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the census you cited there is absolutely no mention of Albanians, even though they no doubt would exist since the Ottoman vilayet Yanya was part of Ottoman Albania. The country was divided administratively into four vilayets, which constituted defacto autonomous units. / Albania in 1912 was inhabited by various tribes, north and south of the Shkumbin River, which were divided into four vilayets. / Albania Identities: Myth And History, page 36, page 91. There is however a mention of Muslim population, which were one of the majority populations in the province Yanya. The conclusion here is that the census, at at least when it applies to the Albanians, is divded according to religion, not by ethnos.Albanians are included in the category Muslim population, leaving Greek Orthodox and Catholic Albanians in the categorys Greeks and Others. I advise others to be careful with the interpretation of old Balkan census. I think the last sentence which is disputed and incorrect should be removed if not corrected. --Albanau 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You should respect their right to self-identification. If they called themselves Greeks, they are Greeks - period. --Telex 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit - Change "kilt-like" to "skirt-like[edit]

The design and construction of the fustanella is more common to a skirt (single wrap) than a kilt, which is is wrapped more than once, and can be wrapped over the shoulders, as well.

Addition of proper fustanella image[edit]

I added to the beginning an image of the standard fustanella, and moved the modified/modern version to another part of the page. The article is about fustanella not a modified modern version, but I still did not remove it as sign of good faith --Sarandioti (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to keep only the 'macedonian' and the romanian one, no Albanian, no Greek, do u agree? Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Both albanian AND greek must remain. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whats the problem in that? Both albanian and greek pictures remain. Its a totally equal situation. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Calusari picture[edit]

The Calusari dress is not by default a fustanellam. It can be called a dress that resmebles partially the fustanella, but not an extent that justifies the name "fustanella". For example the ethnic macedonians dress is also a fustanella-like dress, but fits the name because it mostly resembles a fustanella unlike the calusari dress.--Sarandioti (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

About this picture any comment? Or any better picture suggestion of Vlachs wearing fustanella?--Sarandioti (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

so nobody cares if the calusari picture is correct? ok, I'll try to find a better picture. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Why dont we put all the images and any others we can find in the bottom of the article in a gallery so there will be no conflict?Megistias (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems 6-times blocked User Sara. [[7]] disagreed on that in the past [[8]], in order to promote his nationalistic agenda, adding Albanian pics from the lead claiming they are more 'beautiful. Agree with the 'gallery' section.Alexikoua (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Also agree with having a gallery section. --Athenean (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The pictures are fine as they are. Alexikoua when you talk about somebody else promoting a nationalistic agenda, it's like the pope critcizing the patriarch of Constantinople for being too religious.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggest to remove the Cham pic and place a picture of Northern Epirote.Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You want us to add pictures of tosk and lab Albanians wearing fustanellas? We can and will surely do that as well. Thanks for reminding us.--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just found this very beautiful pic of 3 men wearing Fustanella: [[9]] (p. 48). Suppose none has problem to add it directly in the lead.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the Cham of 1938 is unverified too. No source, no author, no book, no nothing. So, he could be anything right? I suggest he is from Burundi, could be there some fustanellas in fashion (using the same 'arguments'). In case we have not one evidence, it's a typically 'speedy deletion' case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are totally ridiculous and your assertion is ascenine. Your hatred towards the fact that the fustanella is undeniably Albanian has made you say insane things. The picture is of my great grandfather.--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead pic[edit]

I would personally be in favour of having one representative picture in the lead, in addition to the others in the gallery. Please make suggestions about which would be most suitable here. If you guys don't reach a consensus, I offer to act as a referee and make a neutral call after a while, if that's okay with you. In doing so, I can assure you I will ignore all Albanians promoting Albanian pics and all Greeks promoting Greek pics, so just don't bother making boring arguments to push those. Fut.Perf. 10:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to add a picutre of a Souliote on lead [[10]]. Also, I firmly disagree with all this picture bombardment that started some months before. That's why we have commons.Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Aleks: Are you racist? That striked me as you being racist because you removed the picture of a black boy wearing kilt. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppose you don't realize what you really say. I suggest you have to be less agressive [[11]][[12]]. Also read Wikipedia:Five pillars.Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A picture of a Souliote in the lead might work. I for one have nothing against it. I think it is probably the only thing that both Greek and Albanian users could agree on. Athenean (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this article suffers from a childish picture-game with removals and addition according nationalist POVs of specific users. A good example is the recent removal of 3 (all 3 non-Albanians) Fustanella pictures [[13]]. This removals were not discussed here and are still unexplained since show us specific types of Fustanela (especially the black Fustanella).Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After almost 2 months, it's time to place the specific picture on lead.Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

banned users editing[edit]

Now that the Stupidus/Guildenrich saga is finally over, I have reverted the article to its version before his edits. Not that there is that much to rv: A non-English reference and yet another image. There is a gallery with 12 already, we really don't need one more. Our readers get the picture at this point. Athenean (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

source falsification[edit]

I knew something was up with this edit [14] the minute I saw it. Now that I have had time to check the source, it is quite clearly a case of source falsification. The paper by James Verinis states quite clearly: Thought originally to have been a southern Albanian outfit worn by men of the Tosk ethnicity and introduced into more Greek territories during the Ottoman occupation of previous centuries, the "clean petticoat" of the foustanéla ensemble was a term of reproach used by brigands well before laografia(laographía, folklore) and disuse made it the national costume of Greece and consequently made light of variations based on region, time period, class or ethnicity. Rain-proofing the white linen panels of the foustanéla skirt with fat, as was practical, quickly turned any working brigand’s garments an off-white or gray. Brigands wearing white had been logically looked at with suspicion (Koliopoulos 1987:23). It it not even clear if he means the foustanella itself or merely a part of it, but whatever the case, the edit by Balkanian's word is not anywhere near supported by the source. I have a copy of the paper and can e-mail to anyone who is interested. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Added Faik Konica source[edit]

Added Faik Konica source (he has been a very good user himself of the Fustanella) and separated the two main versions (Albanian and Greek). As a matter of fact they differ in two things: Number of pleats (the Albanian version has way fewer than the Greek) and length (the Albanian version is longer than the Greek). Hope no problems there, drop me a line in my talk page if you disagree with any of my edits. --Sulmues Let's talk 14:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No science working, more romantic[edit]

An Vlach/Aromun isent an Macedonian or a Greek, he is a Vlach, and an Arvanit or ethnic Cham how the Souliots arent Greeks, thej are Arvanits or Chams. You make it very easy when u call all Vlach-Minoritys as "Greeks in Macedonia" or "macedonians", thats not true. In the Fact, only Vlachs in Rumania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greec and Albania, and only albanians dressed traditionelly the Fustanella.-- (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly explained in the article for the Albanian version of the traditional fustanella. The Greek version is different and much smaller. Do you have any sources to include the Vlachs as also the ones to wear the traditional version? --Sulmues (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Its havent "many fusnatella" version, its have only one version, thats from the Tosks and Aromuns/Vlachs, the Fustanella in Greec is sience the greek revolution, and isent a tradiotionally dress from greek peoples, those "greeks" are Vlachs and Albanians (Chams and Arvanit) Minoritys, in macedonia, rumania, bulgaria is the same, thej are Vlachs/Aromuns, not Macedonian or Greeks, that a falsifikation of the history.
  • "The national costume of the Tosk is the kilt (fustanella) of white lines which has been adopted in the greek army" [15]
  • "Since the war of the Independence, the Albanian costume has become the national dress of continental Greese" [16]
  • "Fustanella,this is the dress which has also been adopted in mainland greece" - "the fustanella, the full white skirt which originated in south albanias" [17]
  • "Even the "national" Greek dress-the fustanella-is in fact the dress of one of the great albanian tribe, the Tosk"[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem updating the history of the Greek fustanella with these sources and also mention it in the lede.--Sulmues (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isent a Theory-finder[edit]

The Fustanella isent from the roman Tunic, thats a Theory, but not a fact! Pleace wrothe with more facts, then Theorys!

Albanian-illyrian Fustanelly from maribor[edit]

I miss here the Illyrian Fustanella from Maribor:

Third Picture isent a Greek[edit]

Its a Suliots, pleace look the other Pictures, that a typical Suliot, look the dress and hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A History of Greece: The Greek revolution, pt. 1, A.D. 1821-1827 - George Finlay[edit]

Reading page 39 (, everyone can realize how wrong is to consider the origin of fustanella as "greek" or related to "greeks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Fustanella is the main folk dress all over Republic of Macedonia[edit]

And this is not mentioned anywhere in the article? Why? No lame history/ethnicity flames, please.

The fustanella as a folk dress is present in each region of Republic of Macedonia, sometimes along other forms, sometimes by itself. It is used all the time in folklore festivals and dance groups.

Even if you look at the geography you can see that Republic of Macedonia is wedged between Albania and Greece, and has mostly the same folk dresses, customs, cuisine, etc. like the other two countries. Don't let political propaganda blind you.

Because this is another fact that proves FYROM as a non-entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC) (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


IP user changed the meaning of the text [19] and the IP have altered their wording and meaning --Vinie007 10:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary doesn't say anything about Byzantine Greeks, but I'll see how to make this more in line with the dictionary while expanding the section.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we had more moder straightforward sources that dealt with fustanella.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job overall, however, the claim that the fustanella was "frequently worn in ancient Illyria", sourced to an obscure, difficult-to-verify Albanian language source is highly dubious and will be removed along with its "source". Athenean (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a 2004 English issue of Studia Albanica, an academic publication of the Unviersity of Tirana so I don't see how that's dubious. What do you mean by this? Page 148. mentions that it was worn by Illyrians. Maybe you should revert yourself because Paulicelli does mention the Illyrians.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the Studia Albanica source? Specifically, what evidence is there that the "fustanella was worn by Illyrians"? Surviving clothing fragments? Mention in ancient sources? Did they call it "fustanella", too? Do you see now why I'm skeptical? Athenean (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, among others it says that There is also archeological evidence from an item found in Maribor. Similar evidence is also used by Gjergji(very well-known Balkans ethnologist), while Paulicelli/Skafidas consider it worn by the Illyrians. It's just another theory like chiton, so I've been trying add them all or at least the somewhat plausible ones(excluding the Moghul Empire one).--22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushtrim123 (talkcontribs)

An item found in Maribor (Slovenia, which may or may not have been Illyrian territory) shows that some sort of kilt-like garment may have been worn by the ancient tribes in the area. That is very, very different from saying that "the fustanella was worn by the Illyrians". That is a fairly strong claim, and what you have provided from the source is not sufficient to back it up. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
[20] Skafidas also considers it a possibility.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Gjergji has listed some of the total findings[21].--Kushtrim123 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I saw that, but there's something very odd about the whole passage. First, there were no "Illyrians" after the 6-7th century, the term died out around that time (it disappears from all source from the time). Second, the notion that Albanians descend from 13th century Dalmatians is a little far fetched don't you think? Dalmatia is rather far from Toskeri, isn't it? If the Dalmatians wore the fustanella, wouldn't it be found amongst Ghegs rather than Tosks? So when I read about the 13th century Illyrian Dalmatians who are the ancestors of the Albanians wearing the fustanella (and when that same source says the fustanella evolved among 15th century Tosks), I become very skeptical. To me the claim that the Illyrians wore the fustanella is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, not sources that mix up "13th century Dalmatians" with Tosk Albanians. If you could find a high-quality source that specializes on Illyrians and specifically mentions the fustanella I would be more open to accepting this. Athenean (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Gjergji, I'm sorry but all I see is a snippet with very little information. It is also my impression that the area around Maribor was Celtic rather than Illyrian territory. Athenean (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be Trieste and that 13th century thing is probably a typo. Gjergji goes into detail but I'll expand that later on the article with the quote, but bear in mind that these are all just theories.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope, pretty sure the area around Maribor (NE Slovenia) was inhabited by the Celtic tribe of the Varciani [22]. 13th century a typo? I doubt that. Rather, the source is focused on the Fustanella in a Greek context and probably wasn't careful about their ancient scholarship. In general it is a source on fashion rather than ancient history, that's why its claims about the ancient origins of the fustanella and such need to be treated with caution. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Please check book which kushtrim already added! --Vinie007 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to, but I can't. Anyway, I hope you can understand why I would be skeptical of an "Illyrian" origin for something that appears for the first time in the late Middle Ages (1400s, long after the Illyrians disappeared from history). If the Fustanella were indeed "Illyrian", something like it would be found among the Ghegs, Montenegrins, Bosnians, etc...Yet, nothing remotely resembling it is found among them. Rather, the Fustanella appears to be an exclusively Tosk costume, and as we all know the Tosks inhabit an area that in antiquity was either inhabited by Greek Epirote tribes (Chaonians, Molossians, etc...) or Illyrians that were Hellenized from an early date (Bylliones). 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats not true, it's not find at the bosnian, montenegrin etc countries because the fustanella excisted before the slavic migration into balkan. The greeks adopted it later at the independence strugel (check greek documentary). --Vinie007 05:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
So those Slavs invaded, saw the fustanella of the Illyrians, decided it was unmanly, and decided to chuck it in the trash? Come on now. If what you are saying were true, there would be some remnant of those bygone fustanella days, either clothing fragments, mentions in medieval sources, something. But there is nothing. Also, how come the Ghegs don't wear it? All we know for sure is the fustanella is a Tosk costume that appears in the late middle ages. The rest is WP:OR. Athenean (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
In northern Albania it was worn in the Shkodër area ([23][24][25]), the royal guard of Montenegro also used to wear fustanellas ([26]) and Montenegro's Albanian clans ([27]) and in Dalmatia some small areas like Susak ([28]) preserved it. As soon as Gjergji is made available we should use it to expand on the Illyrian theory.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Fustanella didn't simply diffuse north to those areas, just like it diffused south to Greece. According to your line of reasoning, it is just as possible the Fustanella is an ancient Greek garment, since it is also worn in southern Greece. As far as I know, reliable sources that specialize on the Illyrians (e.g. Wilkes) make no mention of the "fustanella" or anything like it). This is not surprising, since there do not exist either archeological remnants nor mention in any ancient sources (and the Illyrians themselves did not possess writing). The word itself derives from Italian. I'd be real curious to see what evidence Gjergji cites, but I doubt it stands up to scrutiny. Athenean (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You can see Albanian soldiers under Skanderbeg wearing a dress-like costume in this image ([29]). Most of Skanderberg's men came from the Dibra region where Byzantine rule was tenuous. Also, how could the Malesors, one of the most isolated people in Europe, have adopted it from the Greeks? According to this work ([30]), the fustanella was worn by Dalmatians around the thirteenth century, around the same time that the Albanians began forming their own states and Byzantine rule had disappeared from these areas. You can see a dress looking similar to the fustanella worn by the Ragusans ([31][32]) and the second image even has the jatagan placed in his hip strap similar to Albanian warriors ([33]). The Bosnian region was heavily slavinized as can be seen by the regional dress so you can't expect to see too much fustanellas there. Anyway, this is OR and I also want to see what Gjergji says.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
108 accidentally changed and added some content that the sources don't really say like the stuff about scholars believing that Albanians created the fustanella(Verinis and others don't say that) or that they introduced it during the 15th century in Greece(none of them say that too). I'll change the word bygone to past, but maybe we should reword the whole sentence.Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
In Greece it was diffused because of specific reasons like the Venetian colonists etc.. The French Ethnographic Society stretches the area of use up to Novi Pazar[34].--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Another snippet. Don't see any mention of "Novi Pazar" though. Anyway, if it were "Dalmatian" and worn by the "Illyrians" of the Maribor area (who were actually Celts, but let's pretend), it would be found in present-day Dalmatia (i.e. Croatia) and Slovenia. Yet, nothing. And enough with the straw-clutching and SYNTHing by combining unrelated snippets. Athenean (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Full: D'après les nombreux témoignages de l'époque la fustanelle était utilisée au nord de l'Albanie, à partir de Shkodra en allant vers le nord-est, embrassant le Kosovo et allant jusqu'à Novipazar et encore plus au sud dans les régions. Isn't Susak that Gaius mentioned in Dalmatia?--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that the Susak "fustanella" is actually a women's costume [35]! Athenean (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Where's fustanella mentioned? The Susak fustanella Gaius mentioned has to do with the kamazot and even if it was worn by women too, what difference would that make? The fustanellas Evans noticed were in fact worn by women.-Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be because the locals on Susak do not call it "fustanella". If "fustenalla" were an "Illyrian" word (though it is actually Italian, but let's pretend), they would call it that or something similar, wouldn't they? What difference would it make if it was worn by women? All the difference in the world. The fustanella is an exclusively male garment. Since skirt-like garments are worn by women everywhere, the fact that a skirt-like garment worn by the women of Susak proves absolutely nothing as far as that garment being an "Illyrian" "fustanella". Traditional women's costumes in, say, Ireland also feature skirts. Does that mean they too are derived from the "Illyrian fustanella"? Also don't forget, those islands were heavily colonized and frequented by ancient Greeks, in contrast to the interior (e.g. Bosnia). Athenean (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Were Dibra and Malësia heavily colonized by the Greeks too?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that it was, especially the coastal region north of Lissus was heavily colonized by various Greek states GreekCitiesMapIllyriaAdriatic.png.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Malesia is in the interior as is Dibra ([36][37]). Here is some images of a Dibran wearing the fustanella ([38]second from left) Did Greeks have colonies in Mat too? King Zog is famous for wearing it and he's from Mat ([39][40]). Judge the reliability yourself but this says([41]): Although the kilt was once worn by men throughout Albania, today it is seen only on special occasions in southern Albania, especially in the Gjirokaster area, and in the Albanian regions of Montenegro, Kosova, Serbia, Macedonia, and Greece. Either way, this seems to match the French study provided by Kushtrim. And it's interesting that Bosnians from Sandžak, an interior region, wear it as well.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Clutching at one straw after another. First it was "the women of this Croatian island wear something that sort of resembles a fustanella, therefore this proves that it was an Illyrian 'invention'". Now it's old photos. How exactly do these old photos "prove" that the Fustanella was "Illyrian"? You can come up with 100 photos, it doesn't mean a thing. They also wear kilts and such in Scotland and Ireland. Are those "Illyrian" too? I'm sure I could come up with some photos of Scottish Highlanders wearing kilts. No, the only thing that will do is a high quality, non-partisan source that either focuses on Illyrian archeology or the history of the fustanella itself and takes a look at its origins in an in-depth, scholarly manner. Athenean (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I got Gjergji's book and found some more sources about the Illyrian theory. I'll also start a section about Macedonia and reword some minor parts according to the sources.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What is "National Association for Soviet and East European Studies 1973"? It is at present completely unverifiable. Also, I object to Gjergji on the grounds that it is also unverifiable and also potentially nationalist/POV. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Both gbooks links are on the sources and you can verify them by searching for part of the quotes or the whole point. Gjergji is very well-known and reliable ethnologist. You can check who's been citing her on gbooks and the comments about her like Andromaqi Gjergji, a very well-known and well-respected ethnologist.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No, they are both impossible to verify. You haven't answered my question about the Soviet source. What kind of source is it, who is the author, publisher, etc...I also asked you a while ago to cite what evidence Gjergji presents. Does she give concrete evidence or does she just flatly state that the fustanella is Illyrian without presenting any evidence? Also, Ljubljana and Maribor are located in what was Celtic, not Illyrian territory. If that is the evidence that Gjergji cites for an Illyrian origin, it calls into question her scholarship and reliability as a source. Athenean (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It's something like the modern CEEOL or the Congress of Library publications of the Soviets. Ljubljana was the territory of the Iapyges and since Gjergji is considered by her fellow scholars reliable etc. you're not in a position to make such arguments about her. Not to mention that you're making too many accusations bordering defamation.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This tells me nothing. Very little information, and completely impossible to verify. Author, publisher, volume number, page number please. I am also skeptical of soviet sources from 40 years ago. As for the "too many accusations bordering defamation", calling a source's reliability into question is not defamation. Don't try to intimidate me, I don't scare. It is currently unknown whether the Iapyges were Illyrian or otherwise. All we know is that they were Indo-European speaking, but that's about it. Lastly, your style, tone and diction sounds strangely familiar, especially the "too many". Athenean (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? The links were on the bottom of the page, but you keep saying that you can't verify them even with the quotes.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What do I mean? I've asked you three times for the bibliographical info of the Soviet source, and you are pretending not to hear. Author, publisher, volume, page number. When I click on the link, nothing happens. Regarding Gjergji, I can't preview her book on google books. But since you claim to have her book, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what evidence she gives (which again I've asked you several times for). If all she gives are those statuettes from Maribor and Lubljana, then that is a non-starter, because those are not in Illyrian territory. Athenean (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about in your summary Athenean? These reverts are really not justifiable since both the quote and the links of both sources(without even going to mention that you called an ethnologist like Gjergji very obscure) are on the

article.--Vinie007 05:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you even know what verifiability means? The Soviet source is completely unverifiable. When I click on the link, nothing happens. As for Gjergji, I have doubts about how reliable she is. Athenean (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If you guys have doubts on a source go to WP:RSN and stop whining. Aigest (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent timing, I was about to post here myself. I knew there was something fishy about the Gjergji reference, so I asked for an opinion on WP:RSN. The verdict from WP:RSN is in [42]: Gjergji, as a Hoxha era publication, should not be used for references to the Illyrians. I expect everyone to abide by this. Athenean (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call a 30min debate (actually it was not a debate but just one opinion) a perfect judgement. Wait for the others. Also as I see from that debate the only argument was that it was published under some 40 years ago and only translated. AFAIK there are other parameters for WP:RS. Also I want to point out @Athenean that you should inform the other contributors on such moves. They have the right to know and should also participate in that RSN topic. Wait for the others opinion before moving further. Aigest (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Vinnie: Can you please give the precise quote for verification? It would be more constructive to prove what you claim instead of instant reverting.Alexikoua (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The RSN opinion is crystal clear: Gjergji, along with any Hoxha-era sources, should not be used to reference claims of Illyrian continuity. From my experience of RSNs, I don't expect any other third party users to comment. I posted the RSN over 12 hours ago, I think that is sufficient. I won't tolerate any disruption this time. Please be aware that I am prepared to go all the way up the dispute resolution process with this. Athenean (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but 1 opinion is hardly binding. On the other hand how reliable are those ancient Greek origin snippets? I see one Greek museum snippet and a tertiary source that sounds very unscholarly(The young shepherd).--Kushtrim123 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kushtrim, even Hoxhas sources are better than of the sheperd --Vinie007 20:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't wikilawyer. One opinion is quite sufficient, especially if it's crystal clear like this one. No Hoxha-era sources for "Illyrian continuity". As for the Greek origin snippets, I will look into that. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Lilla Margaret Fox is a reliable source, as is the Smithsonian. Anything else I can help you with today? Athenean (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Kushtrim: if you mean the Benaki & Smithsonian edition, feel free to take it to wp:rsn, but I don't feel you will be lucky there. On the other hand Gjergi needs to be verified first in order to discuss then. Also childish arguments like this aren't really constructive.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that more people with arguments got involved the matter can be truly resolved.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I know this is some time from when the discussion was had here about sources. Nonetheless in light of recent edits as much research has now been included in the article on the topic of the fustanella i should note that Isa Blumi has vouched for Andromaqi Gjergji as a scholar and has referred to him as a authority on Albanian clothing. See wp:reliable and wp:secondary on the matter. Blumi, Isa (2004). "Undressing the Albanian: finding social history in Ottoman material cultures". In Faroqhi, Suraiya; Neumann, Christoph. Ottoman costumes: from textile to identity. Istanbul: Eren. p. 158. "According to Andromaqi Gjergji, an authority on Albanian dress of the twentieth century, “dressing remains one of the most powerful manifestations of [Albanian] popular culture,” manifestations which, according to Gjergji, take on four functions: practical, aesthetic, ceremonial and ritual".Resnjari (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Indian fustanella[edit]

Indian fustanella parade — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity of fustan[edit]

How did the Greeks introduce Fustanella to Albanians when the word FUSTAN has an ALBANIAN meaning only. Check your facts wikipedia: FUSTAN - DRESS (in Albanian language) here:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:37, 14 November 2012


The paragraph talks about (or infers that)kilts were originally made from cotton. This is not correct on any level and I have removed the word 'kilt'. Kiltpin (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Vari Cave[edit]

I daresay MR SHOUTY will be back, but I think Macedonian has had a reasonable stab at it; the excavator describes it as "fustanella-like", so should we.

I am a disinterested editor, with no connection whatsoever (AFAIK) to the Balkans. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Pray for the best, prepare for the worst! :) Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive removals and wrong summaries[edit]

I really wonder why the fact that 12th century predates the arrival of Arvanites/Albanian speaking communities in southern Greece is removed. It can be easily assumed that this is nothing more than typical disruption not to mention the wrong edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Fustanella at that point in time was worn by the elite from the Greek speaking world (cited in the article and should not be removed, but i think it needs to be clarified properly), Albanian speakers of the coastal (starting from the northern Shkoder area) and increasing of course below the Shkumbini river. Albanian section needs more work though. Too scant regarding regions and its use and scattered use by Gegs of the coast and Elbasan area.06:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Off course this isn't an excuse to remove this specific part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it should not be removed. Part of the sentence that is reference though is an issue. I made further comments as such in the noticeboard.Resnjari (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Can it be easily assumed? Really, is that so?
The implied conclusion is not supported by either sources. Simple. Moreover, the entire sentence needs rewording to avoid POV. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing POV: Event X predates Y. Unless you question this specific fact.Alexikoua (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Its wp:original first and foremost. I have made comments regarding this in the noticeboard.04:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I made another comment on the noticeboard: DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added an inline which states when the first Albanian-speakers moved to Greece. For future reference in case you fill a case in a noticeboard you need to place a link in the correspodent talkpage (in this case you didn't post the slightest message at all here), so all interested parts are informed. Else it can considered as lack of WP:AGF.
Showing when the first Albanian speakers moved to Greece (via Epirus Vetus).

Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You still don't get it. Why is it necessary to state that the Arvanites migrated centuries later? Do you understand what the following means: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) The arrival of the Arvanites is necessary because their presence is already mentioned in this article (a fact that carefully avoided to mention in the noticeboard).Thus it's inevitable that this comparison is needed in this case. You also removed a fully cited part this time which can be easily considered as wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Take your time and study Hammond's map which is quite informative about this arrival.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to say a few words on Hammond's map. His study is based on the information that was privy to him back in the 1960s and 1970s. Groups of Albanian (and sometimes Vlach) speakers went to areas of other Albanian speakers and Vlachs etc. Konstantinos Giakoumis who has written on the presence of Albanians (14th century) of that part of Epirus (Gjorkaster area etc) and refers to this complicated picture of settled and unsettled Albanians [43] such as Albanians having settled the area opposite Corfu in the early 1200s (citing a Venetian document). Hammond's map should be taken with caution due to research having progressed on such matters. Also in reference to Albanian migrations to Greece, those scholar referring to that event are referring to Albanians who went to central (Attica, Boeitia and so on) and southern Greece (Peloponesse). Lets not mix things of that sort up here please.Resnjari (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I quoted the full sentence on the noticeboard. How did I carefully avoid to mention their presence? The first sentence explicitly states that the fustanella was introduced in the 15th century by Albanians. We could beat around the bush all day, but both of us know why the paragraph was worded the way it was, and why you found it necessary to include the contended part. By the way, could you define Greek lands? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually you avoided to post a word here, with a clear intention not avoid to inform anyone here and to present your own POV in the noticeboard, i.e. a clear violation of wp:AGF. No wonder none agreed after I've posted in the noticeboard. Continuous removal of perfectly cited parts is the epitomy of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
POV, clear violation of AGF, trolling, and disruption. That's almost every policy in the book. You might have a case against me on ANI. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think SilentResident has made a reasonable stab at actually improving the page around this issue while all this policy lawyering was going on. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Pinkbeast, I just tried to contribute positively to the article in a genuine way that satisfies both the editors who are disagreeing with each other, as well as save the readers and visitors to the article in question to not get confused. I hope this worked because I admit I do not know what else I can do to help the situation. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The edits are good. I did a partial tweeking of the sentance, in relation to the second part. I replaced the part "but is also believed that the" with "while some scholars hold the view that" as its more more precise due to the list of references placed after that part of the sentence. I also replaced in sentence "occupation" with "period" for the Ottoman era, as Ottoman sovereignty was not temporary and had international recognition. The article overall needs some more work in general. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that is even better now. Appreciated, Resnjari! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is the Albanian colony of Hydra? Why the Albanians redirect to Arvanites? It seems that extreme Albanian POV as usually is back in the game. Please refrain from POV war-like edits.Othon I {{SUBST:flagicon|Greece|royal}} (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Albanians that arrived to Greece in the medieval period into central and southern Greece are often referred to in the literature as Albanians or Albanian settlers/colonists. In later times they transformed into the community known as the Arvanites. The redirect to that was in reference to medieval period. I added Nikos Gogonas as a reference who neatly summarizes this matter and have such elaborated upon it in the article having Albanian settlers there with the additional explanation of their relationship to the Arvanites. If additional referencing is needed can add accordingly. As for the Albanian colony of Hydra, what's the issue ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Albanian Colony of the Greek Island of Hydra is extreme nationalistic POV which unsurprisingly you endorse. Was there any Albanian government in Hydra? In this motif, we can assume Arbanon as Greek Colony since Gregory Kamonas was the Lord of Arbanon and It was a part of the Eastern Roman Theme of Dyrrhachium for roughly 1000 years. As for the Albanians I don't understand why you changed it. By the time that you talk about Arvanites, wy you change it to Albanians and then you explain that you mean Arvanites? I can only assume that its a schoolboy error. I suggest to change it to just Hydra and then say about the influence of Arvanites/Albanian-Arvanitika Speaking Communities. Othon I (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I have not touched the Hyrda sentence and nor was it my addition. Moreover it is based on the Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis source. Moreover Albanians were settled on Hydra by Venetian authorities (others Albanians fled there) from the Greek mainland (i.e Attica, Peloponesse during the Ottoman-Venetians wars in the 16th century. They, and other Arvanite settlements are described as a colony/colonies in the academic literature because they were settled there by a government (Venetian republic) due to they not being a population of the area. They have become local and part of the Greek nation over time (mainly from the 19th century onward) and all of this is accounted for in the academic literature. As for Arbanon being a colony ???? Was a different population settled there ???? This is news to me. Anyway, as for Albanians and the change regarding Arvanites I added clarification. The time period that the article refers to regarding their arrival, the population is referred to as Albanians. They become Arvanites with the passing of time. As for "I suggest to change it to just Hydra and then say about the influence of Arvanites/Albanian-Arvanitika Speaking Communities." I added the clarification to the article as per another Greek source and can add many more. The article is about the fustanella (and content related to that), not the Arvanites per se. As for "schoolboy error", opinions about a editor are not needed. See wp:civil. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear people, because using an outdenting after every three-four comments isnt the way to go in talk pages, I highly recommend that you pay more attention on how many : : : : : : you are placing in front of your comments-responses to other people's comments. Just using the same ammount of : as the previous commentator plus 1 more is fair. So, for example, if the previous comment above you has 3 (: : :), then your comment-response to it should just have 4 (: : : :) and this is pretty enough. Thank you.-- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Resnjari: I assume you understand that there is something problematic with the claim that 15th century Albanian settlers in Greece are directly connected with the Arvanites. 1. Some of the 15th century Albanian communities were subject to islamization or migration to Italy, 2. Not all Arvanites came in Greece that century. What's important here is that the correspondent references to Fustanella do not support this, they simply claim that this is generally of "Tosk origin": there is no precise period or location where this kind of cultural interaction occurred.Alexikoua (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua, i placed Gogonas because he covers in a summerised way of how the whole Arvanite population came into being, due to certain editors having issues about Albanians and Arvanites. You recall a while back as to there being many more references that cover this issue in a more extensive way as i did on the Albanians page, due to "doubts". And yes Arvanites are descended from Albanians, even if that makes some or most uncomfortable. They are not descendants of Pelasgians or whatever these days is vogue about their origins, but defiantly not based in scholarship. To quote Micheal Skafidas in his chapter titled Fabricating Greekness on the fustanella and its connection to the Albanians and the Arvanites:
"The modern fustanella appears in Greece worn by Albanians, and especially the Arvanites, as Greeks of Albanian ancestry were called, most of whom fought alongside the Greeks against the Turks in the long war of independence." [44] (update on the 27/5/2016. Page number from where sentence is from is page: 148.)
I can get the page number from the book in coming days, no issue for that and more references from the book.Whether you want to place Albanian speakers or Albanians in the article i am not fused about it. As for Tosks (of which i am one), they are a subgroup of Albanians, one of four (the other three being Lab, Cham and Gheg) within the wider ethnicity of Albanian, just like Pontians, Cretans, Cypriots etc are part of the wider Greek ethnicity. If you want to have that discussion about whether Tosks constitute as Albanians there is more than enough scholarly references to that effect.Resnjari (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You pointed to a work that's full of wp:FRINGE. Off coures there are serious issues if an author takes for granted that "the Albanian kilt became the original pattern of Roman military dress" and then the "Celtic kilt emerged after the Albanian kilt was introduced to the Celts through the Roman legions in Britain.". It seems that this author is propagating the so-called ultranationlist theory that Albanians were the oldest race in Europe (at least compared to Romans and Celts, who had the opportunity - according to him- to adopt the Albanian kilt). No wonder he also takes for granted that the Dalmatians are one of the progenitors of the Albanians. I bet there are plenty of wp:RS on this subject, but this isn't. Thus it will be a waste of time if you intend to make a reasearch on this one.Alexikoua (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Fringe? How? Firstly the scholar meets all the criteria in wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The book The Fabric of cultures: Fashion, identity, and globalisation was published in 2009 by the publishing house Routledge, renowned for publishing academic books and so on. The book was edited by two academics, Hazel Clark a historian and Eugenia Paulicelli professor of literature, both from the New York area, USA, which means there was additional oversight. The academic who wrote the chapter Fabricating Greekness: From fustanella to the glossy page is Micheal Skafidas who is of Greek heritage (just in case someone says Albanian POV again !). For all these details see page xi-xiii in the book. Also a little context on my part there to the comments you focused on. Lets take this sentence from page 148 as you wrote it: "Celtic kilt emerged after the Albanian kilt was introduced to the Celts through the Roman legions in Britain." On its own, yes, fringe. However, the whole sentence reads "The Hungarian sociologist and paleontologist Baron Napocsa has theorized that the Celtic kilt emerged after the Albanian kilt was introduced to the Celts through the Roman legions in Britain." In scholarship as many editors will be aware, when you write about certain research, before you present your own and go into depth you will cite previous material/academics etc of significance who are relevant to the subject matter your covering. Why ? Because they wrote something before you on that subject matter. You don't at all need to agree with them. Note that Skafidas uses the word theorized clearly indicating that this was Napocsa's hypothesis. So without having read the whole sentence or looking at the biography of the scholar Skafidas, making conclusions such as "It seems that this author is propagating the so-called ultranationlist theory that Albanians were the oldest race in Europe" does not assist in the slightest regarding issues of which you raise. Nowhere does the author use the terms "oldest" for the Albanians or "race" which are your words. On page 148, Skafidas does write "But long before it came to symbolize Greek independence from the Ottoman Turks, the Albanian kilt, or fustanella, was common dress for men in the thirteenth century when it was worn by the Dalmatians, one of the progenitors of the Albanians." I see no issue with this. Scholarship today has pointed to Albanians being from an amalgamation of Paleo-Balkan peoples that emerged from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the early to mid medieval period (there is even a Wiki article of which you and many other editors have contributed that outlines all those scholarly positions). The following sentence after that on page 148: "The historical and etymological roots of the fustanella, however, date back to the days of Rome, when the Albanian or Illyrian kilt became the original pattern for Roman military dress." There he is saying that the Romans got their kilt from the Illyrians. Skafidas makes a connection of Illyrian with Albanians and others have refuted that, others support that and there is still not definitive conclusion that matter even in our time. From what i gather in your comments then, that would constitute the only "issue" in the whole chapter. However if you still think that the book and scholar are wp:FRINGE take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and we can have outside non-Balkan editors have a look at the text and evaluate it. I am all open for that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems like Rejnari doesn't really want to understand that Albania was used a demonym/county before the 100 Year old Republic of Albania. There was no any political entity named Albania except the Angevin Kingdom. Anyway, it is not the place to discuss this. What is the most concerning is that he is cherry picking parts from works that are full of wp:FRINGE as Alexikoua pointed it out that serve his views based on nationalistic theories about Albanians without even considering them wp:FRINGE. Othon I (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
As for your comments regarding my self and my understanding of word Albania, after our exchange some time back on the Arvanites talkpage, when the Administrator Future Perfect gave me wise advice at the time for me not to "humour you" on your comments "and to not feed the trolls" [45] and also told you off; i will just place a link to a heavily referenced section on the Albanians page regarding this matter: Names of the Albanians. Whether or not you take into account the scholarship is up to you. Regarding Skafidas' chapter, if there are those editors who think there is a big issue with it, take to the reliable sources notice board so it gets evaluated on a wider scale by non-Balkan editors so as to ascertain if it really is wp:fringe.Resnjari (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
In general when a non-expert on the field accepts as facts a number of wp:Fringe to reach a certain conclusion this needs to be stated. I also wonder what makes you believe that someone who signs under a Greek name can't share an Albanian pov (certain works by someone signed under the name "Efthimios Mitkos" became representative works of Albanian nationalism, thus signing under a Greek name means nothing about pov). Our Skafidas part should read:

Journalist and professor in literature, M. Skafidas, based on a sequence of historical claims (1. that the Dalmatae are one of the progenitors of the Albaniansm 2. Baron Napocsa's claim who theorized that the Celtic kilt emerged after the Albanian kilt was introduced to the Celts through the Roman legions in Britain. 3. the Albanian or Illyrian kilt became the original pattern for Roman military dress) concluded that the Fustanella is of Albanian origin.) finally reached the conclusion that the Foustanella is of Albanian origin.

The reader can finally decide about the quality standarts of this statement taking into account Skafidas scientific research above (whose field of interest is completely irrelevant to history).Alexikoua (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"In general when a non-expert on the field accepts as facts". Wait, wait, let me get this straight, Micheal Skafidas, who is now professor in literature in the New York area has "Albanian Pov". Your serious right ? That you use a example of "Efthimios Mitkos" Thimi Mitko of the 19th century for this matter is not even up for comparison. First off Mitko was not even a academic and it was known openly that the was an Albanian nationalist. Are you saying that Skafidas is a Albanian nationalist ? Or a closet one at that ? If so, why would Paulicelli and Clark, both experienced academics who edited the book then accept the chapter if they had these suspicions? Why would Routledge for that matter publish such material considering they have a scholarly reputation to uphold? Moreover have you presented any scholars out there (or other) to the effect that state that Skafidas is some kind of Albanian "nationalist" or "ultranationalist" ? Or that he is a flawed scholar ? Or are we to take your word for it because you are the authority on this matter as to what determines a scholar or their research to be ? Just because Skafidas doesn't follow your personal opinions on the issue does not mean that the scholar in question is a not a scholar or that his work does not have merit. Once again i noted that Skafidas was covering Naposca due to him having written on this matter previously and Skafidas used the word "theorized". That is what one does in scholarship. You cover those who where prominent on a topic/subject matter before you (whether the scholar agrees or disagrees) and then you present your research. Yet you claim this bit as POV. As for the Dalmatians being one of the progenitors of the Albanians this has been neither disproven or proven outright. Its varies scholar to scholar on the Albanian origins matter even in contemporary times. And regarding Roman dress and certain items of clothing that that culture borrowed, scholars still hold differing views on that too and Skafidas is not the only one. Also just because Skafidas is not a historian, does not in any way preclude him writing about this matter as long as he has followed scholarly methods. His is a professor of literature and yes a journalist. There are many academics that multitask when one checks. Paulicelli (literature professor) and Clark (historian) who edited the book and had oversight over Skafidas deemed the work valid. Like i said if you really think there is a issue, take this to the reliable sources noticeboard and we can have outside non-Balkan editors have a look at the text and evaluate it. I am all open for that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
(I don't care about everyone’s personal background) Thus I can simply assume that you don't object to present Skafidas version fully. All this "research" needs to be presented so the reader can decide what's the quality of this work. If someone claims for example that the kilt was of Albanian origin and that Braveheart wore "kilts of Albanian origin", then this raises serious issues of POV, especially if it's claimed by a non-expert (non-historian).Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Like i said to you in my previous comments, if there is a issue with Skafidas, Wikipedia has the reliable sources noticeboard where the source in question can have third party oversight regarding its use, merit, relevance and so on. Reason why i made reference to his background was because if the scholar had a Albanian name/surname for example, going by past experience where other editors have called Albanian scholarship "garbage" or use of Albanian scholarship as "POV", my point was Skafidas has merit as he does not fit that description or concern. Anyway, all you have presented as a issue is basically two sentences in his whole chapter (i am not even counting Napocsa as a concern as i explained why that was previously in comments). The onus is for you to present solid evidence on Skafidas and to do it at the appropriate forum: reliable sources noticeboard and get third party editors' assessment of it. So far Skafidas meets wp:secondary and wp:reliable as his work was published in a edited book oversighted by a historian and a literature professor, while being published by a reputable publishing house. From the time Skafidas had this work published in the late 2000s, he has become a professor himself in his own right in the New York area. That does not bespeak of someone with flawed credentials in any sense. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
As you have been already instructed before there are certain policies in this project such as: WP:NPOV, WP:OR WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. There is also Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, where this case also falls: the author based on facts 1, 2, 3 concludes 4. If someone can't explain why this should be not presented entirely (by pretending for example that it's basically two sentences in his whole chapter, but in fact it's essential part of the authors' research because he's based on this to reach a specific conclusion) so the reader can understand the quality of this research, then we have clear Cherrypicking. I'm going to add this specific sequence, unless there is a serious argument presented on why this should be partly hidden.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
That policy there of cherry picking is subject to interpretation. You focusing on two sentences could be interpreted as cherry picking. Have you in anyway found any scholar to discredit Skafidas as as scholar? Or the scholars who oversighted the book as editors? Have you proven that the publishing house that published the book to be not of standard or to be of ill repute? All those polices you have mentioned are your own personal opinion as of now. Until there is third party evaluation and commentary from the reliable sources noticeboard, only then can you make these conclusions. Skafiads' work mainly focuses on the Greeks relationship (like/dislike) with the fustanella for the past 2 centuries and in particular the 20th and early 21th century. His work is the latest (2009) to be published on the subject matter of the fustanella, especially in English and in a thorough manner. It was done by Routledge publishing in a book edited by a historian and literature professor from the New York area. And with research, its the latest that brings new perspectives: see> wp:reliable and wp:secondary. You recall some time back the Elsie Chams source matter and you argued that using Elsie was much of what you now cite in the above policies as issues. And other editors said to you that unless there is something else that is stronger as a source for a particular part of Elsie, he can be used, and that was with all the issues that source had. Unlike Elsie, all you have been able to focus on are two sentences out of a whole chapter. Like is said, place this source up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you feel that Skafidas' research has contravened all those polices (Ping me when you do so). The onus is on you do so.BestResnjari (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Off course an entire paragraph which explains the specific 'theory' and covers c. one page simply is nothing more than two sentences in his whole chapter makes a neutral reader wonder why this should vanish from the article. I can only assume that you need full access of this work to judge accordingly.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I have full access of the chapter next to me. I borrowed the book from my university library last week and that is why i placed the page numbers to the quotes in the talk. You have only cited two sentences as of concern for you, in which Skafidas posits positions regarding the origins of the fustanella in lieu of that bit discussing ancient origins. Apart from that, almost the whole chapter is devoted to the Greeks relationship (like/dislike) with the fustanella for the past 2 centuries and in particular the 20th and early 21th century. His work is the latest (2009) to be published on the subject matter of the fustanella, especially in English and in a thorough manner. Since you think that the academic Skafidas and his work are questionable or of concern, place this Skafidas chapter up for a source evaluation by (to use your expression) "neutral reader(s)" or editors at the reliable sources noticeboard. No need to go in circles here, just do it if you feel confidant about it. Don't forget to ping me when you do so. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The fustanella is thought "originally" to have been a Tosk Albanian costume introduced into "more" Greek territories during the Ottoman period[edit]

This weird piece of text [[46]] raises a couple of questions which are not addressed in the inlines: 1. It follows a paragraph which presents an alternative origin, i.e. Fustanella adopted as a 12th century Greek garment, thus the question is why this part shouldn't begin with "according to other scholars/theory/view" etc. 2. What's the meaning of "more Greek territories" here, someone can suggest that prior to the Arvanite presence in Greece Foustanella was less trendy and worn only by few Greeks. 3. why "originally?" did this claim change later? There is nothing to point on this.Alexikoua (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That "weird piece of text" presents Verinis' viewpoint as described in the source. The addition of According to other scholars presumes that the opposing views have previously been presented in a similar manner, i.e. According to Morgan X happened, while according to other scholars Z happened. It does not make sense to write According to other scholars unless it's preceded by According to X scholar. This begs the question though: why are you so inclined to add according to other scholars, while Morgan's opinion with regards to common use is stated as a fact? Furthermore, is there even a disagreement among scholars? Does St Clair, Bialor or Tzanelli mean that the fustanella is of Albanian origin, or are they simply claiming it's Albanian within a specific context? If there's no disagreement, we should not present it as such.
Also, on a related note. You recently added some material in the Albania section which is supported by a tertiary source,[1] and by your own admission in previous discussions, tertiary sources should be removed.[2] Moreover, I'm curious, could you provide some context? What is meant by "Albanian guerilla fighters"? All of them? Some of them? Ghegs? Tosks? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If you have certain concenrs towards credible publishing houses (Routledge for example) you can simply take your issues to the noticeboard. In general this work stays perfectly under wp:secondary and wp:academic. Don't forget to ping me right afer this time. Also, since you don't address why weird terms such as "more Greek territories" should be replaced by "Ottoman Greece" I assume you don't object the later well established term in historiography.Alexikoua (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the publisher. The publisher has no relevance to whether it is tertiary or not. But I assume you stand by that it is secondary? Also, you demand "context", but fail provide it yourself (again, who are these Albanian guerilla fighters?). Also, I don't see any problem with how it's worded by Verinis. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As already stated if you have something against wp:secondary and wp:academic such as this work you can take it to the correspondent noticeboard. It's not up to us to judge well established policies in this project as well as academic works.Alexikoua (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you trying to say here? Am I "judging well established policies"? What does that even mean? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It does mean that if you object a work that's clearly into wp:rs due to your personal pov, you are free to go to noticeboard/rs. I would appreciate if you ping this time.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
My objections were on the basis that it is a tertiary source and that there's no context provided. You have raised similar objections for other sources previously. I just expect some consistency. If you're still convinced that it's secondary, you can join the discussion here: DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
What's weird is that you pretend that I claim that all tertiary sources should be removed based on this [2]. But in this I'm just pointing to the "argument" of an old (now blocked) disruptive account [[47]]. By the way, are you (you and Rolandi) "connected" in some way or should I initiate an spi to find that out? I assume you need a better link to show how I dismiss tertiaries in sight. (since you already changed the topic) The concept that Albanian guerrilas changed from one Balkan costume to another sounds more reasonable than to claim that Braveheart's kilt is Albanian and reached the Celts via the Roman armies. It would be very interesting to hear how Braveheart's outfit can be Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua, that is a very serious allegation you have made there regarding another editor. If you really do feel that that is the case then you should initiate such a proceeding instead of just talking about it. Otherwise that comment of yours can be interpreted as a from of intimidation in an attempt to stifle the discussion through the prism of allegations and smear. Please refrain from such comments unless there is actual evidence. Thank you. For more see wp:civil.Resnjari (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No, resnjari. It should be interpreted as a form of intimidation in an attempt to stifle the discussion through the prism of allegations and smear independent whether he goes through with it or not. Just look at how it's worded in the edit summary. If Alexikoua decides to not initiate a SPI, it will only highlight that it was only meant as a threat. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
What's weird is that you pretend that I claim that all tertiary sources should be removed based on this [2]. But in this I'm just pointing to the "argument" of an old (now blocked) disruptive account [[48]].
No interpretation is needed. It's perfectly clear what you wrote and meant (see below).
By the way, are you (you and Rolandi) "connected" in some way or should I initiate an spi to find that out?
If you believe Rolandi and I are "connected", go ahead, initiate the SPI instead of threatening to do it.[1]
I assume you need a better link to show how I dismiss tertiaries in sight. (since you already changed the topic)
It will be hard for me to find a more explicit dismissal of tertiary sources than: I just noticed that Elsie tertiary work is part of the "Identity ethnicity and language" section. Nevertheless, as a clearly tertiary source it should be removed in the same fashion as in the origin of Ali Pasha.
Worth noting is also that you initially claimed it was wp:secondary when I raised some concerns about it being tertiary.[2][3] Surprisingly, after all these years on Wikipedia, you still haven't familiarized yourself with WP:RS enough to know what constitutes as tertiary sources.
Also, since you claim I changed the topic, what exactly was the topic?
The concept that Albanian guerrilas changed from one Balkan costume to another sounds more reasonable than to claim that Braveheart's kilt is Albanian and reached the Celts via the Roman armies. It would be very interesting to hear how Braveheart's outfit can be Albanian
Who made the claim that "Braveheart's kilt is Albanian"? By the way, could you provide some context with regards to Albanian guerilla fighters? Who were these Albanian guerilla fighters? Ghegs? Tosks? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
All that had to be ascertained regarding the source in question is does Wikipedia allow tertiary sources or not? Its a simple question. If does reference stays, if it doesn't, it goes.Resnjari (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, it was blocked editor Rolandi+ who was eager to get rid of certain tertiaries (based on his nationalistic pov by the way). @DWB: there is already one inline that accepts as historical fact that the Celtic kilt originates from the Albanian one (Skafidas).Alexikoua (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You agreed with Rolandi's argument for the removal of the tertiary source, which is further confirmed by the post you wrote afterwards: "I just noticed that Elsie tertiary work is part of the "Identity ethnicity and language" section. Nevertheless, as a clearly tertiary source it should be removed in the same fashion as in the origin of Ali Pasha." The bolded part seems to summarize your opinion on tertiary sources.
As for Skafidas, that's an outright lie. You recently quoted him out of context,[1] and even though Resnjari provided the quote in full,[2] you're now claiming that Skafidas accepts it as a historical fact that the Celtic kilt originates from the Albanian fustanella. Again, this is the quote in full:
The Hungarian sociologist and paleontologist Baron Nopsca has theorized that the Celtic kilt emerged after the Albanian kilt was introduced to the Celts through the Roman legions in Britain.
It's beyond me how Skafidas can be ascribed to having accepted it "as historical fact that the Celtic kilt originates from the Albanian one". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears it's not a good idea to accept arguments of old disruptive users. No wonder this kind of 'arguments' got him blocked. As far I know Elsie wasn't removed.I assume that's a good argument for this source, being also published by a well established and credible publishing house of the western world, to stay.Alexikoua (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"It appears it's not a good idea to accept arguments of old disruptive users. No wonder this kind of 'arguments' got him blocked."

What's certainly not a good idea is dishonesty and hypocrisy. Reducing what I'm trying to say to "accepting arguments of old disruptive users" and implying that it could get me blocked is quite silly. For the record, arguments stand on their own merit.

"As far I know Elsie wasn't removed.I assume that's a good argument for this source, being also published by a well established and credible publishing house of the western world, to stay."

I'm not convinced, especially since you avoid my questions regarding these Albanian guerilla fighters. If you can't provide context, it essentially implies that all Albanian guerilla fighters abandoned the turkish pants in favor of the fustanella. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, the specific work claims this and we are not the ones to judge, based on personal experience. I assume it was not the first change in Balkan fashion among mountain guerilla groups.Alexikoua (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The concern was is is a tertiary source. I take that since that is allowed in this article then a tertiary source which you deleted at the Souliotes page [49] regarding the Souliuotes dialect in relation to the Albanian language ought to be restored then, right ? I take it you will not oppose this so as to be consistent?Resnjari (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The source claimed nothing new and the idea that Souliotic was an idiom of the Tosk was already present in the article, making the use of additional inlines (tertiary in this case) virtually useless, per wp:tertiary.Alexikoua (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
After some research I've done on the issue of the 'Albanian guerilla fighters that switched from Turkish pants to Foustanela', there was no way to confirm this from additional material (at least so far). In simple words although the work (World Clothing and Fashion: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Social Influence. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781317451679.) meets wp:rs, this alone isn't the strongest evidence to support the specific fact. Thus, in case a detailed work on the subjects contradicts this one (i.e. that Albanian guerilla fighters didn't use to wear Turkish pants that time) I won't object the removal of this part.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic narrative[edit]

Current language in historical narrative is problematic, because it falsely equates evidential 12th-century common usage with archaic/speculative scholarly opinions of 15th-century introduction; to render the narrative both historically and logically cogent, per WP:MNA, it's necessary to assume that the common 12th-century usage of the fustanella is a fact that both predates and contradicts the garment's supposed 15th-century introduction; therefore, it's not original research replacing the phrase "while some scholars" with "contradicting the view held by certain scholars" since even Verinis doubts the veracity of the "15th-century introduction" claim. Theban Halberd (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the archeological evidence only refers to evidence of the Fustanella's use in the 12th century and amongst the soldier class within Byzantine era Greece. Then that 1940s source makes its own problematic conclusion that it has been in common use ever since due to those fragments of the 12th century. There is nothing in the from of archeological evidence or of a scholar citing mention of the fustanella being a garment worn by a mass of Greek speakers until the arrival of the Albanians (ancestors of the Arvanites) in the 14th century and thereafter. Some number amount of scholars(as already cited in the article, some Greek too) hold a view that the fustanella was introduced or reintroduced into those parts of Greece by Albanians. Its spread is attributed to the 19th century and because in large part to the Greek independence war and the Arvanites participation that made the garment was popular amongst the Greek speakers of the region and later a emblematic garment of Greeks. Sentence should stay as it is, and no [[wp:or] should be placed on it. What the sources say the sentence should reflect. Unless there is a specific source that says archeological evidence trounces the Arvanites introduction/reintroduction of fustanella, no change to that sentence for neutrality purposes.Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect; Morgan's conclusion (i.e. "It is consequently demonstrable that this characteristic garment of latter-day Greece was in common use as early as the twelfth century in Greek lands.") contextually denotes both historical continuity and extensive garment usage (implying usage in military and non-military contexts); burden of proof, per WP:RS, is on advocates of the "15th-century introduction" claim who fail to incorporate Morgan's findings and render themselves factually deficient and factually unreliable by perpetuating archaic (mis)perceptions of historical reality (such claims, if notable, must be included per WP:NPOV, but distinguished from accurate evidential facts per WP:RS and WP:DUE); therefore, a simplistic evaluation of Morgan fails to resolve the original issue of this discussion, which is to eliminate false equivalence and render the narrative both historically and logically cogent (per WP:MNA) by replacing "while..." with "contradicting..." since a garment commonly used by ABC continuously since the 12th century is entirely irreconcilable with an exclusive garment introduction by XYZ in the 15th century (FYI, and this is beside the point, but the fustanella's 19th century popularity was primarily attributed to the klephts, armatoloi and especially the Roumeliotes [see Beller and Leerssen] all of whom wore the pleated garment). Theban Halberd (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This here "contextually denotes both historical continuity and extensive garment usage (implying usage in military and non-military contexts)" regarding Morgan is your assessment. Morgan in no way goes into details about what type of use and whether there was "extensive us". Find in his research where it says that so the changes you're pushing are no wp:or. You have removed sources such as Tzanelli and so on. These are wp:reliable and wp:secondary. There are varying scholarly positions about the use of the fustanella in Greek speaking areas, its extensive or limited use and thereafter regarding its (re)introduction by Albanians (precursors) of the Arvanites into those areas that later made the fustanella common amongst Greek speaking peoples. These views point must remain in the article, as they are the majority viewpoint regarding the fustanella and are wp:reliable] and wp:secondary. The sentence that you keep going after was resolved after much discussion by multiple editors here to make its inclusive of the scholarship and neutral while its not being wp:or which is was before as it was taken to third party adjudication. If you feel so strongly aabout this matter i suggest you take this to the notice boards and get outside opinion on the matter. But please stop removing sources at will. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect; reality is that your simplistic and out-of-context (mis)reading of Morgan's findings fail to substantively resolve the current issues of false equivalence and logical/historical incogency in the narrative; also, the "15th-century introduction" view is not the majority academic viewpoint as skeptics including Verinis exist and ignoring them in favor of a partisan vision of historical reality violates WP:DUE; as for Tzanelli, her removal was completely justified per WP:RS as her views possess zero factual substance to them which is no surprise as her academic background is in cultural sociology and not history (demanding to take Tzanelli or this discussion to notice boards reveals an unwillingness on your end to resolve issues through discussion here); in the end, I have no strong feelings over what is essentially a skirt. Theban Halberd (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Being a sociologist does not disqualify someone from researching or writing about a certain topic. Sociology is the study of people regarding external and internal life factors about their current state (and those from the past which influenced them). In such research at times the historical factor comes to play and a sociologist will write about it too within the wider parameters of their study. Since your first rationale for Tzanelli's removal were based on personal opinion (i.e talking about "internet forums" etc), i am yet to see what exists out there from the scholarship community that calls her work into disrepute or herself as a scholar for that matter. Until then she stays. Morgan who wrote in the 1940s cites archeological evidence for the 12th century and it being a garment worn mainly by Byzantine military people and elites. Some gap of a few centuries exists between then and until the Arvanites arrive. The "continuous" part in Morgan refers nothing to archeology etc or further explanation for how continuous and amongst which societal sector of Greek speaking peoples of the time. Moreover scholars (some number being Greek) writing many decades after Morgan attribute the fustanella's introduction into southern Greece during the 14th century and its mass diffusion in the 19th century. You may not like this but it stays in the article as those scholars are wp:reliable and [wp:secondary]]. If you feel this not be the case there are multiple noticeboards on Wikipedia and you can take it there and have non-Balkan third party editors have a look at it.Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect evaluation (skepticism of quote farm is justified since Internet forums are rife with stacking-the-deck fallacists using quote bombing methods); despite an element of overlap between the disciplines of history and sociology, Tzanelli is only a cultural sociologist and not an expert historian (her statements fail to add anything of historical substance to a contentious entry); also, per WP:V (including WP:ONUS), Tzanelli provides no corroborating evidence to support her colorful views (even if Tzanelli is regarded as reliable, her removal is also justified per the citation overkill policy); one last thing, your flawed reductionist logic fails to nullify the fact that the fustanella of "latter-day Greece" (i.e. modern nation-state of Greece) is the fustanella commonly worn in Greek lands since the 12th century; third-party involvement on a separate noticeboard may resolve things, but such an endeavor would be futile if everything stated here ends up being repeated over there (besides, the community has WP:MNA for a reason). Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry there Theban, but you make serious claims about the qualifications of a scholar without providing any information of the sort. The reason of "Internet forums are rife with stacking-the-deck fallacists" is not a sufficient reason as Tzanelli is not such a person. She works at the university of Leeds in Britian and is a professor and she published in reputable publishing houses. You cite multiple polices there, however once again you have brought nothing here where the scholarship community has in some way stated that Tzanelli is not fit to be a scholar. I am also baffled at as to her being a sociologist somehow prevents her from having historical evaluation within her work. I am not sure if you yourself have undertaken tertiary studies or engaged in the act of scholarship yourself, but whatever discipline one comes from in the humanities there will always be overlap. Its unavoidable. The only difference is that the discipline means that the research will be based on the parameters of mainly that field as opposed to another. For example multiple anthropologists these days in their research will mostly have some kind of historical component to their work. Its unavoidable. Tzanelli focuses on examining Greek identity and so on. The 19th century cannot be divorced from that examination at times to be able to understand the present. This comment regarding Tzanelli's work by you "Tzanelli is only a cultural sociologist and not an expert historian (her statements fail to add anything of historical substance to a contentious entry" is your opinion. There is nothing in Wikipedia that says sociologists are somehow disqualified. If you think that that Tzanelli or her work is not fit to be used (provided there is actual evidence) please by all means take to the reliable sources noticeboard and get third party evaluation of it. Moreover such a process is not futile if you think your case is strong. Also, like i have of other Greek editors in the past i ask you to refrain making comments on my cognitive abilities, logic etc. Stick to the matter at hand. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect evaluation (didn't say Tzanelli was a stacking-the-deck fallacist, but that quote farms that include her are suspicious as they usually come from partisan Internet forums where quote bombing is a norm); you consistently defend Tzanelli, but you don't appear to understand the concept of scholarly rigor (applied to everyone) where Tzanelli's statements are put to the test to determine their validity and veracity (especially for contentious entries per WP:V); so far, neither you nor Tzanelli have any hard evidence to convince anyone about the (non)event where a pleated kilt underwent a transformation into "symbols of pure, primordial Greekness" (respect Gjergji, because at least he supported his arguments with primary historical documents); also, your logic is reductionist if you take a simplistic and out-of-context approach towards reading the ASCSA's findings and conclusion (this is not to be misconstrued as an insult on your person as I have no interest in ad hominem fallacies). Theban Halberd (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Tzanelli is a sociologist and examines Greek identity to its core. All modern day identities are mainly the products of 19th nationalism. You may not like the terminology she uses such as "symbols of pure, primordial Greekness", but in that there she is describing what people of the era envisaged in Greece the fustanella to be in terms it representing them as a national symbol. That's how Western scholarship works. It takes a critical approach to these matters. For example too Modern Albanian identity as come under such scrutiny, showing how Skanderbeg became a cult like symbol by the communists and how obscure poems and writings of some 19th century romanticists were used to create a Turkophobic and Islamophobic Albanian identity today. Many Albanians would say that is a lie. I say to them, tough, that is how scholarship works. Until you or any other editor can prove that Tzanelli and her research are unfit through either critique by another scholar/s, she stays in the article and so does Skafidas for that matter. If you feel that your case is so strong (and as Wikipedia has mechanisms for such matters)and i an other editors are obstructing you, please by all means have Tzanelli evaluated at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and whatever is decided there will be a decisive end to the matter. For now Tzanelli meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Absent that, this has become time wasting like when Othon went around in circles on the Arvanites talkpage and then the Admins told him of for trolling.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Unimpressive appeal to authority (Carl Sagan: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."); as for modern-day identities, almost every historian knows that many, not all, modern-day identities predate the 19th century; respond however you like, but you should really look in the mirror about going "around in circles" before judging Othon or whoever else crawled under your skin (not saying that to insult you, but to advise you, out of good faith, to avoid repeating yourself using flawed arguments). Theban Halberd (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I stand by what i said especially in regards to identities. Most identities int he Balkans as expressed today were conceived in the 19th century. I can make the example of Greek speaking Muslims. They never attached their lot to the Greek national cause and called and still call identify Turks. Yet the anomaly exits that they call the Greek language with terms from the Byzantine era such as Romeika etc. A prominent example is current deputy prime minster Bülent Arınç (a fluent Cretan Greeks speaker) who wants to convert the Agia Sofia back into a mosque! And in Greece today these people are seen as Turks, not Greeks. Like i said i stand by my comments about the 19th century and national identities, yeah they absorbed things like language etc that predated the modern era and cut out other things which may not have fulfilled the mold as new identities came to the fore. Otherwise Muslim Greek speakers today should identify as Greeks (well defiantly the ones from the Grevena and Crete areas and not have been sent to Turkey in 1923). A for other editors like Othon, he got told off by the admins for the same commentary he made in the past that he starting making in here to me again. I simply reminded him of this. I went by the book. No accusations of academics credibility etc etc. Used wp:reliable and wp:secondary and that what counts first and foremost, some which you kept sidelining for narrative.Resnjari (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you would define Greek lands, because Morgan distinguishes between latter-day Greece and Greek lands.
Also, Morgan's scholarly opinion, i.e. his conclusion that the fustanella was common in Greek lands as early as the 12th century should be presented in the same manner as the opinions of the other scholars.
With regards to archaic/speculative, I'd contend that, but since there's enough material on the issue I won't bother. André Gerolymatos notes that:
Greek fashion in the nineteenth century saw men dressed in the Albanian kilt while women followed the Muslim tradition of covering themselves up, including the face and eyes.
Umut Özkirimli and Spyros A. Sofos:
In this context, therefore, symbols of potential 'otherness' such as the φουστανέλα (foustanella), the kilt-like dress of Albanian shepherds throughout the Balkans, became incorporated in the Greek symbolic universe; that dress was even instituionalized as the uniform of the Greek Royal and presidential Guard.
Rodanthi Tzanelli:
In male travelers’ descriptions of the Albanian kilt adopted by Greek men post-Independence there is deliberate emphasis on the national costume as something giving Greeks ‘a comical appearance’ but which does not detract from their manly ‘dangerousness’ and ‘dignity’ (Colbeck, 1887, p. 92).
Tzanelli again:
This ambivalence was integral to the romantic debate on Greek tradition, which transformed the Albanian dress and its wearers into symbols of pure, primordial, Greekness. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Unimpressive quote farm (possibly copied from a partisan Internet forum); none of the above quotes are supported by any hard evidence but instead constitute ambiguous (otherness?), archaic (1887?), absurd (transformed...into symbols of pure, primordial, Greekness?), non-specialist and historically untenable opinions (per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, quote farm is both unreliable and unnecessary); "Greek lands" means areas/territories inhabited by Greeks and "latter-day Greece" refers to the modern nation-state of Greece. Theban Halberd (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Like i have said to other editors in here about calling into question the scholarship and works of a scholar. Unless you have evidence from a peer reviewed article/text/book etc that calls into question a particular scholar and/or their work, comments based on personal opinion such as "(possibly copied from a partisan Internet forum)" or "none of the above quotes are supported by any hard evidence but instead constitute ambiguous (otherness?), archaic (1887?), absurd (transformed...into symbols of pure, primordial, Greekness?), non-specialist and historically untenable opinions" are personal opinion. Rodanthi Tzanelli, is a professor of sociology at the universality of Leeds [50] and has published multiple works regarding modern Greek identity and its complex emergence in the 19th century which may not be to the liking of some. If you feel that her work is a issue, then take it to reliable sources noticeboard to have it evaluated by a third party. Ping the rest of us here to we participate too. Until that time, don't remove wp:reliable and wp:secondary because you hold a view that her work is based on some internet forums. If you think the source is being altered or something, go to a library and borrow the book or buy it yourself. Its that simple. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect; absence of peer-review is not justification for inclusion of irrelevant, partisan, factually deficient and/or non-specialist secondary sources (peer-review is supplementary to WP:RS and not a replacement); it's interesting, however, how you consistently undermine Morgan's authority and yet fawn over Tzanelli whose works add nothing of historical substance to this entry as she is neither a formal historian nor a specialist on garment history (opinion or not, her statements are absurd since she presents zero factual evidence to substantiate, or at least validate, the transformation of a pleated kilt into "symbols of pure, primordial, Greekness"; this encyclopedia can survive without such colorful views); for contentious and controversial entries, the best approach for averting eternal edit wars is for users to consult and rely on sources containing accurate information supported by hard factual evidence. Theban Halberd (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with "rewording"; narrative gives undue weight to factually deficient 15th-century introduction claim at the expense of evidential 12th-century common usage. Theban Halberd (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Narrative must be accurate, simple and balanced: "Archaeological evidence from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greek lands as early as the 12th century, contradicting the academic view that the garment was originally introduced into Greece by Albanian speakers in the 15th century during the period of Ottoman rule." Theban Halberd (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
You talk of narrative. That source in no way covers with archeological evidence the 13th, 14th and other centuries in its conclusion that it was in contentious use. Only the 12th century is covered and the academic source refers to its use in specialized circles, not of the masses. Other scholarship refers to is use amongst the Greek speaking masses (or lack there of) until the 19th century.Resnjari (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Correction Resnjari, I speak of cogency in narrative; as stated earlier, your (mis)reading of Morgan's findings is both simplistic and taken out of context, which only fails to bring closure to the legitimate issues I've raised (at this stage of the discussion, your "logically" undermining Morgan's conclusion of both historical continuity and extensive garment usage are unconstructive); as stated earlier, scholars who advocate a strict "15th-century introduction" of the fustanella fail to take Morgan's findings into consideration and not all scholars subscribe to the "15th-century introduction" view (which you ignore including sources demonstrating that the popular 19th-century fustanella of Greece was primarily derived from the dress of the Roumeliotes). Theban Halberd (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Morgan's assessment is included, and so are the opinions of other scholars. This is both balanced, and simple. Unless scholars explicitly state that there is a contradiction, you should refrain from doing it. If there in fact is a contradiction, leave it up to the readers. With regards to Greek lands vs latter-day Greece, notice that there is a section that deals with Origins, and one that deals with Evolution (Greece). I wouldn't necessarily mind using the word "reintroduced" instead of "introduced", but this is not directly supported by either sources. The best solution would be to provide context without synthesizing the available material. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Brioni having the word "reintroduced" would be a original research issue. Though i used it here in the talkpage in general for the origins discussion, its not used in the literature as even inferring that matter. Only "introduced" would be apt for the Arvanites if the word is used in the sentence.Resnjari (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I know, that's why I mentioned that it would be important to provide context without synthesizing material. I don't believe neither of us are saying that the Albanians "invented" the fustanella, rather that it was introduced to modern Greece. This certain detail apparently necessitates the inclusion of the Byzantine fustanella in the Evolution/Greece section.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Introduced is ok and sums up the scholars. Still we got to resolve things in here. There are editors who have made serious allegations (as of yet unproven) against two (Greek) scholars now with no proof and there is removal of wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources that is resulting in repetitive disruption and vandalization. This page may need need some kind third party oversight if this continues.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Normally, I'd agree with you had you not "reworded" the narrative and accentuated the problems I initially addressed; no, the best solution is to invoke WP:MNA and render the narrative logically and historically cogent (replacing "while..." with "contradicting...") in order to avert problems that can be raised in the future (especially issues that involve undue weight). Theban Halberd (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There are noticeboards were you can take this. There are diverging views on the fustanella and Morgan's archeological evidence only is from the 12th century and the dress relates to people of the Byzantine military like class and Byzantine elite. He adds continuous as his conclusion for further use (which he wrote in the 1940s). There is a gap of some centuries in that conclusion. During those centuries Greek speakers en masse are not described as having worn it until the 19th century and the people who entered southern Greece that were fustanella wearers were Albanians (precursors of the future Arvanites). Some number of scholars that hold the position that Albanians introduced the garment into the region can not be removed (much after Morgan's 1940s work). There is no "smoking gun". If you feel this not to be the case, that all those scholars are somehow not what they are or their work is somehow substandard, you can place this matter for a edit request and have other non-Balkan third party editors come and have a look at it. They may agree with you or maybe not. I say this because the edits you want to make are big and also you have removed peer removed literature at times also (i.e: Tzanelli).Resnjari (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect evaluation (again) coupled with inability to get the point; gaps are broadly covered if you read Morgan in context (which you continuously refuse to do so) who concludes historical continuity and extensive garment usage (as stated before, many post-1942 scholars have actually failed to include the evidence submitted by the ASCSA, which per WP:V renders their respective works suspect); again, third-party involvement on a separate noticeboard may resolve things, but such an endeavor would be futile if everything stated here ends up being repeated over there (besides, the community has WP:MNA for a reason). Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The evidence pertains to the 12th century and the work was published in the 1940s. Morgan states (this i will use his proper terminology) "common use" in Greece at that time. No other scholar (unless you have someone) has provided archeological evidence, primary evidence etc that Greek speakers (the masses, not the military and elite classes of the Byzantines) wore the fustanella or thereafter. Scholars state that the fustanella's spread amongst Greek speakers occurs mainly in the 19th century due to the Greek independence war. So from the 12th century until the 19th century what happened ? There is no smoking gun to disprove that Albanians introduced the fustanella in the 14th century to the area which resulted in a wider spread in the 19th century.Those sources regarding the Albanian/Arvanite connections to the fustanella remain. If you disagree, place this up on a separate noticeboard if you think your case is strong and it can be evaluated by neutral third party involvement (sources and all).Resnjari (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect (again); twisting Morgan's words, focusing on the publication date, and using the argument from ignorance to support a false dichotomy between Greek masses and elites is unconstructive (historically, fustanella-wearing akritic warriors were emulated by many Greeks from different classes and akritic songs were actually popular among the Greek masses for centuries); as stated earlier, the fustanella was popular in the 19th century primarily due to the klephts, armatoloi and Roumeliotes wearing it (read the sources already in the entry); your obsession with the garment's Albanian connection is demonstrated by your inability to even acknowledge Verinis's skepticism and other sources that weaken and even falsify the connection; also, your insistence on taking things to noticeboards conveys an absolute disregard for WP:MNA, as well as an inability to defend your arguments with sources containing hard evidence (quote farm doesn't really cut it, so I'm still waiting). Theban Halberd (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Morgan writes: "Most of these men are warriors with long curling locks falling down their backs, clad in pleated tunics or chain mail with short pointed caps on their heads. They wield swords, and protect themselves with shields, either round or shaped like a pointed oval...The mace-bearer of No. 1275 is clad in chain mail with a heavy pleated fustanella worn about his hips. The importance of this latter piece is very considerable, for the details of the costume, often shown on Incised-Sgraffito figures, are very clear, and make it certain that the fustanella exists as an independent garment and is not an elaboration of the lower part of a tunic. It is consequently demonstrable that this characteristic garment of latter-day Greece was in common use as early as the twelfth century in Greek lands." I have consistently said that Morgan wrote that the military and elite classes of the Byzantines wore it. Nothing about the masses. Also so what Akritic songs were sung down in the ages and kilts were mentioned in them. Were they worn by the Greek masses throughout in those areas ? Neither Morgan or other cares to quantify or qualify this or at least attempt to. You fall short there. Scholars who cite Albanian connections hold a view for the centuries not covered by Morgan. As for klephts, armatoloi and Roumeliotes the garment worn by them has its origins in the 19th century and other sources give a Arvanite connection or a Ali Pasha connection (popularized during his time). Why is it that you want to remove all references to Arvanites and Albanians in general from those area discussing the fustanella amongst Greek speakers when even Greek scholars have diverging positions ? Is this another case to suit you of creating "narrative", as that is what you are referring to, "narrative" the whole time ? My comments are for all to see regarding Morgan. Explain how i am "twisting Morgan's" words ? Verini's skepticism is based on what because he uses the words "Thought originally to have been". That is fact, scholars hold t hat view, and that is why the sentence in the article is written that way. As for my insistence to take things to noticeboards is this. I did not bring up an issue with the source which meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary above all other polices. You have attempted to disqualify all these on grounds which frankly are surprising such as a scholar is a sociologist so that is a problem etc etc. You want to convince me now, get neutral third party evaluation if you are confident about the matter. That is the only way. The onus is on you to prove some of your contentions. Wikipedia does not do original research or creating "narrative".Resnjari (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Disappointing evaluation (argument from ignorance, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT); respond however you like, but if you can't see how flawed your arguments are, then there's nothing further to discuss. Theban Halberd (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I let wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources guide my actions and to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It was you who talked of narrative, sidelining scholars because they were mere sociologists or other and deleting may times reliable ans secondary sources. The same polices of which you cite as your interpretations in relation to my actions you kept doing such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
@Theban: You wrote: "as stated earlier, the fustanella was popular in the 19th century primarily due to the klephts, armatoloi and Roumeliotes wearing it (read the sources already in the entry)". Have you read them? If so, you would have no problem telling us who the author of the cited material is, right (Beller & Leerssen are the editors)? Wouldn't it be ironic if said author was an Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communications of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Unimpressive display of the good-cop/bad-cop routine here gentlemen; request that all of us take a break and come back to this discussion with fresh minds and fresh eyes (also, let's allow for other users to weigh in on this discussion). Theban Halberd (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making comments about editors unless there has been actual breaking of rules here. See wp:civil for more.Resnjari (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And please refrain from uncivil tag-teaming. Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
If you have a allegation of that sort to make, please there are other forums for that too. Just ping me and will participate fully. I suggest for you to stick to the matter at hand instead of resorting to conspiracies.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from baiting users. Theban Halberd (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It was you who refered to and i quote "tag-teaming". If you have a allegation to make, take that to the appropriate forums. Absent that, concentrate on the matter at hand. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Truth hurts; don't worry though, I won't tell (just let it go). Theban Halberd (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You deleted sources and i reverted them. PHD dissertations have been used by other editors (in particular Greeks ones) numerous times as long as it is from a reputable academic institution. If you have any issues with it, there is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and you can have it evaluated by third party non-Balkan editors. Wikipedia has these mechanisms to as to have much oversight if there is a disagreement in the talkpage. Place it, make your case wait some time until it gets addressed and then come back to the matter. But these comments of "tag-teaming" are not helpful in any way. One could say the same thing when multiple editors of a Greek background engage with a article. Are they tag-teaming or editing. Reflect on this, as its easy to say this or that.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Checked Perry Bialor's work; it's a dissertation and the quoted statements from page 68 actually have no supporting evidence (retract statement in recent edit summary about "zero footnotes/endnotes" since page 68 is actually part of Bialor's "Notes" section). Theban Halberd (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
A dissertation from a reputable institution can be used. Its complex but allowed in wp:reliable and wp:secondary. I would say though to place it up at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and get third party evaluation. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect; for contentious and controversial entries, a dissertation with zero corroborating evidence to support its statements is actually unreliable when one takes WP:V into consideration; but even if Bialor is classified as "reliable", including him with the above quote farm would actually violate citation overkill policy. Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It's an essay, not a policy. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's part of WP:BLUE; besides, how does one justify creating citation clutter by shoving a dozen sources into the entry that say the same thing? Theban Halberd (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
My edit summary describes my position. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.
Incorrect; you need to familiarize yourself with citation overkill. Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
First you make various allegations about scholars and their work without providing evidence, then because the source may not be to your liking you want it removed because its citation over kill. The only way you can sway me on anything here is if you present evidence that the scholar is indeed unqualified and to be done through the noticeboards (i ask you do this of the latter because you have used language regarding scholars that are without foundation. This is not a schoolyard or a Donald Trump rally where anything goes. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect evaluation (again); questioning/criticizing the quality of the quote farm is justified given that none of the submitted statements were supported by any hard evidence including Tzanelli (you don't just shove a dozen secondary sources in a contentious entry just because they're secondary sources); as stated earlier, absence of peer-review is not justification for inclusion of a source in an entry (WP:V, remember?); also, implying that I'm creating a hostile environment (schoolyard/Trump rally) is unconstructive and uncivil (I forgive you though). Theban Halberd (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You referred to my cogitative abilities and logic. Why ? What does that have to do with this discussion ? Curious that.Resnjari (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Because your out-of-context evaluations of the ASCSA's findings/conclusion were simplistic; respond however you like, but if you can't admit that you're use of reductionist logic has a negative impact on the entry's progress, then there's nothing more to discuss. Theban Halberd (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has those mechanism's so there is third party non-involved editors can have a look, evaluate and also give oversight if a matter becomes contentious. All you need to do is make your case if it is a strong one or you feel it is. Its is not simplistic, bu there for a reason to that Wikipedia remains a environment conducive for participation, editing and so on.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Alexi: The paragraph below describes how the garment was worn. Having it in the first paragraph as well is redundant. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The way this piece of cloth was worn or depicted in art is a fine piece of info. I've restored this part as it was prior to your adjustments in origins section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Alexikoua. Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
My adjustments were made on the basis that it was redundant after I had moved the sentence from Origins to Evolution/Greece, not that it was unimportant. The parts bolded below essentially convey the same thing:
On Byzantine pottery sherds, warriors are shown bearing weapons and wearing the heavy pleated fustanella, including a mace-bearer clad in chain-mail.
The full-pleated Greek fustanella was worn originally as a military outfit and seems to have been reserved for persons of importance.[12] It was frequently worn in conjunction with bows, swords, or battle-axes and frequently shown covered with a jointed corselet, or with a vest of chain mail.
I've made some new adjustments to account for the unbalanced interpretation of sourced material.
Furthermore, there are now two paragraphs in the Evolution/Greece section that deals with the fustanella from Byzantine times. This should arguably be moved to the origins section, but seeing the continuous efforts to diminish the scholarly opinion of those who assert that the fustanella was introduced into modern Greece by Albanians, this will probably not fly with certain editors. We'll likely have to settle this through dispute resolution eventually. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Compromise is not vandalism Resnjari; your recent actions clearly demonstrate that you're not here to construct an encyclopedia; not taking the bait though and refuse to get into an edit war over a pleated skirt; be back later (on break). Theban Halberd (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your version of compromise is to remove wp:reliable and wp:secondary based on a scholar is a sociologist so henceforth not a scholar etc etc [your recent actions was to remove, mine was to restore] or that scholar got her information from "internet forums" etc etc. Theban, you already showed that you have dislike for the sources/scholars based outside scholarly concerns. You repeatedly resorted many times to delete and delete (and attempted to add a little original research such as adding words to sentences like: "contradicting") before coming here to discuss the matter. So after all that, when good faith was little shown, why should one take what you say on board now ??? Convince me.Resnjari (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect evaluation (appeal to authority, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, failure to distinguish WP:MNA from WP:OR, ignoring WP:AGF and WP:V); no offense, but if you had any shred of nder you'd appreciate the multiple compromises I've made out of good faith and actually build on those compromises; furthermore, you'd appreciate measures taken to protect the entry from devolving into a citation-overkill dumpsite with sources reliant more on hearsay instead of hard evidence (you keep forgetting to include WP:V in your policy invocations); respond however you like, but your flawed arguments and evaluations have so far failed to convince me that you're right and anyone who reads this discussion can easily determine that you're real purpose here is to battle and not to build an encyclopedia (hate to say this, but you're no vëlla to me or to this community and that's a sad fact, not an insult); enjoy your "victory". Theban Halberd (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You began by attacking the credibility of scholars and their scholarship without producing any evidence from either the scholarly community or from some kind of reputable source of information. It is from this premise that concerned me outright especially as you then deleted wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources and kept talking about narrative which concerned me. Also the reason why there is so many citations regarding the Albanian connection to the fustanella is because in the past, different editors have distrusted any edits made by Albanian editors and this has been a recurrent theme by them sometimes referring to citing of Albanians in a article as irrelevant, Albanian scholarship being garbage etc. By having those references there regarding this contentious matter it become more difficult for some to just delete something because it does not fulfill a narrative. Moreover there is no hearsay in here. I have a few more edits that will be made and added that have citations in the days to come to that sentence. There is no battle mentality and that is subject to your interpretations. I don't have vëlla's here and this was not about some victory. I am a lone operator and that's the way i like it ! That's my style.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Highly controversial edit "It subsequently became part of the national dress of Greece as a consequence of extensive Albanian settlement in the region" from Rejnari.[edit]

I find this "It subsequently became part of the national dress of Greece as a consequence of extensive Albanian settlement in the region" highly controversial and POV-pushing edit for the reason that previously in the article has been established that "Archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greek lands as early as the 12th century." and that "Byzantine Greek warriors, in particular the Akritai, wearing fustanella are depicted in contemporary Byzantine art. This is also confirmed by akritic songs of the 12th century. The full-pleated fustanella was worn from the Byzantine Akritic warriors originally as a military outfit and seems to have been reserved for persons of importance." Also, I am a bit concerned from the above discussions with other users that Rejnsari is trying push a Albanian Nationalistic POV agenda to the article. My proposal is to delete this "It subsequently became part of the national dress of Greece as a consequence of extensive Albanian settlement in the region" line or reword it as "It has been thought" etc.. Thanks Othon I (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well first off, lets clarify something. Though i have done multiple recent edits to this article, the sentence which you refer too i had no part in writing it in that form. Othon, had you gone through the revision history to see the edits for this article, you would have come across this edit [51] done by editor Devil wears Brioni regarding the sentence you refer to. Secondly, no one has disputed that the Byzantine elite or the military sector wore the fustanella kilt. There is no dispute there. The sources however do not state that the fustanella was a item of clothing worn by the everyday Greek speaking villager of that time. Its spread amongst this segment of the population is (by both Greek and other western scholars) attributed to a medieval Albanian presence entering these areas and/or their descendants the Arvanites making the garment popular after the Greek war of independence in the 19th century due to their participation in that conflict. Now unless you can show that these scholars are pushing "Albanian POV", they meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The onus is on you. So far your proposals there border more on wp:or and wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Resnjari (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You probably didn't understand what I clearly wrote. I didn't question the scholars, I questioned the validity of the statement since in the previous sectors It has been established that fustanella is "Archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greek lands as early as the 12th century." which renders the statement that we discussing about obsolete. It looks like you and Brioni are editing the Greek section only to push your agendas. The discussions with various editors above can prove it. By the way as you can see [52] your edit covers the nearly whole Greek sector including the controversial sentence. Othon I (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes my edits to cover that area, but i had no part i writing that sentence of which you attributed to me personally. Nor am i pushing an "agenda". If some editors see that as so, then so are all those scholars too. You say you don't question the scholars, but you question the "validity" of the statement. But the sentence is based on that scholarship and that validity. Yes, the fustanella is in continuous use in Greece. However scholarship treats that continuous use to the Albanian presence that came later. The Byzantine state did not last in the 13th and 14th centuries in those areas for there to have been a elite or military class wearing the fustanella. Moreover scholarship clearly points to Greek speaking people abandoning other forms of (Turkish or other village) clothing and adopting the fustanella in the 19th century. You ought to read Welters whole chapter, she did field work in those areas and locals kept telling her that the fustanella was mainly associated with Arvanites, and the sigouni (and foundi for women). Note all of the scholarship on the fustanella refering to this matter has come after Morgon and not before.Resnjari (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong, the Despotate of Mystra lasted until 1460. That means that during the 13th and possibly 14th century there was the influence of the Byzantine attire which fustanella has been classified as. Don't forget that Arvanites have been identified from scholarship that they were part of the Byzantine Army and they were subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium [53] until the end of the 11th century and also, the Principality of Arbanon 11- mid. 12th (end) century has been mainly ruled from the Byzantine Gregory Kamonas and his wife Comnena Nemanjic. All that shows that even that when the Arvanites migrated southwards from Epirus Nova, the influence can be still attributed to the Byzantine Empire. Othon I (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
All of that is interesting and parts of that is also original research. Morgan attributes the fustanella being worn to the Byzantine elite and military class, not as being a clothing item of the Byzantine successor states or even those states created by Westerners such as the Catalans etc. As for the Arvanites being part of the Byzantine army, yes they were just like the other Albanian speakers in the area of today's Albania. Their migration into southern Greece occurred after Byzantine imperial power no longer existed in the area and mainly at the invitation of those successor states to fill up depopulated areas due to war, plague and pirate raids on coastal areas (See article by Oxford scholar and archeologist John Bintliff for such matters: [54]). Again what does this have to do with anything here? Do you have a source that says that the Albanian (speakers) in Arbanon adopted the kilt from the Byzantines while in the military service of the Byzantines or influence from them ? You need a wp:reliable and wp:secondary for that. So far its original research on your part. The earliest recording of the fustanella in Albania by the way was in the 12th century in the Lake Shkoder area of Albania.Resnjari (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Since Arvanites have been identified by scholarship and primary sources (Attaliates) that they were subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium (Leo Rhabdouchos, George Palaiologos, John Komnenos and other Dukes of the Theme of Dyrrachium [1] which was part of the Byzantine Empire, to answer your question, It is common knowledge that Arvanites where Byzantine Empire citizens hence the fustanella. Othon I (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That is interesting what you have there, but all you have cited is that Albanians were once for some duration under the Byzantine Empire. Albanians were the citizens of many states/empires over the centuries. What wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources however do you have that gives even as a hypothesis that the Albanian (speakers) of that medieval time in Arbanon borrowing and adopting the fustanella from the Byzantines ? Otherwise what you have there is still wp:or. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
What you did just now is source misinterpretation and POV. The scholarship and the primary sources identified that "Albanoi as having taken part in a revolt against Constantinople in 1043 and to the Arbanitai as subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium" since Arbanitai (Arvanites) were subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium part of the Byzantine Theme of Dyrrachium it is common knowledge that the were Byzantine citizens hence the pleated fustanella except if for you the Theme of Dyrrachium was not part of Byzantine Empire. Have you got any source that identify Albanoi (Albanians) as subjects of Duke of Dyrrachium as well? Lets not forget the fact the Ghegs wore tight breeches.[2] Thanks. Othon I (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Othon some time ago a similar discussion was had that had little to do with the premise of the article on the Arvanites talk page [55]. Its going down that road again. The article is about the fustanella, not medaevil Albanians of the 11th century or around that time. Wrong article to be discussing this, if at all. I don't know what the Byzantine Theme of Dyrrachium and Albanian living has to do with the article, unless you have a scholar who discuses the fustanella, that geographical entity, Albanians and Byzantines. Otherwise this is just original research trying to conclude something that has not even been discussed in scholarship (unless you can show the contrary with a sources that links all as one). As for the Ghegs wearing tight breeches (tirq pants) yes they did and some Ghegs in the Shkoder area also still even in the 19th century wore the fustanella (in combination with tirq pants), as per Isa Blumi's article on highlander Albanian dress and is cited in the article. Are you disputing this ? If so what are your sources? Otherwise, this discussion is just about original research on your part.Resnjari (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You still ignore what scholarship proved and that shows your motives. The article identifies fustanella is of Ancient Greek origin and subsequently of Byzantine. You support that it became popular in Greece because of the extensive Albanian which is wrong because it was Arvanite migration. What scholarship and primary sources prove is that "Albanoi as having taken part in a revolt against Constantinople in 1043 and to the Arbanitai as subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium" since Arvanites were subjects of Duke of Dyrrachium, it is common knowledge that their dressing was according to the standards of a Byzantine Empire citizen. You ignoring scholarship when you are not feeling comfortable or its against Albanians and wp:IDONTLIKEIT and you cherry picking your sources that follow your agenda. Thats is a serious violation of wp:NPOV rules of Wikipedia and there are loads of people even in this article that have been accused you for these. I am going to change the terminology to Arvanite settlement from Albanian since the population that speak per se are the Arvanites and not the modern Albanians. Othon I (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Othon, the fustanella's ancient origins are disputed amongst even Greek scholars. Skafidas is a case in point. This article outlines those different positions. There is no one definitive answer. I am sorry if this causes you discomfort but that is how it is. The matter about the Albanoi, i still don't see how that has anything to do with this article. Do you have a wp:reliable and wp:secondary source that links those Albanoi has having received the fustanella from the Byzantines. What is this common knowledge you refer too ? Your source is you ? Give me the title of a book, journal article some other scholarly work. Instead all you are continuing to do to use one bit of information which is interesting but has nothing to do with this article to infer something that is original research. Many people accuse me of many things and that is not new in Wikipedia, like you did regarding a sentence which i did not do (if anyone thinks i have broken any rules, please refer to me the appropriate noticeboards for the matter to be dealt with and to inform me of those proceedings). All sources i have used fit the criteria outlined by Wikipedia and its polices. I am not pushing an agenda. I went out of my way to locate additional sources at my university library and also more newer scholarship which has covered the fustanella as a topic/subject. I recommend you go out also locate these and read them (some are accessible through google books). I have added much to this article that has enhanced knowledge of the fustanella's use both in Greece and Albania. If you can find additional sources that touch upon the fustanella and the Albanoi, bring them here. Otherwise, all you are continuing to do is postulate on this topic through the prism of original research. That's nice for a everyday conversation when with friends over a coffee or if you are doing a piece of research, but here you need something that has been peer reviewed and published at the very least for it to enter the article. As for Arvanite or Albanian i am not fussed.Resnjari (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Renjrari, Can you please stop twisting my words and be wp:civil? I am not following any original research of mine. I am referencing the literature, scholarship and primary sources that identified that "Albanoi as having taken part in a revolt against Constantinople in 1043" and "Arbanitai as subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium". Since Arvanites have been identified as subjects of a Byzantine Duke and Albanoi not (except if you have a reference that identifies Albanoi as subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium because I don't), It can be assumed that the fustanella is a Byzantine influence and not of Albanian. Along with all the other justification that exists on the article. Best regards. Othon I (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The reason why i am stating that it is original research is this. You have cited one source that states that the Albanoi were citizens of the Byzantine state. No one disagrees with this. For the Principality of Arbanon page, the Albanians page, the origins of the Albanian page, or some other page that deals with Albanians or Albanian speakers in the middle ages that edit with accompanying source suffices and warrants its inclusion. In this article, what is its purpose? Does your (same) source state (or link) in addition to the Albanoi being Byzantine citizens, that they also adopted/borrowed or so on the fustanella from the Byzantines ? If it doesn't then the yes its original research. You are inferring and concluding that because the Albanoi/Albanian speakers of that time were at a particular moment in time Byzantine citizens that they borrowed/adopted the fustanella. It may be your personal view, but you need a wp:reliable and wp:secondary source/reference for there to be a sentence in the article on this. If you feel that i have interpreted the policy wrong on original research, i encourage you Othon to place this matter for a edit request were other uninvolved Wikipedia editors can have a look at the matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again wrong as typically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and source misinterpretation, you wrote an absolute argument from ignorance and you accused me on something that haven't even written here. What the reference says clearly is that "In History written in 1079–1080, the Byzantine historian Michael Attaliates referred to the Albanoi as having taken part in a revolt against Constantinople in 1043 and to the Arbanitai as subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium" In the contrary, I haven't written anything about Albanoi being subjects of Byzantine dukes by the time that they haven't been identified as such. However, Arbanitai have been as we see from primary and secondary references and also later, the Principality of Arbanon has been identified as autonomous principality within Byzantine Empire[3]. All these are enough to support that fustanella that came with the migration of the Arvanites was of a Byzantine influence. Othon I (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The last sentence (in conjunction with the other comments) you wrote there "All these are enough to support that fustanella that came with the migration of the Arvanites was of a Byzantine influence" sums up why i keep saying its original research. Which scholar has linked the fustanella, the Albanians speakers i.e Albanoi, Arvvanites etc) as receiving/borrowing/adopting the fustanella from the Byzantines all within the scope of one study ? If you feel that i have misinterpreted this matter, suggest a edit request. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)