Talk:Arvanitic language/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive: 2005 • Current

Contents

Page move

I propose moving this page to Arvanitika. I think that Arvanitika is the best choice. It does not toe the separate language line of Arvanitika language, nor does it toe the Albanian dialect line of Arvanitika Albanian (which is the name that UNESCO uses). It is the middle way, and normally should not provoke reaction from anyone who has good faith, given that Arvanitika plain is the name that the Helsinki Report uses and is a compromise between both pro-Albanian and pro-Greek views expressed by different groups of Arvanites. If no serious objections are raised in the next 72 hours, I'll proceed in moving the page to Arvanitika. REX 13:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming policy

It is Wikipedia policy to include the word "language" in the names of all such articles. Whether or not User:REX considers Arvanitic a mere dialect is irrelevant. Perhaps he objects to Tosk language, then?--Theathenae 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, please keep "Arvanitic", not "Arvanitika", because that is the name of the language in English. bogdan | Talk 13:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, let's move Tosk language to Tosk. It should be there. Rex(talk) 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected from moves

This page, and this talk page, have been protected from moves by myself and Master Thief Garrett until this damn mess is sorted out. There are inconsistent redirects all over the place. There has been no consensus to move this to Arvanitika or Arvanitica - language or any of these such locations. Consensus is not a case of "if no-one objects within 24 hours" nor is it a case of what the majority wants.

Some of you are dangerously close to violating our three-revert rule insofar as these moves go, which will mean an immediate 24-hour block. Please begin discussing ideas for:

  1. Where you want the article and the talk page to be
  2. What redirects should point to the new location

I'll be keeping an eye on this situation, as well as cleaning up this damn redirect mess as far as possible. Please let me know on my talk page if a consensus is reached. This will not be today - I want some proper, mature discussion of this. Revert warring and move warring are not the answer. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, I think that's all the redirects cleaned up. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that User:REX's page move was completely arbitrary and in contravention of Wikipedia policy on the naming of language articles. It's a pity that a mini-edit war was required to draw the attention of the administrators.--Theathenae 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it appears someone is willing to begin building consensus. However, you were moving the page to Arvanitic - language, which doesn't actually fit naming conventions. We may need to settle for copious redirects on this one. I'm looking for more opinions before I unprotect this, however. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A useful example

To try to provide an example of how things generally work on Wikipedia, I thought I'd look at English and see how it's done for that language.

Therefore, I'd surmise that the accepted style in this case would be:

At the same time, it might not hurt to have that disambiguation page pointing to:

Some useful links

regarding moves and deletes

It took me some minutes to find where is this wiki today. Just two hours ago it existed in Arvanitika. There's an open ArbCom case I'm involved, and it is about Arvanites as well. And I must point out, that Arvanitika or whatever should have a redirect here. +MATIA ☎ 14:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for the inconvenience caused, but there was an absolute mess of redirects as I explain to you, so I thought it better to delete them and have them re-created once this article had found a permanent home. Please try to build consensus on this page to determine where that home should be. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Brian Joseph calling Arvanitika a dialect/variety of Albanian

  • link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented. Without discussing the very difficult theoretical issue of what the difference is between a language and a dialect, it is important to note that most of the attention that has been paid to dying speech forms in recent years has been to whole languages that are threatened, not to marginal dialects of languages that are otherwise thriving. Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. … While it is certainly true that there are some

such cases of loss in Arvanitika, some of Trudgill’s claims may be overstated in the light of the full range of Arvanitika dialect diversity, as Hamp has shown.

  • link 2: In a sense then, looking at an on-going contact situation such as that mentioned above involving Urdu, Marathi, and Kannada speakers in Kupwar is more crucial for understanding the Balkan Sprachbund than are constructs from modern syntactic theory. Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund, for these typically village-based situations approximate the contact situation in the Balkans 600 years or so ago in ways that an examination or comparison of the various present-day, generally urban-based, standard languages cannot. What one sees in examining the urban standards is perhaps the aftereffects of the contact from several centuries ago, but it is not such a direct window on the conditions that gave rise to the Sprachbund effects.
  • link 3: Arvanitika is to be considered a

dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect).

  • link 4: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian.

I believe that it is now perfectly clear that the above, in conjunction with the Helsinki Report and UNESCO and Ethnologue and Encarta and Britannica Arvanitika is a dialect of Albanian regardless if MATIA and Theathenae like it or not.

Also, the Helsinki Report says that the Arvanites of northwestern Greece (Epirus and Western Macedonia) call themselves Shqiptar

Also, Ethnologue says that there are 150,000 speakers of Arvanitika.

Can MATIA and Theathenae explain themselves, they have not provided ANY sources to support their edits, all they do is revert and then not be able to explain why. So much for MATIA, I at one moment in the past had thought better of you, silly mistake of mine, to think that you were neutral. Even if God himself verified what I say above, I bet you wouldn't believe it. GET SOURCES!

To get to the point, it appears to be perfectly clear that the status of the language/dialect is disputed. That is why is should be at Arvanitic (linguistics) as per Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) and Cantonese (linguistics). There are no sources which say that Arvanitic is a language in its own right, are there? Therefore ity should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics). I have to go now. Regards Rex(talk) 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll start a move request and contact everyone from other talk pages for a vote, as per Talk:Macedonian denar. Wikipedia's naming conventions must be observed, that explains Flemish (linguistics). I'll propose moving it to Arvanitic (linguistics) as its status is disputed, like Mandarin (linguistics). Rex(talk) 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

I believe that Arvanitic language should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics) to reflect the fact that its status as a dialect or a language in its own right is disputed. All other disputed languages/dialects on Wikipedia have titles of the form X (linguistics) (eg Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) etc), which is a neutral and NPOV form as it doesn't take sides. I have provided evidence at Talk:Arvanitic language#Discussion that it is viewed as a dialect by the majority (if not all) of the scientific establishment (UNESCO), but as its status on Wikipedia is diputed (the users who believe that it is a language haven't provided any sources whatsoever), I believe that the form used by all other disputed dialects should be used and not take sides. Especially given that there is no evidence to suggest that it is a language in its own right in the first place.


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support as proposer of the move. Rex(talk) 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We should play on the NPOV - way. Bomac 17:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The language is a dialect. No reason not to state that clearly. HolyRomanEmperor 18:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously the linguistic status of this language is disputed and it may well not be an independent language from Albanian. Nationalism should not override neutrality; it is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. Izehar 19:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support bogdan | Talk 21:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - at last, things seem to be moving along. Good show. I'd like for someone to inform the other two parties who are mainly involved in this; that part will be the challenge - here's where the compromising starts. However, I'm pleased with the efforts made so far, and would like to thank everyone for trying to deal with the situation amicably. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Alexander 007 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It is about time someone to do something against the POV pushing present at Wikipedia. Macedonian(talk) 01:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Arvanitic is not a linguistics term. The difference between language and dialect is like the difference between hot and very warm. CDThieme 13:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It should be noted that CDThieme is incorrect: Arvanitic (linguistics) is valid just as Mandarin (linguistics) is. Alexander 007 13:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support As long as children of second grade speaking Gegh can understand Arvanitic, it is only another dialect of Albanian.--70.240.229.89 16:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Check what UNESCO says.--Epirus 16:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Everything I see indicates that it is a dialect, or perhaps even a creole. - P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support it is a dialect. Calling it a language is POV. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages): languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages. Arvanitic does not share its name with anything else, therefore the qualifier language is not required and plain Arvanitic would suffice. Please note that Arvanitic is the English word for Arvanitika (a Greek word) according to Ethnologue. However, the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right is disputed. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, sources say that it is a dialect of Albanian.
Specifically:

  • UNESCO [1] uses the name "Arvanitika Albanian" and says that it is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian.
  • Ethnologue [2] also uses the name "Arvanitika Albanian", but states that Arvanitic is an alternative name.
It has been argued that those sources refer to Arvanitic a language and therefore they are calling it a language. That is misleading. If you look up language, you will see that language is a form of communication and therefore, calling something a language does not in itself mean that it can not be a dialect. Having read dialect, it becomes clear that all dialects are languages, but not vice versa.

As these two reliable sources call this language Arvanitika Albanian, they are obviously indication that it is a variety (linguistics)/dialect of Albanian. Also, UNESCO unequivocally calls it a dialect. Other sources include the professor at Ohio University, Brian Joseph staunchly defends the term dialect to refer to Arvanitic. Some of his works include the quotes:

  • link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented [[[Albanian language|Albanian]] is robustly represented in all its other forms]. … Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. [ie Arvanitic is a part of Albanian (ie a dialect)]
  • link 2: Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety [look up variety it means dialect] of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into…
  • link 3: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian. [I think that this one is clear enough]
  • link 4: Arvanitika is to be considered a dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the

present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect). To get to the point, I believe that Arvanitic language should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics) to reflect its status (according to the above reliable sources) as a dialect (or disputed dialect). All other dialects or languages with disputed status use the form I am suggesting. For example Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Cantonese (linguistics) etc. if you check the talk page of these articles, you would notice moving them to Flemish language etc ha been suggested, and it has been found that their current form is more NPOV (it doesn't take sides) and is more stable. Using the name Arvanitic (linguistics) is not a violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and that form is used by almost every other article on a (disputed) dialect on Wikipedia. It is the NPOV way to go about this. Rex(talk) 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

enough

Wikipedia is not a tyranny of majority and certainly not a tyranny of a small group of users. I'll take it to the related open ArbCom case within this week. I'm sick and tired of REX's tactics. +MATIA ☎ 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I had left some comments at Talk:Arvanites#Brian_Joseph_calling_Arvanitika_a_dialect.2Fvariety_of_Albanian and if a group of neutrals review the 4 links I've provided before (Talk:Arvanites#Brian_Joseph_on_Arvanitika) it'll be proven that REX misinterprets him. +MATIA ☎ 15:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, If you have any sources, please "sing" them to us. If not, let us proceed with the move, it is not tactics. Didn't you say: I'm sick and tired of a certain group of users who disrespect everything. There was a poll, long discussions ... I don't get it are votes only tyrannies of the majority on selective cases? Why wan't that poll a tyranny of the majority? Rex(talk) 15:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am NOT misinterpreting those sources. They clearly say the word DIALECT. How can that be misinterpreted? I am saying that given that the status of the language is disputed a neutral way of saying it should be found. What's wrong with that? Rex(talk) 16:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Boolean logic cannot be applied to my comments. You misinterpret my comments as well. +MATIA ☎ 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll bring everything related on the open ArbCom case. As for my sources I always write them at the buttom of the wikis I edit (that includes Scanderbeg, Arvanites and Arvanitic language). I am not going to sing them to you, I've already spent too much time with your tactics. You haven't told me before if you believe that the first two letters of ISBN stand for Invisible Sources (that's how you called my sources before). Don't answer here, save it for the ArbCom. +MATIA ☎ 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
First up, the Arbitration Committee is not for content disputes. Second, there's obviously a clear problem between you two here. Thank you both for not resorting to personal attacks thus far. Matia, if there is a problem with Rex personally, please do take it up with ArbCom, who will try to sort out that mess. And what is this ISBN rubbish? The acronym stands for International Standard Book Number. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And as you've read before: if we have an article called Macedonian language for MKD then I'm sure we can have an article called Arvanitika language for AAT. +MATIA ☎ 16:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I'm trying to find a neutral solution, what do you want? Do you want everyone to agree with everything you say? I have done nothing wrong. This is a standard procedure to make a consensus to move a page. I don't see what the big deal is. Do you not want a consensus? I have told you. Are my arguments and sources invalid or something? Does UNESCO not call Arvanitic a dialect? Please try and co-operate. UNESCO is a neutral source. Are saying that you know better than them? Rex(talk) 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling a poll is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate; the Arvanites know very well whether they speak a language or a (linguistics). By the way, User:REX, your red blots are polluting the screen. Most aesthetically unpleasing.--Theathenae 17:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That's enough of that. The only thing I see here is Rex attempting to do things properly, i.e. to garner consensus on where the page should actually reside, and what redirects we should have. Things need to fit in with the Manual of Style. Please do not make personal attacks again. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with a poll. This way we'll find something neutral that has a consensus. Unless of course you want to move the article back to Arvanitika, that is what I want. But, as we've said. This is not about our happiness. It's about NPOV, and that is what polls give (like on Macedonian denar). Wikipedia should be neutral. Rex(talk) 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Remember, UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph all say that Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. They can't all be wrong, can they? Rex(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, don't call the Albanian flag a little red blot! It is the eagle of Gjergj Kastrioti Skenderbeu, an Albanian hero! Rex(talk) 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't push me too hard Robchurch, especially not today. I've tolerated PA from REX at least since early September. He accused me, even today, that I don't bring sources (he wrote MATIA, If you have any sources, please "sing" them to us), and he repeatedly talked before about MATIA's invisible sources. Since I wrote reffering to books and providing ISBN, believing naively that REX might want to check the books on a local (to him) library, I wanted to know whether he interprets ISBN that way. I don't think that's more a PA than your word rubbish about my comment. And I now regret that I hadn't responded to REX's PA in the past. +MATIA ☎ 20:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't make threatening comments, or comments which could be interpreted as implied threats. Thank you. Incidentally, my choice of word may not have been 100% brilliant; but the "rubbish" I referred to was the affair surrounding what, apparently, is some problems with sources you were citing. You appear to have been acting in good faith, and for that I applaud you. Can we keep this discussion as civil as possible? You appear to want the article moved to Arvanitika language, correct? Is that your position in this matter? If so, good - I understand what your wishes are, and now the process of consensus building begins. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
When I try to read this talk page, it looks like the red flag is blinking (it's an eye illusion). As for Scanderbeg anyone can say whether I respect him by checking my edits there. +MATIA ☎ 20:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, be serious! I also think that you should know that the AAT code is for ARVANITIKA ALBANIAN [3] you are cutting half the name out! Of course papier-mache sources are a speciality of yours, but if you want to use the AAT code, it should be Arvanitika Albanian language. Is that what you want? It's like Megleno-Romanian. Would you cut the name in half and say that it is called the Megleno language? Find real sources. Even now, you haven't provided any real arguments. It's just invitations to check your previous contributions, just because you know that no one will be bothered to check them as no one gives a hoot about the issues. It is just a bluff. You have no real sources. Would it be too much to ask that you place a link here which confirms your theory *smirk* :-) Rex(talk) 21:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We will just have to wait for the poll to be over, and then use their result. So far, it's a unanimous YES to Arvanitic (linguistics). There will be a Wikipedia:Consensus. You love consensi, don't you (quote: there is no consensus for REX's changes). So now we shall make an enforceable consensus to solve this problem. All we need is 60% of the vote, so far, it's 100%, Gee! To quote me: This is the way the System works and the System requires it. If you had sources, the result may have been different, but so far, they are still under the cloak of invisibility *snigger*. As for your accusing me of tactics, HA! If observing WP policy I am being dishonest, then my only wish is that everyone behaves dishonestly. Rex(talk) 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, Rex; the result of the poll will not unanimously decide things. Consensus is not a majority vote, and as some objections appear to have been raised, we'll have to talk through this. That's how it works. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was happy when it was at Arvanitika, as it is NPOV. It doesn't take the pro-Greek Arvanitika language, not the pro-Albanian Arvanitika Albanian (which is what UNESCO and Ethnologue use). It was happily at Arvanitika until Theathenae arbitrarily decided to move it without notice. I would be happy to see it returned to the neutral Arvanitika, which is allowed according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), which says languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages. Arvanitika does not share its name with some other thing, it's like Esperanto. It doesn't need the qualifier "language", which is what is disputed. I say that it would be POV to say that it is a language what ALL the sources I cite above call it a dialect and not an independent language and Matia's invisible sources say that it is a language in its own right, I haven't see these sources yet. Matia is hiding them very effectivly, so far. Anyway, my point is that Arvanitika is neutral as it does not address that issue at all. I am willing to consider that. (Matia, the ball is in your court now - compromise) Rex(talk) 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

about pre-decided "consensus"

You keep claim that I don't have sources but my contribs in main, proove the opposite. As for your tactics:

Just like the other time. +MATIA ☎ 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

... and again ladies and gentlemen, MATIA has not produced any sources, but redirects us to his contributions to find something that doesn't exist (a bluff) as he knows that no one will be bothered to check. And what's wrong with pre-arranging consensi? That notice I got on the Greek Wikipedia asking me to vote in the Macedonian Slavs Poll, what was that? I'll repeat: I'm not in violation of any policy! You are, you are removing accurate statements (the Arvanites of Epirus call themselves Shqiptar) and adding false ones (Arvanitic is a language in its own right). Do you have any edidence like I do, Britannica, Encarta, anything will do? Rex(talk) 22:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Enough, the pair of you. I don't care about your personal disputes, but I am now going to have to read about a bit more it seems, to see if there is something deeper here. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment was a little inappropriate in tone, and after a request for clarification from Matia, I realised that it was also not at all constructive. However, please could all parties try to present their points clearly, and without subtext, and things will run smoother. Thanks. Rob Church Talk 11:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

comments by +MATIA

First of all Arvanitika and not Arvanitic is the most common term among linguists.
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(languages):
Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages or "programming language" in the case of programming languages.

We do have Arvanitic (or Arvanitika) language, and Arvanitic (or Arvanitika) songs.
"Anthology of Arvanitika songs of Greece", Thanasis Moraitis, 2002, ISBN 9608597676

We have Macedonian language for the modern Slavic language, which is characterised by some (I won't argue here whether it's majority or minority view) as a Bulgarian dialect.

There is the Language-dialect aphorism (I've read the wiki today, but I had read similar discussions before) and on Arvanites#Famous_Arvanites I had listed some Arvanites who had positions in Greek Army and Navy (along with Arvanites prime ministers of Greece etc).

And of course we can have more. +MATIA ☎ 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

comments by Rex

In that case, it could be moved to Arvanitika (linguistics), no problem. Arvanitika language and/or Arvanitic language are completely unacceptable. It is quite clear that evey source on the planet bluntly denies Arvanitic being a language in its own right, but it is a DIALECT OF ALBANIAN. Calling it Arvanitic language is your POV. You haven't provided any sources, even at this point of duress, I guess that this means you don't have any. As for Macedonian, if Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO, the University of Ohio called it a dialect of Bulgarian, then it would be disputed. But they don't, only Greek and Bulgarian nationalists say that. Quite clearly your views are an isolated minority, you should try to compromise. Arvanitic language and Arvanitika language sre out of the question. Find something else. Rex(talk) 08:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Even "your" sources sometimes use the term language (UNESCO red book) and Ethnologue clearly says that Arvanitika is a language
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aat
+MATIA ☎ 08:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, is that the bst you can do? Language means oral written or in another form of communication. Therefore ALL dialects are languages. Acrually UNESCO and Ethnologue DO NOT call Arvanitika a language. They call Arvanitika Albanian a language. We could I suppose mover the article to Arvanitika Albanian language, it suits me. Rex(talk) 09:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC) k MATIA, I suggest you read Straw man, your tactics are outlined there. You have STILL not provided any sources, nothing. Rex(talk) 09:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please stop telling lies, aka that I don't provide sources? Ethnologue cleary calls Arvanitika a language and it categorises with the Albanian language. That means Arvanitika language is ok according to Ethnologue. You 've been told numerous times that Arvanites loathe the term Albanian to be forced on them, even your precious Helsinki reports states it clearly. You are the one who uses strawman arguments, or misinterpret anything using circular or boolean logic. +MATIA ☎ 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No it calls the it Arvanitika Albanian, and why would it use the term Albanian if it were not a varitey of Albanian? UNESCO also clearly says that it is a dialect. Therefore, the status of Arvanitika is disputed, much like that of Mandarin. That's why Wikipedia should not take sisdes, and should use the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics). Rex(talk) 10:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Shouting removed. Please don't - capitalisation actually makes things harder to read. Rob Church Talk 11:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue calls it Arvanitika Albanian in big bright letters. MATIA's boolean logic interprets this as meaning that it can be called Arvanitika language. Except you are cutting half the name out! Rex(talk) 11:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not cutting anything out. It is clearly stated on the template and on the article. Arvanitika is related to Albanian. I strongly disagree with your need to label it Arvanitika Albanian etc and I 've stated the reasons before. The article can be named Arvanitika language and within the article we can analyse the arguments (is it a dialect, a language etc).
PS I don't apply Boolean logic anywhere in wikipedia.
+MATIA ☎ 11:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You have! UNESCO says that Arvanitika Albanian is a diaspora dialect of Albanian. Do tell me, how did you interpret that so that it would mean Arvanitic is not called Arvanitika Albanian and is not a dialect of Albanian? Powerful Magic, indeed! Well, the magician is usually impressed by his own Magic. (PS The name is Arvanitika Albanian according to Ethnologue. It says it at the heading in big bright letters. Arvanitika is a papier-mache home-made name by MATIA). I want to use the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics) as it is neitral as it doesn not rule out either possibility. Rex(talk) 12:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Might I suggest a compromise? Arvanitic (linguistics) would appear to be the neutral form of the name, as opposed to, say, Arvanitic language or Arvanitic dialect. Could we not have it at that, with redirects from Arvanitic language, Arvanitic dialect, Arvanitika, etc. or would that still be a problem?

As I understand it, "Arvanitic" is the English word for it, and so the base article does need to be Arvanitic... in order to comply with this encyclopedia's language. However, I believe Français redirects appropriately (i.e. to French language), and I don't see why we couldn't have as many redirects as there are variations; provided there is one centralised article, and one centralised discussion.

Is this compromise acceptable to the main parties here? Rob Church Talk | FAHD 09:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read my previous comments here on Arvanitic and Arvanitika and do check the links. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 10:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid it isn't. That precise proposal was made earlier by User:REX to deny the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right, despite the feelings of the people who speak it. It would be like moving English language to English (linguistics) because some German extremists might take issue with considering English anything other than a West Germanic dialect. Such extremism cannot be allowed to hijack Wikipedia. There are many instances of other tongues whose status is also disputed but are located at Bosnian language, Croatian language, Montenegrin language, Moldovan language, etc. There is no reason why Arvanitic should be treated any differently.--Theathenae 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
It should be treated differently because Britannica says that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect. It doesn't say that English is a German dialect. Rex(talk) 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, Theathenae makes at least one point: ..."to deny the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right, despite the feelings of the people who speak it". But we need evidence about the peoples' feelings on this issue. Alexander 007 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I see. Would it be possible for all the sources on the issue to be collected on this page once more, in a neat list? Then the involved parties have laid their cards on the table, so to speak, and can begin reviewing as a group. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 10:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What I'm worried about here, in absence of evidence, is hearsay and exaggeration. In the case of Moldovan (one of the cases noted above), the last Moldovan official census showed that two-thirds (the majority) of Moldovans declared that they speak Romanian, not "Moldovan", so if we are going to observe self-identification, Moldovan language would be in violation of the majority's feelings. However, with Arvanitic, what data do we have? Alexander 007 10:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I had gathered few notes on User:Matia.gr/Arvanites_sources. I also have some paper notes scattered around. +MATIA ☎ 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Apart from User:REX's admission that the Arvanites have a Greek national consciousness, we also have the Greek Helsinki Report which specifically states that the Arvanites loathe the use of the word Albanian to describe themselves or their language. That in itself is evidence enough to avoid such blatant attempts to deliberately disregard and offend their feelings.--Theathenae 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC) The Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia woud appear to disagree with you Theathenae (from the Helsinki Report). You disregert that report when is says that they identify as SHQIPTAR. Rex(talk) 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to call it as I see it. If the majority of Arvanites consider their speech a language, then it should stay at Arvanitic language. It seems to me that this should not be decided by a poll, but according to self-identifying policies. However, this situation should be described in detail in the article: e.g., "linguistically, Arvanitic may be considered a Tosk dialect of Albanian", etc., but "due to the feelings of the ethnic group, it is treated as a language in this article and in a number of sources" (just an example, not in these words). Alexander 007 10:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No one here has tried to deny the genetic relationship between Arvanitic and Albanian. What we have objected to is User:REX's attempted whitewash - defining Arvanitic simpl(isticall)y as Albanian with complete disregard for the Arvanites' feelings on a matter which affects them more directly than anybody else.--Theathenae 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Now we are getting somewhere. +MATIA ☎ 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brisn Jospeph (University of Ohio) and every other source on the planet calls Arvanitic a DIALECT OF ALBANIAN. It's status is disputed, like that of Cantonese. Some people say that it is a language in its own right, some say that it is a dialect. Therefore Wikipedia should not take sides by saying that it is a language and directly contradicting EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE. MATIA still has not provided any sources, all he says is that we should check what he has written elsewhere. Wikipedia should be neutral, it should not be a hotbed for propaganda. Clearly in all other disputed cases, the form X (linguistics) is used. Why should the POV with on verifiability be used? Rex(talk) 10:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can't MATIA and Theathenae provide a source which rules out the possibility of Arvanitic being an Albanian dialect? Because they can't. Even the Helsinki Report says that linguists use the word Albanian for that language, every linguist uses the word Albanian. You cannot contradict every linguist, that's a fact. The status of this language is disputed, and the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics) should be used. If MATIA and Theathenae have a problem with this, they should contact Britannica etc and tell them that they are wrong! Rex(talk) 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

We need some experts on Wiki-policy here. My reasoning is that, yes, it is 100% accurate to call Arvanitic a Tosk dialect of the Albanian language, and most or many linguistic sources refer to it as such, and I personally agree that it is a Tosk dialect of Albanian. But, because of Wikipedia's self-determination policy, it should (?) be treated as a language, but the situation should be described in detail in the article. But how can we verify that most Arvanites are determined to consider their speech a language? Alexander 007 11:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander, you do realise that in Northwestern Greece all Arvanites call themselves Albanians (Shqiptar). Therefore, opinions are divided on this issue as follows.
Pro-dialect:

  • Every linguist and encyclopaedia on the planet
  • The Arvanites of Northwestern Greece.

Pro-seperate language:

  • Greek extremist nationalists
  • The Arvanites of Southwestern Greece (Attica).

Therefore, opinions are divided, the only neutral way to go about it is to use the solution found inj Cantonese (linguistics) by not taking sides. We should not rule out either possibility. To call it Arvanitic language is taking sides and is POV. Arvanitic (linguistics) does not rule out either possibility. It's neutral. Like Mandarin (linguistics), wholse status is also disputed. Rex(talk) 11:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the Shqiptar slipped my mind, but they are very important here. I have to agree that the Shqiptar should not be ignored, and they may well consider their speech a dialect. In this case, I have to go with Arvanitic (linguistics) 100%. I have to call it as I see it, but one has to see as much of the picture as possible. Alexander 007 11:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a convenient cover-up of Theathenae's. As for his straw man argument that English language can be moved to English (linguistics), HA! No linguists call English a German dialect, nor do any English people identify as Germans. As opposed to EVERY linguist are credible authority which call Arvanitic a dialect and of course the Shqiptar of Epirus and Western Macedonia (according to the Helsinki Report). It's status is clearly disputed, and it would be taking sides if one were to say that it is a language and by so doing, rule out the possibility of it being a dialect. Arvanitic (linguistics) is neutral, as it does not rule out either possibility. Rex(talk) 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If Britannica or UNESCO said that English is a German dialect, then it could be possible to move English language to English (linguistics), but they don't. Also, Britannica says that Moldovan is a Romanian dialect and that Montenegrin is a Serbian dialect. Perhaps there should be a poll there as well. Thank God there are no reliable sources (other than Greek Propaganda Websites. No one questions Macedonian's status apart from extremists) that call Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian. Britannica (and all other sources) clearly say that Macedonian is a seperate language. This is not the case as with Montenegrin, Moldovan and Arvanitic. Their status is disputed (like Mandarin). Wikipedia should not take sides, therefore the neutral X (linguistics) should be used. Rex(talk) 11:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA ☎ 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that some in Bulgaria is just not good enough. Are they credible sources? Some in Bulgaria. All I know is that Britannica denies outright the possibility that Moldovan, Montenegrin anD Arvanitic are languages in their own right, but says that Macedonian is. Rex(talk) 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If you decide whether Ethnologue is reliable for linguistic issues, do let us know. You can't use it to label the article Arvanitika Albanian and then deny that some linguists support this or that. +MATIA ☎ 12:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not labeling it Arvanitika Albanian from Ethnologue. I am labeling it Albanian Arvanitika from UNESCO. When UNESCO calls Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian, give me a ring :-) Also, I should inform you that Ethnologue doesn't endorse that position, it mentions it. Also, if Ethnologue calld Macedonian Macedonian Bulgarian like Arvanitika Albanian that would be interesting. Rex(talk) 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another thing to address. I spoke above about what the "majority of Arvanites feel", but my mind was clouded by the recent Moldovan census results. It should not be decided by the majority, because this is trampling on the feelings of the minority (if they are indeed the minority). We should not cater to either side ("dialect" or "language"), but go with the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics). Alexander 007 11:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (By the way, this does not apply to the poll here, because the poll is not made up of ethnic Arvanites)
A question for you, User:Alexander 007. Would you advocate moving Ancient Macedonian language to Ancient Macedonian (linguistics)?--Theathenae 12:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, User:Theathenae, I already came to a decision on this earlier today: Yes. I was even about to move the page unilaterally myself. But maybe I'll wait for Dbachmann's opinion on this. Alexander 007 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were going to do that anyway. The poll results above are so far a 100% YES to the move to Arvanitic (linguistics) and according to WP:RM all we need is 60% to make the move. Neutrality must be observed. Where there is a dispute, Wikipedia must not take sides. According to Wikipedia policy, we could complete the move right now. I suggest that we propose this being made into a naming convention. It is neutral. Rex(talk) 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Those who have participated thus far in this laughable "poll" have been users with quite specific anti-Greek sentiments and/or agendas. This would be another example of what User:FlavrSavr would call ethnic majorisation. The Arvanites' feelings are irrelevant, aren't they?--Theathenae 11:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No they're not. If we call it a language the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece would get upset, and if we called it a dialect, the Arvanites of Southwestern Greece would get upset. This is a compromise Arvanitic (linguistics) does not rule out either possibility. Can't you understand that? Rex(talk) 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have a big idea of the Greeks. I think that everyone who voted were motivated by the highest and most noble purpose of neutrality. Who cares wht the Greek nationalists think? Rex(talk) 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I will add your latest PA (greek extremists again and again) on the ArbCom case we are involved REX. +MATIA ☎ 11:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The Arvanites article currently states that the Shqiptár of Epirus do not proclaim an Albanian national consciousness. We can then assume that they also differentiate their language from Albanian, as do the Arvanites of southern Greece. This alters the validity of your argument entirely.--Theathenae 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not say that. It says that in your (without being backed by sources) version. You should read the neutral Helsinki Report. It will open your eyes :-) Anyway, the poll clearly has results and they will be used according to policy. NEXT! Rex(talk) 12:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Language is a dialect with an army. If Arvanitika is a dialect, it can be called Arvanitika language, and no this is not against WP policies. And as I said before we can analyze in the article all the aspects per NPOV. See also Talk:Arvanitic_language#comments_by_.2BMATIA. +MATIA ☎ 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's your POV. Can you provide us with a source *snigger* :-D Arvanitika language takes a side, Arvanitic (linguistics) is neutral as I have explained time and time again. Anyway, the point of this discussion is to reach a compromise. You are obviously unwilling to change your position (I have, I suggested Arvanitika (linguistics) or plain Arvanitika). There is a consensus, for Arvanitic (linguistics) and I will request that the page be renamed in accordance with the rules at WP:RM in a few minutes. Your clinging to a controversial position is disruptive and I suggest you stop. Rex(talk) 12:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise 2

OK, straw poll looked promising, but some objections were raised, making it a very narrow consensus, hence I call no consensus.

Something that we could try is if the involved parties try "approval voting" - that is; parties indicate which of the following page names they would be happy to see used. I don't know if this has been tried before, or if it will work, but it strikes me as a fresh idea that has the potentially to really lay things out - if lots of people approve one particular name, then we can see where this is going, for instance.

You can support as many page names as you like. Ideally, please give reasons/cite sources (inline links fine) with your support. If you really strongly oppose a name, say so, but please say why - I appreciate; it's been done before, but I'd like to see it all clearly laid out. Confusion and repetition seem to be the biggest issue here.

Feel free to suggest additional names. The order of names as listed by me shall imply no endorsement or personal preference in this matter - I've scrambled them a little to help reinforce this. Rob Church Talk 14:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitic

  • Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support sounds fairly reasonable HolyRomanEmperor 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is Wikipedia policy to include the word language after the names of such articles, as per Bosnian language, Croatian language, Macedonian language, Moldovan language, Montenegrin language, etc., whose status is also disputed.--Theathenae 14:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment That doesn't apply in the case of dialects. Witness Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Cantonese (linguistics) etc. All sources call Arvanitic a dialect, therefore the language rule does not apply as it has not been proven that it is a language by virtue of your absence of sources, therefore the language convention may not apply. Rex(talk) 15:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment So User:REX wants to move it to Arvanitic (linguistics) because he believes it is a dialect and that's how dialects are treated, in which case his argument that Arvanitic (linguistics) is a neutral solution is rendered null and void. Thanks for the clarification.--Theathenae 15:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment yes, I (and the University of Ohio, Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO etc) believe that it is a dialect, however, it is also a neutral solution, as it does not specifically exclude the possibility of it being a language (unlike Arvanitic language which excludes to possibility of it being a dialect). What is Mandarin (linguistics) a language or a dialect. Opinions are divided amongst speakers and linguists. In the case of Arvanitic it is different: opinion is divided only amongst speakers. All linguists call it an Albanian dialect. In other words, it's NPOV! Rex(talk) 16:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Probably the best solution. It sounds much more natural and is more linkable than "Foo (linguistics)" which sounds really odd, as if it were a linguistics term. CDThieme 18:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is too vague. An Arvanitic what? (ie Arvanitic songs). +MATIA ☎ 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support it seems to be the most sensible option, it is clear to any objective observer that Arvanitic is a dialect. And to answer your comment +MATIA, titles can be vague (Arvanitic songs would be at the article Arvanitic songs, not at plain Arvanitic), they shouldn't be inaccurate. Arvanitic is not an independent language. Izehar 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support In these circumstances it is the best NPOV solution. Bomac 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Alexander 007 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain this. Rob Church Talk 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a comment from Rex, not me. That is not what made me firmly decide to vote in support. I decided after I deliberated with User:Bogdangiusca (see User talk:Bogdangiusca/Archive7), and Rex's offering of a vote was not the deciding factor. Rather, I decided after I deliberated on the implications and applications of the policy to this and similar cases that are well within bounds. More proof that I voted on principle (I believe in this policy, and that it can apply to more cases) and was not bought off is the fact that I came close to withdrawing my vote after debating with Theathenae, but after more consideration (of the Shqiptar of Epirus, etc.) I stood by my vote. Alexander 007 01:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is possibly a solution that could sutisy up to an extend most people. But it could refear to many other things apart from the language. --Mik2 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. It should be noted that Mik2's worry is unfounded. British English and other parallel examples show this. Arvanitic will not cause confusion beyond a negligible level, which would be no more than the article Bat causes (it is about the animal, not the baseball bat). Not a valid argument against it. Alexander 007 02:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support seems quite neutral, probably the best solution. Many problems might be solved with this and it does not take sides. Macedonian(talk) 04:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It takes no sides in the dispute whether Arvanitic is a dialect/variety or a language on its own. --FlavrSavr 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitika

  • Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. Also, the English name is Arvanitic.Theathenae 14:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above--Mik2 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should stick to the English version of the name, when on English Wikipedia. Macedonian(talk) 04:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitika language

  • Oppose there are no sources which call it a language. It would be perscriptive and would offend the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece. Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - most sources I've seen refer to this language as Arvanitika. See also my previous comments here. on Talk:Arvanites, etc. +MATIA ☎ 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The creteria of distinguishing between a language and a dialect are not only linguistic but social also. So Arvanitica are a language since Albanian and Arvanitic societies are becoming more and more diferent for centuries.--Mik2 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aldough Mik2 has a point, I vote this way because I follow the most ofthe relevant sources which do not list it as language. Macedonian(talk) 04:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitic language

  • Oppose there are no sources which call it a language. It would be perscriptive and would offend the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece. Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support See above. --Mik2 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:To REX: What "Arvanites of Northwestern Greece"? The 20.000 Tsams that no more live in Greece you mean?
  • Strongly support This language is a language and its name in English is Arvanitic. Also, the claim that it would "offend the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece" is preposterous and totally unfounded. Actually, anyone would be offended by the idea that the language he or she spoke was not a real language but rather a linguistic oddity.--Theathenae 14:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Arvanitic and Arvanite are indeed two english adjectives. And I 've also seen Arvanitika called Arvanitic. +MATIA ☎ 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reasons as in previous. We should not ignore all the relevant sources just because someone does not like it. Macedonian(talk) 04:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • request I need urgently your list of the "relevant sources" (sic). +MATIA ☎ 07:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to Wikipedia Arvanitic is a branch of Tosk Dialect. How can it be a language while its parent is a dialect?--Epirus 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitic (linguistics)

  • Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the upper-mentioned HolyRomanEmperor 21:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article concerns the language of a real people with a real identity and a real aversion to having it disputed by Albanian nationalists and their allies. It does not just concern the abstract academic discipline of linguistics.--Theathenae 14:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if WP can have Macedonian language then it can also have Arvanitika language +MATIA ☎ 19:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment WP can have Macedonian language because no credible source denies that it is a seperate language. Every source denies that Arvanitic is a seperate language. Rex(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arvanitic is not a linguistic term.--Mik2 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Quite neutral. Macedonian(talk) 04:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I want to bring the attention on the User:Theathenae's double standards. The Macedonians are also real people with a real identity and a real aversion to having their name denied by Greek national-shovinists, but User:Theathenae is the loudest supporter on this denials. Macedonian(talk) 04:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • response by +MATIA Then why didn't you supported Macedonians Slavic people or Macedonians people of RoM? Why did your small group of users deleted repeatedly every mention of Slav related terms while politicians and historians of your country also use the term Macedonian Slavs? I can't help wondering if you want an ethnic-clean-we-are-the-only-Macedonians article, and I'll elaborate on that on the relevant pages. +MATIA ☎ 07:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I want to recoment to Miskin to stop raising claims that there are no sources about because they can only be seen as POV push. No relevant source denies the separate Macedonian language. On the other hand, every single relevant source lists Arvanitic as a dialect. Macedonian(talk) 04:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • response by +MATIA What has Miskin got to do with the discussions here? +MATIA ☎ 07:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitika (linguistics)

  • Support this is neutral as it does not take sides in the language/dialect dispute Rex(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. Also, the English name is Arvanitic.--Theathenae 14:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose- +MATIA ☎ 19:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arvanitika is not a linguishtic term.--Mik2 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should stick to the English name. Macedonian(talk) 04:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

comment

this is almost too pathetic to waste breath on. Just make them all redirects and go do something productive. The term "language" is not well-defined, and subject to convention. Usually, we speak of "the Albanian language", making Tosk, and by extension Arvanitic, dialects. If we have Tosk language, we can also have Arvanitic language. If we move Tosk language to Tosk (language), we should also move Arvanitic language to Arvanitic (language). colour me bored. Just another exhibition of how sad it is to be a nationalist. dab (ᛏ) 19:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, they are not languages, there are no sources to support that. All sources call them dialects. The best thing to do would be to move them to Arvanitic, Tosk, Gheg etc. That won't offend anyone, calling it a dialect will upset Theathenae and Matia, whereas calling it a language is inaccurate as there are no sources which define it a such. The less said the better. Rex(talk) 19:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
of course they are languages, but they are grouped with other languages, and can also be described as dialects of some larger entity. Only the '(linguistics)' variants are not to be recommended, since 'Arvanitic' isn't a linguistic term, like 'accent', 'ablative' or 'ablaut'. Yes, Tosk, Gheg and Arvanitic would be possible, comparable to Sanskrit, but it would not be common Wikipedia naming practice. If we look at Lesbian Greek etc. (not Lesbian language, and not Lesbian dialect, the suggested course seems to be Arvanitic Albanian, Tosk Albanian, Gheg Albanian. dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Arvanitic is a language, a variety of Tosk Albanian, because it has dialects within it. Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language and classifies it as Indo-European, Albanian, Tosk. Albanau 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Comment Arvanitic/Arvanitika language should not be used. It is quite clear that it is not a language. Dialects should not be named languages, we have Hebrew language and Ashkenazi Hebrew and Sephardi Hebrew. That is how dialects should be presented. Even Ethnologue.com uses the names Tosk Albanian, Arvanitika Albanian, Gheg Albanian. Labeling minority dialects as languages would mislead the reader. Izehar 20:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


I am afraid that I am slow in getting this. Is the problem that Arvanites do not self-describe as Albanians? But 'Albanian' is not a self-designation anyway . For the purposes of linguistics, "Albanian" is one of the branches of Indo-European, and not a political term. Linguistically, Arvanites are speakers of Albanian, just like the English are speakers of Germanic. We avoid calling the English "Germans" or "Germanics" of course, but we call them a Germanic nation or tribe, and just so we could call the Arvanites an Albanian nation or tribe (English is still a Germanic language btw, in spite of being heavily influenced by French, just so Arvanitic is still an Albanian language, in spite of being heavily influenced by Greek). Note also Zürich German etc. (my own language). We could also have Zürich German language, but I don't know what that would do for me or my self-esteem. Fact is that Zürich German is totally incomprehensible to speakers of other varieties of German, yet it is called a dialect by convention. dab (ᛏ) 20:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that no one disputes whether English is a dialect of German, but people (some within the Arvanitic speaking community itself) call Arvanitic Albanian and it is perfectly clear that all academics call it Arvanitic Albanian. Wikipedia should not try to solve this problem, but leave it at Arvanitic, and let the reader decide if he thinks it is a language or a dialect. We shouldn't spoon feed them everything. Izehar 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
nobody calls English a "German dialect". Indo-Europeanists call English a "Germanic dialect". Germanic linguists call English a "West Germanic language". Both are correct, again, entirely by convention. We have nothing except convention (common usage, google counts) to guide us in 'language vs. dialect' questions, there is no objective citerion. dab (ᛏ) 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on google counts, the two most frequently used options are "Arvanitika Albanian" and "Arvanitic language". I strongly recommend either of these options. Both are correct. "Arvanitika Albanian" is more commonseems to be slightly more common, but not decisively. That's really all I can say from a npov. I would leave it where it is, but a move to Arvanitika Albanian wouldn't be a crime. dab (ᛏ) 20:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused now, isn't this a dispute over whether Arvanitic is a language or a dialect? I can answer that, it is a dialect. Academics of all levels say so. Calling it a language would make Wikipedia look silly as it is promoting factual inaccuracies. However, calling it Arvanitika Albanian raises objections here, so plain Arvanitika should be used, or plain Arvanitic (the English name). Wikipedia should not decide disputes like this, especially without taking into consideration what other encyclopaedias say. Izehar 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it is also commonly called the "Arvanitic language", there's nothing wrong with that. For most people, the question will be extremely uninteresting. but you are right, I counted WP mirrors above. "Arvanitika Albanian" seems to be most common. I would recommend a move there, in keeping with Lesbian Greek, Bernese German etc. dab (ᛏ) 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I still recommend plain Arvanitic. It sidesteps the whole dispute and just designates the speech of the Arvanites, without going into the complex areas of linguistics. Arvanitic could mean anything. And those google searches may also be inaccurate. While the high frequency of appearance of Arvanitika and Albanian just confirms the fact that they are closely related (dialects). If they were seperate languages belonging to the same language family, then (by extention) a search for English German would yield more results that English language. So Arvanitic is obviously a dialect. If we said that it is not, we could say that British English and American English are seperate languages, and could say American language and British language. They are not where the main pages are, they are just redirects to American English and British English, so what you are saying does make sense, it just seems to be unacceptable to all the disputing parities here. Izehar 20:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


that's fine, no objections from me, but it is true that this is not common Wikipedia style. "Arvanitika Albanian" doesn't prejudice the question either, it could be "Arvanitika Albanian language" or "Arvanitika Albanian dialect". Nobody disputes that Arvanitika is part of the Albanian branch, I hope. If we move to "Arvanitika Albanian", we should also move to "Tosk Albanian" and "Gheg Albanian". Albanian language can remain, and its scope will include all subgroups. dab (ᛏ) 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has the category Albanian language, has the genetic or whatever it's called, on the template etc. Why should it also have it on the title as well? Why not like Macedonian language? As for google search... I was hoping we would talk about books. +MATIA ☎ 20:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you dab, the problem is that the disputing parties won't. Especially +MATIA and Thathenae. They say that it can't be a dialect because the Arvanites of southwestern Greece say it isn't. What is interesting here is that some Arvanites would accept Arvanitika Albanian. This case is like the English language. No Americans identify as Englishmen, but all of them call their language American English, my point is that all Americans say that they are not English, but they call their language American English. In this case only some Arvanites say that they are not Albanians. Surely Arvanitika Albanian can be used. Izehar 20:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
+MATIA, I should point out that Macedonian is widely recognised as a seperate language. All neutral scholars say that it is not a Bulgarian dialect. Can the same be said for Arvanitic? Izehar 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Which Arvanites accept to be called Albanians? +MATIA ☎ 21:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The Arvanites of North Western Greece. Haven't you read Rex's and Alexander's comments? Izehar 21:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Is that so? And why do you believe REX is right and I am wrong? +MATIA ☎ 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Rex has provided links which say so. You don't get my point, do you? Let me clarify, Hiberno English is the name of the dialect of English as used in Ireland. No Irishman would accept being labeled an Englishman, but he would say that he spoke English. Why can't that be done here? It's actually easier as some Arvanites do call themselves Albanians. Izehar 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it. I haven't heard of any Arvanites who call their language Albanian. They call it Arvanitika. I know personally many Arvanites, but only the parents of a friend can speak Arvanitika. While they understand (more or less) Albanian they cannot speak it - they find the accent too heavy. The rest of my Arvanites friends just know a couple of words in Arvanitika, μπάκα and μπίθας for example. +MATIA ☎ 21:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, that's original research. Are you asking us to believe what you are saying over what every linguist in the world says. Your hearsay arguments are not admittable under Wikipedia policy. We need actual sources, not your word (which may not be true). You have no sources, do you have any links. I have said a hundred times, the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia are call themselves Shqiptar. GET SOURCES! Rex(talk) 22:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

For once you were right: what the parents of my friend said is my original research. But, it's the same thing Ethnologue says, see Talk:Arvanitic_language/Archive_1#just_the_facts (two months ago...)
Stop accusing me of not bringing sources. I've told you numerous times before that a) I note my refferences on the buttom of the articles (Bibliography section with ISBN etc) and b) especially for Arvanites I'm gathering things (my notes) at User:Matia.gr/Arvanites_sources.
+MATIA ☎ 23:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So what, didn't Theathenae say that mutual intelligibility are not relevant. This can be proven in the case of Chinese. The difference between all the Chinese "dialects" is about as vast as between the Romance languages (see Chinese language). But no one would say that French and Portuguese are dialects of the same language. Also, Ethnologue calls it ARVANITIKA ALBANIAN, and the code AAT refers to ARVANITIKA ALBANIAN. Remember, books in Greek cannot be used as sources according to WP:V. UNESCO clearly says that Arvanitika Albanian is a dialect of Tosk Albanian. What is your problem? Can you ive me a web link which rules out the possibility of Arvanitika being an Albanian dialect. Every linguist calls it an Albanian dialect, can't you understand that, only "some" Arvanites and Greek nationalists call it a seperate language (read the Helsinki Report, it's a source). Even if you did find some obscure book that rules out the possibility of Arvanitika Albanian being a language in its own right, what is more important, UNESCO, Ethnologue, University of Ohio etc or your hypothetical source (obscure book). I am trying to compromise. You cannot say that Arvanitika Albanian is a language in its own right when every sources we have says the exact opposite. What is so objectionable about Arvanitic, Arvanitika, Arvanitic (linguistics) etc? They are NEUTRAL, you are trying to force your POV onto Wikipedia. The above poll is coming against you again, why don't you propose a neutral compromise. Calling it a language is plain wrong, it is not a language as demonstrated by every source we have. Is UNESCO wrong? Is Britannica wrong? How about Brian Joseph? MATIA, try to be neutral. Also I like Izehar's argument above about Hiberno English, you can't explain that, can you. Just in the same way you can't explain that Arvanitic is called Arvanitika Albanian by UNESCO and Ethnologue and the AAT code refers to Arvanitika Albanian. Why don't you accept that you are wrong? Try and compromise, I am not insinsting on Arvanitika Albanian (which I am entitled to do), but on a neutral compromise plair Arvanitic or Arvanitica, why don't you do the same? Rex(talk) 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll see to Rob's closing straw poll soon. Rex(talk) 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Closing Second Straw Poll

OK, well, if we look at it in terms of net support, then the most support was for Arvanitic being the most neutral form possible. Don't forget that we can still redirect all the other names to this one - redirects are cheap, after all. I'm quite pleased that things are coming together, somewhat.

I'd like you lot to bash it out here for a short period - given that most people seem to support that Arvanitic is neutral, I propose:

  1. That this article and talk page be moved to Arvanitic
  2. That the following redirects be created or modified, to point to the new location
    1. Arvanitic language
    2. Arvanitic dialect
    3. Arvanitic (linguistics)
    4. Arvanitika
    5. Arvanitika Albanian
  3. That a disambiguation page be created at Arvanitic (disambiguation) containing links to
    1. Arvanitic - the language/dialect - we'll have to phrase it a bit carefully methinks
    2. Arvanites - the people

Thanks to everyone so far for coming up with a really constructive bit of work. I'm confident that a solution will be found shortly. Rob Church Talk 23:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel it prudent to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) does not constitute part of Wikipedia policies. It is a guideline. Whether the editors in this dispute choose to apply it here or not is up to them. Rob Church Talk 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Feedback

Divided into sections purely for clarity; the order in which these appear is entirely random.

Matia

I would like one good response regarding my previous comments (Macedonian language and Arvanitic songs, buildings, clothes etc). Ethnologue calls it a language and lists the following names: Arvanitika Albanian, Arvanitika, Arvanitic, Arberichte. That would be Arvanitic language etc. The linguists who have studied Arvanitika call it Arvanitika and not Arvanitic see User:Matia.gr/Arvanites sources. Language is a dialect with an army, and Arvanites were not known for their literature but for their fighting skills see Arvanites#Famous_Arvanites. I haven't called anyone to join the poll because wikipedia is not a democracy. Which linguists call it Arvanitic? Are they more than those who call it Arvanitika? Did they study the language? Have they done publications about Arvanitika? Do they quote Peter Trudgill? +MATIA ☎ 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

note: 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Arvanitika language belongs to the same language family as Albanian Tosk (today we know better - ie branch etc - and i'm not a linguist). +MATIA ☎ 11:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
And something else: did the people who REX invited to "vote" check all the sources? How many of them just vote what REX did? +MATIA ☎ 23:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment:

  • Macedonian language: every neutral source (ie non-Bulgarian or Greek propaganda) calls Macedonian a language in its own right (Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue...) and every neutral source (ie non Albanian or non Greek propaganda) calls Arvanitic an Albanian dialect (Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue...).
  • UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue, Brian Joseph all emphasise the fact that Arvanitic/Arvanitika is a form of Albanian.
  • You should know that Ethnologue calls every dialect a language. Check Flemish, Mandarin, Cantonese (Yue), Gheg, Tosk etc. Language merely means form of communication. It is a standard Ethnologue form X, a language of Y(country). You will never find X a dialect of Y. No, it's a standard form, it means nothing. Therefore all dialects are languages but not vice versa. UNESCO's and Ethnologue's primary name for Arvanitic is Arvanitika Albanian. What is that Albanian doing there if it is not a form of Albanian.
  • Arvanitic is merely an Anglicized name for Arvanitika. It makes no difference. Wikipedia policy requires that names should be in English where possible.
  • You questioning the honour and motives of everyone who voted qualifies as a personal attack.
  • You yourself have been talking about Brian Joseph quite a lot until just recently.
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy, but issues can be decided by polls (see WP:RM). I slight anomaly I know, but what can you do?
  • Finally MATIA, do you have a source which absolutely rules out the possibility of Arvanitica being an Albanian dialect? I have sources which rule out the possibility of it being a seperate language. Therefore it cannot be called Arvanitika language or [Arvanitic language]] according to Wikipedia policy (see WP:V). Rex(talk) 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

response to REX:
Even http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html cites Trudgill... I have said before (probably in September) as a counter-proposal to you that Arvanitika belongs to the Albanian branch of IE langs. And I've said today that even if it is a dialect (I still don't get how Arvanitika as a dialect can have 3 or 4 sub-dialects) it can be called Arvanitika language and explain in the wiki the linguistics and the sociopolitcs about it. For the relevant policy read Talk:Arvanitic_language#comments_by_.2BMATIA, I can't repeat the same things again and again. +MATIA ☎ 00:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And I don't question anyone honour. You did call them to vote, didn't you? Have I called anyone to vote? +MATIA ☎ 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

response to MATIA:
Of course dialects can have sub-dialects. Do you know how many sub-dialects British English has, which is a dialect of English language. You wouldn't say that American English and British English are both seperate languages but are both members of the English branch of the West Germanic branch of IE, just because the Americans don't identify as British. Arvanitika language is POV and inaccurate. It is POV because it takes a side, is specifically contradicts UNESCO. Whereas Arvanitic or Arvanitika does not rule out the possibility of it being a seperate language. Every English language encyclopaedia calls it an Albanian dialect, why must WP be any different. Anyway, the title must be as neutral as possible. The politics can be gone into detail at the article itself. (I like this healthy debate we're having) Rex(talk) 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't help wondering if you deliberately ignore my not-invisible sources. I've analysed too many times at Talk:Arvanites Mr Tapani Salminen Unesco's Red Book (one of the times here). Do you believe he studied Arvanitika Albanian (sic)? Did he copied someone else? Can we compare him with Brian Joseph, Peter Trudgill? Have they studied Arvanitika and Arvanites? My guess is that Mr Salminen has never talked to an Arvanite. We can of course mention him in Arvanitic language and say that he uses the term Arvanitika Albanian.+MATIA ☎ 11:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have told you there are no sources which rule out the possibility or Arvanitic being an Albanian dialect. All sources rule out the possibility of it being a seperate language. You can't claim that it is a seperate language solely on the basis that just "some" of the Arvanites don't identify as Albanians. What about The Irish people, none of them would call themselves English (they would most likely be offended considering Anglo-Irish history). Nevertheless, "none" of them deny the fact that their language (Hiberno English) is an English dialect. Also, according to WP:V: One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. Which reputable publisher denies the fact that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect, but is a language in its own right? Trudgill? He doesn't. You don't have to answer now, find a "specific" source and quote it. More importantly, WP:V says: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false'. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources. Do you understand MATIA? It is not important what you think of Mr Salimien, of the UNESCO linguists, of Brian Joseph or anyone else. What is is important it that they say that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect, therefore under Wikipedia policy, what the authors were doing or thinking is not important. Reliable publishers say it, therfore under Wikipedia policy, we must say that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect. It's Wikipedia policy that requires all this, not me. Rex(talk) 12:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't see why you're making such a big deal about all this. Wikipedia policy and our sources FORBID us using that unverifiable Arvanitika/Arvanitic language. We are simply not allowed to. The article title should be something vague and neutral so as to avoid taking sides (NPOV). YOU CANNOT CONTRADICT BRITANNICA, UNESCO, BRIAN JOSEPH ETC JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY ARE ILL INFORMED. IF THEY SAY IT, THEN IT CANNOT BE IGNORED. WIKIPEDIA POLICY REQUIRES IT, REGARDLESS WHAT YOU, I OR ANYBODY ELSE THINKS. WP:V REMEMBER. Do you understand? Rex(talk) 12:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm too tired of the loops (circular logic, edit wars and whatever else) REX. The sources are here. Ignore them or do whatever you want. I'll keep expanding them, and I'll keep asking for Arvanitika language the same standards that applied on Macedonian language. Read again my previous comments here about policies,language-dialects etc. According to what you ironically called MATIA's principle. PS Do apply YOUR BOLD TEXT on your actions. +MATIA ☎ 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See also Luxembourgish language, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(languages), and the relevant policy [[4]]. Varieties, dialects etc are named language for disambig etc purposes. And the official English name is Arvanitika according to the linguists who studied the language. +MATIA ☎ 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Stop sending me on a wild goose chase to find something that doesn't exist (those sources are irellevant to the issues discussed here. They say nothing about a language or a dialect). Calling it Arvanitika language would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and I have explained why time and time again. Deal with it! Do you have a problem with the neutral Arvanitic? Your "sources" do not deny the fact that Arvanitic is a dialect and do not say that it is a language in its own right. That's your POV. Read WP:V, we cannot violate it. Also, sources must be in English unless they are quotes in which case the original language must be given. And I have explained, if UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue or any neutral source called Macedonian a dialect, then that could be changed. Do they say that it is a dialect? No they don't. Only Ethnologue mentions that some in Bulgaria view it as a Bulgarian dialect (imperialists, they don't count. Read WP:RS). Are you saying that UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph etc are wrong? That they are secretly Albanian nationalists? Wikipedia policy must be observed. Rex(talk) 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitic language cannot be used. The majority of users are against it. Are your views too holy or something. Arvanitic is a dialect according to every source we have. Arvanitic will be used. What you think is not important. Rex(talk) 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I will only support Arvanitika Albanian language (like Pontic Greek language),, Arvanitic or Arvanitika. Take your pick. Anyway, the poll is clear what should be done. Rex(talk) 12:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you dont care about WP policies, facts, and the feelings of Arvanites I can't help you. Ethnologue and Helsinki reports calls it a language, Arvanitika language is ok according to WP policies, Albanian cannot be in the title according to the WP policies, but as I've said numerous times will be (acctually already is) in the wiki. You still want to label Arvanites as Albanians. Forget it. +MATIA ☎ 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
MATIA, Ethnologue calls Arvanitic a language because it has dialects within it and classifies it as Indo-European, Albanian, Tosk. Albanau 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Albanau. +MATIA ☎ 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi MATIA, I have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). It’s talk page is irrelevant and of no formal significance. In the project page it says that languages should be suffixed with language. It doesn't say anything about dialects; this rule obviously doesn't apply to them. How else do you explain the existence of articles such as Australian English, Canadian French, Mexican Spanish, Ashkenazi Hebrew etc. Are they all in violation of the policy? No, that policy does not apply to them as they are dialects. The same as Arvanitika Albanian. Anyway, as I have said, you obviously don't like the idea of using the name Albanian in the title and as a significant group of Arvanites find it offensive, Wikipedia should be more moderate and not as blunt and direct and state the facts as they are like UNESCO does. That is why I support Arvanitic plain. It is not in violation of any policy, it is a dialect, there is no doubt about it, every source we have says it is and no source exists which says that it is an independent language. The Helsinki Report merely mentions that "some" Arvanites dislike their language to be called Albanian, but all linguists call it that anyway. It doesn't say that it is a separate language. That is original research, you own conclusion and it is not allowed to be used (see Wikipedia:No original research). Let me put this in perspective for you:

  • Arvanitic language: a violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Cannot be used. The existance of a separate Arvanitic language is not supported by any evidence at all as per Wikipedia:Cite sources and WP:RC
  • Arvanitika Albanian: Not a violation of any policy and can be used (if UNESCO and Ethnologue can recommend its use, who are you to say otherwise). However, as an indication of my good faith, and my desire not to offend anyone, including the Arvanites of southwestern Greece. Therefore, I believe that this version cannot be used.
  • Arvanitic: Consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RC and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which says that English names for Articles should be used. For example we have Athens, not Athina. This is neutral as it does not explicitly state that Arvanitic is an independent language or a dialect. I cannot offend anyone, it is accurate (it may be vague, but so what, at least it isn't inaccurate) and above all, it is supported by an overwhelming majority consensus. Please tell me, I want to understand how your mind works: what is so objectionable about this title? Rex(talk) 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PS Ethnologue and Helsinki call it a language, but they don't call it a "independent language". That makes all the difference. The fact that they call it a language merely means that it is an oral form of communication (see language). It doesn't not exclude the fact that it is a dialect. All dialects are languages but not all languages are dialects. Are you saying that UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta and the University of Ohio are all wrong? They all call it specifically a dialect (Encarta calls it a variety). Are they lying? See it this way. If Arvanitic is an independent language, that means that the vast majority of sources are wrong. If it is a dialect, then they all are right. What do you think the facts are? Do you think it is possible that UNESCO, Britannica, Brian Joseph etc are all wrong? I have already explained this to you a million times! Rex(talk) 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex

comment: So much for the peace offer. +MATIA ☎ 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I have told you a hundred times that articles on dialects do NOT have the word language in the title. Witness Brigish English, Mandarin (linguistics), Flemish (linguistics), Ashkenazi Hebrew, Cantonese (linguistics), American English, Sephardi Hebrew, etc etc... Arvanitic is a dialect according to all our sources as interpreted by Wikipedia policy, therefore Arvanitic language or Arvanitika language are out of the question. I don't want to use Arvanitika Albanian as it will be too controversial (so i don't want Albanian in the title). Therefore, the only options are Arvanitic or Arvanitika. They can and should be used. Arvanitic has the majority vote, and therefore that shall be used. What is wrong with it? It is neutral. It does not prescribe that Arvanitic is a language or a dialect and as it has been pointed out, the reader can review all the evidence for himself/herself and see what he/she thinks. Wikipedia should not take sides and especially Wikipedia should not say that UNESCO, Britannica etc aree wrong. Macedonian and Luxembourgish etc CAN be treated as languages because all neutral credible sources say they are (while the same sources say that Arvanitic is a dialect). If Britannica or UNESCO etc said that they were dialects, then they could be treated as such. No neutral source formally aknowledges that they are dialects. Why should they be treated as such. Every neutral source says that Arvanitic is a dialect and therefore should be treated as such and the word language should not be in the title. We can discuss possibilities of it being a language in the text, but NOT in the title. Arvanitic is neutral and will be used as it has received he majority support. Possibilities of Arvanitic being a language in its own right can be discussed in the article, NOT in the title as that would be a violation of Wikipedia's policies. What UNESCO, Britannica etc say is assumed correct according to WP:V and WP:NOR. I am not labeling Arvanites Albanians against their will. Are we labeling the Irish English against their will by calling their language (Hiberno English) a dialect of English? No! So stop that straw man argument. Arvanitic is neutral and will not offend anyone AND has majority support here and will be used according to policy. The world is not made to please you, neither is Wikipedia. We have policies that must be observed, so if you want to use Wikipedia, you will just have to accept them. Regards Rex(talk) 14:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (PS does peace mean having to violate WP policies? That is what you are asking me to do)

Brigish English? Rob Church Talk 00:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae

CDThieme

Izehar

Arvanitic language: name origin

<moved from my talk page. mikka (t) 22:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)> Please add a new sub-section on Talk:Arvanitic language clarifying your changes. Did I understand correctly that you reffer to something like Rhotacism? Thanks in advance. +MATIA ☎ 21:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanites doesn't derive from Albanian, but yes, you are right that this is one of the theories. Perhaps you are aware that there are some terms for example Albanian, Arvanitis, Arnaut, etc that are close or related but they are not exactly the same. We'll be in touch. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 22:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
No one says that they are "the same". And of course, it is a theory, based on inspection of historical documents (what else can it be? times long gone). If there is another explanation published, feel free to add it here. BTW Arnaut is missing... mikka (t) 22:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The two main problems is that a) this is not the majority view and b) in greek we have Diphthongs (δίφθογγους) for example bravo is written as μπράβο. We can write and pronounce b even if betta (β) is pronnounced veeta. And yes, you are right that many things are missing (that's why I've mentioned Arnauts etc there are also mentions for Arnaut(i) on Scanderbeg). I'd like to expand Arvanitic language, Arvanites, Tosk language, Origin of the name Albania etc. +MATIA ☎ 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it to Arvanites#Origin_and_history_of_the_name, and I hope I'll expand it. +MATIA ☎ 11:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

oops

This Albania#Origin_and_history_of_the_name has more info than the main article Origin_and_history_of_the_name_Albania. +MATIA ☎ 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

As the consensus-building process for this particular move is going to take some considerable time, the discussion on WP:RM (which would have been closed around now) is delisted until something is decided here. Rob Church Talk 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Some relevant sources for this debate.

+MATIA has requested that I provide some of the sources I referenced when I voted here against classifying Arvanitika as a language, and therby agreed with the prevailing scientific consensus that it is a dialect. The sources are listed below as well as on my talk page.


1. Adams, Douglas Q. "The Distribution of Retracted Sibilants in Medieval Europe." in Language 51:2, pp. 282-292. Washington D.C.: Linguistic Society of America. 1975.

2. Kazazis, Kostas. "Greek and Arvanitika in Corinthia." in Balkanistica: Occasional Papers in Southeast European Studies, Volume III." Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, pp. 1976. [Published for the American Association of Southeast European Studies].

3. Myers-Scotton, Carol. "Codeswitching as a mechanism of deep borrowing, language shift, and language death." in Language Death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.

4. Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. "Language decay and contact-induced change: Similiarities and differences." in Language Death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.

5. Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. "Theory of Language Death." in Language Death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.

6. Trudgill, Peter. "On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives." New York: New York University Press. 1983.

7. Trudgill, Peter and G. A. Tzavaras. "Why Albanian Greeks are not Albanians: Language shift in Attica and Biotia." in Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations, pp. 171-184. Howard Giles (ed.), London: Academic Press. 1977.

8. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. "Greek-Albanian (Arvanitika) Interactive Storytelling and the Legitimation of Critical Discourse." in Traditional storytelling today: an international sourcebook, pp. 247-251. Margaret Read MacDonald (ed.), Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. 1999.

9. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. "Language change and language death in Albanian speech communities in Greece: a sociolinguistic study." Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1981. [NOTE: this is his doctoral thesis paper]

10. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. "A linguistic anthropology of praxis and language shift: Arvanítika (Albanian) and Greek in contact." Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. ISBN 0198237316

-P.MacUidhir (t) (c)08:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a res. at your talk page. +MATIA ☎ 11:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Explaining myself

Diff:The main change I made is in the paragraph which explains the classification or Arvanitic, to strip down this unheard of portrayin on Albanian as not a lanuage, but as a language family. I believe that it is accurate as it explains all positions. I urge you to accept it (or propose amendments if necessary) in return for me not pushing to move the page altogether somewhere else. It's a compromise, you cannot have everything. You give me these chanegs and I give you the title. Rex(talk) 08:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the google test (I believe it can be misleading on disputed topics) but since we haven't considered enough (yet) the sources:
keywords: Arvanitika -wikipedia results: 560
keywords: Arvanitic -wikipedia results: 274
I'll discuss the rest of your changes later (please explain were you thought that Albanian is not a language). Take care. +MATIA ☎ 10:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that I didn't like the fact that the article seemed to indicate that Albanian is not a language, but a language family. That is not supported by anyone. Language families is a matter for linguists and all lingusts say that Albanian is a single language with various dialects. That is why I made it perfectly clear that most linguists view Arvanitika as an Albanian dialect (thus affirming the fact that as far as linguists are conserned, that Albanian is one language; ie Wikipedia is not pushing inaccuracies), while at the same time stating that most Arvanites consider their language seperate from Albanian (again, not pushing inaccuracies).

I am planning to propose merging Tosk language and Gheg language into Albanian language, where they can be examined in detail. I have made a table, comparing the major differences between them and that could go there (not finished yet). As seperate articles, they don't do much, except confuse. I'll go into this in more detail on the respective talk pages.

Are you accepting my changes, there's nothing wrong with them, is there (POV, nah!)? Rex(talk) 12:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This phrase is wrong. The correct (by linguists) phrasing probably is "Albanian language makes up its own branch of the Indo-European languages". Labeling Tosk as a dialect will probably anger other albanian editors, I would suggest you take it easy with the moves. And I think the phrases you 've changed today here, didn't mean that Albanian isn't a language, but they explained some stuff.

I've created a new section in my user talk page, please add subsections (copy pasting perhaps or whatever you feel is good) with your today explanations, so we can discuss it there nice and peacefully and avoiding making the articles' talk pages a mess :) We'll be in touch. +MATIA ☎ 13:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae's changes

... language grouped by linguists ...

when we're discussing on languages families, we always assume this work was done by linguists, not by garbage truck drivers. I see no point of saying this here.

... Indo-European language family labelled Albanian or Thraco-Illyrian by linguists ....

Thraco-Illyrian is just a hypotesis, which is nowadays considered false, because Thracian and Illyrian appear to have been very distinct languages and the identification with modern Albanian is not at all clear. Let's keep "Albanian" only, to let it be NPOV. bogdan | Talk 10:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"Thraco-Illyrian" is outdated. It should not be given credit in this article. Alexander 007 10:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:NPOV is that all views should be included, even those we may not find to our liking. The use of the term Albanian for the branch of Indo-European that includes Arvanitic is problematic and should be addressed. The Germanic family is not German, nor is the Italic Italian.--Theathenae 12:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Bogdan and 007. This article should include everything about Arvanitika (I 'm still expecting your answer dear Bogdan on Brian Joseph, your picture is neither NPOV, nor accurate according to BJ's studies). That is the linguistic aspect and the sociopolitical one. Check my previous comments here and WP:NPOV. +MATIA ☎ 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


The "Lord's Prayer" in Standard Albanian IS NOT STANDARD ALBANIAN

It is Gheg dialect, the standard is Tosk, which is almost identical with the Arvanitic. Please change the Albanian version in the *REAL* standard version.

Can you explain that a little better please? +MATIA ☎ 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
He means that the the prayer should be in Standard Albanian. I would change it myself, but I can't be bothered. Rex(talk) 19:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some Arvanitic songs from books, which we could use (some of the books have Arvanitika in greek, in latin, and then a plain greek translation). +MATIA ☎ 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

While I have my doubts whether the Prayer is, correctly written, in Arvanitika, I don't think that the other is Gheg. I have removed it and added an external link for the prayer in Tosk, after reading the above comments. I'll bring other Arvanitic text in the near future. +MATIA ☎ 01:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


ου λεshë ντë νιë μιλλë νεντκιντ τετδιéτ. ντë Πορος Arvanites

TOTALLY UNRELIABLE INFORMATION

This is totally unreliable information. The diagram in which the Arvanitic's position within Albanian is shown "Shqip" (the Standard Albanian word for Albanian) appears to be a sub-dialect of Tosk. Gheg speakers say they speak Albanian and not Gheg. They may only say "We speak the Gheg dialect of the Albanian language".

And finally, how come Arvanitic is a language when by all the means it is only a dialect of Albanian (not even a dialect, a form of Albanian). But, this seems to be a vandalistic production of the vandal Greek vandalizers.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgish language is shown in the diagram as variaty of West Central German, which is is a High German dialect family in the German language. Andreas 14:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

protection

We seem to have disputes from other articles spilling onto this one. Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and work it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Woohookitty. I think that was the right thing to do. Let's first get the other article Arvanites done, and then come back to this one. Lukas (T.|@) 08:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/v/Talk%7EArvanitic_language_Archive_2_842f.html"