Talk:Arvanites/Archive 2

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

Arvanites are Albanians

The Republic of Greece might not recognize ethnic minorities among its citizens, but it is a period-ending fact the presence of the Arvanites, Albanians who have lived in Greece for centuries. Please be honest and accept that Arvanties are part of the Albanian ethnic family by all the means.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of relation do you have with Arvanites? Have you ever met any? Have you ever seen any? If I were of Arvanite origin, how would I be able to prove it, since there is no distiction between Arvanites and Cretan Greeks? This fact automatically makes arvanites incapable of editing this article. Arvanites were probably Albanians in the 13th century, are you happier now? However, both modern Arvanites and modern Albanians have significantly changed since then in every single aspect. They have changed so much as to be considered a completely different ethnic group, with some distant common linguistic origin. Today Arvanites are Greek nationals, and as much ethically Greek as the Normans are French. The fact is that there's no ethnic distinction between Arvanites and Greeks today, deal with it and go on with your life. If you continue pushing Albanian POV in Greek articles, I'll ask for mediation. Miskin 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• You can't compare the Arvanites and Greeks with the Normans and French as the Normans settled in insignificant numbers and were easily assimilated in both a cultural and physical sense. I agree that the Arvanites can't be considered the same as Albanians but it also can't be said there is no ethnic distinction between them and Greehks. Culturally, the differences may be very subtle in some cases but ethnicity also involves other traits as well as common origins. The fact they can still be considered a distinct group within Greece clearly demonstrates they are separate from ethnic Greeks. 69.157.121.76 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not use the word 'fact' for something that u are not aware of.Arvanites in no case are considered distinct from the rest greeks.the only way that someone could say that they are distinct,is in regional scale,as all the greeks are:epirots,peloponnesians,macedonians,arvanites,cretan,pontians and so on.u also have to keep in mind that language is not the only factor in ethnic-identification.nor the religion is.the arvanites are as much greeks as the cretans...and the catholics in Tinos are as much greeks as the orthodox of Paros.If they were not-greeks they would not have rebelled during the greek war of independance,nor would they had been and continue to been elected in the greek parliament,as high as prime ministers and presidents of greece.--Hectorian 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hectorian. I've been saying the same during the last months. talk to +MATIA 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed pseudoscientific section

I removed this section: it looks like nationalist pseudoscientific drivel. bogdan 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek inscriptions

Two archaeological discoveries, and in particular a Corinthian chrism from the 7th century BC and a clay wine-pitcher dating back to 725 BC, have been interpreted by the author Nikos Stylos^[1] as Arvanitic inscriptions.

• • ^ "Greek Arvanitic Lexicon". arvasynel.gr. Retrieved December 14, 2005.

Other Thraco-Illyrian tribe

Thraco-Illyrian tribe, but not particularly related to the Albanian branch.

This can be easily be proven false, because it is rather easy to find when their language split from Tosk Albanian. Are there any trustworthy sources for this theory ? bogdan 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed this. I don't see why do you keep reverting to the Albanian version, which ignorantly states that Arvanites are an "ethnic Albanian" minority. Before you edit-war with me, be aware that I'm willing to take this debate through all the steps of wiki-justice. Miskin 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

a note to Pjetër Bogdani and anyone else interested

I suggest you revert yourself. talk to +MATIA 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The story goes on and on for many months. Enough with the unsourced and unverifiable claims of few Albanian editors, will this article be improved or it will continue to be vandalised? Is this the wikipedia we want? talk to +MATIA 13:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And now a guy from Romania, User:141.85.37.4 reverts to the same version as User:Pjetër Bogdani... talk to +MATIA 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And User:Bomac too... come on... who else? talk to +MATIA 16:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

and User:Zogu talk to +MATIA 17:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I don't think these guys are reverting to my edit because they just like to support me, but because they know what the truth is; thus they have embraced my objective view.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 04:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually do not think that I have vandalized the article. I have just removed some non-sense information and added some neutral one. Even though I supported the theory that the Arvanites are Albanian people (like the Serbs are Slavs) other hypothesis still remain on the page.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RS. By the way, the next time you edit unlogged with that ip from Romania, you'll be blocked for breaking the WP:3RR. And keep in mind that I'll bring that article again at ArbCom. Have a nice day. talk to +MATIA 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am located somewhere else and not in Romania (do not have to tell you where). Please specify who you are talking to now, because this does not apply to me.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This information is getting back on the article whether you like it or not. We're willing to take this dispute at the furthest level, so before you continue adding your unsourced information, make sure you're prepared to cope. Miskin 01:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article again. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page first, but note that this is not about who's right and who isn't. The article in its current form doesn't cite any sources. If there are multiple viewpoints, find sources for all of them as a first step. Then present each viewpoint along the lines "Group A has said X", backed up with sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to say what "The Truth" is; it's Wikipedia's job to present all relevant viewpoints neutrally and fairly. I've explained this in more detail on this talk page before; check the archives. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear MarkSweep, this article has been through ArbCom and some Admins and Arbs back then recognised the impossibility of Arvanites being an Albanian minority in Greece. As for sources I've listed them at the buttom in the refferences section. talk to +MATIA 17:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content issues in general, and in the case involving REX has not taken any position on what the status of Arvanites or Arvanitic is. All they have done is note that there is a dispute going on, which had turned incivil. Your summary of the arbitration case is confused at best, and dishonest at worst. As I've said many times, the way forward is to cite sources and represent all viewpoints fairly and neutrally. If some people have said that the Arvanites are Albanian, then find a source and cite it; if others have said they are not, find a source, cite it, and note that there is no agreement. It's all very simple once you realize that Wikipedia cannot determine the Absolute Truth, whatever that may be. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Respect WP:NPA MarkSweep and keep characterizations as dishonest for yourself the next time. As for the confused part... what can I say... the article cites sources and you called it unsourced... I have cited books with ISBNs read the ArbCom case (workshop etc) and the article more carefully. You did well to protect the article but you have no right to insult me. talk to +MATIA 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read the ArbCom case and nowhere is there any judgement that would resolve the content dispute one way or another. If you claim otherwise, you invite charges of dishonesty. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The viewpoing that Albanian nationalists consider Arvanites to be an Albanian minority is already mentioned. It's even mentioned that the Albanian prime minister once said it in public and enraged the entire greek community (Arvanites included) I don't see what else could be brought up as an alternative viewpoint apart from that. Miskin 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as predicted, Albanian editors don't cite sources nor instigate a conversation, thinking that the current locked version is actually supported by the admin who protected the page. Once the page is unlocked, it will be justifiably return to its normal version. Miskin 22:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid there is such a thing as a "wrong version", in cases where one version complies with WP standards and the other doesn't. The only way to settle this is to say there is this dispute and quote both sides. If one side is really accounted for by crackpot Albanian nationalists, I am afraid there will be nothing but to present it this way. dab (ᛏ) 12:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No dear Dab. I have read some (pro) Albanian authors and I haven't seen such unreliable quotes. talk to +MATIA 12:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

well, it is undisputed that the Arvanitic language is Albanian. There is a difference between linguistic classification and ethnic self-identification, and the Arvanitic language appears to be dying out anyway; it makes still sense to state that speakers of Arvanitic would be classified as Albanians linguistically. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the diff my friend. It was stated clearly in the correct version (the one actually based on reliable, verifiable sources). talk to +MATIA 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

arvanites

(moved from User talk:Dbachmann)

There is a problem here. The problem is that Greek nationlists won't allow what can be found in resources to be written on the page. According with UNESCO http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_report.html#Arvanitika Arvanitika is Albanian dialect. Why we not say that on the page? That is not said nowhere. They instead use wealsel word "shares a common origin". That is not found in no source. Show what source says that. They also don't allow the name used by the Arvanites of northwestern Greece, "Shqiptaret". This is found in human rights report http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html. According with that report some arvanites use Arberoret and some shqiptaret. They only write the Arberoret name, they hide the shqiptaret name. Why? That is not npov. Matia also tries to scare people away by thranating that she will say to ArbCom that I am adding unsourced infomation to the page. That is not true. Why will they not write what the resources say. They try to hide the things that they don't like. Zogu

afaik, it is undisputed that the Arvanitic language is an Albanian dialect. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since my name is mentioned here, I'd like to clarify that I'm not threatening. I will take it to ArbCom and wherever else needed. talk to +MATIA 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem. Their (former) language is Albanian. They self-identify as Greeks (nationality). So? Where is the dispute? dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is that Matia and other Greeks are try to say that their (former) language is not Albanian but an independant language. The Arvanites in north west Greece call themselves Shqiptaret according to the human rights report http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html and are considered part of the modern Albanian nation. Matia and the other Greeks do not allow that on the page. Zogu

Will you login Zogu? talk to +MATIA 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, a language is not a nation. My language is a dialect of German, but I am not a member of the German nation. Similarly, according to your very link, most Arvanites object to being labeled as "Albanians". Linguistically, the facts are clear, nor is there a dispute on the classification at Arvanitic language: It's an Albanian dialect. The article on the Arvanites themselves can certainly mention that classification, but only when put in a context making clear that most of them resent being classified as ethnic Albanians. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The linguistic classification was clearly mentioned on the correct version (not the version that Zogu supports). But some editors were only interested to revert Greeks... talk to +MATIA 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In north Greece that is not true. According to the human rights report http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html

As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia, they are considered to be part of the modern Albanian nation (Banfi, 1994:20), something which perhaps explains their self-identification as Shqiptars rather than Arberor.

According to the Albanian editors you're an ethnic German living abroad. It doesn't matter how you feel by it, there's nothing you can do to change it. Miskin 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can that not be put in the page. Also, Matias version does not say what the resource says. The resource say it is Albanian dialect, matia uses weasel word "shares common origin". Zogu

I'm getting the picture; well, if you ask me, mention the linguistic classification, mention the "Shqiptaret" designation of the NW people (if substantiated),hell, if necessary disambiguate between northern and southern Arvanites, and mention the southern preference to be classified as ethnic Greeks. I'm sure if you address one point at a time, Matia will be prepared to rephrase the "common origin" wording. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites are as ethnic Albanians as the Britons are ethnic British. The Albanian posistion is contradictory to also most every wikipedia ethnic article. Miskin 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no human rights report that says that the britons are ethnic british. Zogu

It must be pointed out that I've cross-checked the infamous HHRW report with the sources I've found and some parts, like the "fact" about Arvanites of Epirus are "unstable". Dab you could verify via a library visit that Arvanitika is (partly) an ancient form of Albanian (not exactly un-evolved, but evolved seperately, hence the "common origin" wording). Should we go around and write that Albanians are an Arvanitic minority in Albania? (note: ethnic not linguistic) talk to +MATIA 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is your pov. The resource say that arvanites in north greeks are considered part of the modern albanian nation. Why you don't want to put it in the page? The unesco report say that Arvanitika is albanian dialect. You don't want to use that either. why? Zogu

All dialects have "common origin". dbachmanns example swiss German and standard German have common origin, but are dialects. Zogu

Albanian editors are ignorant enough to imagine the an "Arvanite" person as a regular speaker of the Arvanite language. The language is practically dead today, and a person of Arvanite origin can speak Arvanite in the frequence that an Irish-American can speak Gaelic. What's more ridiculous is that a Greek of Arvanite origin doesn't have the means of proving his origin, hence he'll be ignored and regarded as a common Greek (which in fact he is). Miskin 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I not say that. I say that Arvanitika is Albanian dialect and that Arvanites in north greece are considered part of the modern albanian nation and call themselves shqiptaret. I not lie. All this is from the nutral resources. Zogu

I wouldn't care to say that Arvanite is a dialect of Albanian, but I know for a fact that does offend an Arvanite. If you insist to claim Arvanite a dialect of Albanian, then I'll make sure Macedonian Slavic will be mentioned as Bulgarian, Croatian as Serbian, etc. If not, we'll be using double-standards. The criteria of classifying a language are socio-linguistic and not strictly linguistic. Miskin 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If a unesco report say that those languages are dialects you can say that on wikipedia. Zogu

Dbachmann you see the problem. Greek users say that I have no resources but so far only I have given resources. Zogu

I don't care about the UNESCO report. Being politically correct in a nearly-extinct linguistic group of Greece is the last thing on their mind. I know what Arvanites and Arvanite scholars have said, and this is what will go in the article. Miskin 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Matia, but "Albanian" is simply the conventional name of one of the 12 major branches of Indo-European languages, as well as the name of a modern nation. This is unfortunate, but the problem is not unique, compare German (language vs. Germany), English (language vs. England), etc. etc.; It appears that the Arvanites are simply Greeks who traditionally were speaking an Albanian dialect (I did not check that linguistic classification in a library, but I understand it is undisputed). We might add that the Arvanites are unhappy to be classified as Albanians and leave it at that. Speakers of Swiss German can be classified as "German speakers" linguistically, but not as "Germans" ethnically. Similarly, the Arvanites should be classified as "Albanian speakers" linguistically, but not as "Albanians" ethinically. I think we have established that this dispute concerns only Arvanites of Northern Greece / Epirus. I suggest you do a section specifically about those, and add a section-npov template there. Can we take this back to the article talkpage, guys? The Irish Gaelic simile is inexact; the Irish may speak about as much Gaelic as the Arvanites speak Arvanitic, but the Irish certainly consider themselves Gaels, not English, while the Arvanites apparently are more assimilated and do consider themselves Greeks. It's a little bit like calling a Frenchman a Frank (or Franconian). dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You may copy this section (or move it) there. :) talk to +MATIA 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So dab you help? Because matia and miskin pretend that my resources dont exist and then erase my edits and then say that I have given no resources. Zogu

There are official documents in which Arvanites don't identify themselves as Albanians nor their language as Albanian. As I said before, if Arvanite is forcefully classified as Albanian, then Croatian should be forcefully classified as Serbian. In fact the only difference between the former is that is has a national status. Similarly Macedonian Slavic is Bulgarian. Arvanite is probably a dialect of Albanian, but then again so is Macedonian Slavic to Bulgarian. But that's not what wikipedia says. Miskin 15:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Miskin you are wrong ;) There are historical records (Venetian and others). Everything will be solved eventually. talk to +MATIA 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What official documents? Arvanitika is not forsfully called Albanian. Unesco say that Arvanitika is Albanian dialect. When unesco say that those languages are dialects you too can write that they are. Zogu

What you're suggesting is correct dab. The detail here is that Arvanite-speakers practically do not exist anymore. I don't see why do we have to enrage Greeks (Arvanites included) by classifying Arvanite as Albanian, since it's explicitely mentioned that they're two closely related languages of a common origin. I don't understand why we're discussing the linguistic question anyway, the article is about Arvanites not the Arvanite language. Albanian editors are explicitely claiming that Arvanites are an Albanian ethnic minority in Greece, and the article is locked in that ridiculous version as we speak. This is why I'm here, not because I don't want Arvanite language to be classified under Albanian. Miskin 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when did UNESCO become the bible of linguistic classification? Enough about linguistics already, do you or do you not agree Zogu to revert Arvanites to its previous version and remove any references of "Albanian ethnic group" etc? Miskin 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a resource and if you look, Britannica talks about Albanian dialects in Greece (arvanites) and Italy (arbereshe). I have give an resource that say it it dilect. You have given no resource that say that it is not. Only your pov. Zogu

I'll give you those sources later and in a different discussion page. Now please answer the initial question. Do you accept to stop making ridiculous claims about Arvanites being "ethnic Albanians"? Do you accept to revert the article to its previous version or not? Miskin 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to write that Arvanitika is albanian dialect and that the arvanites in north Greece name themselves Albanians (Shqiptaret) and are considered part of the modern Albanian nation. Exactly what the resources say. You only have Arberor in the first paragraf, please put Shqiptare there too. It is true, it is in the resource. Zogu

Are the Albanians part of the modern greek nation? Were they part of a greek nation or state in the past? talk to +MATIA 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. The resource say http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html

As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia, they are considered to be part of the modern Albanian nation (Banfi, 1994:20), something which perhaps explains their self-identification as Shqiptars rather than Arberor.

Why you dont want to write that on the page? I am not writing something wrong. Zogu

The Arvanitic language is an Albanian dialect. Let's state that instead of the ethnic stuff. Linguistic classification does not prejudice ethnic classification, and in the present case, this is of historical interest at most, since the language is apparently dying; the "are considered part of the modern Albanian nation" is dodgy. "Are considered" by whom? If "by themselves", we may have a dispute to document. At least we seem to agree that "Arvanites are ethnic Albanians" is not an acceptable statement and should be changed on unprotection. What percentage of the 1.6 million is made up of Arvanites "of Epirus and Western Macedonia", and why is that distribution not detailed in the article? dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab. We not obliged to say every thing. We say that Arvanitika is Albanian dialect and that the arvanites in north Greece call themselves shqiptaret and not arberoret (that is what the rest arvanites name themselves). also there is no census on arvanites in greece since 1951. Zogu

Whether Arvanitika is an Albanian dialect belongs to a different article. Honestly that's not what I care about at the moment. I care about Albanians refusing to accept that Arvanites are not ethnic Albanian today by any means. There are no Arvanites in Western Macedonia and Epirus. Those were Chams, meaning proper ethnic Albanians, it's wrong to refer to them as Arvanites. In any case, those were deported during and after WW2 so there's no point discussing it. Please try to keep the linguistic and ethnic matter separate. Miskin 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in this page as well, there where it says that Arvanitika is a language with a "common origin". It should also be mentioned on the Arvanitic language page. According with the source, there are arvanites in north Greece. You have givven no resources, only your pov. What is wrong with my edits - we can remove that where it says "ethnic Albanians" and replase it with "people". Why are you not cooperate? The facts are that Arvanitika is albanian dialect and the arvanites in north Greece name themselves as shqiptaret and not arberoret. It is from resources. Why you not like these edits? Zogu

Where's the source that claims the existence of Arvanites with Albanian ethnic feelings in Northern Greece? Please quote the exact reference along with its sources. Secondly the Albanian/Arvanite debate has already been through mediation, and it was decided to leave it as is is at the moment. This is WP:POLICY, take it or leave it. Miskin 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote from the Helsinki report just quote its sources. The Albanians of Northern Greece were not Arvanites. The report doesn't really differentiate betweeen "Arvanitic" and "Albanian", this is why it abstractly refers to all Albanian-speaking peoples of Greece as "Arvanite", which is wrong. Please provide me with a source that verifies the present existence of an Arvanitic-speaking community in Northern Greece that identifies itself as ethnic Albanian. Miskin 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Check your own sources: Geographical location: Greece: in rural areas mainly in Attica -> proof that Arvanitic populations DO NOT exist in Northern Greece. As it's impossible to assume anything about a non-existant population, this matter is closed. Miskin 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I not say "Albanian ethnic feelings". I say that they call themselves shqiptaret and not arberoret. Point me to where I say "Albanian ethnic feelings". I never say that. The source is the report http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html:

As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia, they are considered to be part of the modern Albanian nation (Banfi, 1994:20), something which perhaps explains their self-identification as Shqiptars rather than Arberor.

You see, the arvanites in epirus and Western Macedonia self identify as Shqiptar not Arberor. Zogu

Ergo, they belong in the Albanians article, where they are already mentioned, and not here.--Theathenae 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That your pov. The resource say the Arvanites of Epirus... So they belong here. This is the article on the Arvanites. Zogu

If they don't self-identify as Arvanites, then they are not Arvanites. Γκέγκε;--Theathenae 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That also your pov. Arberor and Shqiptar both mean Albanian. Arberor is only a more old fashioned way. This is because epirus and western Macedonia were part of the Otoman empire for longer and were in the same country as the rest of Albanians for longer too. The obdjective here is what the resource say. The resource name them Arvanites of Epirus and western Macedonia who self identify as Shqiptar. So they should be in this article untill you can give a resource that say they are not arvanites. Dab agree too. Read above. If you want to say that they are not arvanites you have to give a resource like I did. If matia does ask the arbcom they sould also ceck the fact that you are not respect the resources and give none of yours. The fact that Miskin is rude and the fact that matia is try to intmidate me and other users like Pjeter Bogdani with thrats. Zogu

The upholding of the policies (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE etc) is part of ArbCom's job. You are writing long paragraphs here that have little (if anything) to do with the recent ( see the diff) reverts in that article. I can only assume that they were blind reverts. talk to +MATIA 18:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No matia, they are not blind reverts. I know I removed greek propaganda that all arvanites name themselves as arberor and that arvanitika is not albanian dialect. You accuse me of not have resources. I do have resources as you can see above. So far I have not seen resource from you. Even Dab agree with what resources say. Do you agree? Zogu

After many library visits, I have written the bigger part of this article (especially since September) and I've listed my sources at the buttom (Biris, Moraitis, Kollias etc). You (and the rest editors who reverted to your version) removed the phrase "linguistic minority" and wrote instead "Albanian ethnic minority", changed the greek names of the Arvanites authors, "their Albanian language" instead of Arvanitic language, etc (see the red parts at the diff). Who are you trying to fool? talk to +MATIA 18:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You want to talk about reverts without resources. Look at this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&diff=38090883&oldid=38089532, you are reomving the christusrex source, removing the sourced fact that some arvanites call themselves shqiptare, removing the sourced fact that arvanitika is an albanian dialect (part of the albanian language), adding unsourced information that the arvanites do not want to be recognissed as an etnik minority (how do you know - resource? If there is no resource, you don't write nothing). As you can see, you are not perfect and are making unsourced revert. Who are you to tell me not to do something you do? You also did not tell me if you agree with dab and me. Zogu

Unreadable

Guys, could you all please use section headings, indents, and proper signatures to make this talk page more readable? Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Lukas, don't even try to see the archived page... talk to +MATIA 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

proposal version

I make proposal version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites/test can you check? Zogu

You beat me to it. I've got another one currently at User:LukasPietsch/Arvanites. Most important I think is the first sentence, on which both new versions agree: speaking of a "linguistic minority", not an "ethnic minority" or "Albanian minority". - Note that this is only a collection of building blocks for the disputed parts of the article, it's not the full material. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I not know for sure - it seem ok, but it is dubius to claim that all arvanites dismiss being called albanians. No resource can claim that. It is possible to say that most arvanites. Also, the Shqiptare name should go in the first paragraf with arberore. The arvanites of north Greece are not second class. Thank you for the time you spent :) Zogu

Okay. I personally have no problem with moving the "shqiptare" towards the top, perhaps qualified by "somtimes also" or something to that effect (since it seems to be a minority usage and probably controversial within the community itself.) - As for qualifiers to "all arvanites", my impression was that all the statements I put in the article were already hedged by words like "most", "many", "typically" etc. - Actually, we do have sources that describe the opposition against the "Albanian" attribute as a stance shared by the Arvanitic community at large (e.g. the Helsinki report in its first paragraph), and given what I've seen here, it seems very clear to me that this stance is at the very least characteristic of the large majority of Arvanites in Greece.Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zogu, before 100 years Albanian and Greek people were much closer. Let's say (thought that's not exactly the case) that what happened next - during the Balkan Wars, the two World Wars etc - was a mistake of the goverments. However this effected the people too. To give a more specific example the Arvanites of Epirus or Macedonia, along with the rest Greeks weren't exactly a welcoming party for the Italians and the Albanians during 1940. All the Balkanians are close and perhaps during the Byzantine or the Ottoman Empire many of them were like brothers, but today they have become distant cousins and you must try to think about it, instead of trying strawman arguments about northern Greece. talk to +MATIA 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Matia, why you not cite resource? That is just your pov. Did you not say above "enough with the unsourced and unverifiable claims"? You are trying to add an unsourced and unverifiable claim. Give resource, please. Zogu

Please, guys, let's not again get this discussion side-lined into polemics. Matia, while I agree with the gist of what you said, I'm afraid I can't quite see your comment as very much on topic. Let's stick to discussing specific points about the article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Matia, why you not comment on the proposals. I and Lukas try to find nutral compromise. Why you not comment on proposals or give your proposal? Dont you want to finish this dispute? Why can we not agree on something? Zogu

Zogu, your input in this talk page previously didn't support the edit war you participated. Your "proposed" version, while a bit better than the one currently locked, isn't justified. My previous comment to you was an appeal to logic and an effort of mine to understand why you revert this article since December (or November). Lukas' version has some valid points and I'd like to see his additions in the correct version of Arvanites when it is unlocked and reverted properly. talk to +MATIA 18:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What wrong with my and Lukas proposal? You are talking very abstraktly. What specificaly do you not agree with? Tell me and it can be fixed as long as there are resources. Zogu

New version

Judging from the cautiously positive responses I see from both Zogu and Matia above, may I quite immodestly suggest that we take my version as a provisional basis for further negotiations? We could move it to a subpage here in article namespace, Arvanites/test2, and then let everybody start editing on it to see if we can stabilize it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that the article should be first reverted and then you may add whatever useful. I don't think that a sub-page will do any good and the current version is insulting. talk to +MATIA 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No Matia, you version is too pov. There is too much anti Albanian propaganda (also offensing), where it speaks of Albanian nationalists who try to "invant" Albanian minority in Greece and so on (where are the resources? You say my version is pov. Ha!). Your version is too anti albanian and is very offensive. Please cooperate so that we make compromise version as fast as possible. Zogu

Are you talking about the same article here on Wikipedia, Zogu? I still don't understand these comments, nor your motives behind your edits. talk to +MATIA 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Folks, that's just the idea behind locking an article: forget about the wording of the disputed passages in the old article for a moment, don't start fighting over them again, and start working from something fresh! Of course the subpage wouldn't be permanent, it's just a testing ground for the compromise to be developed. As I see it, the present version can't stand because the unqualified characterisation as an "Albanian minority" is unacceptable; and Matia's version can't stand because sentences like "Albanian nationalists frequently try [...] in order to invent [...]" are unacceptable. (Even if in many other points I personally agree more with Matia's version, that sentence is pretty blatantly POV, as it implies the whole Albanian side is acting in bad faith.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

UCK and (the imaginary or not) UCC maybe? Would it be more acceptable than the vague term "Albanian nationalists"? Ok, let's change it. But how on earth can we call the Arvanites an ethnic Albanian minority. Are the Pontioe (Πόντιοι) or the refugees from 1922, an ethnic Turkish minority in Greece? The Cretans? talk to +MATIA 19:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of infomation that can be added like the fact that Arvanited harased in Greek Army and the Metaxa helenizations and discriminations (all in helsinki report) and how the all the arvanites were called Albanians before the greek revolution. Matias version is Greek (not Arvanitic) pov. The present version is I admit Albanian pov, but Wikipedia is suposed to be npov: all povs. I know that when article is unlocked, matia and miskin and theathenae will make edit war. theathenae make a lot of edit wars http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ATheathenae he will certainly make one here. Compromise must be made before unlocking. I not want to call Arvanites Albanian minority in final version. Only the fact that the resources say that Arvnitika is albanian dialect and to admit that the arvanites in north greece call themselves shqiptaret. Also to remuve unsourced information that all arvanites dismiss being called albanians. The human right report http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html say

As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia, they are considered to be part of the modern Albanian nation (Banfi, 1994:20), something which perhaps explains their self-identification as Shqiptars rather than Arberor.

Moreover, and more important for the survival of their language, they have distanced themselves from the Albanians to the extent that most consider today offending to be called Albanians: they have preferred the term Arvanite (Arberor in their own language) for the people and Arvanitika (Arberichte) for the language, as opposed to Albanian (Shqiptar for the people and Shqip for the language) that Albanians use for themselves and their language - with the exception of the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece, as mentioned above.

I want to write npov version but matia dismiss my edits. Zogu

Also matia UCK and UCC (new name) have nothing to do with arvanites. If you want to say they do they to "make Arvanites albanian minority" you have to give resource. Zogu

---

Please, both of you, don't return to polemics, and keep it short. Matia, if you read the two proposal versions carefully, you will notice they both refrain from calling Arvanites an "Albanian minority". We have a consensus on that. The new version is going to say "linguistic minority". As for the sentence about Albanian nationalists, the crux is the phrase "are trying to", in my view. - Zogu, may I point out that the Banfi quote says, somewhat ambiguously, that the northern Arvanites "are considered" part of the Albanian nation - he doesn't say who considers them as such. They themselves? So, that source doesn't actually help us much. (But of course we can mention it as one opinion among others.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Matia have to give resource to make any changes, I insist on them when she is going to say negative things about albanians. She too can insist on sources from me when we make compromise version. I try to cooperate, why not she? I go to trouble to make proposal even though I would be happy to leave it locked in present version (it is albanian pov, my pov), but that would be wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be npov and Im tryin to make compromise and use resources. Zogu

Speaking of sources: Does anybody have an exact reference for that Banfi (1994) thing? I can see it only quoted second-hand through the Helsinki report, and that one is missing its bibliography section. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know. The report not give exact referense for any of its blibliografy, only a name and date. Zogu

To clear my position, regardles of my revert, what I want in the compromise version is:

1) Arvanitika is albanian dialect (from unesco resource. Even dab agree) (matia can say that this is disputed though) 2) Arvanites in north Greece call themselves Shqiptaret (this name to be in first paragraf next to Arbeoret) (this from helsinki resource) 3) Remove unsourced calumnis against Albanians and albanian nationalism 4) Remove unsourced information that "all" Arvanites are offended when called albanians (helsinki report say only most) and remove unsourced information that arvanites do not want to be given ethnic minority status

All that is sourced (or is supported by absence of resource) so it is allowed according with policy. If matia can make compromise version that includes all that I probably agree. Zogu

Points towards consensus

Okay. Let me take up Zogu's and Matia's main desiderata, with a few comments of my own:

1. Don't label Arvanites as ethnic Albanian minority. (Consensus)
2. Don't label Albanian view (which sees Arvanites as Albanian) as inherently and necessarily bad-faith. (Reasonable according to WP NPOV policy.)
3. Mention self-designation of northern Arvanites as "Shqiptar" (Seems okay, with the proviso that we should clearly mark it as a minority usage, and provided we get a reliable source for it. Unfortunately the Helsinki report is poorly sourced.)
4. Describe Arvanitica language as a form of Albanian. (Seems majority position among international linguists, including world-wide sociolingistics authority Trudgill and prominent Modern-Greek linguist B. Joseph. Proviso: We can also mention the incertainty and lack of absolute criteria in all language-vs.-dialect judgments in linguistics; and we can describe the fact that many Arvanites do not like that classification.)
5. Avoid absolute statements about orientation of all Arvanites. (Seems okay, doesn't prevent us from stating the fact that certain sentiments are shared by a vast majority.)
6. Avoid the statement that "Arvanites do not want to be given ethnic minority status": I'd tend to disagree with Zogu here, for two reasons: (a) The truth of this statement seems logically entailed by the (undisputed) statement that (most) Arvanites feel ethnically Greek - if you're happy with belonging to the majority, it automatically means you don't want to form a minority; (b) We actually do have documentation that (many) Arvanites reacted negatively against such suggestions. - On the other hand, I don't really see the necessity to keep that sentence in that exact form.

Matia, would you like to add some more points here that would be a "red line" for you?

3) Very hard but there was a compromise in the past about it (Kollias or Moraitis mentions something relevant). The rest seem more or less ok (and were "used" in those articles in previous versions). talk to +MATIA 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I not say that we cannot say that Arvanites not want to be given ethnic minority status. I say not to say that if there is no resource that say that they do. And what you mean helsinki report is poorly sourced? That is the resource and it does mention an author and it would be critisised. Banfi source is Banfi, Emanuele (1994). Minorités Linguistiques en Grèce: Langues Cachées, Idéologie Nationale, Religion. Paper presented at the Mercator Program Seminar at the Maison des Sciences de l’ Homme, on 6 June 1994, in Paris. according to search of helsinki wesite [2]. Zogu

Ah, thanks for digging that out. Did you also find Trudgill (1975), by any chance? Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Trudgill source is from same link Blibliography of greek helsinki Trudgill, Peter and George A. Tzavaras (1975). A Sociolinguistic Study of Albanian Dialects Spoken in the Attica and Biotia Areas of Greece (University of Reading; Final Report of a Study). Zogu 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. In that case, I retract my remark about the Helsinki paper. I was irritated because all the mirrors on the web were omitting the references section. If we can verify those references, it's fine. Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mention self-designation of northern Arvanites as "Shqiptar" (Seems okay, with the proviso that we should clearly mark it as a minority usage, and provided we get a reliable source for it. Unfortunately the Helsinki report is poorly sourced.)

No that's not okay. The Helsinki paper erroneously categorises the Albanian Chams under Arvanites, which is what has confused some Albanian editors. Chams were in fact ethnic Albanian, but they were not Arvanites. Chams never identify themselves as Arvanites [3] [4]. Hence they belong to a separate article, and any references of Arvanites being ethnic Albanian should be removed. Miskin 06:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I had wondered myself about the relation between those "northern Arvanites" and "Chams". If the alleged "northern Arvanites" are in fact identical with the "Chams", I think we are still left with the fact that several sources (including Helsinki and Banfi, who is apparently a reputable scholar) subsume them under "Arvanites". So, we should mention that, although we should also mention that it doesn't match the self-identification of both sides. Are we sure that the self-identification is mutual? (i.e. no Greek Arvanites would regard those Chams as Arvanites, and no Chams would regard themselves as Arvanites?)

By the way, what about present-day existence of that group, whatever it may be called - The Helsinki report states that "an important part of these Albanians, the Muslim Chams" were expelled - implying that a rest remained. It in fact mentions a study that puts their number at 30,000. 30,000 self-identifying ethnic Albanians in northwestern Greece? Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The self-identification is mutual since Arvanites don't link themselves with no non-Greek group whatsoever. This can also derive by definition from the fact that the Arvanites' most important cultural characteristic, the Orthodox faith, is missing from the Chams. Chams would never identify themselves as Arvanites because they're Muslim, hence they ethnically viewed themselves as part of the Albanian nation. Similarly the Arvanites viewed themselves as part of the Greek. I'm not sure about the numbers, but the vast majority of Chams were exchanged with Greeks from Turkey in 1922 or deported to Albania shortly after WW2. Their current numbers are probably included in the 2% muslim minority of Greece. Miskin 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've written before (Archive 1 and the first ArbCom case) that in some places the infamous Helsinki report, misquotes the authors. I have noted some differences somewhere (don't remember where, but I could find them I guess) and some pieces of the report are against WP:NOT a propaganda machine. As for the Chams, Pangalos "saved" them during 1922 but their collaboration with Nazis resulted in their departure (keep in mind that in all European countries, people who worked with Nazis either fled or were prosecuted). talk to +MATIA 09:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• The entries "Banfi (1994)" and "Trudgill (1975)" quoted repeatedly in the Helsinki report cannot be identified! What I find from these authors is:

• Banfi, Emanuele
  • (1985), Linguistica balcanica. Bologna.
  • (1997), "The Language Question in Italy and Greece: A Comparative Approach". In: G. Holtus et al. (eds.), Italica et Romanica: Festschrift für Max Pfister. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Vol III, 3-12.
  • (1996), "Minoranze linguistiche in Grecia problemi storico- e sociolinguistici". In: C. Vallini (ed.), Minoranze e lingue minoritarie : convegno internazionale. Naples: Universtario Orientale. 89-115.
• Trudgill, Peter
  • (2000), "Greece and European Turkey: from religious to linguistic identity." In: S. Barbour, C. Carmichael (eds.), Language and nationalism in Europe. Oxford: OUP. 240-263.
  • (2004), "Glocalisation [sic] and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe". In: A. Duszak, U. Okulska (eds.), Speaking from the margin: Global English from a European perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Online draft

Good sources from the Arvanitic language page:

• Joseph, Brian D. "Comparative perspectives on the place of Arvanitika within Greece and the Greek environment", 1999, pp. 208-214 in L. Tsitsipis (ed.), Arvanitika ke Elinika: Zitimata Poliglosikon ke Polipolitismikon Kinotiton Vol. II. Livadia: Exandas, 1999 PDF.
• Trudgill, Peter, "Creolization in reverse: reduction and simplification in the Albanian dialects of Greece", Transactions of the Philological Society, 1976-7, 32-50.
• Trudgill, Peter and Tzavaras, George, "Why Albanian-Greeks are not Albanians: Language shift in Attica and Biotia", pp. 171-184 in H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations Academic Press, 1977.
• Tsitsipis, Lukas D., A Linguistic Anthropology of Praxis and Language Shift: Arvanitika (Albanian) and Greek in Contact, Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0198237316. Review by Alexander Rusakov on Linguist List.

Arvanite scholarship

Hey zogu and the rest, what will happen if I present you with Arvanite sources that declare themselves part of the Greek nation, unrelated to Albanians whatsoever? Will you quit editing this article once and for all, or will you keep regarding your Albanian scholars to be more reliable? And now answer me this. If the Albanians of Epirus (who were expelled by WW2 as collaborators - but anyway) were Arvanites, then who on earth are the Chams? If I prove to you that the Albanians of Epirus (who recognised themselves as Albanians) were not Arvanites but Chams, who don't exist in Greece anymore, you will have no valid reason to revert our edits. You'll have to tranfer your arguments in 'Arvanitic language'. Do we have a deal or not? Miskin 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Miskin, this is not a matter of one side or the other quitting the article, and it is not a matter of one side or the other being more reliable. It's an NPOV negotiation, and we will present both views. Giving appropriate weight to the self-identification of the groups involved, of course. Please refrain from inflammatory comments. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lukas I believe that Miskin correctly pointed out that those editors do not use reliable sources and even if I want to be optimistic about it, I can't - I'm pretty sure that after 3 or 4 weeks they'll start again reverting into an "ethnic Albanian minority" version. I won't accept addition based on unreliable sources never again. If they want to add anything, they must quote someone who indeed studied the Arvanites, someone who has seen at least one Arvanitis in his lifetime. talk to +MATIA 09:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Matia, but in the matter of the northwestern "Arvanites"/"Shqiptarë" the sources situation is, to this moment, in favour of Zogu's view. If other sources can be found, fine, we'll work them in. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. Whenever some imaginary scenario will be added, I'll give answer from one of the 5 arvanitic books I've listed (or I'd find more books on Arvanites). Been there before. talk to +MATIA 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Northwestern "Arvanites"/"Chams"?

There seems to be some serious factual confusion here, regarding those elusive northwestern "Arvanites"/"Chams". Suggestion: For the moment, let's just call them neutrally "Northwestern Albanophones" (NWA's). Questions:

1. Are they still there? i.e. when the Muslim "Chams" were expelled, were any significant numbers of other (presumably Christian) NWA's left behind in the same areas?
2. Do the present NWA's (if they exist) identify ethnically as Albanians?
3. Do the NWA's consider themselves as forming a single group with the southern Arvanites?
4. Do the NWA's consider themselves as forming a single group with the former "Chams"?
5. Do southern Arvanites and other Greeks regard the NWA's as "Arvanites"?
6. Do the NWA's call their own language, in their own language, "Shqip"?
7. Do the NWA's call themselves, in their own language, "Shqiptarë"?

Please let's all be aware that questions (2)-(7) are mutually independent. Conceivably, the answer could be any of the 64 logically possible combinations, paradoxical as some combinations might sound to the outsider. Helsinki Report says "yes" to (1), (6), (7), which seems fairly well sourced. It also seems to imply (2), although that's far vaguer. Does anybody have access to the sources by Ciampi and Banfi? Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We are complicating the things too much with the unrelated Chams. Are the Albanians of Kossovo Arvanites? There's a traditional Arvanitic song about a muslim Albanian or a Cham (not sure if it's the one or the other) who betrayed the Arvanites of a village to the Ottomans. I have avoided bringing up such stuff in the past, but if the thing continues I will (at least this song is related directly to the Arvanites). talk to +MATIA 09:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Arvanites of Epirus, the Chams, the Albanians, the Greek-Albanians and the (non Arvanites) Greeks of the wider Epirus region are 5 (five) different groups of people. They share similarities and differences. Don't mix them up. The Chams aren't the Arvanites of Epirus and the mistakes (deliberate or not) of the Helsinki report aren't my problem. And the propaganda is neither mine nor WP's problem (at least according to WP:NOT). talk to +MATIA 09:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. So you are negating (4) and asserting (1) and (5), right? No problem, sounds plausible to me. In that case, we still have the fact that the Helsinki report claims the Arvanites of Epirus (and not the Chams, as I now understand) have (6) and (7) above. Can you point me to statements in the literature elsewhere that specifically contradict this? ("specifically" means: with a clear reference to language designation as opposed to ethnic designation, and with a clear reference to the Epirus Arvanites as opposed to the southern ones?) Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I (and another one editor at the archive 1) have pointed out that the Arvanites of Epirus call traditionaly their language Shqip (see Moraitis). talk to +MATIA 10:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. So we have both Helsinki and Moraitis confirming (6). Also (7)? Question is whether this evidence is solid enough to promote "Shqip(tarë)" into the first sentence. If this evidence is solid, then I'd say Miskin's opposition to the "Shqip" is groundless. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence should read Arvanites (Αρβανίτες). Not Arber*, Shqip*, or whatever else. And I'm really considered about the "is a language minority". The language is practicaly dead, and the few speakers are bilingual. There are also historical records that the majority of Arvanites were always bilingual (Biris, Kollias etc cites them) and most of the time they used Greek in written and Arvanitika in oral. talk to +MATIA 11:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the first sentence, I think it is pretty sensible to have the name in Arvanitic too. Having it in Albanian too might, strictly speaking, be unnecessary, but does it hurt?

As for the identification as a "linguistic minority" - if it's not a linguistic one, then what is it? The language is the primary defining criterion of this group, even if it's only the "language of the older generations" and not necessarily the "language of every member of the group now alive". I mean, people do not continue to consider themselves Arvanites more than maximally one or two generations after the language gets lost in a family, do they? Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The parents didn't speak Arvanitic in front of the children and taught them Greek language. Most Arvanites know few words in Arvanitic, but their grandparents (might) know to speak the language. Most of them know that they are Arvanites (for example origin from Arvanitic village) and are proud of their history, but don't know the language. talk to +MATIA 12:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we agree on something? I think my proposal version above is ok as it is same with matias version except it has chenges mentioned by Lukas. Matia, if you not like it, can you make proposal version with the changes? Zogu 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus draft?

Based on the previous discussion, I've drafted the following to document what I think might become a consensus, with a few open questions at the end:

1. The article should clearly reflect the self-identification of Arvanites as ethnically Greek.
   1. It should not label Arvanites as an "ethnic minority" or an "Albanian minority".
   2. It may describe other views, including that of some Albanians who regard Arvanites as ethnic Albanians, and it shouldn't label such a view as inherently wrong or bad-faithed (though in conflict with the group's self-identification).
   3. It should not take over the claim that Epirus Arvanites (as opposed to the southern ones) "are regarded" as nationally Albanians, because that claim is poorly sourced and we don't have evidence that it is shared by the group in question.
   4. It should generally refrain from making absolute statements about people's stances, hedging statements where appropriate ("most Arvanites" etc.)
2. The article should clearly reflect the scholarly consensus that linguistic affiliation and ethnic affiliation are different things.
   1. It should reflect the scholarly consensus that Arvanitic is a "form of Albanian". The formulation may leave open whether that means:
      1. "a separate Arvanitic language, side by side with Standard Albanian, within an "Albanian" language family",
      2. "a separate Arvanitic language, as an emergent Ausbausprache".
      3. "an Arvanitic dialect group within a single Albanian language".
   2. It should mention that many Arvanites object to seeing their language linked to Albanian, and it should mention that Arvanites do not regard Standard Albanian as their Dachsprache.
   3. In the absence of sources to the contrary, the article should mention the self-designation of Epirus Arvanites as "Shqip(-tarë)", but it should not be worded so as to imply the claim that this means national identification with Albania.
3. The article should reflect the scholarly consensus about the historical/geographical origins of the Arvanites from territories of Epirus and modern Albania.
   1. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the only serious theory we can report on is that the ancestors of the Arvanites came out of the same medieval population groups that are also the ancestors of modern Albanians.
   2. Other hypotheses (Non-Albanian Epirotic origins; separate Thraco-Illyrian origin; autochthonous "Pelasgian" southern Greek origin etc.) may be mentioned, but must be evaluated strictly in light of the Reliable Sources policy; if necessary treating them according to Wikipedia's policies on non-scientific fringe theories.
4. The article should reflect the scholarly debate about the etymological origin of the name "Arvanites".
   1. It should mention that both name stems "Αρβα-(νίτης)" and "Αλβα-(νός)" have been attested since antiquity, and have been used more or less indistinguishably over a long time, with reflexes of "Αρβα-" also being used as an endonym of Albanians.
   2. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the article should present as a strong majority position in international scholarship that both name forms are cognate.
   3. Other hypotheses, about "Arvan-" etymologies independent of "Alban-", can be mentioned as a serious minority position insofar as they have been proposed by prominent linguists (Babiniotis, apparently?)
5. Not yet determined: Should the group be characterized as a "linguistic minority" in the first sentence? (If not, what else?)
6. Not yet determined: Should the first sentence enumerate all the names (including "Shqip" and the Albanian names?) Alternative: Only use "Arvanites (Greek: Αρβανίτες)", and leave the discussion of all the different exonyms and endonyms to a separate paragraph.
7. Not yet determined: Should further editing, based on these guidelines, proceed from Zogu's version (closer to the previous versions), or from Lukas' version (rewritten parts), or from Matia's preferred older version from December?

If we can agree on something along these lines, I suggest we archive this talk page, put a version of these guidelines (updated where necessary) in a prominent, permanent place on the new talk page as a document for later editors, and request unprotecting. We should also put a Template:Controversial sign up in the article to point to this discussion. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job Lukas. We could use Template:ActiveDiscussion perhaps that'll save us from the reverts. I'm willing to work towards a better article, that will satisfy some of Zogu's concerns. talk to +MATIA 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd now say we can safely request unprotecting, then as a first thing (for practical reasons) make it provisionally identical to Zogu's temporal page (which lacks most of the really contentious bits), and then gradually start working in whatever bits are needed from my draft and from the pre-edit-war version, or new material, in the light of the principles above. The remaining editorial issues can be worked out in the process, that's just a question of how to arrange stuff within the article structure. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are paragraphs missing from Zogu's version, and he haven't provided reasoning for that (as he didn't provide reasons for the revert-war he participated). I understand that these (long ago before edit war material) won't be cut. talk to +MATIA 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why is the Helsinki report trusted over other sources such as the CIA factbook for instance (which doesn't list Arvanites as an ethnic minority). It's fairly blatant that the Arvanites of the North who recognized themselves as Albanian were the Chams. I hope REX could translate this [5] to his Albanian compatriots. Miskin 05:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)