Talk:Arvanites/Archive 4

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.
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 discussion at the Archive 1, 2 and 3.


Contents

"Related" entry in infobox

Although I agreed with NikoX's proposal to leave out the "related groups" entry in the infobox, it seems the template treats that row as obligatory and keeps inserting junk if we don't specify it. I think calling Albanians a "related group" here is not really that controversial, is it? Feel free to remove if the template can be fixed to make the row optional. Are there people who feel strongly about having that info there or not having it? Lukas (T.|@) 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I added Greeks - language is not the only criterion, Arvanites and Greeks share many cultural characteristics. Telex 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem with me - I just hope we won't have furious Greek readers calling in to complain that labelling Arvanites related to Greeks implies that they aren't themselves Greeks ... :-) By the way, if we want to add something useful in this row, how about Arbereshe? Now, these guys really are "related", and there are reports that that's at least one thing that's not terribly controversial or offending to Arvanites. Lukas (T.|@) 09:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The Arbëreshë are Arvanites ;-) they were Greek identifying, had Greek names and (much earlier) were Orthodox Christians (now they are Roman Catholics or Uniates - this is also true for the Griko speakers there). They became Albanians in 1926 with Mussolini propaganda, when he also renamed Sicilia piena degli Greci to Sicilia piena degli Arbanessi. Telex 09:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, the complaint you mentioned shouldn't happen, as the infobox itself says "related ethnic groups" - thereby acknowledging the Arvanites as an ethnic group. Telex 09:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly that could become the crux. You wouldn't believe what people have already found reasons to squabble about in this article. But maybe I shouldn't talk about WP:BEANS too much. :-) Lukas (T.|@) 09:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perceived nationalist bias

This article is hopeless, influenced directly by the theoretical viewpoints developed from the megali idea period. Telex confidence can be questioned, and one of the reason is that he state without evidence that the Arbereshe people are of Greek background. He have a clear Greek nationalist agenda in my opinion. --Albanau 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Albanau, please stop it already. As I told you a number of times, you're welcome to make constructive contributions to this article if you have anything solid and verifiable, but these random hit-and-run accusations every few weeks don't help. If you go on like this I'll start removing your talkpage contributions as trolling. Lukas (T.|@) 12:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Accuse me but I'm discussing the problem of the article, and that is that it has been influenced by Greek nationalist propaganda. Perhaps not the best way to approach, and I apology for that, but the problem remains. -Albanau 14:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean "excuse me", not "accuse me", I suppose? (Well, I could oblige and accuse you of a lot of things, if you asked me politely...:-D ) - Anyway, please tell us simply what you want changed in the article, and give us your sources for whatever claims you want to introduce. It's that simple. Lukas (T.|@) 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've marked 'em up and if Albanau or anyone wishes to continue, take it to the ArbCom. If I am given no choise than to file a new case, I'll request permablocks. Do whatever pleases you most. talk to +MATIA 10:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think people get permablocks for personal attacks (only personal attack paroles, which authorise admins to issue brief blocks for personal attacks). Also, when Albanau discusses my "clear Greek nationalist agenda", you leave that unmarked :-( Telex 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Telex feel free to add your opinion on the related ArbCom case or try to talk Albanau out of it. And sorry for missing one spot :) talk to +MATIA 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Peace, guys! Okay, that statement by Albanau above was inappropriate, but let's just forget about it now and move on. Honestly, I'd like to maintain an atmosphere on this page that will allow everybody, including Albanau, to propose and make constructive changes. If he brings concrete ideas about concrete changes to the article, he'll be welcome. - And please don't you guys even mention the word Arbcom in my presence, I've just been through one and it still hurts... :-(
But since you mentioned it, here's a pearl of wisdom for all of us: "as editors with a nationalistic point of view are welcome to contribute that point of view, it is inappropriate to attack them for holding such views, or to bait or badger them with respect to those views." Cheers, Shalom, irini pasin, Selamlar, - Lukas (T.|@) 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipatience
This icon wants to remind us all to be always patient like a saint, and to be always looking closely at our cluestick before hitting others with it, to check whether we are holding the right end of it. Lukas (T.|@) 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually I don't see it as a personal attack. When I wrote "This article is hopeless, influenced directly by the theoretical viewpoints developed from the megali idea period", is from my viewpoint, like it or dislike, you don't have to agree. It's called criticism! This is a discussion page where we can express ourself about the problems of the article in our own perspective! And when I wrote in from my perspective in a neutral manner that Telex has "a clear Greek nationalist agenda in my opinion", users don't have to agree with it. As said above "perhaps not the best way to approach, and I apology for that". Albanau 11:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, Albanau, you're allowed to edit the article. It's part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Telex 11:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lukas for the reminders. talk to +MATIA 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Trollish threads moved here from later discussion:)

about the tags

The question is not weather you or I like to the tags to the remain. The tags was put there because of the very fact that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed and not accepting this and state otherwise is a false statement.The tags are extremely necessary and appropriate so editors become more involved in the sensitivity of the subject concerning the article, and also otherwise readers cannot understand what they are reading may contain incorrect information. --Albanau 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If the tags remain, it seems fair that they must also be introduced to the 'Albanians' article. Namely because if we identify Arvanites as an Albanian minority, then the Albanians must also be identified as Greeks because the Arvanites are clearly Greeks. I promise you that the way I will write it will make perfect sense. But I would prefer if the tags were removed. Politis 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - if there is an actual dispute, then they should remain. --Telex 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to re-focus on solving the dispute, what would you say it is, what are the issues? What do we need to solve? Politis 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain. --Telex 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are very honest Telex. Does anyone else have any idea what the dispute is about so that we can solve it? Otherwise I cannot see how the tags can remain over the idea of a non-dispute. Politis 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be between Matia and Albanau, on whether to refer to the ancestors of the Arvanites as Albanians [1]. --Telex 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then presumably Albanau and Matia may be able to confirm this when they are available. Politis 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The first steep is of course admitting that we have a problem. The second steep is to find the actual problem with the article and what the dispute is about. The last steep is to solve the problem/dispute and satisfy everybody, but It won't be easy... I think the The actual problem with the article can be found above on users Politis contribution to the discussion. because the Arvanites are clearly Greeks... Users with Greek origin refusal of accepting and effort and attempt to conceal the connection or connections the Arvanites have/had with other Albanians have become the problematic and need to be resolved. --Albanau 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Albanau, you identified a problem here in the talk page. Fine. It seems you cannot accept that Arvanites are Greeks; well, argue your case. Let me give you some POV information, according to a cousin there is Arvanitiko in our blood, and we say, we know we are Greeks. We like Albania and all our neighbours but we, like the Arvanites are Greeks. I have no idea who you are Albanau so I cannot take your motives very seriously. Perhaps you are a Belgium or a Canadian student having a bit of fun. Well at least make us laugh βρε φίλε! But what is the problem with the article? Politis 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Guys, the problem, which has mainly been discussed between Matia and me, is whether it is appropriate to state in the intro that Arvanites are "descendants of Albanian settlers". It was my proposal to introduce that. And as I still haven't heard any serious alternative to that statement sourced to any serious reference, I still don't see why it shouldn't be included. If those ancestors at the time of the settlement were not Albanians, then what the heck were they? One year of edit war, and still no answer to that basic question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The answer: Albanian-speaking Greeks. Greeks spoke different languages during the final centuries of the Byzantine Empire and especially during Ottoman times. There were Greeks that spoke Slavic and hence were deemed Slavophone Greeks. There were Greeks that spoke Turkish and hence Turkophone Greeks. The utilization of different languages was a survival tactic the Greeks needed in order to trade more easily, as well as to protect themselves from any potential dangers (especially from harassments by the Ottomans). Once again, language does not define ethnicity. Of course, since Western European academia assumes that a language reflects the ethnic make-up of a social group it is no wonder there is still controversy over this topic. Over and out. Deucalionite 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but no cigar. Who, pray, has proposed this view in the literature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't smoke. So it is true. You actually believe that language defines ethnicity. I never thought I would see the day when I would have interesting proof of sociological blindness on your part. Have you ever heard of the Anglophone Greeks? I hear they are ethnic Greeks who mostly speak English or some linguistic variation of Anglo-Saxon. Just so you know, Greeks speaking different languages during late Byzantine and Ottoman times is not something I conjured up in my sleep. I think there are entities called "people" who realistically understand this too. Care to meet them my sociologically blind friend? Deucalionite 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there are entities called books, which are supposed to play a certain role in discussions on Wikipedia. Lukas (T.|@) 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are. However, books are only part of the process. There are journals, notes, statements, etc. that you have to take into account (as well as good old fashioned sociological analyses). Besides, you have to be careful nowadays about which books to use (since certain scholars have these things called "axes" that they tend to grind for monetary or political purposes; oh how much fun academia is). Also, comparative analyses of the books utilized should be in order. You of all people should know that much. Over and out. Deucalionite 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites are Albanians

I think it is boring with Greek wikipedians that oppose the link between Arvanites and Albanians. Arvanites are not Greek since they are called arvanites and not Greek. Many arvanites today do not want to be considered as Albanians partly because of the bad reputation of Albanians in Greece created and backed by media and the government, and partly because of the Greek assimilation policies during the last to centuries.

I have read many books and Greece is at the bottom of Europe, when it comes to human rights and respect of ethnic groups rights.

On of you said that 20 % of Albania’s population are Greeks, which is WRONG. Today I think 0.1% (earlier max 2 %) of the population are Greeks, and that is because many of the Greeks have moved from poor Albania to the rich (in the Balkans context) Greece


Can some of you answer me what the word arvanit means?

I think I can help. The literal meaning of the term "Arvanite" (or "Arbanite") is "one who comes from Arbanon". This meaning is no different from say the term "Maniate" meaning "one who comes from Mani". Of course, any Greek word that ends in "-ite" also means "like" or "similar to". The reason the Arvanites were called "Arvanites" was because they were similar (linguistically) to Albanians, but were not Albanian in the ethno-cultural sense. Deucalionite 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Plain wrong. Read the article. Of course, yes, the name comes from the toponym, but as an ethnonym it was originally shared by all Albanians. The distinction between "Albanians" and "Arvanites" as two distinct groups is not older than the 19th or even 20th century. Read the older Greek literature, or even just look at their titles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Read the article many times (I'll give you a hint, it needs work). Besides, you didn't even let me finish. Tell me Future Perfect, do you know the meaning of the word "Gasmul"? Of course you do. It means a person who has a Greek mother and a Frankish father (I believe the term was a pejorative at the time of its linguistic inception). The point I was trying to make (before being rudely interrupted by you) is that the Greeks have classified different populations not only based on language, but also based on ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. If the Greeks can call certain people "Gasmules", then what makes them so dastardly wrong in calling Greeks who talk like Albanians and come from Arbanon "Arvanites"?
Also, the difference between the "Alvanoi" and the "Arbanitai" is shown to have existed since Byzantine times (haven't you read Michael Attaliates?). Even though both names sound similar (and have similar spellings) does not mean that they represent the same people. Besides, the history section (which needed serious work) was called "utter nonsense" by you if I remember oh so correctly. Just like Aldux. Short-sightedly dishonorable. Please, go ahead and throw a "crap" comment anytime soon. Now I could have sworn I put the names of authors whose statements should be taken into account when discussing the history of the Arvanites. They made some interesting cases. Of course, where are you to ask oh so respectfully for me to elaborate. Deucalionite 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)