This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albania C‑class High‑importance Origin of the Albanians is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Human Genetic History C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Dacia C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Romania C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Linguistics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Eastern Europe C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Middle Ages C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder why the product of this discussion entirely vanished. Since no argument against inclusion of the correspondent text was presented this wp:NINJA needs rv.Alexikoua (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be constructive to avoid removing the text that was produced from this discussion by pretending that it didn't happen at all.Alexikoua (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skylax30: Re the argument you want to modify, we all agree to modify it, though not entirely as you are trying. That is not a problem. We will make the modification after we sort out all ongoing disputes. The rest of your changes need consensus here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Resnari needs to explain why he selfreverted the agreed text.Alexikoua (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have wp:BRD. You have no consensus for your edits. Your reasons for pic removals are based on wp:idontlikeit and nothing more.Resnjari (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, actually no similar article on racial or (pseudo)racial information displays typical white race people with national symbols. Well there are some exception of this rule, like Herrenvolk. But that's an example to avoid.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. Why they should be Albanians? RS please.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua:, maybe you placed your latest comment on the wrong section [7]. Resnjari modified his comment without modifying the time stamp, so Shikuesi4 will not get any ping notification. Pinging again: @Shikuesi4:. As there are several disputes ongoing, I reverted back to the stable version. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi: I won't agree that all changes were controversial, for example Clathinus' contribution about the part that analyzes "The characteristics of the Albanian dialects Tosk and Geg" is fine too me.Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any particular interest in this topic, and the article already gives a good summary of the situation. All I want is to avoid further reverts. All of you discuss, agree on all changes you wish to make and then edit the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have no specific objection I'm going to restore the "Tosk and Geg divide" as editted by Calthinus which solves various problematic issues [[8]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody disagrees with it, it can be restored. But only after all disputes are sorted out. Discuss with the interested editors on the said pictures and the pro/against arguments. After all disputes are sorted out, edit the article. Otherwise everything becomes a mess. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have serious disagreements with Clathinus' edits. In case you haven't this means that per wp:BRD a large scale revert was completely unnecessary per wp:BRD cycle. Alexikoua (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Those changes were a result of other changes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A much more useful picture to have would be a pie chart of haplogroup distributions. --Calthinus (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does WikiCommons have a map for them? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: Indeed I remember that this article once had a number of charts and maps on haplogroup distributions. @Ktrimi: I really wonder why you reverted Calthinus' recent edits as disruptive on the Gheg-Tosk division. Massive reverts without touhcing the topic isn't a cool approach.Alexikoua (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that Calthinus' edit was "disruptive"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You disputed Calthinus' edits as part of your massive revert which removed. Not only this but you removed another section which was editted by me&Resnjari.Alexikoua (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, provide diffs where I say that Calthinus' edit was "disruptive". Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly stated twice that you removed "disputed content" without previous discussion. Though you vanished the product of long discussions and text editted by various editors: me, Resnjary, Calthinus. The text vanished with the excuse that there was no discussion at all.Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provide diffs where I say that Calthinus' edit was "disruptive" and "without previous discussion". You added the recent changes again, they will be removed again. Either have a broad consensus on all disputes, including the pictures between you and Resnjari, or see how you are reverted again, of course not by me but by the community. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus' edits are restored and another part which was the result of a detailed discussion between me&Resnjari. If you still believe that all 3 editors are being disruptive and our contribution needs to be massively reverted then you need to do it per wp:BRD. Please avoid wp;NINJA.Alexikoua (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will return soon. If the issues are not solved, you will be surely reverted. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reverted? The edits were performed by me&Calthinus&Resnjari. Cheers.Alexikoua (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you do not rememeber your own actions, the latest addition of the said content was made by you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually with your massive revert you removed text added by Resnjari [[9]][[10]], Calthinus [[11]]. It's sad you insist that those edits are not constructive. I restored those parts since you offered no explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have said zillions of times that I do not consider any of those edits as "unconstructive". Either this is a strategy of yours to mess the discussion or you do not read what I write at all. I reverted all the changes and advised all editors to solve all disputes and only then make any needed change to the article again. After that you reverted me. Hence, the latest addition of the said content was made by you. Anyways, I will return soon. If you continue messing the situation instead of sorting out all the disputes, I will revert. There are several discussions open on this talk page and massive changes and reverts on the article. We have also to continue our discussion on what happened in the late 2016. But not here, in other places. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's @Alexikoua on about? I never agreed to their additions or removals. Please don't infer something of me. Achieve consensus. Ktrimi991 was right in reverting to the stable version until this gets all sorted out.Resnjari (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise most of the following part were edited by various editors and per correspondent discussion:

Both parts above 1. were product of talkpage participation, 2. various users contributed, 3. per wp:BRD circle a sudden rv with a "back to stable version" excuse equals disruption. Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you still find Calthinus & Resnjari's edits disruptive I assume you need to explain them some reasons. Simply saying that they added desputed content without going into detail isn't a cool approach. By the way both parts above solve several issues.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua its disappointing that your placing in content into the article while there is an ongoing discussion. Please revert and show good faith. I have removed my edits and so should you with content you added until there is consensus.Resnjari (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing why you partially self reverted while #1 above was mostly edited by you. Not to mention that there has been a discussion on this issue. Why should you self revert on a text that was agreed?Alexikoua (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, you don't get it. I don't want you to restore my edits etc. I do want consensus however and ramming in content is not conducive to the matter. Please restore the page back to the stable version until there is proper consensus from participating editors. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird argument I don't want you to restore my edits etc. . I assume you need to explain why you insist to self-rv your edits [[15]][[16]] which were a result of a discussion . I'm sorry per wp:BRD you need to explain this position since those edits were already disccussed here [Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians#For_or_against]]. Please avoid wp:NINJA.Alexikoua (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, no its not a weird argument. There is a talkpage discussion and unresolved issues and i don't want my edits being misused by others. I prefer the stable neutral version until issues are resolved in the talkpage by editors. Please revert to the stable version in the spirit of good faith.Resnjari (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari part #1 above was a product of this discussion: Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians#For_or_against. I would appreciate if you provide there arguments that self refute your previous position, per wp:AGF. Take in mind that I resotred only those parts from this massive revert [[17]] which were a result of constructive discussion & editting by various editors.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi: if the above parts (edited by Clathinus & Resnjari) are once again reverted without explanation you leave me no choice but to report you immediately.Alexikoua (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they will be reverted again till you stop IDONTLIKEIT and start a serious discussion on every dispute, including the pictures. Resnjari, as you do not agree on the massive reverts of Alexikoua, feel free to return the stable version. A solution to the pictures problem should be given before the stable version is changed. Otherwise everything becomes a mess. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated there has been already a discussion Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians#For_or_against. Resnjari & Calthinus edited those parts and solved various issues and they made good additions. I'm afraid that wp:IDONTLIKE applies to you. Pls avoid further wp:NINJA.Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you present some form of argument that those editors (Resnjari&Calthinus) added something that's not appropriate. Especially Resnjari defended his edits very good in this talkpage. It's not good to remove his additions by pretending he didn't participate in any discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari is saying the opposite [18]. I do not have any problem with that content as I even have not read it. The problem is the pics case that is patent IDONTLIKEIT from your side. You are trying to make massive changes to avoid discussing about them. I will return soon, and see if you I need to revert again. You should forget that you can change the article without addressing the pictures' problem. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari is strongly defending #1 addition here (However, Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and also Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin ), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed some light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words." Its why your addition was moved to the section about it being against an Illyrian origin as that whole section from the source is against the view of Albanian having an Illyrian origin). Both #1, #2 additions have been made by various editors & are products of talkpage participaton. You have not presented the slightest argumment & no wonder you admit that you have not even read the correspondent text....Alexikoua (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari is demanding reverting back to the stable version. And so will be till you accept a solution to the pictures problem. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:BRD for a new version a new discussion should take place. Simply saying IDONTLIKEIT means nothing. Also about the pictures I agreed with Calthinus A much more useful picture to have would be a pie chart of haplogroup distributions.Alexikoua (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A map of halogroups is indeed needed, though it will take some time till Calthinus makes it. Someone added two pics of Albanians. Since the article elaborates on the Albanian people, one of those two pics (not both as this article is not a collection of Instagram pics) should stay. Choose one of them and the discussion ends. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of modern day people wearing typical westen-type clothes I won't object some traditional style picture which shows distinct Albanian characteristics. What about one of those here Albanians#Gallery or similar?Alexikoua (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "westen-style" (what does that mean?) there. Maybe you want to say "western-style". Whatever. That fashion style is part of worldwide culture. Anyways, I do not care much. It is up to @Resnjari:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures or drawings that portray Albanian people in traditional clothes or in folklore festivals etc or in general typical images used in the "Albanians" article can be of some use here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, that sounds reasonable. You should have said that in the first place instead of going off into a tangent about something that no one else did. In future avoid that kind of stuff, it does not help a discussion.Resnjari (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On pics, have two for the section (one from the north and one from the south in traditional costume and for it to be in the article of a reasonable size -not big like before with the other pics.Resnjari (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around on wiki commons. For southerners seems there is a lack of pics from this millennium so i've went with the fustanella one. For northerners there are plenty but i want gender diversity so i found one that shows lot of women (along with some men) of the unique costume worn by both genders in the north:Resnjari (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good step we agree that typical white people in modern western style clothes are not helpful in an article about a specific ethinc group. I'm ok with your proposal. Both pics look fine and are helpful for the reader in the same fashion as in the "Albanians" article.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please just don't go there about the "white people" and now adding "in modern western style clothes". Whatever your personal views, editors partaking in discussions here don't need to know and also once again no other editor made it about such things.Resnjari (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intervention is giving results. If there is no other dispute, the changes to the article can be made. On Albanian literature stuff, it should be more expanded, as proposed by me below. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the feeling that unnecessary wp:BRD breaches aren't contructive. Reverting without reading what's going on (as you admitted you didn't read the text) is something you need to avoid.Alexikoua (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add those pics. Objections about the new stable version?Alexikoua (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add the pictures.Resnjari (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

.

Alexikoua: Some more Hungarian/Romanian views here [[19]].

Also, Stadtmiller's theory about Romanians coming from the Morava-Kosovo region and it's relevance to Albanian ethnogenesis, summarized by Malcolm [[20]], here : The main area of the Balkan interior where a Latin-speaking population may have continued, in both towns and country, after the Slav invasion, has already been mentioned: it included the upper Morava valley, northern Macedonia, and the whole of Kosovo. It is, therefore, in the uplands of the Kosovo area (particularly, but not only, on the western side, including parts of Montenegro) that this Albanian-Vlach symbiosis probably developed. [71] All the evidence comes together at this point. What it suggests is that the Kosovo region, together with at least part of northern Albania, was the crucial focus of two distinct but interlinked ethnic histories: the survival of the Albanians, and the emergence of the Romanians and Vlachs. One large group of Vlachs seems to have broken away and moved southwards by the ninth or tenth century; the proto-Romanians stayed in contact with Albanians significantly longer, before drifting north-eastwards, and crossing the Danube in the twelfth century. [72] --Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ktrimi991: Yes it is a good idea. Just let's not let it get too big.--Calthinus (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: Since you have much more knowledge on this topic than me, can you prepare some content when time permits? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time sure. I've been planning a new E-V13 map too. --Calthinus (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. At least we have some lexicographic sources on the word "Arvanitovlachs".--Skylax30 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cinadon36, and former Tzeronymo, I know that you revert what I post withour reading the sources, only because I am Greek. I improve the article with academic sources and I don't need anybody's permission to do so. Stop warring because your record is not better than mine.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring, as you have been warned by Ktrimi996[22], and try to establish consensus. Also, I am not deleting you because you are greek ( I do not know that and I do not really care about anyone's ancestry). Your source was not discussing the origin of Albanian language, there is just a brief, insignificant mention about it. We editors, should find sources that examine the subject in a certain depth and summarize them. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylax30, the same source, Matzinger, is being used to reject claims of several academics. Let the rest of editors read Matzinger and make an evaluation of him. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you that you can "evaluate" the sources? Can we see your credentials?--Skylax30 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really Cinadon, you don't remember our meetings in the Greek WP and your fights against greek history and religion?--Skylax30 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No- I never fought "against greek history and religion", but lets stick to the topic- this is not a forum. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skylax30, if you propose changes based on a source, other editors have the right to check the source and the said changes and see if it is what the article needs. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, check the source, and tell us where in the WP this piece of info should be. If you answer "nowhere", means bad faith.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylax, referring to people by their former usernames is strictly forbidden, and your references to your interactions with Cinadon on Greek Wiki where last I heard you were... permabanned... is unfortunate as well. Focus on the matter at hand and not your colleague, thank you.--Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that mentioning an earlier nickname of a user is forbidden. Does the "right to forget" apply here? On the other hand, I think the user in question has recently mentioned here the fact that I was previously blocked in the greek WP, which did not provoke your reaction, sir.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylax30, nobody here cares about your "bad faith" assumptions. If you do not like the discussion process, do not edit Wikipedia at all. Re the Meshari (16th century), I highlighted it as the first literary work in Albanian long ago before you started to do. It is accepted by every Albanian scholar. But since there is another theory on the article, working out a neutral wording for both is the issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that about Meshari? I can't find with a search.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can not find it. The first Albanian literary book written in the 16th century is Meshari by Gjon Buzuku. Based on several sources, I will post here a proposal for the said section. Do not revert again, wait till things are sorted out here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“

The first written mention of the Albanian language was on 14 July 1284 in Dubrovnik in modern Croatia when a crime witness named Matthew testified: "I heard a voice shouting on the mountainside in the Albanian language" (Latin: Audivi unam vocem, clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca). In 1998 Albanian scholar Musa Ahmeti discovered a manuscript written by Theodor of Shkodra, for whom little is yet known. Written in 1210, it has not been published yet. Robert Elsie noted that will impact Albanian studies. Besides a few almost unintelligible lines from the Bellifortis manuscript from 1405, there are several records of written Albanian dating from the second half of the 15th century. They are mostly short phrases in foreign-language manuscripts. The best known of them is the baptismal formula Formula e Pagëimit by Pal Engjëlli, dating bact from 1462. The first book written in Albanian is Meshari by Gjon Buzuku in 1555.

”

The sources are Elsie, Matasovič and those used by Skylax30. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you tried to do is patent fringe. I will return soon. The end of the year demands more concentration on things other than Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Florian Blaschke: Did you know there is a talk page to discuss? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skylax30: Every single change made by you will be reverted till you respond here. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was an aggressive invitation to "respond" to the "owner", which I will not buy. Article will be improved with credible sources. If you want to discuss, you are welcome. Explain why you delete all this material.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are capable of reading, read what I have written above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to write and read for the last 3.600 years. I also invented irony.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about ?Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We might be able to understand that after "3.600 years". Do you understand why Wikipedia is losing credibility? Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The manuscript allegedly written by Theodor of Shkodra in the 13th century is an odd case. Its discoverer claimed it was in Albanian, but never published a single word of the text (except for the colophon) and hasn't allowed any other scholar to examine the manuscript. Even 20 years since the discovery, the manuscript remains unpublished, which is completely unusual and in blatant contradiction with scholarly norms. There is absolutely no way to verify any of the discoverer's claims. There is no way to verify that the manuscript is in Albanian. We have only the word of a single man, who refuses access to the manuscript. There is no way to be certain that the manuscript even exists. The discoverer could be a fraud, and his strange behaviour for a scholar is certainly in agreement with that possibility.

I'm not opposed to mentioning the alleged manuscript in the text. However, to claim such a shaky case as "the oldest evidence for Albanian" (when the evidence isn't even public) and delete all mention of uncontroversial early Albanian texts is unacceptable, counter to Wikipedia's scholarly standards and reeks of ultra-nationalistic POV warrioring. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian media itself has been scathing of the find. This article [23] by Ramaj (first published in the Iliria newspaper in 2007 for Albs living in the USA) brings up the same issues you have Florian Blaschke. In the end i'm in favour of removing the reference about Shkodrani from the article.Resnjari (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm far from alone in my extreme scepticism. An Albanologist I talked about the manuscript many years ago was highly suspicious of the story too. According to Nick Nicholas, Joachim Matzinger, a leading expert on Old Albanian, has dismissed the manuscript as a "pure hoax". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming about "reeks of ultra-nationalistic POV warrioring" while yourself blindly reverted without even considering participating in the discussion is not of help to this discussion. Nobody is trying to give credit to the said manuscript or claim that it is "the oldest evidence for Albanian". Not sure where did you find that. Indeed the manuscript is sth very controversial, and a problem to be solved. Do you have suggestions for the wording as proposed by above? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would accuse various editors who are into revert-warring and not participating in this page. Florian Blaschke is certainly "not" one of them.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are those editors who are not participating in this page? If time permits, invite them to come and discuss here. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't paid attention. The only one who was blindly reverted was me. The version that was reverted to indeed presented the manuscript as the oldest evidence for Albanian and suppressed mention of any other text, counter to sources. The version I had instated was cited, and explained.

To call the manuscript "controversial" is an understatement. There's a single Albanian scholar who claims to have found a manuscript, but refuses to provide evidence. Leading experts in Albanian rightly dismiss his claim. That's at the very least WP:FRINGE territory.

"Reeks of" is not an assumption, by the way. It's a suspicion, or even a deduction from the evidence. Whoever unduly pushes this manuscript as the oldest text in Albanian to the exclusion of other, uncontroversial texts, which are generally recognised by experts as the oldest Albanian texts, is acting like an ultra-nationalist POV warrior. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not making sense. You reverted without making a single comment here and accuse others of blindly reverting! Anyways, this discussion is not about perceived "reeks" or "ultra-nationalist POV warrior", it is about content. What changes do you propose to be made to the proposal above? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its best to remove it from the article. The article should just refer to certified texts. Musa Ahmeti has been criticised within the Albanian world as well [24]. When scholars first cited this in their works it was at the time when Ahmeti said he made the find. Many waited for something to appear and years later it was disappointments all round.Resnjari (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, the Theodor of Shkodra article should be modified as that way it is misleading. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 Ahmeti took the scholarly world on a ride. Its been more then a decade. Something should have come up. If he couldn't publish further then other scholars could have went to the Vatican archive and taken over researching his "find". Getting funding for a grant from a university about things like this would not be hard, it would be too good a opportunity to pass up by either an institution or an up and coming scholar wanting to make a name for themselves.Resnjari (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It it is a good rationale. The Theodor of Shkodra put aside, do you have any other suggestion to the proposal above? The current version of the section on the article is entirely POV. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Blaschke Your arguments are persuasive and you have my full support. The article is indeed plagued by a couple of nationalist editors that refuse to allow any changes to the article and continuously stonewall any changes with claims of "stable version" and "no consensus". Khirurg (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg do you care to elaborate and name these "nationalist editors". Or is it more bluster from you?Resnjari (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take it there are no further objections to removing the Theodore of Shkodra manuscript stuff then? Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will not remove anything. We are discussing a whole section to be modified. Do not rush and answer: Who are those "nationalist editors"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg who were you referring to as "nationalist editors"?Resnjari (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 Stop giving orders. There is no way we are going to allow this hoax to be included in a neutral encyclopedia. Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to have consensus to have the Theodore of Shkodra stuff removed, you should stop making off-topic comments. Before I change my mind. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the Theodore of Shkodra hoax, and I strongly advise that you do not revert. If you know what I mean. Khirurg (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After some reflction, the Thodore of Shkodra should be on the article. Both POVs, that is a hoax and that it might help Albanology (as per Elsie) should be present. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, when Elsie wrote it was a short time after Ahmeti announced his find. But many, many years later scholars have not included it in their works. Plus even in the Albanian world this "find" and Ahmeti has been criticised [25]. Maybe this can stay for the Albanian litreture article, but for this page it becomes a problematic centre of attention.Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idk. On one hand the logic is viable but on the other hand Elsie had enough time to change his mind but apparently he did not. I agreed to remove it but changed my mind again and now think that both POVs regarding Theodore Shkodrani should be present. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, i know where your coming from but Elsie did not update his book and by the time Ahmeti's handywork was revealed Elsie was ill and later passed away. Khirurg, you still haven't provided a reply as to who were you referring to in here as "nationalist editors"? I am very curious.Resnjari (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK Resnjari, I trust your desire to improve the coverage of the topic as much as possible. I am not going to revert to the stable version, regradless of some word games by Khirurg. He takes some things very personally but I am not going to pay attention to that. Since you Resnjari wish so, I agree with changing the stable version. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With @Khirurg, i'm never surprised. lolResnjari (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Khirurg, you still haven't clarified as to who you where refering to in here as "nationalist editors"?Resnjari (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When removing relevant sourced material, the burden of proof lies with those removing the material. They need to provide a very good reason why it should not be included in the article. So far, I have not seen any sign of this, only appeals to "muh stable version", which is nothing more than WP:IDHT type stonewalling and disruption. Khirurg (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you 'd suggest we bypass the consensus building procedure? I have seen some very reasonable explanations for going back to stable version.Cinadon36 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg, you never "see" reasons . You might rv desperately but that will give nothing. Consensus is important. Anyhow, I am waiting for Resnjari and Alexikoua to sort out the last ongoing dispute before changes are made to the article. Meanwhile, if it happens that you have some free time, have a look at the discussions above. You might be able to create an idea about what editors are discussing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that those parts have been agreed by several editors:

The above edits 1. are a product of discussion , 2. contributed various editors. Suddenly Ktrimi performed wp:NINJA by pretending that this isn't a stable version but he admits that he didn't even read the text... clear wp:IDONTLIKEIT and violation of wp:BRD procedure.Alexikoua (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua can you please stop invoking me and my edits in your comments that i have somehow agreed. Ktrimi991 was right to restore the stable version of the article until issues are resolved in the talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you need to explain why you are now against your own edits & arguments. Nevertheless its disappointing that you remove entirely even Calthinus additions. Care to explain what makes you now against the above additions?Alexikoua (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The supporters of the Albanian-national-myths-POV, lacking any explanations on why certain sources should be excluded, they're trying to drag everybody to eternal discussions and the quest of a "consensus" which will never be. At least one of them, has taken the path to personal insults, like questioning my ability to read, warning that "I will be reverted for ever", and behaving like owner. Another one, having contributed nothing to the article, prevents the addition of new material, for reasons that the Greek speakers know very well. If there are problems with the material and the sources I add, let us know what exactly is the problem. "Stability" is not the dogma of WP. Development is. --Skylax30 (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In our case the "back to stability" excuse but refusing to provide counter-arguments equals wp:NINJA considering that the above additions are a product of discussion and constructive editing by multiple users.Alexikoua (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope and don't misuse my past edits to the article for your use here. I removed them from the article to build good faith. Stable version is fine for now. Achieve consensus.Resnjari (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NINJA isn't an excuse to remove Calthinus and even your edits as disruptive. No wonder no argument for BRD disruption provided.Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my edits first as discussion is ongoing here and you added them back. Ktrimi991 went back to the stable version something which i suggested for you to do but you continued with your way. Now a constructive discussion can be had to end the impasse or the alternative is there is no point in engaging with this further.Resnjari (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation about reverting equals NINJA. Especially if you believe that your own edits don't deserve addition. But it's sad you also insist that Calthinus addition has to suddenly vanish as non cosntructive. Calthinus wasted much time to fix several issues in this one.Alexikoua (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No i on insist the stable version (so good faith is maintained) until issues are sorted out something which i said to you but you did not take into account. No one has said that content wont go into the article or that all of it wont go back in. I myself added a lot of things recently to the article as well, so its no just one person or two who are at a loss. But things need to be sorted out here first.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correspondent section about #1 part awaits your latest comments here [[29]] (in case you are against inclusion of part #1 ).Alexikoua (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, its fine just make sure they have the wikilinks (i.e like to Brindisi etc) in that section when you readd it.Resnjari (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua's strange insistance to put words on other editors' mouth or to demand explanations from others while they have made them several times put aside, if there is no other dispute to solve, make the changes you all agreed on. Re the first attestation section, place there the expanded paragraph I have posted in the section above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since we settled things about #1, let me present you Calthinus' changes about #2:

Calthinus removed cn tags, made the prose more clear, fixed issues with the inline citation. Objections about his intervention?Alexikoua (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss with @Resnjari: about these. If he agrees, add them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually with this bit too i added much and tweaked stuff. Overall its fine. The only thing is Jirecek needs to be spelt Jireček with a č.Resnjari (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement isn't a bad concept. I still wonder why the z from Jizerek trigerred such a reaction and one failed report. Consider that BRD cycle is a less frustrating procedure.Alexikoua (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't about Jirecek. The disputes were outlined in the above threads.Resnjari (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me sum up: #1 and #2 were reverted and the objection was one 'z' and one internal link for Brindisi. Well I don't know if this deserved so much frustation which culminated with one failed report.Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope it had to do with page removals based on things like race. Until that got sorted out stable version was fine.Resnjari (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Yo Skylax, no one in this thread brought up the outdated and discredited concept of race apart from you, so i don't see the point of wh ere your going with this. As for "turkified" the foundational population group of most modern Anatolian Turks (who today are around 50 million people) are Orthodox Greek speaking Byzantines that after embracing Islam linguistically switched to Turkish. There is a book i recommend to you about the four centuries process: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century [30] by Speros Jr. Vryonis (1971). Even today there are Muslim Greek speaking people in Turkey, but due to Islam they identify as Turks (see Greek speaking Muslims). The process of "Turkification" or becoming Turks has most affected Orthodox Greek speaking people for the past millennium in the Balkan and Anatolian regions.Resnjari (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't have to pretend anything about Greeks, just read. Start with this [31], continue with this [32], and if you have questions don't hesitate to ask. But not here, as it is off topic.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matzinger and Schumacher are top Albanologists [[33]]. All scholar views should be part of this article. It's really sad that Matzinger's work was removed in NINJA fashion recently. Scholarship tends to reject PRA stereotypes and that's reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anyway on the matter of Matzinger, he does not refer to Proto-Albanian as having formed in the "16th-18th Albanian literature/speech." In one publicly available study [34] where Matzinger discusses his position on Proto-Albanian, he locates its formation within the inner Balkans from a period stretching from late antiquity (late Roman period) for a few centuries until the early medieval period (see pages 11-12, 17, 18). Its in line with other scholars like Orel, Hamp and so on.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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