Talk:Pelasgians

This page has been archived:

• 18 May 2006 Archive 1

This article is way too long

It is so long an rambling so as to be unreadable. needs major cleanup. 02:09, 1 August 2007 contribs)

Hi, Wetman. I restored and signed the comment above for User:Tsourkpk. He may have a point, as this article has had a great deal of recent activity. Besides, (sigh) talk pages are for talking, even for babbling. Best......... WBardwin 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkish point of view

Why is this in there, the turkish nation wasnt arround when the Pelasgians existed! Enlil Ninlil 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC) user:Θεόδωροςς

Turkish point of view

The term ' nation ' exist ONLY when 1) a group of people live in the same geographic area for at least few millenniums, they speak the same language so they express themselves the same way, they have the same customs, they have the same faith, they understand the world with the same way, they have the same civilisation , they have the same history. 2) anthropologicaly they belong to the same tribe, they are of the same anthropological variation. The people of Turkey they do not belong to the same anthropological variation. The majority of the turkish people are the inhabitants of Minus Asia, Bysantine empire, who never left their homes when the Ottoman Turks invated the empire the 13th century A.D.The minority are Turks from Turkmenistan. The Bysantines never call themselves with the term ' nation '. According to UNESCO, 42 deferent nationalities are living today in Turkey. The real Turks are the minority. So, if we say == Minus Asia point of view== it sounds more logigal, as the today population of today Turkey have their roots in the area and they had and have commons with the Pelasgians or they have the Pelasgians as their forefathers. User: Θεόδωροςς

Still, the history of the turkish and palasgians doesnt dirrectly over linke, there is at least 1,000 to 1,500 years in betwenn them. Enlil Ninlil 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Then I guess there are no nations. The term must be a fantasy, a figment of someone's imagination. Alternatively, you can look up "nation" in any English dictionary and find quite a different story. Well, I think I will write a letter to the IRS explaining that I do not live in a nation and therefore should not pay taxes.Dave (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek propaganda in Encyclopedia

Look the communication between greek editors: “Πρεπει να τονιστει σε ολα τα θεμα με ιλλυρια οτι οι αλβανοι δεν εχουν εδαφικα παρα το μικροτερο κομματι της ιλλυριας και οτι οι Βοσνιοι,Σλοβενιοι.....και οι αλλοι εχουν αντιστοιχα δικαιωματα στο θεμα.ΠΕρα απο το Γεγονος οτι οι Αλβανοι δεν ειναι ιλλυριοι , ουτε Πελασγοι. “You must emphasize in all the articles with Illyrians that Albanians have just a little part of Illyria and that Bosnia .Slovenia ..have their rights in the issue. Away from the news that Albanians are not Illyrians neither Pelasgic.” [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helladios]] Other “ Αλλαξα τους χαρτες στο σωστο με μια μικρη επεξηγηση.Οι αλβανοι εχουν φαει πολυ προπαγναδα και δεν ξερουν τι τους γινεται.” “ I change the maps …..Albanians they do not know what we do to them “ Dodona

Dodona, this a more correct translation: "It has to be emphasized (or stressed) in the whole issue (ολα is probably όλο,a typing error as θέμα is singular) of Illyria that the Albanians have only but the smallest portion (or part) of Illyria and that the Bosnians, Slovenians...and others have equivalent (or equal) rights in the issue. Other than the fact (off course) that the Albanians are not Illyrians, neither Pelasgians". The other is: "I changed the maps to the correct with a small explanation. The Albanians have eaten a lot of propaganda (meaning by Albanians or the Albanian government) and they have no clue (meaning no clue on the subject of Illyria)". I don't think my translation is 100% accurate but i have added dome comments to convey the meaning better as it is difficult to translate directly from English and pass the meaning 100%). Dodona, my guess is then, that you are spreading propaganda and not somebody else by just translating as you please (or as it suites you) and just the parts YOU want. [[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk)nefeligeretis] —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You missunderstood a common Greek expression. "δεν ξερουν τι τους γινεται" literally means that "they are confused". I love it when we think every one else in the Balkans is a victim of propaganda and misinformation which we are somehow immune to. Now could we focus on archeology instead of which modern populations can lay claim to their legacy?User:Dimadick

No they are not "confused", you may be immune from propaganda because you are doing it yourself, but our people (Albanians) know very well their origin, even one uneducated can tell you our origin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.72.126 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your comments. Secondly, thinking you know your origins and factually knowing your origins are two different things. If you can cite independent, scholarly and internationally accepted academic sources to support your position, please bring them forward. Otherwise, please refrain from accusing other editors of acting unethically. --Kimon^talk 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has an article on the subject of national myth. Modern Albanian national myth, which briefly mentions Skanderbeg, needs to be more fully discussed there, under its proper heading. I have added scrupulously neutral introductory text under "Modern theories", identifying no theory, taking no side. I omitted Bulgaria: are there Bulgarian partisans in this? I thought not. --Wetman 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone see the references already mention in the article, where it is expressed clearly that Albanians have a pelagic origin. A very serious work is done by Prof.Dhimiter Pilika former Chief of Cathedra of Albanology at University of Prague. The Bulgarian scientific even enter Thrace in the pelasgic group together with Mikenasit , doret etc. see Wikipedia .Albani (contributed 22 June 2007 by IP# 80.90.82.126) Also the Society of Arvanites (Albanian origin, one of the main group of population in Greece)in they mention extensive evidence of Pelasgian origin of Albanians.Albani (contributed 22 June 2007 by IP# 80.90.82.126)

Gentlemen. Please. We are interested in the truth about the Pelasgians wherever that might lead and we are going to express it in neutral language. Go fight the Balkan Wars somewhere else, thank you.Dave (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

linear B writing = Pelasgians language

We must accept that Pelasgian language is a indo –European language and since the oldest recognized such language is Albanian the oldest greek language is originated from oldest Albanian language “The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language.” Dodona

This sounds like some loony marginal opinion. Linear B is demonstrated to be an early form of Greek. -- AdrianTM 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ceucalionite, I have installed a quotation about language from Herodotus in the introductory language section, rather than the Herodotus section because it shows that Pelasgian was only one of a number of so-called Barbarian languages in the Greek area, and that it was the aboriginal language of Attica. John D. Croft 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotation you cited does not fit in the introductory paragraphs because there are other ancient Greek and Roman authors who have discussed the language and origins of the Pelasgians. Therefore, the quotation you cited should be placed in the Herodotus section or it should be removed altogether. It is ultimately your decision. You need to understand that the Herodotus section of the Pelasgians article contains information specifically relevant to everything Herodotus himself writes about the Pelasgians. So, if you want your edits to be taken seriously, I recommend that you take my advice and do not insist on having the quotation from Herodotus shown in the introductory paragraphs. Placing quotations indiscriminately negatively affects the flow of an article's content. Again, either incorporate the quotation properly (i.e. Herodotus section) or remove it completely. Your call. Deucalionite 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen. There are several possible ways Greek could connect to Albanian. We are interested in mainstream ideas here so if there are some mainstream Albanian hypotheses they will get in but if not not. Ciao.Dave (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed? Really?

Is a citation really needed for the idea that some ancient Greek writers wrote of the Pelasgians as non-Hellenic? Isn't this clear enough from Homer? You would really have to read the passage in the Iliad against the grain to come up with the idea that these were somehow renegade Achaeans; Homer speaks of them just like the other foreign peoples (Lycians, Maeonians, Thracians, etc). Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations are nice things, this way people can go directly to source, see what source is talking about the issue, etc., and in general it's a good idea to add citations even if they seem obvious. -- AdrianTM 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing is real art, my friends. It is a judgement call. I believe the policy is if they are requested you put them in unless there is some good reason to resist, such as harassing requests. If there is a cite request on a topic just cited a few sentences earlier you can always name the cite and repeat the name. That puts an a, b, c, etc. up on the note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More unwarranted interpretations

The following paragraph is the current version (Wetman 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)):

1. From the dual meaning of the term "barbarian", some (anonymous "some" again) propose that when Herodotus deemed the Pelasgians as "barbaric", he did not imply that they were non-Hellenes. In support of this interpretation, these theorists (several? who?) point to the passage where Herodotus deems the Hellenes as a branch of the Pelasgians (Herodotus on the Pelasgians and the Early Hellenes). Herodotus (1.57) concludes that the Athenians "changed language" when they "joined the Hellenic body" meaning that (unwarranted strained interpretation) they advanced linguistically, socially, and culturally from their Pelasgian forebears. Herodotus (6.137) also tells of a war in which the Athenians expelled the Pelasgians from Attica to Lemnos. However, this passage may be derived (this should be presented as Buck's reading, if that's what it is) from an event whereby the Athenians expelled Pelasgian Boeotian refugees (closely related to them culturally and linguistically) to the Ionian colonies. Herodotus also is known for not distinguishing the difference between linguistically similar dialects and languages that are completely separate from Greek (Herodotus' Conception of Foreign Languages). As a result of this ambiguity, one can propose (original research: let the sources do the proposing) that the language of the Pelasgians was a "barbaric" (or unsophisticated) form of Hellenic as opposed to it being non-Hellenic.

This is not a report and won't do for Wikipedia, but I'm not interested in reproachful wrangling over it. I'd apply one of those bumperstickers if I were that type. --Wetman 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see this map [1] meaning that old "greek" tribes included Illyrians and Epiriotes, Doret ..Macedonians originated and rising very highly, the connection with today Albanians.Dodona

Does every article about ancient Balkan peoples somehow have to be linked to Albanians ? What might you be trying to prove ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 10:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Review of Albanians as Pelasgians section

I am glad to see that Taulant23 came to this appropriate article in order to express his ideas about a potential connection between the Pelasgian language and the Albanian language. All I did, just so that everyone knows, was merely clean up the section to ensure that it adhered to Wikipedia standards. Nevertheless, there are a few problems I would like to address so that they can solved as soon as possible.

I would like to thank users Wetman and 3rdAlcove for making significant edits to the section. This review is not an "attack" on the sources that Taulant23 provided to validate his ideas (though he still needs to provide full citations entailing pages and/or quotes). This review is more of a critique to ensure that the sentences written in the section are appropriate for the article.

1) The French author Zacharie Mayani put forth a thesis that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This thesis places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscan, as well as with ancient Greek.

• These are currently well-written sentences. However, I feel that they belong in the Etruscans article unless someone can provide specific information from Zacharie Mayani's theory whereby he links the Etruscans with the Pelasgians and the Pelasgians with the Albanians.

2) Nermin Vlora Falaschi published a (pseudolinguistic) translation of the Lemnos stele on this basis, with the help of Arvanitic. The theory is supported by other authors such as Catapano, Marchiano, Mathieu Aref, Faverial, D'Angely, Kolias, and Cabej.

• These sentences are also well-written. Yet, if these sentences are complements to Mayani's Etruscan-Albanian theory, then it is obvious that the first two sentences in the overall section be refined before Falaschi's (pseudolinguistic) translation of the Lemnos stele be taken into consideration.

3) The most active supporter of this theory was Austrian linguist Hahn who attempted to connect the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian.

• Okay. This sentence seems to be the only thing that attempts to theorize a direct linguistic link between Pelasgian and Albanian. However, it really needs a source and at least one full citation in order for it to have relevance in the article.

4) Today, however, Albanian is universally classified as an Indo-European language by linguists.

• I honestly do not think that this sentence needs a source, but it would not hurt to place one just in case.

Overall, things are looking good for this section. If someone were to follow the recommendations I have made to further improve the section, then the overall article will surely benefit. Deucalionite 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen. 1) We are sticking to mainstream here. 2) The details on a specialized theory belong in a specialized article. 3) Long-winded quotes and justifications do not belong in footnotes, which are only notes, not article text. I had to cut out of here notes that were longer than sections. 4) Notes cover the topic, they are not supplementary information on your own opinion. 5) Generalizations not generally known or controversial need notes with cites of book and page number.Dave (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern theories

The section of the modern theories just escapes any modern theory, indicating some countries in (alphabetic order?) where in fact Pelasgian actually lived. Giving references as Angely ,Mathias , Mayani.Kolas etc are modern authors why you ignore them: they do not express any ideology or national Revanchism, maybe you are afraid of something perhaps the truth?! Hellenes were not invaders, but descendants of Pelasgians after Herodotis ( he was clear enough ) and those were descendent of Albanians , is as simple as that.--PIRRO BURRI 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So Greeks are descendants of Albanians... interesting... -- AdrianTM 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoxha did one hell of a job brainwashing his guys. No one outside albania believes this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your edits. I live in Greece , I am Arvanites but I have seen more brain wash in Greece mostly form the non-Greek and non-Hellenic population that are inhabitant of Greece at this time , while Hoxha had his own reasons not to mention at all, the connection between Albanians and ancient Greek . --PIRRO BURRI 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you are Arvanite. Maybe just an Albanian immigrant leaving in Greece. I have Arvanite friends and no one talks like you. Yes, they say they MIGHT be of Pelasgian origins (as MAYBE some of the Greek tribes are) but not that the Pelasgians are descendants of Albanians, what kind of a ridiculous claim is that? [[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis]

Old chap. Don't get too carried away by all this. These articles do not represent any general American or English (or Greek) view or power group propaganda, they are strictly the work of private individuals. I believe that eventually the truth will emerge but it takes a while. Additionally I am not sure you know enough English to understand what is being said. I suggest following it quietly from a distance and working to improve your English if that is what you want. You need to understand, we see things from a distance and are not involved in your disputes. Most of our ancestors came over here to ESCAPE the old ethnic conflicts and problems. People who would be enemies in your country sit down to dinner here together. What we want here is objective truth about the topic.Dave (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged sections

I merged the section on "Albanians as Pelasgians" into the "Modern Theories" section, as it is basically a modern theory without more merit than any of the other loony fringe nationalist theories regarding the Pelasgians (e.g. Polat Kaya). Tsourkpk

I appreciate your contributions Tsourkpk, but the merger has not been well implemented. The "Albanians as Pelasgians" section was fine before your arguments with PIRRO BURRI. Please be so kind as to restore the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section to the following standard:

The French author Zacharie Mayani developed a thesis (The Etruscans Begin to Speak) stating that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This theory places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscan, as well as with ancient Greek. The theory is supported by other authors such as Guiseppe Catapano, Mathieu Aref (Albanie: Ou l'incroyable odyssée d'un peuple préhellénique; Grèce: Ou la solution d'une énigme), and Robert D'Angely (other supporters include Faverial, Kolias, Marchiano, and Cabej). The overall theory, however, has attracted little general support. One of the most active supporters of this theory was Austrian linguist Johann Georg von Hahn who attempted to connect the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian.[citation needed] Today, the Albanian language is universally classified as an Indo-European language by linguists.

When you edit this discussion page, just copy and paste the above paragraph in the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section and make sure that the title of the section has three "=" on each side (===Albanians as Pelasgians===). I'd love to do this all myself, but my computer tends to produce unnecessary technical difficulties whenever I come around to editing large articles. If, by any chance, you cannot do this, then ask someone for help.

I know that you see the overall section as having questionable content and that the entire paragraph is mainly derived from one website. However, there are authors who do espouse the theory of "Albanians as Pelasgians" even if their respective arguments command little general support among academic circles. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you could put the above paragraph into the article. Thanks. Deucalionite 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice

PIRRO BURRI, I understand that you want to prove that there is a connection between Albanians and Pelasgians. However, I have encountered many arguments that apparently support this connection during my discussions with another Albanian user named Taulant23 (nice fellow). Despite the disagreements Taulant23 and I had, I understood that Taulant23 only wanted the "Albanian perspective" regarding the Pelasgians to be recognized (technically, the "Albanian perspective" was recognized to an extent in the Pelasgians article prior to the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section). So, I obliged. If you want to improve upon the above paragraph, then you will need to provide direct evidence in order to support your arguments. When providing your evidence, don't just mention names and books (or questionable external links), provide direct sources and direct quotes in order to establish verifiability. That way, you can have a fair chance at proving your case. It is as simple as that.

In the past, you have made disruptive edits on the Arvanites article and I recommend that you do not do the same on the Pelasgians article. If you want people to take you seriously, then you should "disrupt" an article only when you have verifiable (and hopefully accurate) evidence to prove your arguments. I am not saying this to prevent you from editing here on Wikipedia. However, you need to understand that the "Albanian perspective" regarding the Pelasgians has been implemented in the article for the sole reason of maintaining NPOV (for what it's worth). I also recommend that you do not remove any statements from the above paragraph since the source of the entire paragraph is available for public scrutiny. Carry on. Deucalionite 15:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanians as Pelasgians: Revanchist pseudo-science

To Deucalionite and Pirro Burri:

Guys, the theory linking Albanians to Pelasgians is classical Revanchist pseudo-science. Most of its proponents are either ill-informed 19th century Europeans (and we all know how accurate 19th century European theories on race and ethnicity are) or Albanian nationalist hacks. No one buys it outside nationalist Albanian circles. It is not even possible to link modern Albanians to the much more recent Illyrians (except in a strictly geographic sense). How is it possible to link them therefore to a "people" (assuming the pelasgians even fit the definition of a "people") about whom all we have are some vague and contradictory references in ancient sources of questionable reliability? Typically nationalists make this sort of linkage, to the supposedly "originial" inhabitants of a particular place, to justify territorial claims ("we are the descendents of the indigenous people, so this land belongs to us"), something known by the German term Urrecht.

Revanchist justifications are often presented as based on ancient, or even autochthonous occupation of a territory, known by the German term Urrecht, meaning a nation's claim to territory that has been inhabited since "time immemorial", an assertion that is always inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in the eyes of their proponents.

— Revanchism

Given that the territory the Pelasgians inhabited corresponds almost completely to the borders of Greece, this would essentially imply territorial claims over all of Greece, which I think is too much even for the most lunatic and wild-eyed of Albanian nationalists (although we shouldn't understimate their appetite). Otherwise, I think they would do something like that to imbue their nation with the prestige that comes from being associated with a civilization of great antiquity. For example, I have heard of Hungarian nationalists claiming that they are the descendents of the ancient Sumerians. Since it seems unlikely that Hungarian nationalists would have a territorial claim over southern Iraq, their only reason for doing so would be to associate themselves with what is most likely the world's oldest civilization, and the prestige that comes with it. Such a syndrome would therefore seem typical of a tribe or nation that suffers from a collective inferiority complex with respect to its neighbors, which is quite typical of Balkan nations.

As far as I'm concernced the Albanian-Pelasgian link is classical Balkan nationalist pseudo-science, no better than the bogus theories of Polat Kaya and Alexander Fol. As such, I do not see ANY reason why it deserves its own section in the article. To do so gives it special status, which it does not deserve. Notice that I did not ERASE the paragraph, I just MOVED it, but such is the shrillness and hysteria of Albanian nationalists that even that is too much for them. Frankly, I cannot see a SINGLE reason for having a separate heading for the Albanian-Pelasgian theory, and will restore the article to its previous status until someone can provide me with a concrete, SCIENTIFIC argument to the contrary. No nationalist hysteria or personal attacks please. -- Tsourkpk (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk

Response to Tsourkpk

Alexander Fol was actually an internationally respected Bulgarian historian and Thracologist. As for my request for you to put back the section, it was only because the Pelasgians article should maintain NPOV (section-wise). The last thing anyone needs here is another revert war and administrators going crazy trying to maintain order. You state that you have problems with Polat Kaya's arguments regarding the Pelasgians, and yet the author's basic arguments are presented in the overall article despite the fact that they are questionable and are based on pseudo-scientific revanchism. Even though I agree that the "Albanian perspective" regarding the Pelasgians contains questionable content, it should be brought forth in a separate section and criticized just like any other section carrying a series of arguments (regardless if the arguments are "notably credible" or "notably crackpot"). I noticed that you merely moved the paragraph elsewhere, but the section was only created to accommodate the fact there are a handful of authors who argue that there are connections between the Albanians and the Pelasgians. However, if you feel that strongly about preventing the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section from being shown on the article, then by all means maintain the status quo.

For the record, just because I recommend that the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section be restored to the overall article does not mean that I support the section's overall content. If you want scientific data to support this specific section, then you should go speak to the Albanian users who support the supposed connections between Albanians and Pelasgians. However, remember that there are authors (just like Polat Kaya) who support the supposed links between Albanians and Pelasgians.

There is no denying the fact that your points are valid Tsourkpk. However, there are ultimately two paths that the Pelasgians article can take. Either the Pelasgians article presents all theories (both "notably credible" and "notably crackpot") in order to maintain NPOV, or it should merely preserve "notably credible" arguments and remove all theories that lack scientific support (as opposed to removing theories just because they are revanchist theories). Anything outside of the two paths would make the article look hypocritical and provide fuel to most, if not all, "edit-warriors" who have axes to grind. In other words, many edit-warriors (like PIRRO BURRI) may argue about how unfair it is that Kaya's crackpot theories are shown on the article, but all other theories are disregarded (or at least not given a decent amount of attention via a separate section). Of course, I could care less what any "edit-warrior" actually thinks about the removal of the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section (even though all you did was move the paragraph elsewhere) since I care more about the stability and quality of the article.

Before I forget, you may want to reduce the space between the introductory paragraph of the "Modern theories" section and the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" header. Thank you for all of your help. In case you miss the point of this response, I just wanted you to know the reasons for my actions. Moreover, I want you to keep the status quo of the article if you feel that strongly about not having a separate "Albanians as Pelasgians" section. Again, thank you for your contributions. Deucalionite (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Deucalionite,

Thank you for your valuable response. I moved the Albanians as Pelasgians section PRECISELY in the interests of maintaining NPOV. To give it its own heading is POV in my opinion as it unfairly highlights it over theories, regardless of merit. I feel very strongly about this, and like you, I really want to avoid an edit war. Personally, I think the whole Albanian-Pelasgian theory is crackpot revanchist crap (i'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but at this point we simply do not know enough about the Pelasgians to establish such a link). But that is my own personal opinion. To make Wikipedia better, i would strongly prefer to include only "notably credible theories" (including nationalist pseudoscience only serves to give fodder to critics of Wikipedia that maintain it is just a forum for crakpots and hacks). However, I believe this may well lead to an edit-war, for which I neither have the stomach nor the time. As a case in point, you may have noticed how hopping-mad PIRRO BURRI et al. became when I just MOVED the section. That said, I am fine with the status quo (although again, on a personal level, i would prefer removing all "notably crackpot" theories) and I appreciate your efforts very much. Tsourkpk (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk

P.S. I am well aware that Fol is a respectable scholar, but not all the work that respectable scholars produce is top-quality. To me, the Thracian-Pelasgian link also carries a whiff of revanchism, again because we know so little about both the Pelasgians and the Thracians.

You are very welcome Tsourkpk. Just so you know, I appreciate everything you have done despite the slight disagreements we had in terms of resolving this particular issue. Nevertheless, I cannot thank you enough for all your help. If it is not too much trouble, could you please make a minor correction in the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section? The text for argument #4 reads "Italian Archaeological Society" when in fact the citation reads "Italian Archaeological School." Just replace the term "Society" with the term "School." If you want to create an internal link for the "Italian Archaeological School," then please use the Italian School of Archaeology at Athens as the article reference. Like I said before, when it comes to editing large articles with heavy amounts of text, my computer experiences technical difficulties. I do not know why, but for the time being (until I get my computer fixed), I need you to help make this important correction. Thank you very much. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To Deucalionite and Sfurku

Please guys, stop offending! I am not edit warriors neither nationalist , i see Albanian and Greeks as the same people, is needed an independent view you here , but just in case Kolas was a guy like us and Greek and lived just few years ago, other Angely ,Mathias , Mayani , Vlora ,Pilika are modern author not known as nationalist or revanchist . The Pelasgians origin of Albanians was supported not only 19th century but also currently and with very serious work. I might indicate that your opposition is in fact revanshisem , nationalisem and a modulation of facts. Your counteraction by deleting the Albanian section from the article indicates your emotional view and in fact , I do not see any suitable reasons why you are doing that ?!…--PIRRO BURRI (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirro, I apologize in advance if you feel that this is all unfair. However, Tsourkpk makes many serious points that I feel you have to address if you wish for other users to take your case seriously. Even if you are not a "nationalist" or an "edit-warrior," Tsourkpk is just making sure that the article is not compromised quality-wise and stability-wise. I honestly prefer that a separate "Albanians as Pelasgians" section be created in order to accommodate the fact that multiple authors support the supposed connections between Albanians and Pelasgians. However, since Tsourkpk is correct in stating that the section's content lacks scientific support, it belongs in the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" along with other theories that try to claim the historical clout of the Pelasgians without significant scientific proof. You should have noticed already that Tsourkpk moved the paragraph from the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section to the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" section instead of engaging in a revert-war. The "Albanian perspective" has not been compromised (though you have deliberately removed parts of the paragraph that I derived from the website that was cited from another Albanian user on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, please understand that I deleted the section only because I feel that there is no point arguing over headers. The supposed connections between the Albanians and the Pelasgians, I'm afraid, are based mostly on theories rather than on concrete evidence. Therefore, Tsourkpk's points cannot be ignored. In other words, you need to provide scientifically credible evidence proving that the Albanians are the descendants of the Pelasgians if you want to prove to other users that your arguments are valid.

On a sidenote, I did not mean to be offensive. However, you have been disruptive on the Arvanites article Pirro and I am afraid that I must caution you again not to disrupt this article as well. Though I commend your persistence, you must nevertheless prove your case like everyone else here. I'm sorry, but there are no exceptions. Enjoy your weekend and I wish you luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PIRRO BURRI,

For the last time, I did not ERASE the "Pelasgians as Albanians" section. I just MOVED it in the interests of maintaing NPOV. There's no reason to get hysterical or engage in a pointless edit war. Tsourkpk (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk

P.S. My user name is Tsourkpk, not Sfurku. I do not know what that means in your language, but it sounds disrespectful to me. Personal attacks of the kind will get you banned, I can assure you. Consider yourself warned and watch your mouth.

Apologies accepted and I did not mean to insult Tsourkpk, his name is very approximate with this Albanian word, I will recommend to let the Albanian section as it was, if you want to remove or move this section you probably may want to put it in Hellenic section, the mention argument as they are theories and not scientific arguments sorry but seems to me not appropriate. I do not want to be engaged in edit war, so you may want to do the same things as you did for Hellenic section and incorporate an Albanian section , as they are many author form the past and recently demonstrating this theory. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is a contradiction between extensive references you give in the end of article and the article views--PIRRO BURRI (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the view of Deucalionite is very objective and respectful he states that “multiple authors support the supposed connections between Albanians and Pelasgians” , I feel that . Tsourkpk from the way treats this thesis express a strong bias, the theories that he expresses here about nationalism and revansisem in fact prove quite the opposite, indicate his own view that he does not welcome and accept this reality. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

PIRRO BURRI,

The only "bias" I have is against bad science. I am scientist by profession, and in my work, if you want to claim something is true, you damn better have evidence to prove it. So I require a very high standard of proof, which the hypothesis of Albanians as descendendents of the Pelasgians simply does not have. I'm afraid you also misunderstand me. I am not saying that the Albanian hypothesis is impossible, simply that at this point we just do not know enough about the Pelasgians to make such a connection. It is not even possible to conclusively link the Albanians to the much more recent Illyrians, let alone the Pelasgians of so long ago. You also claim you want to avoid an edit war, but then you do the exact opposite by modifying the consensus version. If you want to create your own section, you will have to provide more evidence for it, like Deucalionite did for the section on Pelasgians as Hellenes. Please read Deucalionite's post below, as he makes a better case than I do, and kindly refrain from modifying the consensus version of this article until you have REAL, scientific evidence to back your point. Cheers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Pirro Burri

I am glad to see that you are cooperating Pirro. Just so you know, the reason why the "Hellenic perspective" has its own section is because it contains logical arguments that are based on direct literary and archaeological evidence (cited from reliable sources of course). I know for a fact that when I first demanded that this section be created, I supported theories that made sense but did not have enough evidence to support them (or vice-versa depending on the argument). That is why I spent a long time trying to improve the section in order to validate the arguments that the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section contains. If you decide to provide direct literary and/or archaeological evidence to support the supposed connections between the Albanians and the Pelasgians, then I am sure that other users will be more than happy to create an "Albanians as Pelasgians" section. However, there seems to be more evidence proving a connection between Greeks and Pelasgians rather than a connection between Albanians and Pelasgians. I told this to an Albanian user named Taulant23 and he realized that if you do not have direct evidence to support your views, then no one is going to take you seriously here. Ever since our discussions, Taulant23 has focused on seeking and using direct archaeological evidence in order to validate his arguments.

Do not assume that I am acting in a hypocritical manner by trying to convince you that the "Hellenic perspective" deserves its own section rather than the "Albanian perspective." However, the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section has been criticized and has been torn apart by multiple users over the course of two years. Therefore, the article section has been tempered and improved upon to the point where nearly all users have accepted the sourced arguments presented in the overall section. If the "Albanian perspective" can undergo this kind of process, then there is no doubt that it too will have its own section.

Please do not despair just because the "Albanian perspective" did not receive its own section. The fact that the "Albanian perspective" is presented on the article shows how much you (and other Albanian users) have succeeded. If you engage in a revert war (which I know you will not), then you will jeopardize everything that you and other Albanian users have worked for. Therefore, be proud that a compromise has been established whereby the "Albanian perspective" has been presented even though the arguments it presents prevent it from acquiring a section of its own. I wish you all the best and I hope that we have come to an understanding. Thank you for your contributions and your cooperation. Deucalionite (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You spoke too soon. Pirro Burri already modified the consensus version --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely not good. I hope Pirro changes his position soon. I really want to avoid having to engage in another revert war. I am afraid that if this continues, we will have no choice but to call an administrator. Deucalionite (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I did modify the consensus version because Tsourkpk modified Albanian section, considering Greek language indo-European and contradicting also the section Hellenes as Pelasgian. In fact in or view any prove that connect Helens with Pelasgians , prove that they are direct ancestors of Arvanites and Albanians. In this respect these thesis should not be separate. At least we must agree now to let an Albanian section as it was which will be extended in progress. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek is by definition Indo-European, see how the term was coined: "In 1583 Thomas Stephens, an English Jesuit missionary in Goa, noted similarities between Indian languages, specifically Konkani, and Greek and Latin. These observations were included in a letter to his brother which was not published until the twentieth century." -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek not an Indo-European language? LOL! Man, what have you been reading (if anything)? Just make sure you don't insert crap like that in the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course everybody knows that Sfurk but we are talking about ancient Greek! “This theory places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscan and ancient Greek “ yes it places in Proto-Indo-European group of languages where Pelasgian language may enter Pelasgian language was pre-Indo-European and also “large proportion of the vocabulary of Greek does not have demonstrable Indo-European roots.” So your argument for deleting this paragraph is inadequate. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Tsourkpk, be reasonable before be engaged in edit warning --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got some nerve accusing me of edit-warring. I will remind you that you were the one who kept messing with the consensus version. Now go and read some (real) books, learn a few things, and stop wasting everyone's time with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Pirro Burri II

I do not understand your logic Pirro. Are you saying that just because there are valid connections between the Hellenes and the Pelasgians that this automatically carries over to proving that the Albanians are Pelasgians too? It would be very difficult to prove that the Albanians existed as a distinct group in ancient times (unless you decide to acknowledge the "Alban race" as Greek in accordance to Roman Antiquities by Dionysius of Halicarnassus). Moreover, the Arvanites identify themselves as Greeks despite the fact that they have been confused with Albanians due to linguistic similarities. Overall, this does not change what you need to do in order to convince other users that your arguments deserve proper attention.

Pirro, I know I said that NPOV would be maintained if an "Albanians as Pelasgians" section were to be established. However, you need to understand that upholding NPOV also requires that your arguments in the section are supported by direct and verifiable evidence. I also explained that the "Albanian perspective" has not been compromised since Tsourkpk merely moved the paragraph to another section.

Please do not continue this revert-war. The "Albanian perspective" has not been disregarded, but it still needs more evidence in order for it to have its own section. Do you honestly believe that when I first created the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section that other users went easy on me? In the early stages of the section, I went put up against all sorts of criticism. However, I kept basing my arguments more on the evidence rather than on theoretical conceptions. Eventually, I succeeded in my endeavors. I am sure that you can do the same if you just put in the effort.

What you need to do Pirro is address all of the points Tsourkpk made and provide scientific evidence to support your claims. If you can do that, then you will have the means to convince both Tsourkpk and myself in maintaining an "Albanians as Pelasgians" section. If you decide to disregard my advice, then you will be destroying everything that other Albanian users have contributed. Moreover, if you initiate another revert-war, then I am afraid that an administrator will have to intervene and implement whatever measures are necessary in order to prevent this dispute from getting out of control. I beseech you to cease this dispute. There is no need to argue over headers since the "Albanian perspective" has been acknowledged despite the fact that it lacks enough concrete scientific evidence for it to have its own section.

If you ultimately ignore me, then you will have a difficult time reasoning with other users who do not understand your position well. The reason I understand your position is because I was (and still am to an extent) a marginalized user. Despite my position, I know for a fact that people who read Wikipedia articles need sources so that they know that what they are reading isn't based on useless and unsubstantiated nonsense. I know what it's like to break the rules and to get in trouble for doing so (guilty as charged since I conducted multiple social experiments). However, if you break the rules only to fail in providing something positive to the Wikipedia community, then all of your efforts will have accomplished nothing. Ultimately, you will need to follow the rules just like everyone else if you really want other users to take you seriously. Please reconsider your actions my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

The article has improved over time despite the occasional revert-wars here and there. Nevertheless, I think that this article has the potential to be further refined. I have several helpful suggestions that can augment the quality of this article's content. Of course, I highly doubt that my suggestions will solve all of the problems that this article has to currently overcome in order for it to receive a possible GA nomination. I would greatly appreciate any contributions whatsoever towards improving this article further.

• Suggestion #1 - A plethora of citations in the "Classical Greek uses" section are in the form of parenthetical citations. Though this standard is a sign of bibliographical integrity, I think that all of those parenthetical citations can be easily converted into references shown in the "Notes" section of the overall article. Of course, this is not necessarily an urgent problem that needs to be solved immediately. Yet, this suggestion should not be entirely neglected. On a sidenote, it would also be helpful to provide any other reference citations that are potentially missing in the "Classical Greek uses" section just to make sure that everything is covered.

• Suggestion #2 - In the "Modern theories" section, I propose that reference citations be placed despite the fact that the "References" section contains a list of all of the books that discuss the Pelasgians. For instance, the section describes the archaeological excavations at Çatalhöyük as having revealed Pelasgian settlements. However, the Çatalhöyük article does not mention anything about any "Pelasgian sites." Therefore, it is imperative that any mention of archaeological excavations and Pelasgian sites be presented with full citations (author, page numbers, and direct quote from source if possible). This standard will help ensure that all claims and arguments presented in the "Modern theories" section are properly cited.

• Suggestion #3 - The "See also" section was once the "battleground" for multiple revert-wars. I honestly recommend that all topics listed in the section are actually relevant to the Pelasgians article. Case in point, the Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians article contains no relevant information whatsoever about the Pelasgians. Therefore, it must be removed. Of course, this is not a significant problem that needs to be overcome immediately. Yet, this suggestion should not be entirely neglected since it would not be prudent to misguide Wikipedia readers who may be interested in finding any related information about the Pelasgians in other articles.

• Suggestion #4 - The World Wide Web seems to possess pictures that supposedly depict the areas where the Pelasgians inhabited. Though I am uncertain as to the copyright status of such pictures, it would be nice to have some visuals depicting anything relevant to the Pelasgians. Of course, this is not a major priority nor is this necessarily a problem. However, pictures would definitely help augment the visual quality of the overall article.

Of course, I am open to any other positive suggestions that could help improve this article. Deucalionite (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It will never get improve, because even when you bring references,books,articles it will be deleted.Albanian Pelasgian case,deleted!Why It had a lot of references,I din't want to fight it anymore.I will never get it why Greeks hate Albanians so much,why when u show a connection between this two group of people,the nationalist will go crazy? So sad--Taulant23 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I believe that the article will improve over time since it has come a long way. Also, you need to stop assuming that Greeks hate Albanians just because there is nearly no direct literary or archaeological evidence to prove that a connection between Albanians and Pelasgians exists. Unfortunately, the books and references supporting this connection mostly constitute theories rather than direct forms of evidence.

I am afraid my friend that it is erroneous to believe that anyone who disagrees with having an "Albanians as Pelasgians" section is a "Greek nationalist." Moreover, the paragraph from the section has only been moved by Tsourkpk to the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" section and has not been deleted. Therefore, the "Albanian perspective" has not been compromised in the least bit.

I did my best to argue in support of maintaining a separate "Albanians as Pelasgians" section. However, Tsourkpk is correct in stating that more evidence is needed in order for the paragraph supporting an Albanian-Pelasgian connection to have its own section. Therefore, I recommend that you (or any other Albanian user) provide direct evidence here so that all users can scrutinize it properly.

I am sorry my friend, but the article's quality and stability cannot be constantly compromised. To "disrupt" an article in order to improve it is understandable (whether your contributions are right or wrong in the end since everyone makes mistakes). However, when you edit an article just for the sake of imposing questionable content supported by questionable sources, then nothing gets accomplished and nothing gets improved.

I do not like to repeat myself. However, if you still believe that the Greeks are suppressing a possible Albanian-Pelasgian connection, then you are simply wrong. There are no Greek cabals here and there is definitely no anti-Albanian sentiment here. I beseech you to cease making needless assumptions, because they are distracting you from conducting proper research and providing valuable resources that support your arguments.

Though I am happy to see you participating in this discussion Taulant23, I advise you not to commit any disruptive activities since many users here do not want another series of revert-wars. Thank you and best of luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian-Pelasgians

Many different opinions have been given when it comes to their ethnic make up. A more concrete evidence of the Albanian-Pelasgian origin is supplied by the study of the Albanian language. Notwithstanding certain points of resemblance in structure and phonetics, the Albanian language is entirely distinct from the tongues spoken by the neighboring natonalities.This language is particularly interesting as the only surviving representative of the so-called Thraco-Ilyrian group of languages, which formed the primitive speech of the inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula.

The French author Zacharie Mayani (1899 – ) put forth a thesis that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This thesis places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscansas well as ancient Greek. Nermin Vlora Falaschi published a translation of the Lemnos stele on this basis, with the help of Arvanite Albanian. The theory is supported by Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, Mathieu Aref, Faverial, D'Angely, Kolias, and Cabej support this point of view. . It is estimated that of the actual stock of the Albanian language, more than one third is of undisputed Ilyrian origin, and the rest are Ilyrian-Pelasgian, ancient Greek and Latin, with a small admixture of Slavic, Italian (dating from the Venetian occupation of the seaboard) and some Celtic words, too.The most active supporter of this theory was Austrian linguist Hahn who attempted to connect the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian. Today, however, Albanian is universally classified as an Indo-European language by linguists--Taulant23 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

what do obsolete theories of Etruscan-Albanian or Thraco-Illyrian-Albanian have to do with Pelasgian? If at all, this may be notable to the Paleo-Balkans languages article. dab (𒁳) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I could care less where the paragraph goes. Professionally, I'd recommend having the paragraph go the Etruscans article. However, if you disagree Dbachmann, then please explain why the paragraph should go the the Paleo-Balkans languages article. There have been too many discussions about one paragraph here and I would like to see some closure (consensus-based or otherwise). Deucalionite (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"the paragraph" needs to be fixed anyway. The historical remarks on obsolete classifications of Albanian can go to Albanian language. If there are any notable suggestions of Etruscan influence, mention it at Etruscan language. The Thraco-Dacian-Albanian stuff should go to Paleo-Balkans languages if substantiated. I frankly don't see any merit in the cobbled-together paragraph as it stands. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, your stance entails breaking apart the paragraph. Not a bad idea. Should we establish a consensus now or wait until other users pitch in and provide their standpoints regarding this issue? If you prefer the latter of the two options, then I'll go speak to Tsourkpk and find out what he thinks about all this. However, if you prefer the former of the two options, then I recommend we dismember the paragraph and finally bring an end to this issue. What are your thoughts? Deucalionite (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Critical Review

I critically reviewed the paragraph prior to removal:

---

Austrian linguist Johann Georg von Hahn attempted to connect the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian.{{fact}}

{{offtopic}}

The French author Zacharie Mayani (1899 – ) put forth a thesis that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This thesis places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscansas well as ancient Greek. Nermin Vlora Falaschi published a translation of the Lemnos stele on this basis, with the help of Arvanite Albanian. The theory is supported by Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, Mathieu Aref, Faverial,{{fact}} D'Angely,{{fact}} Kolias, and Cabej{{fact}} support this point of view.

---

The first sentence is of historical interest to this article if it can be referenced. The Mayani may be of historical interst to Etruscan language. The Lemnos stele stuff is fringecruft, but would be pertinent to Lemnos stele (which has its own history of fringecruft additions) if at all notable . The list of people who "support this point of view" can just be chucked unless it is made clear who precisely is supporting what exactly. dab (𒁳) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Deucalionite (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On Albanian claims regarding Pelasgians and other ancient folk

Here are some quotes from famous Albanian historians;

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

When the Albanians arrive on the Balkan and today's Albania, there is nothing else they can do except to take those toponyms. A large part of Albania is flooded with Serbian toponyms. Just as an example, I wish to mention the towns of Pogradec, Kor?a (Korcha), (Chorovoda), Berat, Bozigrad, Leskovik, Voskopoja, Kuzova, Kelcira, Bels and others.

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

After him followed the Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi who in the middle of Tirana openly opposed the hypothesis about the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. With me agreed, via the printed media, several other younger scholars of whom I would especially mention Fatos Lubonja, Prof. Adrian Vebiu and others." Quote: About the Albanians, Wilkes writes "NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."

Wilkes was proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European lineage. Quote: That's the way it is with our culture, which is mythomaniac, national-communist, romantic, self-glorifying. You can't say anything objective without people getting angry. The Albanians are a people who still dream. That is what they are like in their conversations, their literature...In light of Hoxha and 'pyramid schemes, Albanians are a people who still dream. That's just the way they are..." Fatos Lubojia - Albanian historian Quote: Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi writes: I can say that today appear a group of new Albanian scholars who do not agree with the false myths (About Illyrian & Epirote descent) and courageously accept the scientific truth that they are not whatsoever connected to these ancient peoples. I am proud that I lead this group and that they took up from me the necessary scholarly courage."

Quote: Ardian Vebiu Famous Albanian historian writes:

My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticismMegistias (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Megistia. I couldn't have said it better myself. Now be prepared to be verbally savaged by Taulant23 & co. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

With this anti-albanisem you are going no where; remember that you live in country Greece where Albanian or originally Albanian what ever are call them are majority from other race. We belong to the same Pelasgians trunk and everybody knows that, Epirotes Macedonians, Athenians , Doret are our race. You will never escape that … --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not an answer.Your persistence in albanian nationalist fantasy is not evidence to your claims but rather evidence to the opposite.Your "pelasgian statement" and that all the above ancient greeks were !albanian! is typical of albanian nationalistic mythology.Megistias (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PIRRO BURRI

moved to User talk:PIRRO BURRI. See WP:TALK. I will remove further postings that indulge in idle provocation or ethnic hatred and will block the offending editors under WP:DISRUPT. Wikipedia talkpages are strictly for debate focussing on article improvement. You have more leeway to exchange personal niceties on user talkpages, but even there blatant provocation and insults will get you banned. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

critical review

Following the critical review by User:Dbachmann, it seems to me the whole paragraph on the hypotheses linking Albanians and Pelasgians contains largely irrelevant information, with the exception of the sentence about the Austrian linguist Georg von Hahn. Therefore, as per the discussion, I have implemented these changes. The sentence on Hahn needs to be sourced, or it should be removed as well. However, I will leave it there for now. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for following through with Dbachmann's recommendations Tsourkpk. We can finally put this entire issue to rest. Deucalionite (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to insult no one, I am sorry you misunderstood my edit, in fact I have no problem with to day Greek being any race besides Helens, but please do not pretend that Epirotes are not Helens because all will laugh at you. While you achieved to delete Albanian section, I would like to ask you what you will do with extensive references and authors that support Pelasgians- Albanian connection, are you going to delete them as well?! Seems to me that wikipedia really is in the hand of amateurs now. Just for your information international congress for this issue is prepared to take place in Tirana , I mean you may come and bring your view if you are good enough ! --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been quietly reading these postings for a while now and haven't commented as I don't feel qualified to do so. But, your latest post Pirro Burri regarding an international congress and "bring your view if you are good enough" seem to imply that this congress is structured to present just one point of view. Personally, I don't care either way whether there is a Pelasgian-Albanian relation or not but, I would really like to read more on this congress and the participants. --Kimon^talk 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Epirotes are hellenics and Pelasgians are either mythical or prehistoric or Hellenes.Also illyrians are not Epirotes and not pelasgians(who were in the Aegean for the most part) as Illyrians came to the area at 1000-1300 bc from halstaat.There is no relation.Megistias (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

why ?! because that is how you like,i can see that you come from the street and from new nationalist "Greek" stock --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read sources in the according talk pages and stop insulting.I have told you before that persistence is not a secondary source.Megistias (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pelasgians Herodotus, The Histories (ed. A. D. Godley) LVI. When he heard these verses, Croesus was pleased with them above all, for he thought that a mule would never be king of the Medes instead of a man, and therefore that he and his posterity would never lose his empire. Then he sought very carefully to discover who the mightiest of the Greeks were, whom he should make his friends. [2] He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. [3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.2[2]

I see in the above Greeks and no Illyrians or Albanians.Megistias (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Also see;Dionysus of Halikarnassos "Roman Antiquities" 1.17.2.1

καὶ τὸ τῶν Πελασγῶν γένος Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκ Πελοποννήσου

translation:

for the Pelasgians, too, were a Hellenic race originally from the Peloponnesus.

No illyrians or Albanians againMegistias (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) All Greek can not be Pelasgians only those originally ancient Albanians http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11260506&dopt=AbstractPlus --PIRRO BURRI 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you even read any source?

I see in the above Greeks and no Illyrians or Albanians.Megistias (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Also see;Dionysus of Halikarnassos "Roman Antiquities" 1.17.2.1

καὶ τὸ τῶν Πελασγῶν γένος Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκ Πελοποννήσου

translation:

for the Pelasgians, too, were a Hellenic race originally from the Peloponnesus.

No illyrians or Albanians againMegistias 12:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another critical review

Hi guys. The original author worked hard on this article and he deserves a round of applause. Clap clap clap. For he's a jolly good fellow. But, a couple of things are obvious and somewhat painful. First of all, he's not a classicist. That is not his fault and similarly it is not his fault that he doesn't know he is accessing theories that were disproved decades ago. Quotes from authors that wrote in 1885 aren't going to support anything. I use them more for their splendid style and summarization power than their scholarship. The whole world changed with the decipherment of Linear B (see under Dorian invasion). Second, in his zeal (hurray for the zeal) he has extended the article by issues that don't really belong there. Third there is what appears to be a certain naivety, which I do believe he got from looking at the older historians, who wrote in the days when you lynched niggers and beat women and were willing to sacrifice half of humanity over ethnic issues. The war over slavery had been fought within memory and many weren't sure it should have been fought. The article is badly slanted I do believe. Since it was OK to write that way previously (you should see the uncleaned-up version of Henri Breasted) he does not realize it is not OK to write that way now. I applaud his audacity in plunging into the subject sink or swim without much experience. Now however he needs the life jacket. Since I'm working on Dorian, Ionian and subsequently Aeolian at this time I thought I would give some assistance in the form of a very heavy edit and critical review. Pitch in if you can help, but leave nationalist politics out of this.Dave (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, while I appreciate what you have done for this article, in this change you have made [[3]], by stating "connected" instead of "attempted to connect", you seem to imply that Hahn was successful in connecting the Pelasgian language with Albanian. To my knowledge this is not the case, and this is just another example of a 19th century theory that ended in the dustbin (only to be resurrected by Albanian nationalists). The uninformed reader, however, might think that Hahn was indeed successful in his endeavors, and that Albanian and Pelasgian are connected. Thus it seems that the statement is slanted the other way. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your comment. I'm not implying anything right now and I have no idea of the worth of Hahn's argument. I have not got that far yet. All I am doing is cutting out the stuff I know is wrong or inappropriate. Then we can start in to fine-tune this article. In answer to your objection, I would say, "attempted" implies that the editor personally knows that Hahn tried and failed. Why are we presenting failed arguments? This is not an article about failed arguments. The point is there might be some chance of Hahn being right. So more objectively we do not want to present him as someone we know is a failure but only as someone with a theory to which objection A, B, C, etc. has been brought but which explains D, E, F, etc. The issue is strictly one of protocol and manners. If he were on a TV show the announcer would not present him as the man who attempted to do thus and so unless there were something remarkable about the attempt, such as jumping over 50 barrels or piloting a glider over Everest and crashing. No, either Hahn can to some degree be taken seriously or we have no business mentioning it. I don't know which yet so I left it in without the failure slant, for now anyway. But now, your statement has certain non-objectivities about it also. How would you know whether he succeeded or failed? Pelasgian did not survive except theoretically in some possible roots. That is the point. The whole thing is very subjective and all we are doing is looking for the best fit. By the way the editor of the article seems to prefer arguments that did fail. His understanding of what we are trying to do has to grow here. But I think I know who, in terms of articles, wrote this. There is one fellow who is absolutely determined to press his view that Pelasgian is Tyrsenian and all those unknown Aegean scripts including Linear A are all Pelasgian and furthermore his decipherment of them is correct. This is, in other words, at bottom an attempt to publish an original decipherment. He is responsible for at least a dozen unsourced articles "translating" various unknown inscriptions. Well I admire scholarly zeal and persistence and maybe someday he might be considered the Einstein of inscriptions. Until then though he is not supposed to use Wikipedia for publication of original research and anyway I dare say he has a long way to go yet on his theories. But the human spirit is irrepressible. Bravo! Keep up the attempt whoever you are; meanwhile, get you stuff off Wikipedia. Try finding some minor and obscure periodicals that will take your stuff; you never know who will be reading them. Today's minor periodical is tomorrow's great and famous journal, etc. etc.Dave (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Storing this please leave

The reason I am storing this is as follows. Though it will never be of use in its original context it might be useful archaeological evidence of the Pelasgians. I'm not ready to work up that part of the article yet so leave it here for future reference, will you? I have not checked it out. If you want to upstage me by doing a subsection on that go right ahead. We can use all the upstagers we can get, but you need to take this seriously in order to do serious work. Thanks.Dave (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. During the 1980s, the Skourta Plain project identified Middle Helladic and Late Helladic sites on mountain summits near the plains of Skourta. These fortified mountain settlements were, according to tradition, inhabited by Pelasgians up until the end of the Bronze Age. Moreover, the location of the sites is an indication that the Pelasgian inhabitants sought to "ethnically" (a fluid term according to Foreigners and Barbarians) and economically distinguish themselves from the Mycenean Greeks who controlled the Skourta plain.

Why erase the whole section? Bring some of it back up?You mean you will merge the preexisting part with archaeological elements?There are primary and secondary sources on pelasgians as hellenes.Megistias (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Megistias. I'm answering your question by "bringing it back up" but in a more approriate location. It didn't prove what it was suppose to prove but offhand (it needs to be checked out) it looks like interesting archaeological material shedding additional light. Wait a few minutes and then check the article again.Dave (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please continue you are truly imroving the article its starting to look great and orderly.Megistias (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians as hellenes

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

A History of Greece: From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest, with Supplementary Chapters .. by Sir William Smith - 1855 p.12-13,The Gentile Nations: Or, the History and Religion of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians ... By George Smith p.317,`History of Classical Literature By Robert William Browne p. 40,The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC) By Tim J. Cornell p.38,The Religions Before Christ: Being an Introduction to the History of the First Three Centuries ... By Edmond de Pressensé p.66,Landmarks of the history of Greece By James White p.21 Megistias (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - most of the material is way out of date. No one now thinks Pelasgian was Greek. But as we are covering something of the history of the major theories it once was a major theory so there is a logical place for it. I will get to it if no one else does. One of the problems we have to face is standardizing source citations. Someone has to check that long bibliography against final content and try to work the appropriate items into the notes with cite book, Citation, cite journal, and so on. That is a lot of work. it is complicated by the fact that whoever was trying to prove the Greeks did not mean non-Greek when they said non-Greek threw in a lot of irrelevant "sources" and also the attempt to prove Pelasgian is Tyrsenian cost a lot too. We need that space for the legitimate evidence.Dave (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem.These were the neolithic folk or latter that had no "nationality" in any shape or form we would recognise today anyway right?We just inherited part of their language and some of their cultural elements were passed down to later cultures.Megistias (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this article is improving significantly. I cannot thank you enough Dave for all of your contributions. However, I wish you had contacted me first before removing any essential data from the article. So far, I have implemented some important tweaks and I intend to add further improvements where necessary. Keep up the good work. Deucalionite (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way Dave, I would have to disagree with your statement about no one today thinking that the Pelasgians were Greek. There are a number of modern authors who possess this argument in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence. However, it is more accurate to call the Pelasgians "Greeks before the name 'Greek'/'Hellene' existed." Even though "Greek proper" identity did not exist during the time of the Pelasgians, "Greek improper" identity did exist (see Minyans and Helladic). Deucalionite (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi guy, maybe you are right, I don't know. We are putting it in anyway. I left a space for it. I'm starting out at the top now and am going to do a line-by-line. My main main concern with this particular article is conciseness. Let's try to say it in as few words as possible. I also think the long quotes in footnotes are a bad idea. If it needs that much space it belongs in the text, but can we not just refer them to the source for many things? Also I use cite book, cite web, Citation and I put in page numbers wherever possible. I say this because I have to go intermittent on this for a while. So I will just work top to bottom whenever I can. This is my top priority because I need it for Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, Danaans, Achaeans and Hellenes. Then I think I will get back to archaeology. And I never did finish Battle of Thermopylae. So I will see you from time to time. If the matter is pressing you can use my discussion page but everyone really should be able to follow the development. I'm working on the etymology next. Ciao.Dave (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the term Pelasgian is missused at great extend but from the inscriptional data i'm checking, an area keeping that name until today is the Pelasgia of Fthiotida-Thessaly border.

I found two gems that we should examine a bit...The one below is from 150BC and is about the Thessalian league. 32 000 pelasgians are mentioned amongst the Thessalians. [11] The second inscription has the phrase "Pelasgis Hellas". From a fast look at the content i understand that the mainland is reffered as Pelasgian Hellas, like we use ipirotiki ellada today. [12] It would be nice to analyze those texts and draw some conclusions if possible. I would like to hear your opinions.Megistias (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for a reaction I am quite delighted. Inscriptions are precious gems to be sought by the historian as they represent history unadulterated by transmission errors and later insertions (or removals). Thanks. In due course I will get around to reading them. Right now it appears that we need another section on inscriptions. I would put it right before archaeology. I am determined to go line by line right now (or nearly so) as the matrix method leaves unfinished business and the reader reads line by line. Inscriptions? What a delight!Dave (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Megistias. I'm just going to throw in basically what you said and make a few cite webs to the inscriptions. That's only a temporary measure to fill in the gap as no one seems to be moving on it. If you have or find some inscriptional analysis by all means write it up and put it in. One question - I never did get much modern Greek - is ipirotiki "Pelasgian"? It looks to me as though it came from the name of Epirus. If it is Pelasgian then it surely ought to be in there.Dave (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on the inscriptions. I was able to do one of them. The second is on a statue base from the library at Pergamum but the first dedicatory line is lost and the date is uncertain. The statue evidently was of some sort of muse. The inscription quotes some verse. I was not able to identify the verse and who knows when it was composed but anyway it is literature and not a document so although an inscription - anything put on stone would be - it does not record anything so I left it out. The same concept of pelagis Hellas is presented in other authors. It seems to mean "that part of Hellas which is Pelasgian" and in this inscription is lumped with the cities and islands of the Ionian range. But we already knew that.24.63.185.195 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to log in. It's me.Dave (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I love such inscriptions myself, I would warn against committing "original research" here. To "analyze those texts and draw some conclusions if possible", as Megistias proposed above, would be just that. Please don't insert such things in the article. That said, I find your thoughts about these texts entirely plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The barbarians of Herodotus

My goodness what a determined man. I think you should think this over carefully. The whole rest of the passage refers to different languages so does it really matter what unusual interpretation you give to "barbarian?" It is possible to dedicate oneself to a wrong idea; many have done it. One has to be flexible. But what I will do when I get to it (line by line) is restore what the translation had for the sake of translational integrity - moreover we don't gain by changing translations because they all say the same thing - and then put the Greek word in parentheses with a note explaining that barbarian may not always mean non-Greek. However in my reading experience it just about always does and you really have to beat the bushes to find a place where it does not. I read the whole long-winded spiel that was there before and it seemed to me someone had ruined the entire article by wasting thousands of kb trying to prove barbarian might not mean non-Greek. I think such single-mindedness is remarkable to say the least. What's the editor to barbarians and they to him? It appears something else is going on here but I couldn't say what. For one thing we do not need that argument at all to present the theory that the Pelasgians might have been Greek. You can't prove the theory or any other theory and that argument proves nothing whatsoever. So, let's not waste any more time on it. It can go in in its proper place and I don't mind one note on one word in Herodotus though it seems pointless to me.Dave (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that this message is for me. Just so you know Dave, I am determined for all the right reasons. I have no intention whatsoever of hindering you from the enormous amounts of work you have provided to this article. Nevertheless, flexibility lies in the fact that one has to acknowledge (from an historical and sociological standpoint) that the term "barbarian" possessed a dual meaning. As you well know, Herodotus was not a linguist. However, to the linguistic standards of his day, anything that was not of "Attic orientation" was considered "barbaric." You will find plenty of moments in ancient Greek history where the term "barbarian" was used to describe unsophisticated Greek cultures. It does not make sense for Herodotus to call the Pelasgian language "non-Greek" and then go off to state that the Hellenic language never changed and that the Hellenes descend from the Pelasgians. Herodotus may not have been the perfect historian, but there is consistency in his work if you know how to properly interpret it.

You got a point there, I concede. But, I wouldn't go drawing any such conclusion that by proper interpretation you can make Herodotus consistent. If that could be done it would have been long ago. That's one of the problems with the Pelasgians - inconsistencies. Hot dawg I feel like I'm in college agin.Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As for my sense of "single-mindedness," you'll find that adhering to accurate interpretations and translations of ancient Greek text is key to ensuring NPOV let alone in ensuring that misinterpretations of primary sources are not presented in the article. Moreover, it seems that the supposed "theory" of the Pelasgians being Greek is becoming more of a fact in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence. Therefore, I am not worried about proving a direct link between the Pelasgians and the Greeks only through the prism of Herodotus's utilization of the term "barbarian" to describe the Pelasgian language.

Aw, deucy, I left a place for it and I put the note in. I don't agree with it but that has not a thing to do with it. Anyway it isn't just Herodotus the exponents of that view have to deal with. What do you do with the Etruscan and Anatolian side of it? So, we need balance here.Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I could care less about your opinions pertaining to the so-called "long-winded spiel" regarding the dualistic nature of the term "barbarian." Plenty of primary and secondary sources acknowledge this basic dynamic. You may be a classicist, but remember that classicists are not the only people who have contributed here or who have valuable contributions to make towards enhancing the article's quality.

Of course! On that score you are quite right. I say long-winded spiel because I think the point can be made in just a few words and to take roughly half a long article on this one theory seemed to me unbalanced and to tell you the truth still seems so. The main theory I do believe is the lost language known through non-Greek roots but the Etruscan and Anatolian possibilites are too strong to deny. This ought to be a multi-viewpoint article I believe just because there are no clear answers.Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Babara glosson" in Herodotus either means "barbaric dialect" or "barbaric language". Keep things direct, accurate, and simple when it comes to translating ancient Greek texts to English. Deucalionite (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's barbara glossa in the nominative. Herodotus uses the accusative case, but thou shalt not mix cases. As for the rest of it I fail to see what you mean. I thought accuracy IS the concern here and as far as I am concerned non-Hellenic IS accurate. The translator rendered an accurate, simple, direct translation and that is why it is on Perseus. However because barbara glossa is possibly equivocal we are putting in this note. And by the way those are not the only two possible renderings. After seeing this now I got to check what you did.Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked. You didn't do anything. OK. Don't put me on a pedestal, man. Classicists are responsible for writing some of the worst tripe you ever saw. The 1911 EB article was written by a classicist. I guess it is a kind of cockiness; you think because you know Greek and Latin and a lot about the subject you can say what you like and not be careful. That's what I like about Wikipedia. It is no respecter of narrow credentials. I always was a generalist. I'm taking note of the fact that other persons wrote the basic article. I'm only stepping in to polish becase it is a grade B article. If it had a star on it I would not touch it with a 10-foot pole for fear of making it worse. I have no such fear on this article. My interest is in pushing history back to its most ancient limit by concentrating on these names. That is a perfectly predictable interest for a classic major. I know you are miffed by my criticisms. I get miffed, thou getteth miffed, he she ot it gettest miffed, we get miffed ... I think you see what I mean. I ain't miffed. I'm taking Wikipedia's advice and concentrating on producing a good article. So, you won't get half so mad if you do not build me up! There are no heros or anti-heros darn it. I used to like the Shadow and Superman myself. But, there is no one on earth anyway to save us from ourselves. We have to do it as best we can. I got to get on with this as I want to get back to Ionians. Ciao.Dave (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference tag used for original research

Example: ^ Location unknown. If Crotona, the passage would present logical problems: Creston is "above" Etruria yet Crotona is below it on the map. But if they are not Etrurians who in Italy were they?"

I don't think this is proper use of reference tag. Reference means just pointing to the paper/book/journal where the information appears, not judging the info as I think I see here. -- AdrianTM (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I got carried away a little by the spirit of the thing. If you check the ref given to Perseus and follow the note down you will see that there are indeed inconsistencies with Creston. I did not wish to put the whole argument in because it seems to me it is off the point. If they want to follow the argument they can look up the ref.Dave (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way I notice these arguments are coming up only with Herodotus. What about all the other sources? Is there something special about Herodotus?Dave (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, PS. The ref tag is just a conventional programming word. The set-up is for footnotes. I deny that it ever was intended only for the source of the information. Whatever goes in a footnote goes in here. As for putting opinions in, that is a different matter, but that would be true in the text as well. So, you might put qualifications or additional information in a footnote, or links to relevant information. Wikipedia does not offer a rigid design. It offers a capability for design with recommendations for what looks best. For example, you can put contents right or left or leave them out. The recommendation is for the default but the situation might call for the other options. For a while people were telling me I had to use "thumb" for pics without a px number. But no one followed that "rule" so after a while it stopped being promulgated. The idea is, one uses these capabilities with sufficient flexibility to achieve a handsome and appropriate design. So, while the policy against personal opinion is fairly strong, there is no hard and fast rule about the footnotes. By the way what I said is not "original research." I did no research here. It was and is personal opinion. I was attempting to summarize. Sorry. However, quelling me will not get you out of the inconsistencies in Herodotus, which are one of his worst faults. If they dont get it from me they will from someone else. Ciao.Dave (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The barbarians of Herodotus (continued)

Of course I have a point Dave. What I explained above should be reason enough to maintain the accurate translation of "barbara glossa" (barbaric language). Moreover, you are unaware of the fact that the "inconsistencies" inherent in the ancient literary texts pertaining to the Pelasgians are reflective of the fragmentary nature of the Pelasgians themselves. The fact that the Pelasgians were spread across different parts of Greece and did not have an established state or city-state would provide ample ground for historians and even mythographers to provide information that to modern scholars would contain "inconsistencies." See where I am going with this?

I understand what you say. I do not understand why you are saying it. So I guess I do not in fact see where you are going with it or what its relevance is to what I said.Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The name is Deucalionite and not "deucy" so please spare me the childish histrionics. Moreover, despite the fact that you have placed ample data in the footnote, you still have to contend with the fact that you have failed to provide an accurate translation of Herodotus's statements. What do I do with the "Etruscan" and "Anatolian" perspectives? I add "Minyan" and "Ionian" (or Proto-Ionian if you want to take it that far) respectively to challenge the supposed "Etruscan" or "Anatolian" identity of the Pelasgians. Of course, my challenges to any form of scholarship will have to wait until you finish the article. Nevertheless, we are not here to establish a "balanced view of what we think of Herodotus." Our job as users is to ensure that accuracy, verifiability, and reliability of source data is maintained. Period.

Ok. I was trying to establish an informal working relationship. If you prefer we can be quite formal. In cases where there are different viewpoints each of some accuracy, verifiabilty and reliability, then it is totally necessary to present a balanced view and that is what we are here for. The is a tag objecting to unbalanced views.Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Etruscan and Anatolian "possibilities" may be strong, but the huge amounts of data shown in both the literary and archaeological sections of the article pose a much stronger case. The reason that there are no "clear answers" pertaining to the Pelasgians is because academia tends to provide multiple interpretations of the same evidence or even misinterpretations of extant evidence that may have nothing to do with the Pelasgians. These are things to anticipate when dealing with the realities that exist in academic institutions. Therefore, our job as users is to seek direct evidence and present it. Everything else is hearsay.

I believe you are wrong there. You seem to be talking about original research, against which Wikipedia has a policy. We are not tossing out the views of the academics because we disagree with "the realities that exist, etc."; rather, we are presenting views made authoritative by those academics and others of equal authority. No one cares in the least what your or my personal views are. What I object to is you presenting yours as though they were established truth.Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much about linguistic nitpicking. The accurate translation of "barbara glossa" is "barbaric language" (or "barbaric dialect" since Herodotus never distinguished between the two). "Non-Hellenic" is an interpretation masked as a translation. So, please do not lie to our readers. Barbaric and non-Hellenic are two concepts that are not directly the same thing. Therefore, it would be best for you to adhere to the correct translation that is accurate and directly reflective of the ancient text. Do you understand?

No I do not understand. You are wrong here. The question is what Herodotus meant and he is most likely to have meant non-hellenic. Please restore the text and revert the other changes you made.Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not putting you on a pedestal "man," I am simply making sure accuracy is maintained at all times. I believe in accuracy before "balanced views" (whatever that means). I know plenty of Greek to get by and I will not have you judge me on whatever linguistic shortcomings I may at times exhibit in these discussions. Moreover, I would recommend keeping any further judgments that you have about me to yourself. The reason I know a lot about this subject is because I have conducted extensive research (and interesting sociological experiments) here long before you arrived to fix things. However, I always had to contend with other forces that were just as vociferous as you my "man." Therefore, do not waste time talking about "cockiness," "heroes," "anti-heroes," and who or what gets "miffed" around here. Please be considerate of other users and their contributions. Imposing a classisict perspective without consulting other users is a mistake I pray you do not repeat when you edit other articles. Though your contributions are much appreciated, you must adhere to accurately correct translations of ancient texts. Interpretations masked as translations is a form of guile that even in the most minor cases can negatively affect how users understand an article's content. Do you understand? Deucalionite (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly know how to respond to this. I must say I personally am much moved by it. I was trying to put you more at ease. I see I have failed but my failure is disconcerting to me. I can't see how I was "judging you." I will say one thing though because it seems relevant. You say you have conducted extensive research. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not for personal research. I could have understood better if you said you had taught yourself Greek as many people have done that and done it successfully. I'm not saying, conducting the research was not a good thing, all I am saying is, Wikipedia is not the place for it, and what you say about balanced views is wrong. I don't think unbalance is a place for us to go so maybe you should reconsider.Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, "barbaric language" is just as much of an interpretation as "non-Hellenic language." All translations are interpretations. The one to use here is whichever is the more common way of translating the passage. I don't see that either one of you are making very much reference to recent academic literature--which would be a better way to go than arguing about your own interpretations of Herodotus. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for speaking up. I was beginning to wonder if anyone else was out there. I had some text in there about the possible translations of of barbara glossa and the fact that this has been a long-standing issue but the young man deleted it. I don't see it as a big issue. All you need to say is that there are different possibilites. You know, I looked for a translation I could use that said it his way, in which case I could put the note on that, but I could not find one! His translation wasn't the clearest in other regards so I took it out. You just can't please everyone. Would you like to solve this problem? Maybe you have a nice translation or a ref from last year or this that repeats the issue yet one more time?Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and all interpretations are translations. Even though you make a sound point Akhilleus, the term "barbarian" is directly derived from the ancient Greek term "barbaros" (see Barbarian article). Therefore, we have to follow that basic linguistic paradigm. There is a difference between derivation of terminological paradigms and derivation of terminological meanings. I am emphasizing the former despite the fact that I am well aware of the latter. Deucalionite (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strays from topic

I'm trying to improve this article as requested. I'm a trained classicist. One of the things wrong with it are long copies of Internet material placed in notes that aren't really relevant. On attempting to remove one of these because the material is already covered in the Barbarian article and it is not relevant to the archaeology I encountered a refusal on the part of Deucalion to allow it to be changed. The removal of these long notes would be a major step toward article improvement. Duplicated material on barbarians does not belong hung on the word ethnicity. For the committee to asked for trained help and then just toss it out is highly contradictory. I have suggested Deucalion resign from the committee on the grounds that as an obvious Greek nationalist he cannot maintain a NPOV on the subject. What do you think?Dave (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"committee"? Who appointed a committee? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The name is Deucalionite Dave. Deucalionite. Not Deucalion (though I appreciate the compliment). Listen, no one denies the fact that you are improving the article and I am sure you have proven your skills as a trained classicist thanks largely to the edits you have made so far. However, you have yet to convince me why the Foreigners and Barbarians citation should be removed. The source directly explains the dynamics of "ethnicity" in ancient Greece. I am sure that the fluidity of the concept was just as applicable in classical times as it was in Mycenean times.

Well, sorry about the name. This is a formal reply. The passage you cite talks about barbarians as they were considered in classical times as well as various other epithets and social categories of the Greeks in classical times. It is not a general or sociological consideration of ethnicity. But the archaeological quote means something quite different altogether. It speaks of a time possibly before there were Greeks or when there was proto-Greek. It hypothesizes that the population controlling the plain was different in some way from the population building the hill defenses and as the region is one known to have been inhabited by Pelasgians suggests that the cause of the difference is "ethnicity." By this the author does not mean the classical Greek concept of ethnos or barbarians and Hellenic. This is 1000 plus years before then. He is using the word in our sense of ethnic; that is, he hypothesizes that some ethnic distinction was being made and suggests that it was Pelasgian versus proto-Greek. He and we would have NO idea how the antagonists saw those distinctions. That is why the passage does not fit. One is apples and the other oranges; that is, one talks about classical views of those who were not considered to be a bona fide part of Hellenic society and the other talks about the English concept of ethnicity as applied to anciently recognized such categories. So that is partly why I removed it and why you should back me up. The other part is that since you have the link and the link is fairly direct and live, you do not need to quote the text and can save considerable space by not doing so. A third reason is that you are using the note for quotes that are bigger than the whole section. I recommend taking it out but if it stays in it should be up in the text. End of reply.Dave (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend not spreading useless comments Dave. Though I admit I have a Greek bias (check my userpage), this does not hinder me from making positive contributions and helping this article achieve NPOV. If you bother to read this discussion page, you will notice that I had to deal with users who were more "nationalistic" than I and I somehow managed to convince them to contribute in a more positive manner. If I was so "disruptive" Dave, then I would have removed every edit you made so as to satisfy my "Greek nationalist" appetite. However, such a thing has not happened and you have largely improved the article without hindrance.

I will not resign from the "committee" since I have made major contributions here for a long time and am here to ensure that all edits are scrutinized properly. Just because you are a trained classicist Dave does not make you superior to other users. I recommend speaking to me about the issues you have with the article rather than just doing whatever you want (which is exactly what you have been doing for many days). I think you need to re-evaluate your position and cease distributing useless value judgments against me just because I am being reasonable. Deucalionite (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are making a claim of special authority? This is obscure to me. I've worked on many articles and this is the first time anyone has said to me "I suggest you get my permission before working on the article." You claim that your special authority is to check the edits of other people. I would like to know on what basis you make that claim. I believed and still believe that we all check the edits of each other. For the superiority, no, I'm not saying that. I am claiming to know more than most untrained persons. There are always exceptions, of course, but I must be perfectly candid and say I do not see you as one and I regard your claim of authority of right over the article as invalid. I plan to ignore it. Nobody owns any articles here as far as I can see. If you don't want your stuff edited mercilessly then do not put it up, or some such thing. To be perfectly honest it looks to me as though you just plain lost your temper because I critiqued material you worked on. While I think long editorship and many contributions are creditable nevertheless no one is always right and no one owns the articles except the owner, Wikimedia foundation headed up by James Wales. That is my understanding. James has asked for the public's assistance in creating worthy articles and that is what I am helping to do because the subject is of interest to me and it is an intellectual advantage to have information that is correct and balanced. I got things to do now. If you should choose to apologize I will accept it but you don't own the article. If James or some one he has designated says in essence to me in some way, Dave you need to get Deucalionite's permission and you must accept his opinions as authority then I will believe it (I also won't work on this article) but until then I will go on working in conscience and you can do as you like as can any editor. I'm not inclined to do multiple rv's so you will have to live with the public and the other editors about it. I really got to go now. I would rather have spent the time on the material.Dave (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last shot. I see you deleted my tag. Hmmn. I read your user page carefully. Again hmnn. Apparently you are the way you are because that is the way you want to be. I read the history of our conversations. Hmm. How did it get to this? I see by your user page you sort of expect some consequences of behaving in this way, such as being kicked off Wikipedia. That is probably what has kept it from happening. I can see it is no good confronting you. Well, you know, I'm in this for the intellectual stimulation and excitement. It helps keep me alive. So playing "yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is - no it isn't" seems like a waste of time. And apparently once your pride is stung you never back down. I expect you will never, ever change your mind on this but will insist right to the bitter end, whatever that might be. I got mixed feelings. As we started out well it grieves me that things have got to this pass. On the other hand, sorry to say, it seems pointless to try to communicate with you. What you want is to win. So, I could put the tag back in, and then again after you take it out, and start the process against you - but - what would that gain? I want the article - but I don't want the hassle and there is no point in making things worse. So, the article will just have to be less than perfect. I'm letting you win - if you consider that victory - for the sake of general peace. Apparently you have sort of threatened to start in on it after I finish. Think now. Isn't that really saying, if you don't get things your way you are going to ruin the article? Is that the way you really want to be? I think not. The emotions have carried the day. Well, I stand on my work and you must stand on yours. Articles on Wikipedia melt away like the sands and that is one disadvantage. It would be nice to have a nice article on Pelasgians but it may not be possible. I'll contribute what I can and then the article must fend for itself. I hope I have started a train of thought for you that eventually will make it unnecessary to fear getting kicked off Wikipedia. The mean, the golden mean. As a Greek you should understand that. I'll be in the background.Dave (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is Meddling with a standard translation allowed?

The translation by Godley of the passage in Herodotus translates barbara glossa as non-Hellenic. I put a parenthetical expression in to cover the possibility that it might mean barbaric Hellenic. The latter view was rejected in scholarship at least 50 years ago. Deucalion whom I believe has a nationalist prejudice refuses to allow non-Hellenic to stand, changing Godley's translation. What should we do?Dave (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at other translations, such as Grene's? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't happen to have a copy. Can you throw him in there and see how he flies? Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. A decision should be made here. We're tagging the passage as Godley's but deucalionite has altered one word of it. The footnote was designed for the Godley translation. Just whose translation is it? That's why I put this RfC in here, which is my first, and which pains me to do. But, we need some decisions, otherwise it will just hang here forever.Dave (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue apparently has been resolved. Deucalion found an acceptable translation that uses barbarian language in such a way that it does not imply a translational decision as to whether the language is the same. The reader can decide that for himself. It does not need more editing from me.Dave (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"The issue apparently has been resolved." No kidding. I told you a hundred times that the direct translation of "barbara glossa" was "barbaric language" (or "Barbarian language" in accordance to the modern secondary source I added). Despite the fact that Macaulay believes the term "barbarian" to mean "non-Greek," the author is smart enough to provide a direct translation of Herodotus's work instead of transplanting "non-Greek" in every place where Herodotus uses the term "barbarian." That is why Macaulay's work is more valuable than Godley's interpretation of Herodotus's statements from the Roaring 20s. Enough said. And for the last time Dave my name is Deucalionite, not Deucalion. Deucalionite (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting an end to this.

More useless assumptions from the "trained classicist." Let's clear up a few things before our disagreements go too far.

1) I was not implying that the "Etruscan" and "Anatolian" views should be removed. I was simply stating that the data in the literary and archaeological sections provides a stronger case. Moreover, discussing the realities that exist in academic institutions also does not imply that I want to remove the "Etruscan" and "Anatolian" views. Direct evidence is needed to support any viewpoint whether literary, archaeological, or both. Stop using the "original research" card just because you don't agree with other users let alone base your notions of other users on faulty assumptions.

OK. Stay balanced.

2) You state that Herodotus meant "non-Hellenic" when he called the Pelasgian language "barbaric." Well, I am afraid you are wrong. In accordance to modern secondary sources, Herodotus called the language of the Pelasgians "barbaric." Here is just a sample to prove this basic fact (more sources are on their way):

What? What is the colon for? In any case we are not going to agree as there are two camps (at least) and I am in the non-Hellenic one because of the Anatolian and possibly Etruscan affinities. But so what? I just did not want you to slant the reader but to give a balanced view and then the reader can be aware of the issue and decide for himself. That is NPOV.Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Herodotus's Conception of Foreign Languages - I do not know why you deleted this when you began editing the Pelasgians article. However, the information it contains is valuable for clarifying whatever "disputes" exist over Herodotus's statements. It is as much of a valuable external link as your Godley reference. The only difference entails the fact that Thomas Harrison's article is from the 1990s and Godley's interpretation of Herodotus's statements dates back to the Roaring 20s.

I explained why. Mainly the link is also made and explained in barbarian. I think the digest is a good an interesting one even though I wonder if it is not a copyright violation. Google Books is not letting us see any of the book. I suppose it can be made relevant but why use the space again here, why not just a link to barbarian?Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3) Your interpretation of the Skourta Plain project's findings is atrocious to say the least. The areas that were identified as "Pelasgian sites" were Middle Helladic (i.e. Minyan) and Late Helladic (i.e. Mycenean) sites. Either way you slice it, you are talking about two different kinds of "proto-Greek". I am well aware of the fact that the Foreigners and Barbarians addition causes some dissonance, but the source reflects a "carry-over effect" (i.e. since the Pelasgians lived until Herodotus's time, then it would make sense to acknowledge the fluidity of ethnicity between Greeks and Pelasgians and not just between Dorians and Ionians or Spartans and Athenians). If you want to remove the verifiable text associated with the Foreigners and Barbarians citation, then by all means do so. I don't care. However, I deliberately cite direct quotes so that readers can find more easily the source of any data shown in the article.

Here I have beg off. I don't have an interpretation. Any changes I made there were strictly English-language. The main point is that of the two populations archaeologically defined one predominated on the plain and the other fortified itself on the hills. It looks OK now.Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

4) Just so you know, I am not making any claim to special authority. I am merely emphasizing the fact that I have experience with the article's content evolution. The only reason my statements are "obscure" to you is because you perceive them as "obscure." Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that you should "get my permission" before working on the article. I stated that you should consult with me so that a rudimentary form of collaboration can be established. Moreover, I do not "own" the article since I do not carry the "deed" in my pocket (except, yes, Jimbo Wales). So, please don't waste your breath about such notions. Also, I did not "lose my temper." Being adamant does not always have to entail losing one's temperance. You of all people should know that much. So, please don't waste your time with such notions. On a sidenote, you didn't bother to critique my work since you simply deleted the majority of it. For me to question your edits on minor levels is not a crime just so you know. I don't want you to get permission to work on the article, I want you to work with other reasonable users regardless if you agree or disagree with them. Simple. As for the apology you requested, I am sorry if I have vexed you because I reasonably questioned some of your edits. Sorry to have been such a terrible impediment just because I questioned a trained classicist. Are you happy now?

I accept your apology. But really, don't you think it is better now and covers more territory?

5) You've read my userpage. Congratulations. Did you read the disclaimer or did you skip it? All my actions (including what I wrote on my userpage) are all under the aegis of "academic business in progress." As for my "pride," I never had any to start with. I had to build it, destroy it, rebuild it, and destroy it again (not a big deal if you think about it). So, spare me the useless interpretations. I am not here to attain "victory" (whatever the hell that means) since you my friend were already "victorious" in the successful edits you have made to the article. So, pat yourself on the back for a job well done despite facing a couple of stumbling blocks. No, I am not going to "ruin" the article if I "don't get my way." Trust me, I know all about article ruination and if I wanted to ruin the article, I would have done it the instant you began editing. I have no intention of wasting time destroying the wonderful edits you have made so far to the article. So, stop with the useless assumptions.

Let's make a deal and end this "rivalry." You work on the article and you leave Herodotus section and the Foreigners and Barbarians citation to me. I have a few more modern sources I would like to add to the roster. Trust me on this. Continue with your work and let me do my work so that we can both show what we are capable of as users. Understand my classicist friend? Deucalionite (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. If you really want the ethnic stuff keep it, but I think it need more work to integrate it. By the way I always work on groups of articles so after these ethnic Greek ones have been worked over you will not see me for a while unless you do other things. I am getting the urge to get on to the Balts and Slavs or back to archaeology or revisit the Germans some more. I also left the Etruscans hanging. There is a method in my madness but I am not telling you what it is. On this article the basic outline is there so I will just be filling in minimum amounts per section. On the theories I would like to find some theorists. If you can't come up with an authoritative Hellenic theory theorist I can always throw in Mueller (or you can). That will be last. There is one theory left out, the Semitic one (a la Cyrus Gordon et al.) The article is getting long I see but I also don't see any help for it if the Pelasgians are to be done justice.Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians language

I propose to add this new reference::

Pelasgians language which is now identified by most of scholars as an Indo – European Language Reference:A language attributed to this people ( Pelasgians ) , proposed by some as a link in the development of other languages, and now identified by many as an Indo-European language. Source: "Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Timothy Darvill. Oxford University Press, 2002.Dodona --Burra (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What page is this in?.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This book is not available online,provide one that is or the same book scanned or in some form that can be checked.The Concise Oxford Dictionary of ArchaeologyMegistias (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You will need an academic password , to enter the site sorry !Dodona--Burra (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then press printscreen and show the text.Megistias (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a book not a site you quoteMegistias (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have a more than adequate section on the various linguistic interpretations. Come back to discuss this here when you've read and understood what's already there. Hint: You'll need some very technical knowledge of linguistics to understand what's there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes template

I put the quotefarm template on as it seemed appropriate since we are probably going to make major changes anyway merging some of the article into another. This is not a personal thing at all. I'm not currently arguing with any editors and previous issues were able to be negotiated. Above and beyond that is the issues of the quotes, which lengthen the article. The issue is, necessarily or not? Some of course are necessary. The ones I think may not be are mainly the duplicated link material; i.e., a link is given to Internet material and then extensive text is pulled from there and duplicated in the same note that makes the link. The editor that does this does it also in other articles so we need some input for his and our benefit. Is this a good practice and why or why not? A second issue is the length of the long quotes. Should we not try to condense? I do not think this should have been or ought to be a topic of contention between two editors personally so I am asking for the community's advice.Dave (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New and old references

I propose to add the following based on this new references:

Pelasgians are pre-Hellenic people living in central and Northern Greece, Athenians claimed Pelasgian ancestry and the Pelasgian element survived , whiles the language of Atiki latter become standard for all Hellenic tribes.

Reference: Pelasgians [CP]. The name in Greek literature for the pre-Hellenic peoples living in central and northern Greece at the time of the immigration of the first true Greeks about 2000 BC. The Pelasgians were widely dispersed in these mass movements, and Herodotus mentions pockets of the Pelasgian language surviving to his own day in Chalcidice and near Cyzicus on the Sea of Marmora. The Athenians claimed a Pelasgian ancestry and in doing so believed that they were the autochthonous inhabitants of Attica. The name of their city and goddess is indeed pre-Hellenic: more probably, a Pelasgian element survived and was absorbed when Attica was occupied by Greeks in the early immigration. The Dorian invasion had little effect on Athens, which was the only citadel of Mycenaean times to survive into the Hellenistic period. How to cite this entry: "Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Timothy Darvill. Oxford University Press, 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

Pelasgians language which is now identified by many as an Indo – European Language, is consider the base for development of other languages of this group by some scholars.

Reference:A language attributed to this people ( Pelasgians ) , proposed by some as a link in the development of other languages, and now identified by many as an Indo-European language. Source: "Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Timothy Darvill. Oxford University Press, 2002.Dodona--Burra (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pelasgian-Athens link is already covered a lot better and doesn't need additional material. The rest of what you wrote is again the result of you misreading your sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is modern, secondary and informative, if you have other suggestion please feel free , but the sources can be used . Dodona --Burra (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources cant be checked and they miss that Athenians claimed that they were ancient Hellenes by being pelasgians.So the attiki that was pelasgic replaced the other Greek langugages that were also pelasgic?!Megistias (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is believed that the parallels between ancient Greek and Albanian language would have occurred early as inheritance from Proto-indo-European without such case found elsewhere in the Indo- European family

Reference: Given that Ancient Greek had both the question usage and the "fear"-complement usage and that there are numerous uncertainties about the prehistory of Albanian, it is tempting to think of these Greek-Albanian parallels as innovations that spread from Greek to Albanian, but such a spread would have occurred, if at all, in an early, pre-Balkanizing, period of contact between the languages. Alternatively, the occurrence of both the question usage and the "fear"-complement usage in Ancient Greek and Albanian could be taken to warrant positing these as inheritances from Proto-Indo-European, even if they are not found elsewhere in the Indo- European family. Source : Author Brian D Joseph : Is Balkan Comparative Syntax Possible? [Version of August 28, 1998] [13]Dodona--Burra (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats about the Balkan liguistic Union that has been explained to you.Albanian have nothing to do with ancient Greek.Megistias (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

yes but the source does not say that, and another source: By linguistic Albanian language is indicated as oldest living indo- European language The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language.Dodona --Burra (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1892 is outdated to say the least.Megistias (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you after all will come to this logic conclusion, because the sources after all are compatible.Dodona --Burra (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence makes no sense. First of all, "the parallels"? Which parallels? All of them? You are again ripping things out of context. Joseph is talking about one particular grammatical feature. Your sentence makes it sound as if it was about a whole bunch of parallels that make Greek and Albanian particularly similar. They are not. And as for inheritance, Joseph is basically saying we know absolutely nothing about where this particular feature comes from. He's just guessing. By the way, have you even understood what feature he is talking about?

About your second "source", the one with the Wackernagel stuff: that is no source, because you didn't even tell us where you got it from. I know you have posted this chunk a million times before. Posting it another million times will not make it more credible. The person who first wrote that sentence was utterly ignorant of linguistics. I'm not blaming you for not recognising it, but I can tell you it's plain and simple bullshit.

To Megistias: The Wackernagel work from 1892 isn't outdated, it's a classic. But it isn't talking about Albanian. Somebody, whoever it is Dodona is quoting, has been ripping Wackernagel out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We can change the parallel with similarities if you like; the second source is mention already in article by another authors Johann Georg von Hahn and Vladimir Georgiev . Please do not get this personal I have nothing with you in particular but I am just expressing my opinion.Dodona--Burra (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian has some affinity with Thracian [14]and is not Greek nor Pelasgian.The article already cover most cases on PelasgiansMegistias (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thracian were Pelasgian tribe in fact.. Reference : Georgiev. La toponymie ancienne de la péninsule balkanique et la thèse mediterannée Sixth International Onomastic Congrees, Florence-Pisa, April 1961 (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), 1961, noted in M. Delcor, "Jahweh et Dagon (ou le Jahwisme face à la religion des Philistins, d'après 1 Sam. V)" Vetus Testamentum 14.2 April 1964, pp. 136-154), p. 142 note. Le Pélasgique (1952) and Études pélasgique (1960).Dodona--Burra (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mixgrilling things you dont understand .Pelasgians were in Greece not Romanian areas if they ever existed.Megistias (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are doing that the pelasgians were pre-Hellenic people living in central and Northern Greece as source indicates.Dodona --Burra (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Central Greece and Northern Greece were Ancient Greece and Pelasgians were considered hellenes in the ancients.Megistias (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources indicate that they lived all over Greece and parts of the Aegean shores.Not Romanian areas nor Illyrian ones.Megistias (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no link established from Albanian to Illyrian and scant evidence exist to relate it to a form of Thracian.There is no "Pelasgian" link and Albanians were not Ancient Greeks.Megistias (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian is identified as the descendent of Illyrian, but Hamp (1994a) argues that the evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language.Source : Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 144.Dodona --Burra (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We cant know if it is a descendent of Illyrian since we the evidence are poor and We cant know if it is a descendent of Thracian since the evidence are poor as well but we know more and its Satem.Albanian is not Greek nor Pelasgian.Megistias (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian as sources indicate is the oldest indo-europian language with similarity with ancient Greek and of course with Pelasgian but not so much with the new Greek language i am afraid , but Arvanitika propably.Dodona--Burra (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern and Ancient Greek is one of the languages with the greatest continutity.Albanian is not Greek nor Pelasgian.Albanian is a language recorded in the past 500 years-we dont know what it was nor the origin of the albanians- at most while Greek in the past thousands of years.16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs)

You can find out from ancient inscriptions if you are able and fare enough.Dodona --Burra (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All secondary sources

Feel free to improve it, do not deleted !

The French author Zacharia Mayani proposed the thesis that the Pelasgic language has connections with the Albanian language. Although this theory has been advanced by other authors (Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, D'Angely, Kolias, Pilika), most scholars considered the arguments of Mayani extremely soft.

Nermin Vlora Falaski, in his book "Heritage linguistic and genetic" (written also in English), has cracked pelasgic inscriptions (like Lemnos steal) with the Albanian language, the same argument was achieved by Niko Stylo when he translated old transcriptions with the help of Arvanitika ( a form of Albanian ). The theories which links Albanian with Thracian language add further to this point, since Thracians are considered by scholars as Pelasgian tribe.Albanian is identified as the descendent of Illyrian, but Hamp (1994a) argues that the evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language. Thracian has also been adduced as a possible ancestor of Albanian (Fine 1983, 10, 11), from where the term Thraco–Illyrian is derivated. This would prove that the Albanians are the descendents or have significative links with the pelasgians.--Dodona (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thracians & Illyrians are not considered Pelasgians and in the antiquity only the Greeks were.Stylo,Falaski and Kollias are laughable pseudohistorians.Thracian is already covered in the article.Megistias (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

what about others i can delete some if you want?!--Dodona (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How you could make such a strict claim!How you will define who the Greek were, because this is a modern name and you contradict a lot the term, do not assume then means nothing if many sources comes to one argument.Then why you "patrioti" anywhere :-)--Dodona (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What Mayani(Enver Hoxha era) has ingeniously pursued can be anything but science.So nothing can be used.Pelasgians represent a mythic entityMegistias (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian

Dear Burra.The paragraph is about Albanian and not the Albanians.Lemnos translations with Albanian (or Turkish) are pseudo history and unscientific.Thracians are covered.You repeat yourself and add redundant elements and forum links.There is no "Thraco-illyrian-Epiriot" and making up things isn't very nice.infoMegistias (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mathieu Aref-an Albanian- you quote is not a reliable source as well as he goes against any and all scientific data and finds and simply baptizes Albanian as Mycenaean,Carian,Pelasgian and so on.We know what Mycenaean is but seems this fellow was asleep during class.Megistias (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who mention Turkish , but i would mention your similarity, in accusations , all fringe because has do to with Albania and not with Greece, it can not be more stupid --Dodona (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More about Albanian-Pelasgian link

(Offensive section title changed)

this is what i added in the "albanian" section in the pelasgian article in wikipedia

"The French author Zacharia Mayani proposed the thesis that the Pelasgic language has connections with the Albanian language. Although this theory has been advanced by other authors (Falaski, Catapano, Marchiano, D'Angely, Kolias, Pilika), most scholars considered the arguments of Mayani extremely soft."

what's wrong in this citation? this text that i put in wikipedia is for information, is the albanian perspektive, you can't delete this, else this is not right, this is indoctrination (and not the comunist indoctrination), so you want to hide the fact that Mayani said that the pelasgic language have the connection with the albanian? you want to hide that nermin vlora falaski, giuseppe catapano, robert d'angely, kolias, dimitriu pilika and more others supported this theory? in wikipedia i don't want to say that albanians are pelasgians, i want just to put this theory available of the persons that want to know the different theoryes and thesis, for you this is wrong? so, if for you this is wrong, wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia, but is a encyclopedia where administrators decide just the informations that they like to put in the articles

i am waiting for an answer especially from Megistias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.15.92 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been answered above on all accounts and you have been answered by admins as well like FuturePerfect.Is this another sockpuppet Burra?Also "greek propaganda".....no further comment.Megistias (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not burra, i just put this text on the article and i am asking you why you have deleted my text, so for you i lie if i say that mayani said that the pelasgian language had connection with the albanian? you did not answer me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.15.92 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You logged on with your Dodona alias and wrote it[15]

More suckpuppetry.Oh my.You can see it above in the page as well.Megistias (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias ( in fact I double your combination with Tsourk ) do not make accusation and be civilized enough not to delete anything I write, because Hellenes were civilized you see.

I propose the following improved statement,feel free all the user for suggestions:

Johann Georg von Hahn connected the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian.

Pelasgic inscriptions (like Lemnos steal,Dipylon inscription )were translated with Albanian language, this were considered fringe by some scholars and supported by some others. ..

The theories that link Albanian language with Thracian have stepped forward to this point, since Thracians are considered by some scholars as Pelasgian tribe . Albanian is identified as the descendent of Illyrian, but Hamp (1994a) argues that the evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language. Thracian has also been adduced as a possible ancestor of Albanian (Fine 1983, 10, 11), from where the term Thraco–Illyrian-Epiriot is derivated.

Albanian national ethnography and symbolic has been argued to be linked with Pelasgians by some modern Albanian historiographs with international reputations like Dhimiter Pilika. , Spiro Konda, Muzafer Xhaxhiu--Dodona (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My question is very simple, is true or not that Mayani, d'Angely, Falaski, Catapano, Pilika etj etj support the thesis that the pelasgian language had connections with the albanian? if yes, why i can't write this in the section "albanian" in the voice "pelasgians" in wikipedia? this is what i asked, if i can't write this, it means that wikipedia is not free and i have the only change to consider this a "greek propaganda in wikipedia" I am still waiting the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.2.209 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See above subjects-don't pretend you cant- where the text is that you copied and change the offending subject name "Greek propaganda" .Megistias (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He pretends that we are the same editors ! Can you see now that it is not just me that i have this opinion. I mean who knows better then you the democracy . --Dodona (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not be very impressed 151.81.2.209 they do this thing all the time. Feel free to participate in this discussion where I am judged by them , they are most originally Albanian but they loath everything Albanian , you know what I mean it is just “schizophrenic “ [16]--Dodona (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Its about sources it doestn matter how many people copy paste them.And the "loathing" and “schizophrenic “ accusations against us i leave them with no comment.Megistias (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not making accusation, and i am sorry for who maked that accusation, i am asking you a question and you still not answered me, "it's about sources", with this what do you mean, i must prove you what i said about mayani? answer me and don't change subject please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.16.192 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudolinguistic and Pseudohistorical fringe theories don't belong here since they are questionable sources.Above in the page the sources you quoted have been rejected many times in the recent past and long before that and not only by me.Dont pretend you cant read the page.Megistias (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here as well.Albanians as pelasgians sectionMegistias (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Now i am registered, i am the user that created this subject), Megistias, this is not an acceptable answer, i did not asked you for Pseudolinguistic and Pseudohistorical fringe theories, i asked you if it is true or not that mayani and more others support the theory that pelasgian language had connections with the albanian? if yes, i am asking you why i can't write this fact (that mayani supported this theory), maybe you did not understand me, or maybe you did not want yourself to understand me, in the albanian perspektive in the voice pelasgians, i want just to add the names of some scholars and wich theory they support without talking if they are right or not

if you denie me this, i repeat you, i can only consider this a greek propaganda, and not free encyclopedia i am waiting the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have answered many times-and other users in the subjects above- but you are a Disruptive user.They are pseudo historians and questionable sources.Kollias for example is hilarious and he goes against all science to claim that Albanian is Pelasgian,Ancient Greek...and he was a lawyer not a historian or linguist.Megistias (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, I know it comes as a surprise (it was one for me too), but apparently the 151.* IP user may in fact not be Dodona. 151 is located in Italy, while Dodona has so far always posted from Albania. Of course, he might be travelling. But as long as we've no clear indication to the contrary, we should assume they are different people. You know, Dodona is not the only Albanian who writes not-so-brilliant English and has a bee in their bonnet about Pelasgians. If you want more certainty, I recommend you request a checkuser. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He did contribute exactly the same thing at exactly the same time and the above converation is "weird"Megistias (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, 151 made a new contribution [17] which, though in equally poor English, was noticeably more coherent and more aware of NPOV requirements than what Dodona usually writes. Dodona then reinstated that material half a day later and mixed it with some of τα δικά του. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

what's this, a discussion about my ip? i am the owner of a website oh ancient history, and i am not here to talk with you about this, i am asking you why you make this discrimination. Megistias, so now you say that you denie me do write what thesis they support because you say they are not historians and linguistics? so if i find names of international supported scholars you will let me put wich thesis they support, right? i am waiting your answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what "of" owner you are.This is about relevant reliable sources.You got my answer plenty of times but you dont like it it seems.Reliable sources properly quoted with relevance go in just like of any other user.Megistias (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, calm it please. A mistake was made due to the superficial similarity of Dodona's and PelasgicMoon's edits, PM's edits were met with the impatience Dodona had earned. Now, let's take a step back and look at PM's proposal in its own right, calmly and dispassionately. If he can quote people in the literature who have actually proposed some kind of link between "Pelasgic" and the ancestor of Albanian, let's see who these authors are, discuss politely what status we should give them in the article and how they will best fit in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

finally someone that is not influenced by the discrimination, i will bring as soon as possible some material —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the above except the one already in the article.The proposed addition has pseudohistorians with fringe theories and no value for an encyclopedic article.Even Mayani was invited by Enver to theorize on pelasgians to cultivate albanian nationalism but he commited pseudohistoric work to say the least.Pseudohistorians dont belong here for the simple reason that if this happens than every and any nationalistic theory will start going in and in a while we will have hordes of "theorists" going in.Kollias caused this problem and so on.Only secondary reliable verifiable sources.Megistias (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In order which reason all this horror for this ascertainment? Believe me, to no Albanian never has gone in head to widen the borders of Albania in the Greek earth because only inhabits them Greek citizens with Albanian origins, and because dark agencies of Greek politics have a century that they have made and still they make demanded similar to disadvantage of Albania. I remember the so-called organizations of "vorio epirit" that interlaced with segments of the Greek orthodox church still today continue in the 21 century their gestures anti-Albanians. But never I have for this reason not thought to make guilty all the Greek people! Of sure I do not accuse you of being part of this current but however its infuence in the political and social life of Greece has been strong and is natural that many persons have fallen without wanting it in the waves of these theories before seen nationalists but that in second truth me they have not made nothing else that they have rung today Greece in the borders from "the enemy" people. So, please, leave the comunist era, i am not here to speak about comunist indoctrination ot the greek church indoctrination, (if you want to discuss about this i can invite you to join my website for discussion about this arguments), the discussion is not this, i am here to have the right to put the albanian prespektive supported from different scholars, i will bring as soon as possible the names and the reliable source that is nedded, —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about wiki articles not about politics or the irrelevant things you talk above.Its not a forumMegistias (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

you are sayng me this is not a forum? you begun with Enver, so please stop accusing me, i told you from the begin i am here to put in the albanian section of pelasgians the thesis of scholars —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"dark agencies of Greek politics " you say above and some other stuff.......Megistias (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

so you discriminate albanian scholars, ok, this is a small part part of the not-albanians that support the theory that the pelasgian language had conenctions with the albanian, let's begin from the book of the greek citizen "Aristidh Kola, "The language of the Gods" publicated aswell as in greek language, the french Robert D'angely with "Enigma" and more more others, the italian Giuseppe catapano "Thot parlava albanese", -karl treimer "the contribute of the albanian language" (1914), "the problem ilir-celt and the indoeuropians" (1957). "the iliro-albanian contribute of the europian culture"(1968) -Hans krahe "ancient geographic names of the illyrians of the balkan" (1925), "the illyrian language"(1955) -Antun mayer "the language of the ancient illyrians" (1957) -H.olberg "the dictionary indoeuropian of the albanian" -G. uhliche "precisations greke in the spoken dialekt albanian of atica"

"NOCTES PELASGICAE", published to Atene year 1855 from KARL HAINRICH THEODOR REINHOLD.

if this for you it is not ok, i can add more and more others you can't hide the fact that there is a hipotesys that links the pelasgic language with the albanian, if in this section is putted "Pelasgians as hellenic" it must have space the albanian section aswell, because i never saw a international book where is writed that hellens are the descendants of the pelasgians (and this is really to prove!), so if you denie me to write in the space "albanian" in the voice pelasgians you should delete the section "pelasgians as hellenic" aswell, because i have 0 proves that links pelasgians with hellens!

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes .

• Kollia was a lawyer.A pseudohistorian
• D' angely is from hereillyrians org and claims that Napoleon was Albanian.In pages 113-117 he wrote that "Napoleon Bonaparti was an albanian origin, same as it was Great Alexander".A laughable pseudohistorian.
• Giuseppe catapano "Thot parlava albanese".He wrote that Thot the Egyptian spoke Albanianillire.Hilarious

pseudohistorian.

• karl treimer "the contribute of the albanian language" (1914)"the problem ilir-celt and the indoeuropians" (1957)."the iliro-albanian contribute of the europian culture"(1968).You wrote the titles wrong .Even today illyrian albanian connection is not established and illyrians were not Pelasgians.Read the article first.
• Hans krahe "ancient geographic names of the illyrians of the balkan" (1925), "the illyrian language"(1955).Outdated and Even today illyrian albanian connection is not established and illyrians were not Pelasgians.Read the article first.
• Antun mayer "the language of the ancient illyrians" (1957).Outdated and Even today illyrian albanian connection is not established and illyrians were not Pelasgians.Read the article first.
• H.olberg "the dictionary indoeuropian of the albanian".Albanian is Indoeuropean....we knew it.
• G. uhliche "precisations greke in the spoken dialekt albanian of atica".Post Ottoman conquest maybe during Byzantine era effects.Unrelated.
• "NOCTES PELASGICAE", published to Atene year 1855 from KARL HAINRICH THEODOR REINHOLD.Outdated.

-You didnt even quote from the books and some are completely irrelevant.On the pelasgians and the hellenes read the Article for the many ancient quotes that they are the same people. Megistias (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

so for you all are liers, greek italian french doich liers, aniway i will bring more material, (even if i am sure you will not let me because you want to hide this hipotesis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said they were "liars". Why do you put words in people's mouths? The sources you list are unreliable or irrelevant to the article. Since you are new to Wikipedia, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you want your sources to be taken seriously, they must be reliable, secondary and modern, and have a reputation for fact checking. This is not the case for any of the sources you list above. It doesn't matter if you list a million more such sources, none of them will be taken seriously as long as they are so unreliable. Quantity is not a substitute for quality, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because there are a lot of pseudo-historians and pseudo-linguists doesn't mean their ideas are fit to print in an encyclopaedia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok just prove with sources that all authors and references that were mention are fringe as you describe them, for me you are fringe , no body knows you and who you are , only thing known about you is that you are Greek, this tells me nothing and a lot, therefore prove again that they are fringe, Outdated, laughable pseudohistorian , liars,hilirous and what ever term you used for them.--Dodona (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona is right, you must prove even who "internationally acepted" sayd that they are liers...

Let's begin 1 per 1: Nermin Vlora falaski, is a supporter of the thesis that the pelasgian had links with the albanian, especially in this book she explain that, "Linguistic and genetic heredities" now i demostrate she is not a lier

Major Awards

1981, "Oficial de la Orden de San Carlos" motu proprio President of the Republic of Colombia;

1986, honoris causa in Comparative Linguistics of the World University Benson (Arizona, USA);

1987, Senator (Science Section) of the International "Guglielmo Marconi" Rome;

1989, Mr Senator of the International Medici of Florence;

1993, Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic;

1998, Commendatore dell'Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana.

now i demostrated who is she and what she supported, now i can add her in the albanian section in the voice "pelasgians" —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been answered on his theories before by admins,users and you just keep at it.It doesnt matter if he had good grades at school or if he was president of the galactic federation.Your insistance is not a secondary source.Megistias (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(From above and previous many answers)He used Arvanitika a medieval language to translate....the Lemnos steles and the Dipylon inscription as"Pelasgic"!!!!!. The dominant opinion these days is that the Lemnos steles are in a language closely related to Etruscan. To assume that this is part of what classical Greek writers would have understood by "Pelasgic" is a joke. As for the Dipylon inscription, that is simply beyond ridiculous. That inscription is Greek, period. Anybody who claims otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. Come on, we have an article on the thing, read it. Falaski Not a reliable source but a laughable one.Megistias (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

who is speaking for the translations of falaski? maybe you are changing subject? you told me about "reilable sources" and this is a reilable source, and falaski is internationally supported, so i have the right 100% to put her thesis in the albanian section, and if you want to denie me, first demostrate me that falaski is not a reliable source with "reliable sources", i demostrated that she is internationally supported and now if you want to delete my text you must dimostrate me the opposite, i am waiting your demostration that falaski is not internationally supported PelasgicMoon (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have and you are disrupting.Read wiki rules before you post.We work on wiki rules here not your own.He is the paramount of the questionable sources.Making me repeat myself is very annoying.Megistias (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

don't change subject, because, you know, here your opinion or my opinion is nothing, here are accepted only internationa theoryes as you told me, so now i am still waiting your demostration PelasgicMoon (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported.I have read the rules and obviously either you & Dodona havent or choose to ignore them.Me and the rest of the interested editors dont want to waste all my wiki days replying to you about something you dont understand or dont want to .Read the rules.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No enough with speculations (most or all greek editors) , no one believes you anymore. So give a source for any opinion you express otherwise any thing you declare is controversial, do you get that. Give sources to prove that all honorable scientific authors : Pilika , D’Angeli , Vlora , Majani , Catapano, Stilo , konda , Xhaxhiu, Marchiano,l Hans, Reinhold etc etc are what ever you say. Do you get that, we do not believe you--Dodona (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)