Talk:Arvanites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Arvanites has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Arvanites, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussions at the archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.


Contents

[edit] GA Review

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: prose is clear and is free of grammar errors
2. Factually accurate?: well-referenced
3. Broad in coverage?: complete
4. Neutral point of view?: after much hard work
5. Article stability? no major edit wars recently
6. Images?: all are free

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Argos'Dad 02:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war about "Former Yugoslav..."

I'd never have expected I'd take part in revert wars about adding or removing "Former Yugoslav..." from references to the Republic of Macedonia, but now that we have WP:MOSMAC I really thought this was sorted out. From the discussion between Nikos and Pmanderson on that talk page I took it that it was clearly understood during the negotiations that the language of the proposed guideline was not supposed to mean that every article dealing with Greece should automatically use "Former Yugoslav...", and that any such demand would never achieve consensus. If the guideline is now nevertheless interpreted in this way, then I throw up my hands in despair. In that case, the guideline is dead, dead, dead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so emotional. While it would be nigh impossible to enforce either version in every article dealing with Greece, it is not unreasonable to expect that articles dealing specifically with Greece, such as this one, should be left in peace. In fact, I've decided to omit the redundant reference to the neighbouring state altogether. Albania and Turkey aren't linked in reference to Epirus and Thrace, so why should Skopje? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we should probably add specifically to the guideline. Unless we are explicitly representing the view of someone who uses "former Yugoslav" (by which I do not mean an editor, but the Greek government, the European Union and so on), it should be omitted, as PoV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This omits the saving clause "country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization". Florina does not qualify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it does. Before my last edit, Skopje (the country) was mentioned here "specifically and exclusively in relationship" to Greece, one of the "organisations, states, events and international relationships where the subject in question uses either of these names". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSMAC gives two examples. The Eurovision Song Contest also uses "former Yugoslav", and therefore
  • "In other news, FYR Macedonia ranked 18th in Eurovision" is acceptable and desirable.
  • "Karolina, who last year competed in Eurovision, returned to the Republic of Macedonia. " is not is desirable on the other side..
The similarity is clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree; the latter is not acceptable nor desirable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the poor copyediting; both are desirable. You might be happier at Wikinfo, which encourages the expression of points of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite happy here, thanks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More edit-warring

Oh well. Can we please develop a habit of not reverting each other's substantial edits before we've had a discussion about the merits of the case first? The edits Albanau reverted to ([1]) were hardly wrong, they were just redundant. If you read the article closely, almost everything in added in that edit was already in the article anyway, and sourced too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Problem

The first reference citation associated with the first sentence in the history section of the article needs elaboration. Full citations are in order. Also, direct quotes from those sources would be helpful in providing a form of verifiability for readers. This is a suggestion that could help increase the article's chances of reaching FA status. Just a suggestion that I think needs to be taken into consideration. Deucalionite 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dodona banned

I've had enough of this. This guy has pestered everybody with his ungrammatical, repetitive, off-topic, incoherent rants for the better part of a year. He's evidently not prepared to learn.

I propose to treat him as banned for a year. I'm now going to block his main IPs for a long while. Any ban evasion will mean resetting of the ban for another year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the right course of action? He's probably the only voice here emanating from Albania itself. Personally, I like to know what makes the other side tick. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, but I think we've all heard enough of him to know what makes him tick, don't you think? But you're right, we are suffering from a shortage of competent Albanian contributors. Good point. Hell, where is "Shqiptar nga Kosova" when you need him... ;-P Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Gëzuar, Futurë. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if there seems to be a shortage of Albanian contributors, you could always ask Taulant23 to provide an Albanian perspective on things. I already worked with him and he has helped improve the Albania article and even the Pelasgians article (despite the struggles I had trying to convince him that it was better to transfer the Pelasgians section of the Albania article to the modern theories section of the Pelasgians article). Nevertheless, he seems cooperative enough to serve as a proper alternative to Dodona. He is currently on good terms with me regardless of the recent tussles we had. Moreover, he is reasonable enough to want to discuss things over sources even if he has an Albanian bias. Of course, this is just me talking. I would recommend speaking with him directly if you ever need an Albanian contributor here. As for Dodona, I have to agree with Future Perfect and recommend that he be banned for a period of time. It may seem harsh, but this is necessary since Dodona has been consistently disruptive and has been unable to provide coherent arguments supplied with decent evidence to support his claims. The kid gloves must come off. Deucalionite 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In case that you unblock me I will show improvement ,i will try not to make any claim without showing references first(I often did not although), and my sign that I will change is my new username. My motivation have been clear to anyone, I feel sorry that are not many Albanian users and academics in the field in wikipedia , myself I am engaged in totally different profession but for me the history of our nation is important. What I fight for is the truth and I hate deformities. I feel that I do not deserve this so long ban, is just some thoughts that I wrote ….Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodona eprioti (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you're obviously not so "banned" after all if you're still able to post here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You should not put so much “barbed wire” to Albanians if you want collaborative, the references are there depends what you pick up, banned for not any apparent reasons is not the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.62 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Self-deprecation" and references

I'll revert this back, it is an important part of state-of-the-art sociological analysis of Arvanite communities. And yes, I read those references. (Couldn't get hold of Tsitsipis 1981 itself, to tell you the truth, but several later ones of his articles where he quotes and expands on his own previous analyses, as well as the Botsi study, Trudgill/Tzaveras and others.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the term, here's an excerpt (my rough translation) from Botsi (2003:71f.), summarising the meaning of that term in the context of Tsitsipis' sociological approach. The tone of Botsi's text is slightly stronger than Tsitsipis' himself, if I remember correctly, but the essence is correctly rendered. Both Botsi and Tsitsipis are native Arvanites and have done extensive fieldwork in Arvanite communities; Tsitsipis is the leading expert on the topic in Greece.
For the approach presented here, the terms "subordination" and "self-deprecation", derived from conflict theory, are fundamental, as is Gramsci's conception of "cultural hegemony". These concepts are intended to explain the conformity of the speakers with the dominant attitudes of official society regarding their minority language. The terms, which were first introduced into sociolinguistics by Hamp (1961), were further developed by Tsitsipis (1981) on the basis of empirical examples and were interpreted as two subsequent phases of a single historical process. By "subordination" is meant the situation where a social subject succumbs to the decisions and intentions of another. In the present case, the subordinated social subject is the minority language, which cannot escape coercion and diffamation by the dominant society. There are two possible modes of reaction: resistance and acceptance. The further reaction is captured by the concept of "self-deprecation". By this is meant the self-censorship and self-devaluation by the speakers of the minority language, who come to internalise the negative connotations ascribed to their group. This happens through the appropriation of wide-spread ethnic stereotypes ("folk fallacies"), derived from the hegemonial discourse, by the subjects themselves.
The complete ideological shift of the Arvanitika speakers, termed "interruption" by Tsitsipis, can be dated to the 1950s and 1960s. [...] Intolerant language policies of the Greek state on the one hand and the internalisation of negative attitudes by the speech community ("self-deprecation") on the other have led to a complete rejection of Arvanitika by its own speakers.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Botsaris

Markos Botsaris was no Arvanite, was he? He was a Souliot.--NetProfit 20:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were Albanophone, apparently. And descendants of Botsaris were involved in some of the early Arvanite organisations; they are quoted as leading figures among contemporary Arvanites (authors of an "Arvanite manifesto") by Gkikas (cited in the article). Of course, that was all at a time when Arvanites and Albanians proper were not yet distinguished in Greece as they are now, and that manifesto was directed at all Albanians inside and outside Greece. By the time the southern Greek Arvanites developed the separate identity they have now, Souliots no longer existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
William Eton in his book "A Survey of the Turkish Empire" (1798) states that the Souliots were Greek-speaking. He includes correspondence between Ali Pasha (an Albanian) and the Suliot chiftains Giavellas and Botsaris ("Bogias" in the book); the language Ali Pasha used in order to communicate with them was Greek (William Eton, "A Survey of the Turkish Empire"; pages 373-383).
S.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.151.130 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting in a way, but then, written language tells us little about what they spoke in everyday life. Albanian wasn't a written language, they couldn't have used it for political correspondence even if they wanted to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
When you read in Eton's book that "Captain Bogia and Captain Giavella, two of the most considerable of the chiefs of the Greek inhabitants of the mountain of Sulli", what is the bit that is missing in your understanding of the quote?
S.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.128.90 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It was common practice to refer to people by their religious-political identities rather than their ethnolinguistic ones. Of course these guys were members of the Greek millet. So what? Have you got a modern academic historian's study that uses that particular 18th-century testimony as an argument with respect to the ethnic character of those groups? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
A modern historian's study is a secondary source. We're not here to investigate but to state facts.
S.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.128.90 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We are here to reflect what scholarship has to say, so secondary sources are precisely what is preferred on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't do that, it makes you look incompetent and biased, which I am sure you are not.
S.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.128.90 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Please don't do what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, friendly suggestion: how about creating an account? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Captain Bogia and Captain Giavella, two of the most considerable of the chiefs of the Greek inhabitants of the mountain of Sulli", I totally agree with Fut.Purf .The statement has a strong bias and indicate ,whether who was consider Greek and who not at that time. The inhabitant of Suli were Christian orthodox Arvanites and of course Greek , because Arvanites are Greek and are substantial part of the Greek nation, but they have they own identity different from what makes to day Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIRRO BURRI (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self-deprecation

"By this is meant the self-censorship * and self-devaluation* by the speakers of the minority language, who come to internalise the negative connotations ascribed to their group"

sorry, but this is a POV general rule apllied to Greece rather than a sourced example within Greece, and the concrete examples in tstisipis are of lower visibility and inter-familial culture. Again, not only is it POV to assert that this constitues self-attack, but also to come back to , the popular understanding that most people would have of self-deprecation when they see it on a page such as this would be self-insult rather than self-denial, regardless of the academic use.

Arvanitas2007 11:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what the academic literature says, which is what we are supposed to report. Have you read Tsitsipis, have you something different to report from its contents? Please make yourself familiar with WP:V. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

there are several historical figures within many areas of greek life who have been publicly both arvanite and very identified with greece, which leads to me think this is a potentially misleading formulation. I will re-search for the only quoted web source ; overall this is a reasonable object I think.

Arvanitas2007 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Well, looking only at the web sources will probably not equip you with the knowledge necessary to criticise the summaries of the literature as we now have them. This has been collected from numerous printed sources, actual research literature. As I said, that sentence about self-deprecation is a summary of the conclusions Tsitsipis and others arrived at after very substantial field work among actual Arvanite communities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to user FPS. Out of curiosity, does Tsitsipis give a Greek word for self-deprececation? Also, if you maintain that 'acedemic literature' says it, could you give further examples other than just Tsitsipis? Otherwise it may be useful to re-edit your text.Politis 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't say about a Greek term. He has published in Greek, I think, so probably there is one somewhere. As for other literature, as I already quoted, Botsi cites him as the seminal study in the field, and I could swear Trudgill in his recent works quoted him approvingly too, but I haven't got them here right now. I haven't read Bintliff, and I haven't got Clogg available right now for checking, although my guess it they'd quote it too. I can definitely state that Trudgill/Tzaveras made quite similar points in their earlier study, but that was of course before Tsitsipis and I don't remember the exact terms they used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

there is a still remains a visible problem with having this as the only formulation in the article though, which is that a succession of widely known greeks have also been visibly arvanite and are part of the country's legends. If you are going to retain what I think is that very POV formulation, then I can't why see such a qualification cannot also be added.

Arvanitas2007 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have summaries of other academic literature of comparable quality and standing to contribute, you're welcome. I'm not sure what "legends" you mean, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no real problem with the term, I just find the notion of self-deprecation within Greek culture quite interesting and it remains unexplored territory. Admitedly, the term is loaded. It means to sustain personal low-self esteem; it can also refer to critical humour towards one's culture and I have never heard of Arvanitika jokes. On the other hand, the term Arvanitia in Greek can have heroic conotations, 'xesikothike oloi i Arvanitia'. An analogous term I encountered recently is 'self-hating Greek'. I believe it originates from Greek academia in the US.Politis 12:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Today's Arvanitika speakers constitute a group that is completely assimilated culturally, and have a Greek national identification' this quotation by Botsi which happen to be Arvanites and scholar in your opinion is not true because Arvanites are the Greek nation itself, and from the other hand you should not ignore a greek Helsinki human right report of 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIRRO BURRI (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Botsi has a PhD in sociolinguistics, earned after extensive studies in an actual Arvanite community, plus, she's in agreement with ALL the other relevant scholarship on the issue. Obviously, you wouldn't know that, because you've never even touched any of it. Like it or not, that's the state of the art, and if you think it's wrong then tough luck.
As for the Bletsas report, it's a log of what a number of ignorant ("asxetoi") people told an even more ignorant judge about what they thought they knew about various groups in Greece, in a trial that had nothing to do with Arvanites. That document is interesting insofar as it throws a sad light on the state of the judiciary system in Greece, but nothing else. Nothing of what any of the people in that report are saying is of any value for us. It's not anything the Greek Helsinki organisation is saying itself, everything contained in that document is just the voices of some guys who happened to be witnesses in that court case.
And anyway, what do you need it for? To prove that Arvantika is spoken? But OF COURSE it is spoken, WE ARE ALREADY SAYING THAT!
Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not write as I was a ignorant or something because you do not know nothing about me , in contrary of you it not happen that I write things that my self do not believe on them even written from a person with PhD ?! , I mean a guy which has done extensive study in her community to come in the conclusion that they not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIRRO BURRI (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said they don't exist? Well, obviously you don't know English. Learn the meaning of the word "cultural assimilation". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

“Arvanites have become largely assimilated” means although it is not said that they mostly do not exist any more as identity.Cultural assimilation, sorry but by which culture?! I know english enough for a non – native —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIRRO BURRI (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't mean that. If you know English, go and read a book on them, to find out what it means, then come back here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

‘ ‘ Cultural assimilation (often called merely assimilation) is an intense process of consistent integration whereby members of an ethno-cultural group, typically immigrants, or other minority groups, are "absorbed" into an established, generally larger community. This presumes a loss of many characteristics which make the newcomers different. A region or society where assimilation is occurring is sometimes referred to as a melting pot. Assimilation can also be the process through which people lose originally differentiating traits, such as dress, speech particularities or mannerisms, when they come into contact with another society or culture. Often used to describe immigrant adaptation to new places or residence.’ ‘ my thinking is that this term is not suitable for Arvanites. Of course I will read more books. I like this advice, anybody needs, no one knows enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIRRO BURRI (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Some interested points in this report![2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIRRO BURRI (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That report is certainly interesting, but it doesn't mention Arvanites even once. It has nothing to do with this article. By the way, please learn to sign your talk page contributions. Put four tildes (~~~~) after each post of yours, it will automatically form a signature (name and timestamp). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Theodoros Kolokotronis in any book mention Arvanites is mention , even is family is well known originally from Epirus . The Arvanitic Legue of Greece mention the dominand role of Arvanites and Arvanitic language in the formation of Greek nation, the articul does not share this view. Moreover efforts to study Arvanitika in academic level is from the main pourpose of Arvanitic legue of Greece. Such a role is being ignore with purpose, this is what I think.PIRRO BURRI 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In present time other non- Greek and non- hellenic population group in Greece are called Hellenic like Vlleh, Slavs ,Jewish and other aziatic , they have priority in the contrary to the original population and their relatives., Why is that ? --PIRRO BURRI 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have reliable sources about an Arvanite family background of Kolokotronis, feel free to bring them forward. I think we looked sometime earlier but didn't find anything.
  • The role of Arvanites in Greek nation-building (participation in the 1821 uprising etc.) is clearly treated in the article.
  • Academic study of Arvanitika by the Arvanitic League? The only thing I'm aware of is that they promote, on their website, some idiotic fringe theories about Arvanitic being Pelasgic and similar nonsense. This is not academic study. We are treating it in some footnote, I think. If you know of something else they do, let us know.
  • Your second post makes no sense at all, your English is just too poor, I honestly can't guess what you are trying to say there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arvanites are what remains from once Hellenic population and tribes that , identification as “self-hating” comes that partly because of ignorance of this simple fact they have mostly the right to be call helenic in to day Greece and this is “ meagali alithia” and because they lost their original language ( value of which the uneducated part was unable to appreciate) and the other reason of their hate for their Albanian cousins comes because they ( politically influenced) identify them with Turkish ( Muslim) and because … other simple fact because Albanian people usually hate and love each other , was like that since Homeric pelasgic time until to day --PIRRO BURRI 19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you comment on waht this Arvanites writes about the official ideology treating all other inhabitants of Greece besides Arvanites as Helen!! --PIRRO BURRI 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) It is true that the Arvanites of Andros - I belong to them, from my father's side - have been ashamed for a long time of their roots and their language. This feeling, which led to the abandonment of their mother tongue, the Arvanitika or Arb'risht, has many reasons. One important reason is the fact that the inhabitants of the Greek-speaking capital of Andros, Hora, and of some nearby prosperous villages used to look down to the Arvanites. Another one, which pertains to all the Arvanites of Greece, was the dominance for many decades of the official national ideology based on the myth that all the inhabitants of modern Greece were direct descendants of "our glorious ancient ancestors". It is obvious that the Arvanites, a non-Greek speaking population - with a Greek national consciousness though - could not fit in such an ideology unless they abandoned their "particularities" - that means their language. The latter is actually a non-written dialect of the mediaeval South-Albanian (Tosk). Although I am 34, I have learned Arvanitika with a lot of effort and I consider it as a part of our cultural heritage, listed by Unesco among the "seriously endangered languages". If you wish to find more information about the Arvanites of Andros and of other regions of Greece, you can visit the site http: //go.to/arvanites, Yiannis S Vitaliotis Kallithea

Read WP:RS. NikoSilver 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Arvanites are the majority of population of my country(Greece)" King George said...--PIRRO BURRI (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kombet nuk jane insekte, qe mund te heqin dore dhe te braktisin aq kollaj kombesine, gjuhen zakonet dhe traditat e tyre si gjarperinjte qe nderrojne lekuren, te mohojne eterit, memedheun dhe fisnikerine e tij, traditat e trimerise se vet, eshte anakronizem dhe e padegjuar, qe ne historine e kombeve te gjejme nje popull aq haram dhe indiferent ndaj vetvetes"

Αν πιστεύετε ότι οι έλληνες αρβανίτες δεν είναι έλληνες τότε γιατι δεν μας φέρνετε μια ανάλυση του DNA σας για να μας αποδείξετε ότι εσείς είστε πράγματι έλληνας. Δεν θα σας στο συμβούλευα προσωπικά να το κάνετε γιατι το αποτέλεσμα της αναλύσεως θα είναι ιδιαιτέρως δυσάρεστο ως πρός την προσέγγισή σας περί ελληνικότητος.--Arvanitia (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable figures about the number of Arvanites in Greece today and their exact number is unknown (no official data exist for ethnicity in Greece)[3]. --Shqiponja Pellasge (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arvanites still the majority of population in Greece

As fare as i can see from all the data available taking in consideration the population exchange and other influx of migrations in Greece , Arvanites are still majority in to day Greece but not linguistically. From all the data available taking in consideration the population exchange and other influx of migrations in Greece , Arvanites are still majority in to day Greece but not linguistically. --Besa Arvanon (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Total population est. 30,000-140,000 of Arvanites.Actually taking into account Greek expansion and history Greek Epitorans are still majority in to day Albania but not linguistically.Ottoman islamisation and communist brainwashing did the trick.Greeks were up to here.
Map of Epirus in relation to Modern states
Map of Epirus in relation to Modern states

Those that later became Arvanite or Albanian speakers were not actually albanians or arvanites but for the most part victims of islamization and later communist brainwashing. Megistias (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We can contest his discussion mostly the part that the Greeks came from Slavs and his map of Albanian- Arvanite or Epirotic extension, where presently the real Greek lives.[4]--Aspetus (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your racist views are unfounded as Greeks are not Slavs and your map from known nationalist website albanian.com has no effect.Megistias (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think his map is from Lejean surely he must have some bias when your map is the quite scientific ones --Aspetus (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
right|thumb|300px|An autosomal DNA plot of genetic distances derived from 120 allele frequencies in Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes.Greeks are not Slavs.Megistias (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the best answer to him because as I can see Albanians do not exist at all , of course Greek are not Slavs although the friendship we have time to time with them , bravo!--Aspetus (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kollias

Re. Megistias' edits [5] and my partial revert [6] regarding Kollias: I quite agree the scholarly value of his work is very limited. However, we do need the reference in order to deal with the "Pelasgian" link. It's already duly placed only in a footnote and clearly marked as non-mainstream, thus satisfying WP:UNDUE. Also, claiming openly that he was a "pseudo-historian" is hardly NPOV, especially as we have no reliable third-party coverage of him, be it positive or negative. In fact, I just got his article deleted for lack of notability just a few weeks ago.

Ironically, when we had the big edit-wars about this article, it used to be pro-Greek editors quoting him in order to prove the Greekness of the Arvanites... I think that's basically why he got in in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Kola is famous among the Greeks and Albanians but specially among Arvanites! Dodona --Burra (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that his name is remembered among Arvanites, but we have no reliable sources about him, thus we can't treat him as notable. We know virtually nothing about him, except that he wrote a book. (I've read some of it, it is indeed not particularly good.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well this is your opinion, I do not doubt your capabilities but for me is one of the best book I have read ….I learn a part of history for my people deprived to be know before .

It is a very balanced view where all the aspects are mentions linguistic , history , ethnography , traditions etc very informative and well sourced! He is famous because he was: The president of Arvanitic Legue of Greece for so long and this organization is not ordinary as fare as I know . Second he is best seller in Greece and in Albania , third you have to know how much is a persons known or famous among his patriots… as I know he is !Dodona --Burra (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kollias is a questionable source that is a pseudo historian.He is used when when referring to pseudohistorical matters regarding himself and the fantasies he wrote about.Megistias (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense but who are you to judge Kola “ This is meMegistiasOlvios” i mean you have to be a really academic with extensive publications. Please do get this wrong and do not be offended , i will suggest you to let the others to judge instance Matias, Deucalionite .. So i will suggets to let him as it is and we all decide not only you !. Dodona--Burra (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
He is judged by admins and he is a questionable source please see history of pages he has been removed from admins as well.He is not a source but a lawyer and president a Arvanites club.Which means nothing.And all he wrote were crazy theories.Megistias (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A charakter such as Kollias cant be on the same list as heroes,artists & serious writers.Megistias (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please i know your opinion , but i suggest you to let also the others to judge , mostly Arvanitas i assume, so we do not agree let us get more opinions, for instance the list was done with Matia opinion Dodona --Burra (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"Opinions" don't count. References count. He stays out until we have reliable sources describing him as notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks Or Albanians?

Arvanites who considers themselves as such are Albanians. Arvanites are a Albanian population group in Greece. --Albanau (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See the statement in the article.Megistias (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What statement? --Albanau (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Botsi (2003: 90): "[D]ie heutigen Arvanitika-Sprachigen Griechenlands [bilden] eine kulturell vollkommen assimilierte Gruppe mit griechischer nationaler Gesinnung" ['Today's Arvanitika speakers constitute a group that is completely assimilated culturally, and have a Greek national identification'].This one among others.Megistias (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that they are completely assimilated and integrated in the Greek society, what I disagree with is however the introduction. What should be correct is "an endangered Albanian population group in Greece". I don't agree to deny their ethnic background and neither to deny their Greek national consciousness. This article has unfortunately been targeted by Greek nationalists. --Albanau (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed and resolved years ago. You're beating a dead horse. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's still of current importance and not all resolved. What's wrong with "an endangered Albanian population group in Greece"? Isn't that correct? --Albanau (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
They are not endangered.Megistias (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not endangered indeed.And it is wrong to consider them Albanian,as an extremely limited number among them accepts an albanian conection.We are what we choose to be,and since Arvanites consider themselves Greek,than Greek is what they are.It saddens me in a way,but it is their choice and we(Albanians)should do nothing but respect it.However, I don't think we can exlude the fact that the Greek national conscience they have obtained was slowly achieved through the assimilation proccess of the dictatorships they went through(Metaxas,military junta).After all, the Arberesh of Italy who migrated there more or less when the Arvanites migrated to Greece still consider Albanians as their relatives,cousins if you will,and do not resent being called as such.Amenifus (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Metaxas was in power from 1936 until his death in 1941.5 years.The military junta from 1967-1974.Thats 7 years.Arvanites had considered themselves Greek long before that due to religion ,the centuries of coexisting with Greeks in the Byzantine empire and after it and the fact that they were distanced from other Albanians due to the fact that a great number of the Albanians had become muslim.On today's situation the Albanian image is due to the media alone as they form opinions and consider the fact that Albania has territorial claims on Greece and is Allied with Turkey.That for the politics.Megistias (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I comment on one thing,you answer to another.Don't alert yourself,I'm not trying to albanise them(-are you actually reading my comments?),I'm simply pointing out the paradox between them and the Arberesh of Italy.They migrated to Greece either by invitation of the Byzantine Empire,or later on after the Ottoman invasion.They were not consiously Greek initially,they identified themselves as Orthodox rather than a separate nation.Obviously they differentiated from the rest of the Albanian population after the conversion to Islam,but can you really deny the helenising attempts?I am an Albanian Orthodox and I don't differentiate myself from my muslim countrymen,the Arberesh are Catholic and yet they don't "resent being called Albanian".We passed through our religious diversities during the late 19th century,a bit before the Arvanites manifesto happened,showing that they didn't resent us that much.In modern times however they do "dislike" being called Albanian.Coincidentally enough the two forementioned dictatorships took place in the 20th century,and Arvanites were forced..."ahem"...convinced to adopt "katharevousa",formal Greek,as their one and only language.In my opinion this wasn't a very benevolent act on behalf of the Greek government,considering the sacrifices of the Arvanites during the Greek independence struggle of 1821 and the Greco-Italian war.Now,as for Albania's claim on Greek territories that is simply an answer to Greek claims on Albanian territories(law of action-reaction).As for our "alliance" with Turkey I don't see how else we could face the crazed Iquisition-like Orthodox anti-albanian alliance in the Balkans.If the Greek media choose to identify us with Turkey,fine by me,but keep in mind that we don't have the same attachment to religion as our neighbors.Albanian muslims were the only muslims to rise against the Ottoman empire under no religious rallying cry,and don't forget that Albania's national hero does anything but bring us close with Turkey.So please lets not turn this article into yet another Greek-Albanian clash.Amenifus (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Who forced anyone to speak katharevousa, when it was never in fact a spoken language? All moderately educated or travelled Arvanites spoke (demotic) Greek even before Greece's independence, simply because it has always been the language of education, religion and commerce in the Balkans. To suggest that Greek, let alone katharevousa, was forced upon the Arvanites is pure nonsense. The reality is they have had a long tradition of bilingualism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was wrong on my behalf to suggest that "language enforcement".My sincere apologies,please don't feel offended as it wasn't my intention.However,they were indeed bilingual and not much effort was made to preserve their "other" language,correct?How does one come to hating his own past and origins?Bottom line,I don't think that Arvanites should be used to fuel up more nationalism rather than soften the relationship between the two countries.After all,I can't recall any other neighboring countries that share such a phenomenon.Amenifus (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The case with Arberesh is different since they didnt take part in the evens the Arvanites did with the Albanians like different religion during Ottoman rule and having contact at the same time a much earlier migration starting and spanning many centuries before to Greece than Arberesh migrating to Italy.Religion difference with Albanians and contact,conflicts during the Ottoman empire and the war against it.Among others fighting eachother Arvanites that were christians fought against Albanians that were muslims on the side of the Ottomans and you can understand what this does.Also Muslim Albanians were misnamed as Turks because of theri religion and this created and showed the distance betweeen them and of course other people that shared origins but not religion in that era.Megistias (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Arvanites have ever hated their own past and origins. They merely hate having their Greek identity called into question by Albanian nationalists, which has perhaps pushed them even further towards full assimilation. As for the language, it is true that the policy of the Greek education system has been to encourage uniformity, but I don't accept the argument that that's necessarily a bad thing. A sound knowledge of the official language is a basic prerequisite for social mobility in any country. And it hasn't just affected non-Greek languages like Arvanitic or Aromanian, but a whole host of regional Greek dialects as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But you see, "uniformity" is not necessarily good either.How would you feel if the Greeks of Australia,USA,or even Constantinople slowly forgot their heritage,language and everything that differs them from others(which is something already in process)?And even completely identify themselves with their new culture,and in an even more extreme case come into contradiction with their original heritage and tradition?Diversity is not necessarily a negative concept but rather something that should be preserved when not harming others.Having a "pure" nation is not quite possible,especially in the Balkans,and it's not a notion to be encouraged either.Amenifus (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with "purity"; the Arvanites simply resent being told by others what they "really" are or should be. Greeks in Australia or the United States don't demand that the taxpayer fund the preservation of their language and heritage, and, as far as I know, neither do the Arvanites. I personally see the assimilation of both as rather inevitable in the long run. Unfortunate, perhaps, but inevitable nonetheless. And I disagree with your postulation that the Arvanites have "come into contradiction with their original heritage and tradition". You're assuming that there was such a thing as an Albanian national identity at the time the Arvanites migrated south during the Middle Ages. There wasn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to tradition and culture,not national identity,and whether the Arvanites wish to preserve it or not is their choice alone.They will still identify themselves as national Greeks, bilingual or not.And if memory serves, the first thing the Greek primeminister did during his recent formal visit in Australia was attending and supervising the greek schools functioning there.Amenifus (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the traditions and culture of the Arvanites are so readily distinguishable from those of other Greeks that they warrant special protection. It is much more a case of traditional culture being ravaged by the onslaught of modernity, regardless of which group you're talking about. The most salient feature of Arvanitic identity is the language, and I agree the Arvanites should probably do more to preserve it. But that is a matter for them. As for the Greek schools in Australia, they are run by the community itself, not the government. And I don't think the Arvanites want separate schools anyway. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting such a thing(separate schools),but only that Arvanitika is not completely forgotten.This particular section of the discussion needs the contribution of someone who identifies himself as Arvanite,I cannot continue to speculate what would be appropriate to do in preserving Arvanitic culture.As I understand there already is an association dealing with such matters in Greece,thus I'm only offering my opinion and suggestions,nothing more,nothing less.Amenifus (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if Arvanitika is completely forgotten, the Albanian language has been thriving in Greece since the border was opened in 1991. In that sense, it shouldn't really matter to Albanians, who view them as one and the same, should it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound as though my ultimate goal is for Albanian to thrive in Greece as a language.Albanian in general is not our topic here,Arvanitika is.Immigrants are usually groups that return to their homeland sooner or later and I suggest that you don't confuse them with other communities such as Arvanites.Arvanites are considered Greek citizens with a Greek nationality,unlike immigrants which retain their nationality regardless of citizenship.Amenifus (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so why would foreign nationals be so concerned about the fate of a group of Greek nationals? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreign nationals would be concerned about a group of Greek nationals when there's a particular connection with the specific group.Arvanites and Albanians have an undeniable conection, historically and genetically speaking.This fact does not raise any doubts and the nationality they consider themselves part of is irrelevant.I would be very curious to see your comments if Greece was facing a similar case.Amenifus (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting another annoyed reply from Kekrops, can everybody please use this talk page only for discussing concrete improvements to the article, not for exchanging general opinions about Arvanites or this or that? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert in these issues but this article seems to lack contributions and comments from Arvanites themselves. In this discussion page I see Albanians and Greeks arguing over Arvanitika and the identity of Arvanites. The only member of the Arvanites group who has made a comment so far and whom I would like to thank for his contribution is NikoSilver. I think more Arvanites should help in editing this article. Statements such as "Arvanites in Greece have come to dissociate themselves much more strongly from the Albanians, stressing instead their national self-identification as Greeks" need to be explained. What would cause the Arvanites to dissociate themselves from the Albanians? I think NikoSilver gave us a glimpse of what may have caused the Arvanites to deny their Albanian roots. These kinds of explanations should be included in a discussion theme where Arvanites can tells us about their experiences and their thoughts. (Toni78 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Uhm, no, not really. First off, Nikos isn't an Arvanite. I think Kekrops once indicated he had an Arvanite background, and we have a couple others among the Greek contributors too. But please mind WP:V. We don't need more Arvanites telling us about their experiences. We need more people willing to read academic research literature about Arvanites and report what's written there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. You are totally right about WP:V. I also realized that Nikos did not indicate that he is an Arvanite. My bad. --Toni78 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archbishop Ieronymos

Interestingly, this [7] sociolinguistic study of Arvanite communities mentions "the Orthodox bishop of Livadhia, Hieronymus" and describes how the researcher saw him speak Arvanitika. That is our guy, isn't he? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parallels of Doric Greek and Arvanites

The authors is trying to raise some parallels of Tsakonian (Doric) ( so different from to day Greek as looks as different language) and Arvanitika a form of Albanian ,calling them both language of Greece<refFor example, Tsakonian, the variety of Greek spoken mainly in the eastern Peloponnesos is so different from the rest of Greek, or at least it was, that is might well be called a separate language rather than a dialect of Greek. As recorded in the early 20th century, for instance by Hubert Pernot, it was strikingly different. In more recent years, most Tsakonian speakers are now fluent users of Standard Greek and we find that Standard Greek features are entering Tsakonian. For instance, the negative particle was once the highly archaic form < o >, from ancient Greek , but increasingly in the 20th century it has given way to Standard Modern Greek . In a sense, Tsakonian is both an endangered language and an endangered dialect, just like Arvanitika, and its loss will be a loss for the Greek language and for Greece as a nation.[ http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/publications/1999comp.pdf]</ref. In fact it is well known that Arvanites call themselves as Doric<refΚωνσταντίνος Μπίρης. Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του σύγχρονου ελληνισμού. Αθήνα. 1981"</ref/ref>Biris, Kostas (1960): Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του νεότερου Ελληνισμού: H ιστορία των Ελλήνων Αρβανιτών</ref--Dodona (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been told many times that what you propose is impossible.Megistias (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For heaven's sake Dodona. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. I beg you. Please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean that Arvanites have nothing to do with this Doric background, while many Greek authors mention that, even politician as Mr.Pangalos--Dodona (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The idea that they have anything to do with Dorians is little more than national mysticism, or purely symbolic at best. If there's anything that relates them, it's certainly not their language. Now, please stop talking about this. You've been told a million times why it's nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

“If there's anything that relates them( with Dorians ) , it's certainly not their language” if it is not the language.. what it is then the ethnicity?, or their similarity with Dorians ?! --Dodona (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are trying to hide things See Albanian ethnos and culture in south Epirus[1]--Dodona (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You are begging to understand my frustrution.It is hopeless and you were wrong to hope future,i was right.Dodona that is even more irrelevant but i am immune i think from now on.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But the music from the link sounds great.Demotika are great.Thanks dodona.Megistias (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes M… you took the occasion, this is the real helenic music popular of course --Dodona (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Here and this one if you like the real Arvanite kanga thoni / Αρβανίτε κάγκα θόνι[8]--Dodona (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no relation with albanian/arvanite and ancient Greek.The ancient Greek loanwords are from none to very little.There is no link.Please read the approppriate articles.Megistias (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradict what Biris and others say… with sources and prove that Arvanites are not Dorians, you called the arvanitik ethnic music of epirus as "dimotiko" this is the real Helenic music.you give me sources to prove your thesis--Dodona (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Demotiko is a name for folklore music nothing more.Megistias (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Folk and demotiko , epirotik ethnography and music ,yes of course--Dodona (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona, it seems you haven't taken in a word of what I was telling you the other day. I'm serious. This just has to stop. I'm asking you for a last time: Will you please stop pushing your Arvanitic/Epirotic/Pelasgic pseudolinguistic idee fixe? Because if you do, you have a chance of staying here on wiki peacefully, writing perhaps some nice articles in other areas. But if I hear you talking about these topics one more time, I will ask for you to be banned again. And that will then be final. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaks

Just so everyone knows, I implemented some minor tweaks to the article in order to help improve its overall quality. Please do not assume that I have made significant changes to the article under the guise of "minor edits" (yes, some users apparently make this kind of assumption on Wikipedia). After having read the endless pages of "archived insanity", I really have no intention of getting involved in "debates" over the history and identity of the Arvanites. So, please refrain from dragging me into any pointless arguments since I ultimately don't care who the Arvanites were or where they came from. All I care about is improving articles. I may come back later to assess the structural integrity of the article's content. Hopefully, things will calm down by March 26. Take it easy folks. Elysonius (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

To the best of my ability, I have assessed the "structural integrity" of the article's content and found some problems that should be addressed:

  • Problem 1 - The first reference citation directly associated with the first sentence in the history section needs elaboration (i.e. page numbers and/or chapter numbers; direct quotes would be helpful). I think Deucalionite was the first to refer to this specific problem. Anyway, adding page numbers (and/or chapter numbers; direct quotes optional) would greatly increase the verifiability of the overall reference citation. This may seem like nitpicking, but maintaining high academic standards should apply to all articles.
  • Problem 2 - Other secondary sources provide a different take on the identity/origins of the Arvanites. Far be it for me to care about this particular issue, I am merely stating what is going on. Nothing else. Keep in mind, however, that the article does underestimate the historical presence of "Albanian-speaking Greeks" (as if I give a damn). Therefore, this problem should be addressed without the usual "Greek vs. Albanian" diatribes. During my usual research endeavors, I stumbled onto the following sources:
1) Goodwin, Jason. Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire. Macmillan, 2003. ISBN 0312420668
  • Direct Quote: Southern Albanians looked more like Greeks than Albanians from the north, whose language they shared - and when the Greeks did achieve independence they adopted as their national dress the outfit Byron had admired as the epitome of Albanian elegance. (pp. 294-295)
  • Direct Quote: There were angry Greeks, and complacent Greeks, shepherd Greeks, island Greeks, Albanian Greeks and Bulgarian Greeks, and above all there were Greeks of one sort or another all along the empire's coasts: in Smyrna and other cities along the Anatolian seaboard, on the islands of the Aegean, around the Peloponnese and the Greek peninsula. (p. 277)
2) Bakaoukas, Michael. "Modern Greek National Identity". Center for Applied Philosophy: The Radical Academy. (Online text)
  • Direct Quote: In other words, the example of the Greek nation substantiates Smith's theory. That is to say, the modern Greek nation is not an entirely modern formation, for it is based on much older cultural groups (ethnies). Greek ethnies (like Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavophones etc.) present "permanent cultural attributes" such as memory, value, myths and symbolisms. Greek ethnies present a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium.
3) Prévélakis, Georges. "The Hellenic Diaspora and the Greek State: A Spatial Approach". Geopolitics, Autumn 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p. 171-185.
  • Direct Quote: "Even the Albanian-speaking Orthodox did not regard themselves as rum (members of the religious community or Orthodox Christian millet) but also as real Greeks. The role played by these Albanian-speaking Greeks in the Greek war of independence was crucial." (p. 174)
  • Direct Quote: "Even today, in the Athenian suburbs one can find Arvanites, Albanian speakers who were integrated into Greek national identity as early as the first half of the nineteenth century and who in no way consider themselves as an ethnic minority." (p. 176)
  • Problem 3 - The reference citation utilizing the "Magistri Capellani Nationis Graecae" as a source is questionable. Has anyone actually verified the existence of this source? Moreover, has anyone figured out whether this is a primary or secondary source? If this source does exist, then where exactly does it say that in 1697, Bouas and Moscholeon professed their Greek identity in Naples? Elaboration and verification are both needed.
  • Problem 4 - The reference citation utilizing Stamou's work as a source (i.e. Macedonian Struggle) does not have a page number. Moreover, the quote in Greek (which I translated) does not seem to coincide directly with the fact that Vangelis Koropoulis contributed to the Macedonian Struggle. Elaboration and verification are both needed.
  • Problem 5 - Most of the reference citations in this article are generally devoid of page numbers. This is a problem that should have been dealt with years ago.

Please review and question the aforementioned sources as logically as possible. Granted, they do not provide detailed accounts on the historical origins of the Arvanites. However, these sources regard the Arvanites as something other than "Albanian settlers".

On a sidenote, please refrain from utilizing typical "dead horse" rhetorical tactics in order to avoid expanding and enhancing the quality of this article. Moreover, please refrain from engaging in useless edit-wars over the identity and origins of the Arvanites. I will not be held responsible for any questionable statements made in response to any aspect of this assessment.

As a reminder, I do not care who or what the Arvanites are or where they came from. I cannot stress this enough since I don't care if the Arvanites are ultimately "Greeks", "Albanians", "Albanian-speaking Greeks", "Greek-speaking Albanians", "Romanians", "Bulgarians", or whatever other Balkan ethnicity comes to mind. Therefore, please spare me any misinterpretations of this assessment as "Greek POV pushing". I have neither the patience nor the time to waste on frivolous assumptions. Moreover, do not bother harassing me on my discussion page regarding the issue of the Arvanites' identity/origins just because "I brought it up" as a topic in my assessment.

Carefully read over this assessment and take whatever measures are necessary towards improving this article. If no measures are taken, then I may have to consult other users who may be interested in helping this article undergo further improvement. I would love to be "bold" myself in seriously editing this article, but I have no intention of inadvertently starting edit-wars.

Also, keep in mind that my purpose here is not to waste time "beating dead horses". I already read the discussion page archives and nearly lost my mind doing so. Therefore, please do not assume that I am ignorant of the controversial nature of this article, as well as the various "colorful perspectives" that have constantly prevented this article from moving forward.

Good-bye and good luck. Elysonius (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) I want to comment in the followings:

“Greek ethnies (like Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavophones etc.) present "permanent cultural attributes" such as memory, value, myths and symbolisms. Greek ethnies present a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium.”

This source indirectly quotes that there are different Greek ethnies which present a common cultural origin descending from ANCIENT Greece ,from the Greek ethnies mention I assume that we are talking about Arvanites

‘’Southern Albanians looked more like Greeks than Albanians from the north, whose language they shared - and when the Greeks did achieve independence they adopted as their national dress the outfit Byron had admired as the epitome of Albanian elegance. (pp. 294-295)’’

Does it means here that the Greeks look like as Albanian from the south since they adopted their customs. While some of the Greek of Arvanites placement (internal population movment ) is well know that originate from the north Albania.Else is not only the language shared but also the ethnicity --Andrea stefani (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "pure" Arvanite .Some language has remained and the southern comments refers to the past mixing of the populations.Arvanites in greece now have some grandfather that had some ancestor as such and so on.Megistias (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

Frankly, it is very odd that no one has responded to my assessment despite this article being very controversial. Nevertheless, I decided to be "bold" and tried to implement whatever solutions I could muster toward solving some of the problems I listed in my assessment. If, by any chance, my edits attract another "Wiki World War", then please remove them. Thank you. Elysonius (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Elysonius, thank you for your work on the sources. However, I'm afraid I can't easily accept the addition of the sentence to the beginning of the history section: "However, their origins have also been associated with southern Albanian-speaking groups possessing a Greek ethnic identity" This sentence implies an opposition to the preceding ("originated from Albanian settlers […]") which simply is nowhere to be seen in the sources. There is no source, none that you cited and none I've ever seen anywhere else, that contradicts the statement that the late medieval Albanian settlers from the north, at the time of their settlement, were precisely that: Albanians of the same ethnic stock and cultural identity as their fellow countrymen they left behind, later to become the present-day Albanian nation.

In fact, none of the five sources you cite seems to even be addressing the issue that this passage is about, that of the origins, i.e. who or what were those settlers when they came. In detail:

  • Goodwin 1: a passing mention of "Albanian Greeks" hardly counts as a reference for a claim about their "origins".
  • Goodwin 2: "Southern Albanians" that "looked more like Greeks" – still no reference to the origins, and of course nothing contradicting the statement that they or their ancestors were, in fact, Albanians.
  • Prevelakis 1: What time frame is this statement talking about? Probably the time of Modern Greek nation building (late 18th to 19th centuries), see reference to War of Independence. Not a statement about the late medieval settlers.
  • Prevelakis 2: Explicitly dates integration into Greek nation "as early as the first half of the nineteenth century"; hence, not earlier; certainly no statement about medieveal origins.
  • Bakaoukas: treating the Arvanites as a "Greek ethny" with a "common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium." - Sure, but that ancient origin goes for all Albanians, not only for Arvanites specifically. No statement to the effect that the origins of the Arvanitic ethnie, in the medieval period, were separate and distinct from that of Albanians in general.
  • Mavrogordatos: speaking about the modern state of affairs, with "long-standing" Greek traditions from a present-day perspective. But just how long-standing? Reaching further back than the medieval settlements?

In short, I have no doubt that we can use some of these sources somewhere, just not at that point and not to support that particular statement.

By the way, Elysonius, do you happen to be a sock of our old friend Deucalionite? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Ethnolect"?

Why use an obscure piece of technical vocabulary, which no reader is familiar with, outside the academic context to which it belongs, when it adds no extra information or higher degree of precision over the common and absolutely adequate term "dialect" here?

As for "Albanian settlers", in a perfect world I might agree with you that stating their ethnicity explicitly at that point might not be necessary. But the constant stream of POV-pushing single purpose accounts trying to remove it makes it quite clear that in fact it is necessary: there is no shortage of people who will maintain some confused ideological concoctions in their minds according to which they might in some miraculous way not have been Albanians. So we need to clarify it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you yourself deprecated the term dialect in favour of variety or form, especially considering Tosk is what actually fits the "dialect" bill in this case. A, as opposed to the Tosk dialect of Albanian, just sounds rather awkward. As for the POV-pushing IPs, omitting the controversy altogether may be the best way of getting rid of them, don't you think? It's not as if the Albanian links aren't stressed enough in the article already. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I never had a problem with "dialect". The fact that Tosk is also a "dialect of Albanian" doesn't entail that its sub-varieties can't also be called that. The only reason I can reconstruct that "dialect" was for some time not used in this article was apparently that some editors on the anti-Albanian side who were pushing the idiosyncratic notion of Arvanitika as a "separate language" needed to be placated at the time. As for the other issue, there is no controversy, there is only a simple piece of crucial, obviously relevant, factual information, consensus in all the literature, that belongs at exactly that point: their origins. I don't see how it is expressed elsewhere, or where it should be expressed elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've traced the break from the long-standing consensus version to this edit, apparently by User:Dodona. I don't see why we need to endorse it. Although I prefer "ethnolect" given that it does add extra information (the Arvanites' distinct identity), "form" is perfectly fine. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I was wondering if Dodona's year-long campaign had actually resulted in any actual change in an article that stuck. Here, his net effect was one word and now you removed it. You are cruel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. He managed to squeeze "Tosk" in; that wasn't there before. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume that all Arvanites originate from Southern Albania, there has been quite a bit of evidence that suggests that many are Geg Albanians. Such proof can be seen in the surnames, for example Gkekas (Gega), Lekas(Leka), and Kriezis(Kryezi) are both Arvanite and northern Albanian surnames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeoffyourcool (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

most sources agree that they came from what is today southern Albania. - Sthenel (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

In the opening paragraph it was recently added that Arvanites are a group of Albanian origin. The stable older version was that Arvanites are a group that speaks Arvanitika and I think that it was much better. They should be presented like a distinct cultural group avoiding conclusions that are under discussion (I don't think that anyone here has made any genetic research or has any in mind). Additionally modern Arvanites - whatever their origin was - are descendants of the first Arvanites who arrived to Greece centuries ago and the native populations, so any talk about their (modern Arvanites) origin nowadays seems anything else but neutral. - Sthenel (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. There is abundant sourcing for their historical Albanian descent. It's completely uncontroversial in the relevant scholarship. Just because some wikipedia editors have repeatedly gone into fits over every mentioning of "Albanian" doesn't mean we have to hide it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The first Arvanites were of Albanian origin. Modern Arvanites, some of them may have one Arvanite ancestor (a parent, a grand-parent etc), cannot be called "of Albanian origin". It doesn't make sense at all and seems really black-and-white. - Sthenel (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much irrelevant. Every ethnic group in the world is factually mixed. So what? That individuals in that group may have mixed ancestries is uncontroversial. But the group as a whole owes its existence to its Albanian origins. As a group, the Arvanites are descended from medieval Albanians in the same sense that Greeks are descended from ancient Greeks, Bretons from ancient British, Germans from ancient Germanic tribes, Vlachs from Latinized ancient Balkanians and so on so forth. Where's the problem? – But of course, arguing all this (again and again) is moot. Just bring us one of the undoubtedly many reliable sources you have that say they are not of Albanian origin, will you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misapprehended your status as administrator and this is what my reliable sources say. Unfortunately anyone who tries to give an opinion in the articles that you "patronize" has to face up your offensive and pejorative behaviour. Great work! - Sthenel (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reliable sources say I have misapprehended my status as administrator? LOL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, for Dodona and his reverted comment, I'm not an Arvanite because I care about this article. And I would be very proud if I was. Comment on: "Every ethnic group in the world is factually mixed. So what? That individuals in that group may have mixed ancestries is uncontroversial. But the group as a whole owes its existence to its Albanian origins. As a group, the Arvanites are descended from medieval Albanians in the same sense that Greeks are descended from ancient Greeks, Bretons from ancient British, Germans from ancient Germanic tribes, Vlachs from Latinized ancient Balkanians and so on so forth." Talking for the origin of a nation and a smaller ethnic group which lives for centuries within a nation and intermingled with it are not the same. This group is going to share the same features (genetically and culturally) with the nation that embraces it, after a long period of coexistence. That's what genetics say. - Sthenel (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sthenel btw you once said that you have one of your grandfather Arvanites.i have heard that there is not any Greek without any Arvanit ancestry background. The question is that how we will call Arvanites autochthones that lived in Greece before 11th century? If other Arvanites that came later intermix with the same genetic make up population then there is not I significant change after all. Genetic can change but certain characteristics remain for instance genetic research it is been used to find the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel through mtDNA haplotype testing Genealogical DNA test , as well the anthropology can defined certain similar characteristics that you could find between Arvanites and Albanian population, tradition and ethnography also although certain valued were abandoned there are very much similarities. If you pretend this genetic and anthropologic change then the Greek republic should not be call Hellenic after all Albanian fellow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.65.82 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)