Talk:Pelasgians

Pelasgia. Etymology

I'd like to say that Pelasgia is clearly synonomous with Hellas. P is equivalent to C becomes Celasgia (eg Q and P celtic). s and g are both equivalent to s becomes Celassia. C is pronounced H in some cultures(eg germanic), hence Helassia..ie Hellas. So the Greeks did not call themselves the original Hellas without reason.

Pelasgia I believe originated out of ancient Cilicia with possibly Tarsus as its capital. Pelasia again equates to Cilasia, or Cilicia. Pelasgia was I believe colonised by Indo European Cilicians(Themselves originally hurrians) and the people there had a sub stratum language which changed the Cilician to Pilacian..Pelagian. The same happened to the Q(C) Celtic and P Celtic language. An example of this is Cinc in Irish became pinp in Welsh, became five in English. And an example of H to C equivalance is the classic one between Hund and Cent..hundred. Much evidence points to the Phoenicians(or their close Northern kin) of Cilicia as being the source/creators of powerfull fleets in the mediteranean which initially colonised Pelasgia. --92.5.55.196 (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or the Pelasgians were simply Pelasgians and Hellenes were Hellenes (Ellenes), different people of different languages, as Herodotus said, and Hellenes came to the south with Doric migration, driving off the Pelasgian indigenes or assimilating them. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It just begs pointing out that Pelasgia -> Celasgia -> Celassia -> Helassia -> Hellas is quite a long shot, unless you can provide references to contextually relevant sources containing the intermediate links. It's especially rich to claim this synonimity in the light of the dismissal of Pelargians -> Pelasgians on the grounds that it's a "mere similarity of sounds" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.21.116 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I am not per se a supporter of "Unsigned's" argument that Pelasgia and Hellas come from the same linguistic root (in fact I always have had a certain reluctance in accepting claims like these such as the claim of the appearance of "Alexandros of Ilios" in a Hittite treaty), still it needs to be pointed out here that the Pelasgians and Hellenes were not at all different people of different languages "as Herodotos said", dear Zenanarh, though the confusion is of course easily made :). For Herodotos actually claimed them to be a part of the Pelasgians which had split off very early on. This is actually said in the Wikipedia article itself and can also be found in Herodotos Book I §58 sentence 2: 'Yet weak after their separation from the Pelasgians from whom they were a branch, and have since grown from small beginnings to their present numbers by the addition of various foreign elements, amgonst which were the Pelasgians themselves.' The "Attic" race for example were originally, according to Herodotos part of the Pelasgians but then later became part of the Hellenes (Herodotos Book I §57 section 3). The fact that the original Hellenes split so early would explain why the "main" Pelasgians had a different language from the Hellenes, though most Pelasgians later took over the Hellenic language (being Greek) when they became part of it. It's all rather complicated but I hope this helps :) --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kretschmer used the word Pelasgian,for all the inhabitants of the lands around the Aegean sea.They came propably from the north after the great cataclysm.The pelasgian and greek myths for the cataclysm are quite similar.There are some linguistic similarities with the Phonecian deities Bell,Baal and the Celtic Belli.It's possible that

the North-Semetic supreme god El (Phoenecian:Elyon) was not originally a Semetic god but a god of the area YS, who had the absolute control of the waters (YS-RA-EL).The etymology of the word πέλαγος (pelagos:open sea) remains uncertain in Indo-European therefore it's possible that the word Pelasgia is connected with the sea-people.193.92.181.203 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasg comes from the word Sun - Ήλιος - Πελασ. Children of the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristov7 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is said further down: "It is uncertain whether any ancient people actually called themselves Pelasgi. In later Greek usage their name was applied to all “aboriginal” Aegean populations." Britannica Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449112/Pelasgi"

The points here: 1) the Greek called them such, IE: we are looking for a GREEK word. 2) The "... name was applied to all “aboriginal” Aegean populations." The solution seems to be obvious: palaios παλαιός meaning "old". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

‘Some’

‘Some’ is being added and removed in the Albanian language sub-section in the section ‘Language’. I believe we should keep the word, but instead of ‘some’ we use ‘most’, as not all scholars reject this theory (as an Albanian, I don’t think this theory is true; it is quite unlikely that we are descendants of Pelasgians or that our language is related to it, except from the Indo-European connection IF Pelasgian turns out to be an Indo-European language)(this book deals with this theory: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BZlBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&dq=pelasgians+ancestors+albanians&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmv5f5h6TeAhUJB8AKHZQ5DvAQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=pelasgians%20ancestors%20albanians&f=false). ArbDardh (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with you ArbDardh. Some editors are subjective and not objective!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. There isn't a single modern scholar who supports this "Pelasgian" nonsense. If you can find one, please post here. Khirurg (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The bit on Albanian needs to be expanded. The pseudo-science theory was revived in the 1980s in Arvanite circles (like with Aristeidis Kollias in Greece) uncomfortable with the Albanian connection (in terms of origins) and later it entered other parts of the Albanian speaking world in the 1990s. I doubt these editors are aware of this, its why from time to time we keep getting this kind of thing. Some mention of this in a sentence or two in the article would alleviate the matter.Resnjari (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I also think so!--Lorik17 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I don't disagree. However, it wasn't just Kollias, as the source posted by ArbDardh shows [1]. The tricky part is what to add, and keep it to one-two sentences. Khirurg (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg, i don't mind adding that that additional stuff as sadly entered it has the schooling system as well. maybe an extra sentence of two. Sadly its unavoidable, but not editors who come and contribute are well read or know the ins and outs of the issue and take things at face value. In the modern era it starts with Kollias, his text is still gospel in Albania on this for those who harp on about it and same with Arvanites too. De Rapper gives the chronology how it goes from Kollias into Albania. Its a sad state of affairs but it is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So far there is nothing historical for this, thus there is no evidence to present. Nationalistic myths should be added in correspondent articles (Albanian nationalism etc.). As such there is nothing that can be expanded here,Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Actually there is. Arvanites in Greece have revived the theory in the 1980s and it is still common in their community. It has been borrowed in Albanian circles from them. No other communities in the Balkans today use this pseudo-science except those two communities.Resnjari (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You believe that modern "theories", "mythologies", "pseudo-sciene" can be added in historical articles? I don't thing so. Take in account that according to those "Arvanite" theories Skanderbeg is a Greek national hero.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe i was not succinct here Alexikoua. This article already cites that the Pelasgian theory is disproven in relation to Albanian. What is clear is that as a pseudo-science theory it has been revived from the 1980s onward and used for national affirmation purposes (De Rapper: [2]). Any additions to article are on this basis. De Rapper is clear on this etc etc and a whole host of other academics have cited its return if you want more. No one else in the Balkans uses this pseudo-science on the Pelasgians apart from Arvanites and some Albanians now as well sadly. As for "Arvanite" theories and Skanderbeg being "a Greek national hero", well goes to show more nationalistic delusions. Its why we don't use the works of people Kolias on wiki.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-theory".... There is no place for such modern fringe in articles about history and archaeology. In the same rationale we could have added info of similar quality in various historical articles, such as Skanderbeg as I've noted earlier.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again we know its fringe idea, no one is contesting that and the article already states the theory is disrpoven. Scholarship (i.e De Rapper) however shows that the disproven theory it has been revived and is influential among two communities, Arvanites and (more so southern) Albanians in the modern era and also no other communities in the Balkans invoke the Pelasgians. That should be cited in the article for the bit under section Albanian in a few sentences as i said to @Khirug in the above comment.Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

De Raper offers an analysis of various social aspects of Albanian nationalism. I fail to see any historical-archaeological value in this paper. Perhaps an addition in articles like 'Greater Albania' or 'Albanian nationalism' is justified but not here. The current part about the so-called Albanian connection is more just enough. Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I know the article well and Arvanites are cited. The Albanian nationalism already has this outlined years ago and so does the Arvanites article. I made sure of that. Its this article that is lacking a sentence based on academia that the Pelasgian myth has been reused. As i said previously two sentences takes care of the matter in the Albanian subsection. Otherwise why have such a subsection at all?Resnjari (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: What specific new text would you like to see added to the article? Furius (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Furius. I'm just placing proposed text to get some feedback first. I also think the sentence on the rejection of the Pelasgian theory in the current article in the Albanian subsection would do well to go at the end of this proposed section leaving the reader in no doubt. It took some work condensing content from both the Arvanites and the Albanian nationalism article and this is the result. As for sources the proposed section based on de Rapper, Endresen [3] etc.

In post-dictatorial Greece the Arvanites have rehabilitated themselves within Greek society through the revival of the Pelasgian theory regarding their origins. The theory created a counter discourse that aimed to give the Arvanites a positive image in Greek history by claiming themselves as ancestors and relations of contemporary Greeks and their culture. The Arvanite revival of the theory was borrowed by other Albanian speaking populations within Albania and by Albanian immigrants in Greece through a series of translated foreign books published (late 1990s - early 2000s) on Albania. The theory is used to counter the negative image of Albanian communities and rehabilitate themselves as an ancient and autochthonous population in the Balkans to "prove" the precedence of Albanians over Greeks. The theory plays an important role in Albanian nationalism and Albanian schoolbooks have in relation to language asserted at times that the Illyrians are the heirs of the Pelasgians.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: The specific section is already two sentence long and there is no way to add something more than that. Pseudo myths and how todays Albanian nationalists myths are evolved are completely irrelevant with the subject. Imagine adding such pseudo Balkan stories in Skanderbeg. Not a reasonable initiative at all.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A better idea will be to merge this two-sentence subsection in one paragraph together with the rest of non-historical outdated wp:fringe. Even the head "Albanian" in an article that's about ancient history offers the wrong impression that this might be of some kind of Ancient Albanian history.Alexikoua (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is all interesting but the only two communities repeatedly going on about Pelasgians are Arvanites and (southern) Albanians and it has impacted their communities. Something needs to be said about it. Scholars have chronicled this as well over the years.Resnjari (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this needs to be stated in the correspondent articles, but this is the wrong article. No wonder the De_Rapper paper is focused on the myths of Albanian nationalism, there is no word about archaeology or ancient history. A better solution to get rid of this 2 sentences is merging.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Since there is a dispute on whether wp:FRINDGE theories should be extensively presented in historical articles, it appears that according to T. Yochalas there is "a long lasting tradition in Greek letters and arts which appropriated Skanderbeg as a Greek patriot and national hero" [[4]]. That's part of the same modern Arvanite myths.Alexikoua (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They have been covered in detail the correspondent articles for more than two years now. As i said before i added that information. The discussion is about this article. This article has a whole section about theories and their uses relating to Pelasgians. Some sentences about which peoples are invoking Pelasgians today and why that is not scholarly credible needs to be stated so a reader is aware. Not everyone who visits the Albanian nationalism or Arvanites articles are likely to check out this article and vice versa from the Pelasgians to those articles. Regarding Arvanite myths on Skanderbeg give me the source/s, its important to point that out. Links please.Resnjari (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid you are in the wrong article. The subject of this topic covers archaeological-ancient history issues. Socio-political 20th century nationalist fringe does not belong here (though it has it's 2 sentences and that's enough). By the way this Skanderbeg as a Greek hero theory was very much alive in 19th century Greek literature. Clayer claims that it was Greek literature that elevated Skanderbeg to a Albanian national hero. Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually not in the wrong article. There already is a theories section on language. Its important that it is pointed out to the reader. All that is highlighted is that the 19th century theory was used in relation to Albanian and is discredited. It fails to take into account that the theory is still ongoing even though its discredited. Also De Rapper, Endresen and others do not only refer to he 20th century but the 21st as well (their works are post 2000). The theory is still active among some Arvanite circles today [5]. Clayer and Yochalas has published a lot. As i said about Skanderbeg Alexikoua please provide the sources and i will take it from there.Resnjari (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That Skanderbeg gained the admiration as an Albanian national hero by Greeks needs to be backed by several sources. That some Greek authors claimed that Skanderbeg was a Greek is well-known and can be placed on the Skanderbeg article. Re the Pelasgians, were them real or mythical people? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Insisting to add Wikipedia:Fringe theories is against policy. No wonder De Rapper deals in the scope of Albanian nationalism which is not relevant with this topic. Feel free to find something relevant for discussion which supports the so-called Albanian-Pelasgian autocthony. @Ktrimi: Pelasgians were an ill-defined group in prehistory/antiquity all we know is sporadic info from ancient literature.Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, but the thing is the sources are credible as they give details of this and they in no way are presenting the Pelasgian theory as fact. My proposal outlines this so the reader is left with no doubts.Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that Alexikoua is right that this amount of detail is inappropriate in a section which is specifically about language. However, there seems to be a sufficient data for a section at the end of the article, with a title like Legacy which might catalogue the use of the Pelasgians in discourse since antiquity - cf. the final section of the article on Aryan. Furius (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Furius, hadn't thought of that though the suggestion sounds interesting. Its mainly those two communities (Arvanites and Albanians) who use the Pelasgian theory. For a Legacy section would you say the amount i wrote is sufficient for it? What other suggestions would you propose? Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the amount that you have written would be about right. Medieval and 19th century theories might be included in such a section as well (if there is any information on them in reliable sources). Furius (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool Furius. :) I am not sure about the existence medieval era theories (i stand to be corrected, they may exist) but what i have come across in scholarship its mainly to do with the 19th century and it relates to Arvanites and Albanians as well (as in modern times). I'm going need to find a Baltisotis source for the 19th century Arvanites thing. I was thinking around a sentence or so for it and one on Albanians to round it off for the 19th century. What do you reckon, something like that (in addition to my proposal for the modern era) to round off a Legacy section?Resnjari (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Furius: The specific pseudo theory is a modern era creation for the purpose of internal nationalist consumption. There is no way for Baltsiotis, De Rapper etc. (on works of modern socio-politics) who are completely unrelated to ancient era archaeology to be part of this article per wp:FRINGE.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually no the Pelasgian theory in relation to Albanian has been around since the 19th century. Its been revived in the 1980s onward in both Greece by the Arvanites and later it entered Albania where sadly its still doing the rounds in parts of society. I've been over this many times as per the scholarship. A legacy section would do fine in outlining it and that it is discredited in modern day scholarship leaving no room for doubt.Resnjari (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I think you are mischaracterising WP:Fringe. If there are reliable scholarly works discussing how this theory came about and how it has been important in nationalist movements, then WP:Fringe supports its inclusion. See WP:FRINGELEVEL, "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." (my italics). As for the argument against inclusion because the fantasies in this nationalist discourse are more recent than the fantasies in the ancient Greek and Roman sources, well, Classical reception studies are an important part of modern scholarship on the ancient world (actually 'modern reception' or some such might be better than 'legacy' as a section title). Furius (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable scholarly works on the subject of archeology then this can be a matter of discussion. Else, it's a typical case, like Holocaust vs Holocaust denial and Moon landing vs Moon landing conspiracy theories. Modern Pseudo-theories of limited approval fall in the same category.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Furius makes valid points here @Alexikoua, as per WP:FRINGELEVEL. The Pelasgian theory and its relation to Albanian was around for a long time before modern day scholarship refuted it once and for all. There is a history of it as per the scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari still needs to present classical scholarship which mentions this "theory". So far a couple of third-class authors (Kolias etc.) nothing close to wp:ACADEMIC with limited approval among some Albanian extremists (Albanian socio-politics are not classical scholarship). Clearly wp:FRINGE and UNDO WEIGHT attempt to add nationalistic nonsense. @Furious I fail to see something similar in Aryan legacy section which presents theories that were once approved by experts on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Aryan article makes extensive reference to the use of 'Aryan' and 'Aryans' by Nazism. See Aryan#Nazism and white supremacy and also Aryan#20th century which includes a screen grab from Birth of a Nation and discusses the use of Aryans by Alfred Rosenberg and other Nazis for a whole paragraph. Both of those things are definitely 'nationalistic nonsense' and neither are former 'experts in the subject'. They were vile. But it is still important for readers to know that dimension of the topic. The sources cited for those sections of the article are the works of historians of modern times (e.g. Ehrenreich, Eric (2007). The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution), not the archaeologists and scholars of ancient literature who are cited in the rest of the article. And that is perfectly sensible because the topic has a modern historical dimension. So I think your claim that the scholars cited by Resnjari are irrelevant because they are scholars of Albanian socio-politics rather than classicists isn't valid. I also think it might be time to ask for other opinions - perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Furius (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Scientific works on linguistics are included in the paragraph you point (for example Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture, is not a Nazi specialist work) on the other hand Resnjari needs to prove that literature about the Pelasgians mentions this alternative pseudo-myth. If correspondent literature says nothing about this case then Wiki has no reason to include similar info too (on the other hand literature about Indoeuropean language does mention the Nazi case).Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

To sum up the bibliography about the Aryan race tends to mention the Nazi myths, some examples [[6]][[7]][[8]]. On the other hand the Pelasgian-Albanian pseudo-myth is non-existent in classical bibliography. There is no reason for the correspondent wikipedia article to include this kind of information too. I even doubt if information that "some Albanian nationalists like this" should be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua "Albanian pseudo myth" first started off as a Greek pseudo myth. The Pelasgian theory starts its rounds within 19th century Greek circles trying to incorporate Arvanites into the Greek nation (see the chapter "Aspects of Greek “Myths” related to the Albanians during the Age of Nationalism", in Myths of the Other in the Balkans, 2013 by Lambros Baltsiotis and Ilias Skoulidas [9] (i will be using this source for that sentence i was referring to on the 19th century). As per Furius' recommendations i will be adding a legacy section soon with the appropriate references. I am also going to remove the content on Albanian from the theories section and incorporate it into the Legacy section. as its a defunct theory but its still around today affecting two peoples in a big way. By the way guys the article is about Pelasgians and things relating to that topic.Resnjari (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Since we're writing a general encyclopedia, we have no reason to limit any article to reliance on "classical bibliography". Andrew Dalby 09:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FRINGE should be treated with heavy precaution. There is already a brief mention that Albanian extremists support this "ethnic purity pseudo-myth" which is too much for this article. Nevertheles such nonsense "in detail" has no place in this article and also falls into wp:UNDO. By the way Resnjary still needs to provide literature similar to the Aryan race case (where Nazi myths are mentioned in relevant bibliography about Indoeuropean linguistics) .Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, other editors have offered constructive ways of handling this information. None here has said that the theory is accepted in scholarship. Quite the opposite. It is rejected. It has been said over and over again. That said Pelasgians as a topic has left a legacy and that has been cited in credible scholarship (which for some reason you keep referring to as 'fringe' !). As for 'ethnic purity myths', that chapter by Baltsiotis and Skoulidas has much to say about Greece and Pelasgians in the 19th century. Also i don't know why you keep referring to the Aryan race and Nazis. This article is about the topic of Pelasgians.Resnjari (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an obvious case of WP:Consensus here to add some content as proposed by Resnjari. As WP:Fringe is being brought to this discussion, some clarification should be added to the article on how historical and how mythical the Pelasgians are considered by modern scholars. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus? Absolutely "not". I believe you need to read the discussion first since Resnjary needs to provide a decent argument for his proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly. I am preparing the section now and will add it soon.Resnjari (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

One editor against many can not claim that there isn't consensus for changes to the article. Do you remember the case of the infobox on Greece? You opposed and opposed and in the end the Corinth League was deleted because of consensus. Consensus is based on a logical result after community discussion. One editor alone can not veto a change that is supported by many others. If you think that many other editors here are wrong, open a RfC and test your arguments with it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I was right when saying that you didn't read the discussion: doing right the math is 2 vs 3. I feel that's not a "consensus". Thus, pretending that there is obvious consensus can be quite disruptive in this case. Alexikoua (talk)

Your still getting all worked up over something that yet is not in the article. Have a breather. The finished product is yet to be added.Resnjari (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one that needs to relax. Also note the without consensus there is no way for FRINGE and UNDO to be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The finished product is not yet finished. In the mean a breather is always good.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) There is absolutely no consensus to include anything of the type discussed above. False claims of consensus are a form of disruption. Any material added without consensus will be removed. Khirurg (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Khirug previously you expressed support of adding some clarifications to this article [10]. What has changed considering you have not partaken in the discussion.Resnjari (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder where is this obvious consensus. I must be missing something since there is not even a precise proposal done yet.Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A proposal of sorts was already suggested, one to which you replied with Aryan theory comments which had nothing to do with this article. To do dialogue at the very least the topic must be addressed.Resnjari (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I cant see your proposed text. Feel free to post it for evaluation as soon as you feel ready. There is no reason to disagree about a non-existent suggestion.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you took my advice and had a breather. The proposed text will come shortly.Resnjari (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, those Pelasgians have been linked with the biblical Philistines and the Peleset (based on some limited classical research). You may also place a similar Albanian legacy there too if you feel comfortable.Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so and that would make an interesting add as a sentence (i' am curious now so source please). All i know is that in the scholarship i've have read so far the Pelasgians were linked to Arvanites and Albanians and through the course of time scholarship has disproven it. It is important this is outlined to a reader. As it stands now in the article, it gives off the impression that only Von Hahn came up with the idea and scholarship disproved it and outside of that it has had no impact in a socio-cultural or political way in the Balkans, which is not so. Yet there are people out there who also are not aware of this and still think that the Pelasgian theory is real because either they don't have access to credible scholarship or they don't know where to look and their only access is false sources that recycle it and they in turn do they same. I want to be clear to all editors here. In my above proposal i'm not suggesting some massive section or that it overtakes or becomes the article itself. Only a few succinct sentences in a Legacy section that outlined the Pelsagian theory in its emergence, uses (social/cultural/political -i have for most part done that with the rough proposal above) and that credible scholarship has rendered it false and into the dustbin of history.Resnjari (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Where does this end though? Albanian nationalists have claimed, in addition to the Pelasgians, Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Aristotle, etc...Are we to add a similar section to those articles as well? Turkish nationalists have claimed that the Sumerian language is Turkic in origin (because they are both agglutinative). Are we to add a similar section to that article as well? In my opinion, if nationalist cranks make claims about ancient history, that belongs in the article on the nationalist cranks, not the ancient history article. Otherwise there is no end to this. Khirurg (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We are discussing this topic on its talkpage, not other topics. So far other editors like Furius have noted that adding such content meets WP:FRINGELEVEL. You were in favour previously of such a clarification [11] to the article as well as i recall. The Pelasgian theory has had a socio-cultural and political impact and an ongoing one in the Balkans among two communities and no others. This has been consistant for more then a century with ebbs and flows. The scholarship refers to this and does not recycle the theory as fact. Quite the contrary, its clear that it is not.Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately you did not address my question: Where does this end? Also, judging by the content of the article on Aristeidis Kollias (which you have edited a lot), I am extremely skeptical of promises that any edits here will be done in a neutral manner. In the Kollias article, there is not one description the utterly fringe nature of his pseudo-history. The word "rehabilitation" is used throughout to create a victim narrative, but the terms "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-history" (which is what Kollias' work is) do not appear even once. Khirurg (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It starts and ends with this article. The topic of discussion is Pelasgians, not other topics. A word on Kolias. Apart from myself not having created or even edited the article until recent times (when i just did a massive cleanup of actual POV [12]), the section Legacy which you refer too is based on De Rapper. The use of the word "rehabilitation" (which is in the source) is in relation to explaining what this theory has meant to both the Arvanites and Albanians in their modern usage of it. It does not endorse or treat the theory as fact. The scholarly source is available online [13]. The section in Kolias was written based on the scholarly source not with additional OR terminology outside the source.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Kolias is suitable for the modern Albanian nationalist, but Byku who shaped 19th century Albanian thought isn't their favorite author today. I suspect that articles such as Albanian nationalism needs some serious cleanup in order to consider then which part might be added here then.Alexikoua (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua actually with Byku, i had a look at the Albanian nationalism page and there is a sentence about him referring to that very specific thing about Pelasgians. Looks like i had added it more than two years ago (its in the Western influences and origin theories subsection). Difference between my addition and your recent addition was that the sentence is based on a academic source (Skoulidas) that refers to both Byku and the Alb national movement/propaganda while your one who knows (can't even check the original source). Plus your addition for the article was repetition. As i said to you in the Alb nationalism talkpage your addition for the Byku article is fine (if you ever getting around to adding it), but in the Alb nationalism one its not.Resnjari (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Blue Branson,

basically you have right, but it is not true everything completely would be redundant, better paraphrased differently and/or not emphasized so detailed. There is no consensus for the removal the very few information I restored this time.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC))

I went ahead and fixed your edits. Blue Branson (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you wish to spare the phrase unlike that of any of their neighbours, that is very important, so this I still disagree, as well to classify Pelasgians as i.e., non-Dorian/Ionian Greeks, since Pleasgians were not Greeks, hence regarding these two it was not a fix.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC))

I appreciate your collaboration, but the phrase is important to you and not to Herodotus. So I don't know why you wish to emphasize an absolute unrelatedness between the Pelasgians and the Hellenes when, according to Georges, both groups in Histories 1.56–1.58 are a reflection of the "rivalry within Greece itself between [...] Dorian Sparta and Ionian Athens" (pages 129–130). And Georges's analysis is consistent with other passages in the Histories where, for instance, the Aeolian Greeks were originally called "Pelasgians" because they were non-Dorians and not because they were non-Greeks (Histories, 7.95). But consistency aside, your phrases (i.e., "unlike that of any of their neighbors" and "whom he derives") are good faith edits that, unfortunately, misrepresent Herodotus and Georges given the context mentioned on pages 129–130. Blue Branson (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why it would not be important to Herodotus, on what ground you judge it? We speak about tha language, and Herdotous was clear on that (I did not use any word like absolute), it is another thing that later the migrating population mixed with the indigenous population, we should not confuse the two, hence my edits were not a misrepresentation in this manner. Also you have to see, you have to solve somehow my concerns, otherwise I will have to revert back then the erlier version on these matters per no consensus (but before I will try again a copyedit).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

No, barbarian in ancient Greek texts denotes linguistic and cultural crassness applied to both Greeks and non-Greeks. Kalliopi Nikolopoulou (with editor Claudia Barrachi), for instance, states that "barbaric" was used by "Greeks, particularly the Athenians, [...] to deride other Greeks" (The Bloomsbury Companion to Aristotle, page 292). So by adding "unrelated" to "barbarian", you're putting words in Herodotus's mouth with your emphasis on (and insertion of) an absolute unrelatedness between Pelasgians and Hellenes that stands out without you having to use the word "absolute". And although I appreciate your continued collaboration, your recent good faith edits and their underlying rationale are unsupported by Pericles Georges who states that "Herodotus, like other Greeks, instinctively imagined the non-Dorian inhabitants of 'ancient' Greece [including the Pelasgians] to be essentially 'Greek' and ancestral to themselves, as Aeschylus imagined the Pelasgian Argives in the Supplices" (page 134). Blue Branson (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, your argumentation is again away from the topic a little bit, we did not discuss the meaning of barbarian, your emphazis on absolute is just a speculation as well, again. Similarly, this what you cite how in the end Pelasgians were considered - who contrubuted to the ethnogenesis of modern Greeks - may be explained in the article, but it does not change the fact that orignally they were meant non-Greeks. Hence, becuase you still did not get consensus - and yes of course I am collaborating - and still did not solved my concern (=collaborating in a constructive manner), I will have to reset the original version regarding these two. Of course, I will be still opened for a solution, but first you have to present your proposals here. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

The meaning of "barbarian" was brought up as a result of your edit misrepresenting the sources already in the section along with your inaccurate claim about languages and populations in Herodotus. But at this point, it is now you who has to address the facts I have presented every time you brought up your concerns. And your recent edit, unfortunately, does three things: 1) it reveals a narrow and historically inaccurate point-of-view that fails to acknowledge that Herodotus neither uses your verbiage nor neatly falls under your "Pelasgians = non-Greeks" category given Georges's analysis, 2) it suddenly games the system by using the law (i.e., WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD) to justify re-inserting content that weakens the entry's accuracy, and 3) it no longer represents collaboration, but rather subtle bad faith editing. Blue Branson (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, your edits and you personally introduced anything regarding Barbarian, I just tried to solve the problems with a few copyedits and close pharaphrasing finally you rejected all the time and failed to solve otherwise, on the other hand, no misrepresentation happened, since I followed what the article earlier stated, and no, the burden is on you, since you've made massive changes in the beginning.

Since you can't argue the facts, you now resort to deflections coupled with bullying all while, ironically, claiming to be bullied. In fact, your recent behavior does not make you a problem-solver, because real problem-solvers: 1) don't ignore facts needed to solve problems, 2) don't insist on arguments that the evidence doesn't support, 3) don't blindly follow trends, 4) don't misrepresent evidence while claiming to not misrepresent evidence, and 5) don't invoke the "burden of proof" argument when the burden of proof was actually met not only once, but twice. Also, it was you who consistently made "massive changes" (1, 2) to the entry that only weakened its navigability since your initial edits duplicated information already in the section. So drop the deflections and bullying tactics, because they are neither convincing nor helping your case. Blue Branson (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(1) my recent edit rolls back the page before you touched it on the concerning two element, per policy, it has nothing to with any narrow and historically inaccurate point-of-view that fails to acknowledge that Herodotus neither uses your verbiage nor neatly falls under your "Pelasgians = non-Greeks" category given Georges's analysis, etc., moreover (2) your gaming the system accusation is as mistaken, as your false accusation with bad faith editing (and here I have to warn you regarding WP:AGF as well).

Your fixation on edits (1, 2, 3) that misrepresent Herodotus (especially in light of Pericles Georges's detailed analysis of the Histories) is clear evidence of an historically inaccurate point-of-view that you refuse to admit you have and refuse to abandon in light of the evidence. And it's not a false accusation when you invoke the law to get what you want because you can't argue the facts. So don't arrogantly preach good faith to me, or anyone for that matter, when you have clearly failed to practice it and get called out on it. Blue Branson (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration you failed in the end, since all the time reverted any edits, although you should have stopped in and wait until end of the discussion until you build consensus for your changes, not just per wikietiquette, but per the policies of our community.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

No, anyone can see that your concerns were addressed point-by-point with evidence you clearly and consistently choose to ignore. It is you who has failed at collaboration the minute you invoked the law to reinsert edits I have factually shown weaken the entry's accuracy. And using the community as a shield to justify your strategic use of community policies that are actually against community policies is ironic. So there is really no misunderstanding when you've made it clear that you're not here to help by continuing to bully editors and hold the entry hostage all because you can't argue the facts. Blue Branson (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No way, as it has been demonstrated, your answers are not always touching or just approaching my concern, but in the end you deteriorate from the solution, I did not ignore anything you have written, on the contrary. On the other hand, it seems you are quite not familiar with our policies and how dispute resolution works, hence your argumentation that failing collaboration would be the appliance of the rules of WP is not just ridiculous (and the content you tendentiously remove does not weaken, accuracy, on the contrary), but raises futher concerns since anyway you should have known about these policies, invoking them was imminent since after more warnings you did not get that there is no consensus, and per policy you have to remain in the talk page until the end of the discussion, but systematically continued reverting (henceforth repeating your failed perception and accusation of battle strategy or against community policies is awesome from your side, since you systematically ignore our rules. Your last sentence is unfortunately again a misleading, bad faith statement that has nothing to with the reality. I am really sorry you chose edit-warring...(KIENGIR (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

Yes way, because what's really "awesome" (as in awesomely sad) is that your recent bad-faith behavior is part of a pattern (1, 2, 3) proving my point that you can't argue the facts (i.e., Pericles Georges, pp. 129–131, 134). And since you can't argue the facts, you continue to deflect (i.e., "repeating your failed perception", "misperception and accusation") and invoke community policy in order to reinstate edits that you claim offer clarity, but only serve to misrepresent the sources in the section. You even go so far as to falsely accuse me of ownership and edit-warring with the latter accusation shown by your bullying me with a "warning" on my talkpage, which is a calculated move that is part of a battle strategy you claim doesn't exist. So anyone can see that you're playing the role of a so-called "good faith editor" so as to manipulate the community of actual good-faith editors towards rallying around you (hence, your "consensus"). In fact, your deletion of the Pericles Georges citation right where your edits are proves everything I have said in this talkpage including the fact that you have ignored everything I wrote because you know you have no case. At this point, your arguments are, in Internet lingo, "muh concern" and "muh consensus" which are insufficient when the former has been addressed (despite your claims to the contrary) and the latter is clearly used by you to manipulate the entry's content and manipulate the good-faith editing community towards supporting your unhelpful edits. And yes, your arguments are regrettably laughable and insisting on them doesn't elevate the entry to anywhere near Good or Featured Article status. And I'm sorry that you've chosen to create a POV pattern along with a wall of deflections, policy invocations and false accusations of ownership/edit-warring designed to preserve edits that you claim are helpful without addressing the facts that prove otherwise (all while claiming to not have ignored the facts). So drop the charade because anyone can see right through it. Blue Branson (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am really sorry as well you continue/repeat these bad faith accusations, that are nonsense, since with this you again you try to insist if any editor follows the rules of our community that is something bad, it in a huge contradiction with as well as you try to justify your edit-warring. This repeated can't argue facts phrase is as well failed from your side, since your argumentation is a bit straw-man on the concerning points. Your demonstration about the events are sadly a build-up non-existent scenario with the similar bad faith you are persisiting (hence at this point I have wo warn you about WP:AAGF), but tells nothing of your behavior that you are not willing to recognize (along with the rules) or demonstrate:

Drop the fake penitence act, because your bad-faith deflecting doesn't make you the victim in all this. And until you address the facts, using phrases like "straw man" and "non-existent scenario" to describe your own actions isn't a real argument. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are on the wrong path, still having goundless accusations, that I have to reject, you are boring, I definetly did not this describe my actions.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "sage guru" act, because your denial of your own bully tactics and POV edits is what makes you boring and the entry is suffering for it. Blue Branson (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

BRD = Bold, Revert, Discuss -> you systematically harmed this, since if your bold edit is reverted, you should not force it ultimately but you have to remain in the talk page until the end of the discussion and build consensus, twice as mroe when you are immediately informed in the beginning about no consensus

How can I harm BRD when you're the one strategically invoking it when things don't go your way? Why didn't you invoke BRD when I "boldly" included Biliana Mihaylova's work on the Pre-Greek substratum? It's because Mihaylova didn't challenge your sacred category of "Pelasgians = non-Greeks". So I'm not buying your "voice of reason" act. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you still fail to understand what mean BRD. Too bad. Again, it means, you remain unitl the talk page until the ned of dispute resoltuion.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "tough guy" act, because you're strategic invocation of BRD is an abuse of BRD. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to be aware that any editor may restore the page to status qou ante version even concerning your edits that are not even contested until the end of the dispute reolution procedure, in case. (hence your argumentation about deletion any content with source is as well not holds, since I restored earlier content, irrelevant by whom and what was about it, the details is a matter about discussion here

Any editor you say? Because it appears that the only "any editor" is you, which makes your point nonsensical since the edits you restored were edits that you included and you insisted remain in the entry. So using strategy to get what you want and then pivot to the role of "impartial arbiter" when you get called out isn't helping. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Totally useless and misleading analysis, you still do not understand the policies of our community, BRD, and the status qou ante principle.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "policy expert" act, because your continued policy invocations only demonstrate the reality that you can't argue the facts. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

it is totally natural after a few reverts and warnings to avoid edit-warring you still continue, will get a notification on your personal page, per policy (and as usual, our policies has no connection to any manipulation, if you decided to edit this platform, you have to accept them)

Natural you say? That's laughable since there's nothing natural about you using a personal talkpage warning as a bully tactic because you couldn't address the facts that challenged your precious edits. So drop the "I was only doing my duty" act, because hiding behind the "nature" of the community to justify your battle tactics is not constructive. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, again you ignore out policies, you've been fairly warned.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "policeman" act, because if anyone's ignoring policies it's you with your POV edits. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who will read our conversation will understand and see who is following and abiding the rules, I have no concerns about it.

You can keep telling yourself that, but anyone who reads this conversation will notice your bullying tactics, lack of addressing the facts brought up every time you had a concern, and your POV pattern of edits, which go against the spirit of the very rules you claim to follow. So drop the "my posse has my back" act, because you're unapologetically the bully in all this. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again useless speculation, I did not made any POV pattern, I just restored to the previous version (about this you have been told as well).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Yes you did generate a POV pattern and denying it doesn't really help your case. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

About the two content issues you don't mention, you deleted mass of quotes from Herodotus with a certain claim, some you worked in the article (this was ok and finally accepted), while some you ignored, it has nothing to do with Georges or anyone. The other issue may be easily solved if you would not ignore or would describe in more details the view on Pelasgians, which at a point may arrive on the view you want to demonstrate, but we cannot spare the information original situation (in another words, your short summarizations which would exclude important details are not welcome).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

(*Yawn*) You're still not arguing the facts and you think that relying on the "voice of reason" act will save your edits from scrutiny and removal. It apparently has not dawned on you that the "important details" you are POV-pushing are not details, but words you've chosen to put into Herodotus's mouth that Georges's analysis, which is very relevant to the section, doesn't support. Oh, and did you forget Kalliopi Nikolopoulou? Of course, she too is dismissed by you since her analysis challenges your sacred category of "barbarian = unrelated" just like Georges is dismissed by you because he challenges your other sacred category of "Pelasgians = non-Greeks". And your categorizing my edits as "unwelcome" is merely your way of denigrating well-written good-faith contributions that do not misrepresent sources (unlike your "mass of quotes from Herodotus", which was a hot mess of duplicated information lacking any meaningful navigability for easy reading). So drop the acts, deflections and prevarications and address the facts. I'm still waiting... Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, straw-man argumentation, since we still did not start to discuss the very details, you are POV-pushing better you own point of view, because did not care about other things I tell you, as now (you again invoke unrelated, although the status qou ante version I restored did not contain such, on the other hand you are silencing about the original qoute you removed etc.). You are waiting? As I see don't, I have to inform you as well, you have to wait per wikietiquette better 2 days as a minimum, but in mroe sever issues where you were told not to have consensus, even one week or more and the lack of it, anytime your edits may be contested.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

(*Yawn*) No, your claiming that I'm "POV-pushing better" is the straw man meant to deflect your own POV-pushing agenda, which you continue to pretend doesn't exist. But let's take a closer look at your edits you claim represent the "status quo ante" that you suddenly invoke because you can't argue the facts. It's clear that immediately before your first edit there was no mention in the section of the word "unrelated" or the phrase "unlike that of any of their neighbours" meant to convey the meaning of absolute unrelatedness between Pelasgians and Hellenes. Afterwards, you included the the word "unrelated" in your first POV edit, the phrase "unlike that of any of their neighbours" in your second POV edit, and the phrase "unlike that of any of their neighbours" (again) in your third POV edit. Also, invoking wikietiquette, waiting times and going so far as to summon an administrator to lockdown the entry are the typical moves bullies use when they know they can't win with facts and logic. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, shame on you of the misleading edit log of your current revert; A) does not matter, the discussion is is more broader and touch more topics, it has not finished yet, B) I responded to you, but you did not wait, this is again against policy and etiquette, and I did not accuse you, you commited edit warring after more clear warnings and what you do is really ownerhsip (=disregarding anything else, just your point), (C), last but not least, if you still do not understand the x-th time, that deletion does not equal with restoring a page to an earlier version - although I explained already - , with that all of your bad faith accausations (or accusations of bad faith) are a clear boomerang...(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

No, shame on you for bullying me and playing POV games with the entry while pretending to be the "voice of reason" so as to manipulate the good-faith community in supporting you (thank you for proving me right with the entry's current lockdown). And as for my edit summary, it was right on the money: A) the discussion isn't "more broader" since you're only fixated on the absolute unrelatedness between two groups in Herodotus that Georges's analysis, which is actually part of a broader discussion, doesn't support, B) it was you who committed edit-warring (albeit a slow one) with your POV edits, falsely accused me of ownership/edit-warring after ignoring/deleting sourced edits, used a personal talkpage warning as a bully tactic because things weren't going your way, and it was you who decided to ignore me after I responded to your latest talkpage submission until I upgraded the entry (the old "wait it out and hope s/he leaves" bully tactic), C) what I understand is that you're only good at deflections, invoking policies, and making false accusations when you get called out for all sorts of bad-faith behavior. And drop the "I'm better than you"/"woe is me" act, because had you addressed the facts in the first place, there wouldn't have been any need for the current lockdown. And you bringing up boomerangs is ironic since it's usually the people invoking boomerangs who end up getting boomeranged. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it is really a problem that you fail to recognize what you did wrong, and continue this type of behavior.

If you want to convince anyone to change their ways, start by not talking down to them because saying that my editing behavior is "wrong" is no different than when you said that my edits were "unwelcome" even though they have actually helped the entry. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I will the last time explain to you:

- you were not bullied, after more warnings you deliberately commited edit warring (denying it is not really useful)

Prove me wrong, because you claiming I wasn't bullied is cheap rhetoric and calling me a denialist isn't helping your case. So if you want to start fresh and resume collaboration, then go over to my personal talkpage and get rid of your "warning" and leave a sincere apology message. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- I did not manipulate because of what you commited intervention was imminent (but because of my good faith I really waited much longer than usual because some of your edits were contructive), and the lockdown does not proving you right, on the contrary

You can keep telling yourself that. But if you want to prove that you weren't manipulating anything, then go over to my personal talkpage and remove your "warning" and leave a sincere apology message. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- A), no, the phrase absolute unrelatedness was your invention

No, it's what your edits semantically convey when you mix the English word "unrelated" (or the English phrase "unlike that of their neighbours") with the Greek word "barbarian". As I've already explained, barbarian in Greek already denotes a dichotomy that separates crassness from sophistication on linguistic and cultural grounds, which the Greeks used for both Greek and non-Greek populations. So when you add "unrelated" to "barbarian", you're magnifying the denotation of dichotomy already in the latter word beyond what is said and conveyed by Herodotus. It's that type of language that misrepresents Herodotus and, by extension, Pericles Georges. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- B), no, because I followed our policies - that you systematically ignored - and restoring status qou ante version is not equal with the deletion of sourced edits (as this fact also you recurrently ignore), I did not ignore you - just explained, you ignore the explanations and demonstration of your failed argumenation recurrently - you did not wait me to answer, see above how it is working in our community, you have to give time a considerable time for response

Tell me exactly on what grounds did you decide to "follow" community policies? Did you suddenly grow a legal conscience or is it that you only "follow" policies based on a personal attachment to edits that have been demonstrated to actually hurt the entry? And isn't it odd that you didn't seem to care about "following" policy when Mihaylova's research was added to the entry? So stop preaching to me about awareness, go over to my personal talkpage, remove your "warning" and leave a sincere apology message. Once you do that, we can start fresh and resume collaboration. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- C, These are again all bad faith accusations from your side, what you quote or address to me never happened, I calmly and patiently cared about you and explained all the things (as you seem an editor having less experience), you chose reverting and ignoring our policies, boomerang I did not raise because of irony, but per policy.

If you care so much about me, then you can start showing how much you care by going over to my personal talkpage, removing your "warning" and leaving a sincere apology message. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, you systematically ignore WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, which I put in your attention, if you do not drop this style of invalid accusations, I am afraid a civility issue may follow.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Assume good faith you say? Well then, why don't you practice what you preach and go and take out that "warning" you left on my personal talkpage and leave a sincere apology message. Only after you've done that, we can start fresh and resume collaboration. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You really fell the other side of the horse, although I've been really sure you'd understand some simple things, but your answer is again a complete rejection and denial, you wish to turn the things upside down...I won't describe the fifth time i.e., what already did in details, how could I change the past if you commited what you commited, despite the recurrent asks and warnings? Apology maybe I should have received because of your behavior, but I'd never bind this to any condition, in WP you have to be always collaborative, etc.

(*Zzzzzz*) Is being arrogant your way of showing how much you "care" and how much you "assume good faith"? Yeah, if anyone hasn't learned anything, it's sadly you failing to actually practice what you preach. But do get real, because helping to elevate the entry's accuracy is not a "wish to turn the things upside down" and preaching collaboration while arrogantly undermining it is just gauche. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No way, arrogancy is not from my side, again you are not civil and forget the golden rule, comment on content, not on editors (and it is obvious again, who did not learn in real), on the other hand, the problem was after some of your edits that accuracy has been harmed, so I have to again refuse your inobjective summarization.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

You can keep telling yourself that. Now drop the "holier-than-thou-art" act and take a look at the compromise edit since it has the word "different" and the phrase "according to" included in the section. Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow such acts you suggest. Of course will take a look.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

On the content issue:

you recurrently removed unlike that of any of their neighbours, although Herodotus referred to it "Even now the citizens of Creston and Plakiaspeak another language, different from their neighbours", etc.

(*Rolling eyes*) Nooooooo, really? Herodotus says "different from their neighbours"? Shut the front door. But wait a minute, he does not say "unlike/unrelated". I wonder why that is? Oh wait, it's because the word "different" broadly denotes mutual exclusivity that ranges from partial to total (consistent with Georges's analysis) whereas the word "unlike/unrelated" specifically denotes total mutual exclusivity (inconsistent with Georges's analysis). Do you still not understand that "unlike/unrelated" is your verbiage and not Herodotus's? Also, the term "language" in Herodotus can either mean mutually exclusive forms of speech or different dialects within the same group of speakers per Lynn Abel's analysis. So, "unlike/unrelated" isn't really reflective of even superficial readings of Herodotus not to mention that the word "barbarian" already denotes a level of difference that needs no emphasis in the paragraph prior to the Herodotus passage. But if adding "different from their neighbours" moves things along, then I'll put the phrase in the entry once the lockdown is over. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

In WP, we use copyedit and close pharaphrasing, your eyes should not rolling, since you practised the same in other cases. Yes the slight, precise meaning of each expression may be interpreted differently, but it's very pretty clear what he wanted to say with this. However yes, let's stick to different, expressis verbis. First present here your planned modifications to be reviewed, only after acceptance edit the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

Get real, because what you call "copyedit[s]" and "close paraphrasing" is really just comprehensibly navigable prose writing that readers expect and deserve to see. As for the modifications, just look at the compromise edit where the word "different" is included in the section. Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

Regarding the other part: it is well known to anyone who just superficially analyzed ever the topic that the term Pelasgians later became also used to any former inhabitant on Greece, shall they be related or not, or later melt in Greeks or any predecessor that contributed to their ethnogenesis, that's why you cannot use i.e. Pericles Georges's or anyone's opinion as an unilateral viewpoint. You may of course describe i.e. according to him etc., but the article has to inform the reader any associations regarding Dorians, Ionians, Hellenes and Greeks may be arbitrary and different regarding how various philospohers used and/or considered it, shall it be Herodotus or Georges or anyone else, per WP:NPOV.

(*Facepalm*) Do stay on topic, because we're talking about the meaning of the term "Pelasgians" in Herodotus specifically and not in Greek texts generally. So your whole spiel about ethnogenesis is just your original interpretation of Herodotus that Pericles Georges does not support. And there's nothing NPOV about putting incorrect/superficial readings of Herodotus into the entry when reliably accurate readings of the Histories are available to readers. But it appears that your focus on the NPOV policy undermines the other community rules you're expected to follow like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES. So the inclusion of Georges's analysis is not "unilateral", but in keeping with your own policies that, in this case, appear to supersede your fixation on neutrality (of course, I'd rather discuss the facts than discuss policy). Lastly, your certainty about "arbitrary associations" doesn't appear to be consistent with your certainty about the Pelagians being "unlike" or "unrelated" to their neighbours. But if the phrase "according to Pericles Georges" will help move things along, then I'll put the phrase in the entry when the lockdown is over. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear this section is denoted to primarily Herototus' interpretation, but WP:NPOV is never in conflict with the other policies you listed, they co-exist, since if there are various interpretations, both may be added and explained. Yes, the inlcusion is not unilateral until not only his approach is included and highlighted and presented as fact. Yes, put according to, but also the reader has to understand the several views on the Pelasgian ethnogenesis, to understand why x author consider y. First present here your planned modifications to be reviewed, only after acceptance edit the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

You sure about that? Because if WP:NPOV is "never in conflict with the other policies", then how do you explain WP:IGNORE? So if neutrality gets in the way of improving the entry's accuracy, then neutrality can be ignored. As for the modifications, the compromise edit includes the phrase "according to" in the section (leaving room for other, hopefully accurate, views to be added later). Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE would be very special and odd case, meaning WP's existing guidelines/policies could not satisfingly handle a situation, and result would ridiculous/hilarious inaccuracy/fallacy, etc. this issue and it's solution is by far from that.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

Thus any rewrite is only supported if these principles are taken into account, reflecting the still existing uncertainty and various views on classification, highlighting the primordial situations as well without giving chance for lazy confusion of the terminologies, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

(*Facepalm*) Lazy confusion of the terminologies, you say? Why do you think Georges and Nicolopoulou were mentioned in the first place if not to provide precise explanations of ambiguous terminologies? Also, Herodotus's classificatory ambivalence of the Pelasgian language was already in the entry before the lockdown and said ambivalence is already acknowledged in Georges's analysis. But if the phrase "different from their neighbours" is acceptable to you, then I'll include it in the entry when the lockdown is over. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I explained to you very well the situation, your copyedit/close pharapharasings were not satisfying in some cases, if anyone read the article through after your modifications could be confused etc., some parts you really did well, but in some places not. The two problems I highlighted to you, the rest I had not problem. As outlined above, ok with "different...", but first present here your planned modifications to be reviewed, only after acceptance edit the article (not to run again into a possible sanction, per policy).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

You can keep telling yourself that. And you're really not fooling anyone by calling comprehensible prose writing "copyedit/close paraphrasings" just so that the entry can get screwed over (again) with that hot mess of quotes that weakens the section's book-by-book breakdown. And do spare me your passive-aggressive threats (i.e., "not to run again into a possible sanction"), because the compromise edit has the words "different" and "according to" included in the section. So congratulations, you won. Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to tell it myself and I did fool anyone, and you did not get any passive-aggressive threats, I just asked you preventatively per policy. You tone is still overexaggerated and offensive, you should avoid this in the future.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

Note: I have blocked the above abusive account, Blue Branson (talk · contribs), as another obvious sock of Deucalionite (talk · contribs). This article is still a massive mess of potentially distorted and tendentious content tainted by the years-long activities of this sockmaster, under numerous account names. A lot of cleanup may be necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:,

oh, somehow I had a bad feelings about this...as you see I had a very tyring long struggle with this editor, and tried to keep the article in order, at the least the moment I encountered here. It's so annoying recently any editor I have a long and time consuming struggle turns to be in the end a sock....these will nevet get depleted? (poetrical question). Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Prokopiou, Angelos; Smith, Edwin

Prokopiou is quoted, but what about Smith?Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Tabula Veliterna

An automated filter blocked this note identifying a very obscure item:

i.e., Lamina Borgiana, 6 Wetman (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References