Jump to content

Talk:Pelasgians/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Pelasgians and "Proto-Ionian Theory"

Macrakis has censored the references I gave to the "Proto-Ionian Theory" on several false motives:

  1. no academic publications : wrong. J.Faucounau has published several books on his "Proto-Ionian Theory" at L'Harmattan Paris, which is a scientific well-known French publisher.
  2. no academic references : wrong. J.F.'s work has been commented by several scholars. I'll just give an example here : the cited book on Les Proto-Ioniens has been reviewed in the Revue des Etudes Grecques 2002, Vol.15, p.424-425.

Macrakis has also "accused" J.F. to have proposed a translation of the Phaistos Disk, without saying that he has also presented more than 30 pieces of evidence in favour of this translation. And anyway, would this translation be wrong, I have to ask : "So, what ? Why proposing a (right or wrong) solution of a difficult enigma would be a motive for censorship, in a NPOV article about the Pelasgians Problem ? (User 80.90.57.154 18:20, February 13, 2006)

I "censored" nothing. I removed references to a theory that does not appear to be widely accepted. These references were added by an anon (perhaps a sock puppet of banned user Irismeister?) with no edit history to an article which has proven to be a magnet for fringe theories. Faucounau has a very thin publication record. (Nothing indexed or even cited in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index.)

Searching for J. Faucounau on scholar.google.com finds his four books, and six other mentions, none of them on the subject of the Proto-Ionians. The Wikipedia article on the Proto-Ionians was deleted [1] for similar reasons. Searching on JSTOR, we find a review of his Phaistos book in the American Journal of Archaeology, entitled "How Not to Decipher the Phaistos Disk", with comments such as "this study commits enough serious errors of all sorts to warrant a secure place in the anthology of misguided decipherments". This does not give confidence, especially since I cannot locate a single positive reference to him.

I have not been able to find any other reputable scholar who agrees with Faucounau's Proto-Ionian theory. Given all this, I think it is up to you, User:80.90.57.154, to show us that this theory is widely accepted. Of course, if you are banned user Irismeister, you shouldn't be editing at all. --Macrakis 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. "removing references to a theory" is censoring.
  2. You give wrong reasons for this censorship, contrary to the Wikipedia rules. a)- the "Proto-Ionian theory" would not be widely accepted, what may be true for a very recent theory. But is it a motive for not mentioning it ? I say NO, the more as it has not been neither widely refuted. The only criticism against it that you have been able to find is a very superficial one, written by one single scholar, Yves Duhoux. b)-The wikipedia article on the Proto-Ionians was deleted. By whom ? Probably by someone, who like you, I guess, doesn't know the J.F.'s work . Because your third and four arguments (hereafter) prove that! c)-Faucounau has a very publication thin record . On the WEB, maybe, because he has just published a few papers in ANISTORITON.. (BTW, do you consider this e-journal as not serious ? Please, tell us !). But he has published more than 40 papers in regular peer-reviewed journal, as prestigious as the Revue d'Assyriologie, Kadmos, Revue des Etudes Anciennes, Etudes Indoeuropéennes, B.S.L., etc. Are all the members of the Edition boards who have accepted to publish his papers in such journals all stupid ???? Do you consider yourself as a better judge ???? And if yes, why ? d)-you have not been able to find any reputable scholar who agrees with Faucounau's theories : You didn't search very hard for that !... I have already quoted the review of J.F.'s book Les Proto-Ioniens in the R.E.G. Why didn't you pay attention to this reference, which contradicts what you pretend?. And here is another reference, this time on the WEB : <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~artsfx/notes3.html>
  3. You are citing the name of Irismeister. It a fact that J.Faucounau's scientific reputation has not been helped by the ardour of some netters, like "Irismeister" or "Grapheus", to make his work known. By why didn't you read the work itself, instead of limiting your knowledge to the "Irismeister"s posts, as it seems ? So, if you want to be serious, read J.F.'s books and papers, please, instead of limiting your enquiry to a few posts on the WEB !
  4. A last remark : could you please respect the Wikipedia editorial rule concerning the spacing when you answer, so there is no possibility of confusion ? Thank you. (User 80.90.57.154, 8:30, February 14, 2006)
by accusing Macrakis of "censorship", you show a certain misunderstanding of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia: see WP:NOT. That said, WP is not above reporting on fringe theories, but these will be identified as such. For this reason I would not object completely to mentioning Faucounau, but certainly not in the intro, and certainly not without saying that he is fringy. I would also recommend to 80.90.57.154 that if you want to continue this debate, you should get an account. dab (ᛏ) 10:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying that a theory is "fringy" is nothing but an opinion. And suppressing all the references to a well-known author (although Macradis doesn't know him!) because someone has "the opinion" that his theory is "fringy" is a violation of the NPOV rule, whatever the word one uses to qualify such an action. Thanks for trying to solve the problem in another way than Mr Macridis, who, as far as I know, is not an archaeologist, neither a linguist, nor an universally recognized specialist in those fields (User 80.90.57.154 16:00, February 14, 2006)
You seem to agree that Faucounau's theory is not "widely accepted", and argue that it is not "widely refuted" either. But WP does not generally report on theories until they held by at least a "significant minority", or are notable because they have been widely debated. You are right that I did not do a complete literature search. However, as I mentioned, I checked the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and JSTOR. Even if his work had not been published in one of the journals covered by those services, if it were widely accepted, it would have appeared in a citation. As I've said before, it is perfectly possible that Faucounau is correct. But WP does not judge correctness. See WP:NPOV:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Can you quote "prominent adherents"? --Macrakis 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I take good notice that when you suppressed all the references to J.F.'s work, you had not made any serious literature search. An attitude which is totally unscientific in my opinion. I would be sure that it's also yours, and that in the future, you will -at the least- read the J.F.'s books before censoring the references to his work.
    The J.F;'s theory is considered as revolutionary and has been published very recently. No surprise, then, if it is neither widely accepted, nor widely rejected.
  2. you said that you didn't find it in JSTOR. This e-journal is mainly dealing with works written in English. J.Faucounau's main publications have been written in French. Another no surprise, then, if this author is not widely cited in JSTOR. And why didn't you mention that one may find the reference of his four recent books in scholar.google ? When you noticed that, you wrote that none of those books were about the Proto-Ionian Theory, what is totally wrong : they are all dealing with the "Proto-Ionian Theory", in a way or in another. Once again, you showed a non-scientific attitude : judging the content of a book from its title, without reading it. Don't you agree?
  3. You are asking me to quote proeminent adherents, as if the J.Faucounau's name was not enough to warranty the seriousness of his work. I have already given the references of several peer-reviewed journals who have published papers under his signature. Is it not enough ? Do you consider that all the members of the Editorial Board of journals like Revue d'Assyriology, Etudes Indoeuropéennes, the e-journal Anistoriton, etc. are fool ? Your question is outrageous, coming from somebody who is not, as far as I know, a specialist in Aegean archaeology or linguistics. The more as I already gave the references of some scholarly reviews, approving J.F.'s ideas, like the review of the book Les Proto-Ioniens in the REG 2002. That you don't know the professional journals I cited is your problem. (User80.90.57.154, 18:10, February 14, 2006)

I am glad you agree "it is neither widely accepted, nor widely rejected". So it doesn't belong in the WP (yet). No, the author of a new theory is not considered a "prominent adherent". --Macrakis 17:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does belong to WP, because it's a)- a serious theory b)-already accepted by a minority c)-which has been already mentioned and/or reviewed by professionals (I cited for instance the REG 2002 review. Why do you want to ignore it?) (User 80.90.57.154, 18:20, February 14, 2006).
I didn't say it wasn't serious; I said you didn't provide evidence that it was "accepted". Perhaps the REG 2002 review is a positive review by a prominent adherent. What exactly does the review say? Remember, it is not enough that it be reviewed.... --Macrakis 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I quote a few sentences (in French) : Cet élégant ouvrage... est la synthèse de vingt cinq années de recherches.. -- Aucun fait linguistique n'établissant avec certitude que l'ionien d'Homère ait été un dialecte de formation tardive... -- Jean Faucounau montre qu'un peuple de dialecte proto-ionien précéda en Egée les Mycéniens, que ce peuple était un peuple de marins et qu'il était établi dans les Cyclades vers 2700 avant notre ère -- Trois sortes de preuves, ou, si l'on veut, d'indices... -- une savante démonstration -- Etc. Why you don't read this review yourself ?.. Afraid that it goes against your prejudicial ideas about J.F.'s work? (User80.90.57.154, 18:30, February 14, 2006).
OK, that's progress. So, now are you ready to say who the "prominent adherents" are? --Macrakis 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The review is generally favorable to the linguistic parts of the theory. It says, however, Sans vouloir entre dans le problème du déchriffrement du Disque de Phaistos, which is a polite suggestion of doubt; and it does not mention the Pelasgians at all. The Phaistos Disk is "le seul document proto-ionien connu à ce jour" (from Fauconnau), so these are serious lacks for this article. Septentrionalis 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The "proeminent adherent" author of the REG review is Prof. Faure. From personal conversations with professionals, I may also tell (but you have to take my words as granted for this or directly contact the scholars I cite!) that the Proto-Ionian Theory has interested several archaeologists (e.g. Ch. Doumas, Prof. Kritzas, J. Poucet, etc.).

Satisfied now ?.. And may I ask you a reciprocal question : what are your credentials for judging about the J.F.'s work, putting apart your Greek origin, which may explain an amateurish interest in Aegean Prehistory ? How many papers did you publish on the subject ? In which journals ? (User 80.90.57.154, 20:25, February 14, 2006).

Mr. 80.90.57.154, while Macrakis is a respected Wikipedia editor, you are simply an IP number to us. You even may or may not be J. Faucounau. No matter how competent you are in the field, we'll just have to take your word for it, won't we? Therefore, we adhere strictly to WP:CITE (and not to pissing contests about how many scholars editors may know, or how many papers they may have published). It doesn't matter who you are, feel free to cite yourself, as long as we get clean quotes with clean references in the article. I can believe that "several archaeologists" "were interested" in the theory. This doesn't mean they accept it, and it doesn't mean it is anywhere near communis opinio. WP:NPOV dictates that we give most weight to academic communis opinio. Divergent views, if academic, may be mentioned. I called them "fringy", but you can pick a nicer wording. I do not pretend to know the literature on the subject. But I must insist that you do not attempt to give a lopsided account just because you happen to like Faucounau's theory. We can mention it, but we will mention it under "other speculations", and not on par with the time-honoured "pre-Greek" zero hypothesis. dab (ᛏ) 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I recognize that I was a bit rude with Mr Macrakis, and I apologize. But I was deeply shocked to see a respectable Wikipedia editor to suppress all the references concerning a theory, without having read himself a single book or paper about it, as it was obvious in my eyes from the false motives he gave for this suppression (no academic publications-- no academic references-- none of the books quoted in scholar.google is about the Proto-Ionian Theory -- etc.). This being said, I consider the question settled with the present redaction. (User 80.90.57.154, 22:15, February 14, 2006).

The redaction advocated by some Wikipedia editors is contrary to the facts :

  1. "The Greek references to Pelasgians would be unanimously in agreement that they spoke a language...not intelligible to Hellenes"
    This is wrong : some Greek authors have talked, for instance, about Ionians being Pelasgians.
    Citations, please. Septentrionalis 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. These editors have also wanted to suppress the sentence : They also have been considered as the descendents of Greek Proto-Ionians. This is a fact : There does exist a competitive theory, which considers the Pelasgians as being initially' the descendents of the Proto-Ionians. Why this theory would not be mentioned, as the other are ? This is contrary to the Wikipedia rules and spirit. (User 80.90.57.154, February 14, 2006)•
    On the contrary, it enforces Wikipedia policy not to give undue weight to any view. When Fauconnau convinces a substantial portion of the republic of letters that he is right, Wikipedia will follow; not the other way around. No one is removing him from the article, as far as I can see. Septentrionalis 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Euripides, Oreste, 857 etc. Would you also negate that the Athenians - who spoke a Ionic dialect- are said to be Pelasgians by Herodotos ? It is wrong, therefore to use the adjective unanimously.
What Herodotus said is thoroughly discussed in the article. Please read it, and the quotations linked to, before continuing this. Thank you for the reference to Euripedes; but since when are the Argives Ionian? Septentrionalis 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as no other theory concerning the Pelasgians is mentioned in the header, I see no objection not to mention the word "Proto-Ionians" in the header. It a question of NPOV. (User 80.90.57.154, 11:58, February 14, 2006)
Please read the policy cited (and please sign with ~~~~, which will automagically become your signature). Septentrionalis 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting long, and refers largely to settled questions. Is it time to archive it? Septentrionalis 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Turkish point of view

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

The term ' nation ' exist ONLY when
1) a group of people live in the same geographic area for at least few millenniums, they speak the same language so they express themselves the same way, they have the same customs, they have the same faith, they understand the world with the same way, they have the same civilisation , they have the same history.
2) anthropologicaly they belong to the same tribe, they are of the same anthropological variation.
The people of Turkey they do not belong to the same anthropological variation. The majority of the turkish people are the inhabitants of Minus Asia, Bysantine empire, who never left their homes when the Ottoman Turks invated the empire the 13th century A.D.The minority are Turks from Turkmenistan. The Bysantines never call themselves with the term ' nation '. According to UNESCO, 42 deferent nationalities are living today in Turkey. The real Turks are the minority.
So, if we say == Minus Asia point of view== it sounds more logigal, as the today population of today Turkey have their roots in the area and they had and have commons with the Pelasgians or they have the Pelasgians as their forefathers. User: Θεόδωροςς —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.132.170 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, the history of the turkish and palasgians doesnt dirrectly over linke, there is at least 1,000 to 1,500 years in betwenn them. Enlil Ninlil 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What? Then I guess there are no nations. The term must be a fantasy, a figment of someone's imagination. Alternatively, you can look up "nation" in any English dictionary and find quite a different story. Well, I think I will write a letter to the IRS explaining that I do not live in a nation and therefore should not pay taxes.Dave (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgian fact

Herodotus, The Histories (ed. A. D. Godley)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek propaganda in Encyclopedia

Look the communication between greek editors:

“Πρεπει να τονιστει σε ολα τα θεμα με ιλλυρια οτι οι αλβανοι δεν εχουν εδαφικα παρα το μικροτερο κομματι της ιλλυριας και οτι οι Βοσνιοι,Σλοβενιοι.....και οι αλλοι εχουν αντιστοιχα δικαιωματα στο θεμα.ΠΕρα απο το Γεγονος οτι οι Αλβανοι δεν ειναι ιλλυριοι , ουτε Πελασγοι.

“You must emphasize in all the articles with Illyrians that Albanians have just a little part of Illyria and that Bosnia .Slovenia ..have their rights in the issue. Away from the news that Albanians are not Illyrians neither Pelasgic.” User talk:Helladios

Other “ Αλλαξα τους χαρτες στο σωστο με μια μικρη επεξηγηση.Οι αλβανοι εχουν φαει πολυ προπαγναδα και δεν ξερουν τι τους γινεται.” “ I change the maps …..Albanians they do not know what we do to them “ Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.197 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You missunderstood a common Greek expression. "δεν ξερουν τι τους γινεται" literally means that "they are confused". I love it when we think every one else in the Balkans is a victim of propaganda and misinformation which we are somehow immune to. Now could we focus on archeology instead of which modern populations can lay claim to their legacy?User:Dimadick [10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)]
No they are not "confused", you may be immune from propaganda because you are doing it yourself, but our people (Albanians) know very well their origin, even one uneducated can tell you our origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.82.126 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, please sign your comments. Secondly, thinking you know your origins and factually knowing your origins are two different things. If you can cite independent, scholarly and internationally accepted academic sources to support your position, please bring them forward. Otherwise, please refrain from accusing other editors of acting unethically. --Kimontalk 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has an article on the subject of national myth. Modern Albanian national myth, which briefly mentions Skanderbeg, needs to be more fully discussed there, under its proper heading. I have added scrupulously neutral introductory text under "Modern theories", identifying no theory, taking no side. I omitted Bulgaria: are there Bulgarian partisans in this? I thought not. --Wetman 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone see the references already mention in the article, where it is expressed clearly that Albanians have a pelagic origin. A very serious work is done by Prof. Dhimiter Pilika former Chief of Cathedra of Albanology at University of Prague. The Bulgarian scientific even enter Thrace in the pelasgic group together with Mikenasit, doret etc. see Wikipedia. Albani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.82.126 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the Society of Arvanites (Albanian origin, one of the main group of population in Greece)in they mention extensive evidence of Pelasgian origin of Albanians. Albani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.82.126 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is way too long

It is so long an rambling so as to be unreadable. needs major cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

linear B writing = Pelasgians language

We must accept that Pelasgian language is a indo –European language and since the oldest recognized such language is Albanian the oldest greek language is originated from oldest Albanian language “The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language.” Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like some loony marginal opinion. Linear B is demonstrated to be an early form of Greek. -- AdrianTM 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ceucalionite, I have installed a quotation about language from Herodotus in the introductory language section, rather than the Herodotus section because it shows that Pelasgian was only one of a number of so-called Barbarian languages in the Greek area, and that it was the aboriginal language of Attica. John D. Croft 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The quotation you cited does not fit in the introductory paragraphs because there are other ancient Greek and Roman authors who have discussed the language and origins of the Pelasgians. Therefore, the quotation you cited should be placed in the Herodotus section or it should be removed altogether. It is ultimately your decision. You need to understand that the Herodotus section of the Pelasgians article contains information specifically relevant to everything Herodotus himself writes about the Pelasgians. So, if you want your edits to be taken seriously, I recommend that you take my advice and do not insist on having the quotation from Herodotus shown in the introductory paragraphs. Placing quotations indiscriminately negatively affects the flow of an article's content. Again, either incorporate the quotation properly (i.e. Herodotus section) or remove it completely. Your call. Deucalionite 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen. There are several possible ways Greek could connect to Albanian. We are interested in mainstream ideas here so if there are some mainstream Albanian hypotheses they will get in but if not not. Ciao. Dave (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed? Really?

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

Citations are nice things, this way people can go directly to source, see what source is talking about the issue, etc., and in general it's a good idea to add citations even if they seem obvious. -- AdrianTM 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Citing is real art, my friends. It is a judgement call. I believe the policy is if they are requested you put them in unless there is some good reason to resist, such as harassing requests. If there is a cite request on a topic just cited a few sentences earlier you can always name the cite and repeat the name. That puts an a, b, c, etc. up on the note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More unwarranted interpretations

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

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

Please see this map [2] meaning that old "greek" tribes included Illyrians and Epiriotes, Doret ..Macedonians originated and rising very highly, the connection with today Albanians. Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Does every article about ancient Balkan peoples somehow have to be linked to Albanians ? What might you be trying to prove ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 10:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Review of Albanians as Pelasgians section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern theories

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

So Greeks are descendants of Albanians... interesting... -- AdrianTM 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hoxha did one hell of a job brainwashing his guys. No one outside albania believes this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your edits. I live in Greece , I am Arvanites but I have seen more brain wash in Greece mostly form the non-Greek and non-Hellenic population that are inhabitant of Greece at this time , while Hoxha had his own reasons not to mention at all, the connection between Albanians and ancient Greek . --PIRRO BURRI 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think you are Arvanite. Maybe just an Albanian immigrant leaving in Greece. I have Arvanite friends and no one talks like you. Yes, they say they MIGHT be of Pelasgian origins (as MAYBE some of the Greek tribes are) but not that the Pelasgians are descendants of Albanians, what kind of a ridiculous claim is that? [[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis]
Old chap. Don't get too carried away by all this. These articles do not represent any general American or English (or Greek) view or power group propaganda, they are strictly the work of private individuals. I believe that eventually the truth will emerge but it takes a while. Additionally I am not sure you know enough English to understand what is being said. I suggest following it quietly from a distance and working to improve your English if that is what you want. You need to understand, we see things from a distance and are not involved in your disputes. Most of our ancestors came over here to ESCAPE the old ethnic conflicts and problems. People who would be enemies in your country sit down to dinner here together. What we want here is objective truth about the topic.Dave (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged sections

I merged the section on "Albanians as Pelasgians" into the "Modern Theories" section, as it is basically a modern theory without more merit than any of the other loony fringe nationalist theories regarding the Pelasgians (e.g. Polat Kaya). Tsourkpk [01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]

I appreciate your contributions Tsourkpk, but the merger has not been well implemented. The "Albanians as Pelasgians" section was fine before your arguments with PIRRO BURRI. Please be so kind as to restore the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section to the following standard:
The French author Zacharie Mayani developed a thesis (The Etruscans Begin to Speak) stating that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This theory places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscan, as well as with ancient Greek. The theory is supported by other authors such as Guiseppe Catapano, Mathieu Aref (Albanie: Ou l'incroyable odyssée d'un peuple préhellénique; Grèce: Ou la solution d'une énigme), and Robert D'Angely (other supporters include Faverial, Kolias, Marchiano, and Cabej). The overall theory, however, has attracted little general support.[2] One of the most active supporters of this theory was Austrian linguist Johann Georg von Hahn who attempted to connect the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian.[citation needed] Today, the Albanian language is universally classified as an Indo-European language by linguists.
When you edit this discussion page, just copy and paste the above paragraph in the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section and make sure that the title of the section has three "=" on each side (===Albanians as Pelasgians===). I'd love to do this all myself, but my computer tends to produce unnecessary technical difficulties whenever I come around to editing large articles. If, by any chance, you cannot do this, then ask someone for help.
I know that you see the overall section as having questionable content and that the entire paragraph is mainly derived from one website. However, there are authors who do espouse the theory of "Albanians as Pelasgians" even if their respective arguments command little general support among academic circles. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you could put the above paragraph into the article. Thanks. Deucalionite 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice

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

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

Albanians as Pelasgians: Revanchist pseudo-science

To Deucalionite and Pirro Burri:

Guys, the theory linking Albanians to Pelasgians is classical Revanchist pseudo-science. Most of its proponents are either ill-informed 19th century Europeans (and we all know how accurate 19th century European theories on race and ethnicity are) or Albanian nationalist hacks. No one buys it outside nationalist Albanian circles. It is not even possible to link modern Albanians to the much more recent Illyrians (except in a strictly geographic sense). How is it possible to link them therefore to a "people" (assuming the pelasgians even fit the definition of a "people") about whom all we have are some vague and contradictory references in ancient sources of questionable reliability?

Typically nationalists make this sort of linkage, to the supposedly "originial" inhabitants of a particular place, to justify territorial claims ("we are the descendents of the indigenous people, so this land belongs to us"), something known by the German term Urrecht.

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

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

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

Response to Tsourkpk

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

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

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

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

Dear Deucalionite,
Thank you for your valuable response. I moved the Albanians as Pelasgians section PRECISELY in the interests of maintaining NPOV. To give it its own heading is POV in my opinion as it unfairly highlights it over theories, regardless of merit. I feel very strongly about this, and like you, I really want to avoid an edit war. Personally, I think the whole Albanian-Pelasgian theory is crackpot revanchist crap (i'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but at this point we simply do not know enough about the Pelasgians to establish such a link). But that is my own personal opinion. To make Wikipedia better, i would strongly prefer to include only "notably credible theories" (including nationalist pseudoscience only serves to give fodder to critics of Wikipedia that maintain it is just a forum for crakpots and hacks). However, I believe this may well lead to an edit-war, for which I neither have the stomach nor the time. As a case in point, you may have noticed how hopping-mad PIRRO BURRI et al. became when I just MOVED the section. That said, I am fine with the status quo (although again, on a personal level, i would prefer removing all "notably crackpot" theories) and I appreciate your efforts very much. Tsourkpk (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk
P.S. I am well aware that Fol is a respectable scholar, but not all the work that respectable scholars produce is top-quality. To me, the Thracian-Pelasgian link also carries a whiff of revanchism, again because we know so little about both the Pelasgians and the Thracians.
You are very welcome Tsourkpk. Just so you know, I appreciate everything you have done despite the slight disagreements we had in terms of resolving this particular issue. Nevertheless, I cannot thank you enough for all your help. If it is not too much trouble, could you please make a minor correction in the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section? The text for argument #4 reads "Italian Archaeological Society" when in fact the citation reads "Italian Archaeological School." Just replace the term "Society" with the term "School." If you want to create an internal link for the "Italian Archaeological School," then please use the Italian School of Archaeology at Athens as the article reference. Like I said before, when it comes to editing large articles with heavy amounts of text, my computer experiences technical difficulties. I do not know why, but for the time being (until I get my computer fixed), I need you to help make this important correction. Thank you very much. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To Deucalionite and Sfurku

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

Pirro, I apologize in advance if you feel that this is all unfair. However, Tsourkpk makes many serious points that I feel you have to address if you wish for other users to take your case seriously. Even if you are not a "nationalist" or an "edit-warrior," Tsourkpk is just making sure that the article is not compromised quality-wise and stability-wise. I honestly prefer that a separate "Albanians as Pelasgians" section be created in order to accommodate the fact that multiple authors support the supposed connections between Albanians and Pelasgians. However, since Tsourkpk is correct in stating that the section's content lacks scientific support, it belongs in the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" along with other theories that try to claim the historical clout of the Pelasgians without significant scientific proof. You should have noticed already that Tsourkpk moved the paragraph from the "Albanians as Pelasgians" section to the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" section instead of engaging in a revert-war. The "Albanian perspective" has not been compromised (though you have deliberately removed parts of the paragraph that I derived from the website that was cited from another Albanian user on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, please understand that I deleted the section only because I feel that there is no point arguing over headers. The supposed connections between the Albanians and the Pelasgians, I'm afraid, are based mostly on theories rather than on concrete evidence. Therefore, Tsourkpk's points cannot be ignored. In other words, you need to provide scientifically credible evidence proving that the Albanians are the descendants of the Pelasgians if you want to prove to other users that your arguments are valid.
On a sidenote, I did not mean to be offensive. However, you have been disruptive on the Arvanites article Pirro and I am afraid that I must caution you again not to disrupt this article as well. Though I commend your persistence, you must nevertheless prove your case like everyone else here. I'm sorry, but there are no exceptions. Enjoy your weekend and I wish you luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
PIRRO BURRI,
For the last time, I did not ERASE the "Pelasgians as Albanians" section. I just MOVED it in the interests of maintaing NPOV. There's no reason to get hysterical or engage in a pointless edit war. Tsourkpk (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk
P.S. My user name is Tsourkpk, not Sfurku. I do not know what that means in your language, but it sounds disrespectful to me. Personal attacks of the kind will get you banned, I can assure you. Consider yourself warned and watch your mouth.
Apologies accepted and I did not mean to insult Tsourkpk, his name is very approximate with this Albanian word, I will recommend to let the Albanian section as it was, if you want to remove or move this section you probably may want to put it in Hellenic section, the mention argument as they are theories and not scientific arguments sorry but seems to me not appropriate. I do not want to be engaged in edit war, so you may want to do the same things as you did for Hellenic section and incorporate an Albanian section , as they are many author form the past and recently demonstrating this theory. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there is a contradiction between extensive references you give in the end of article and the article views--PIRRO BURRI (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To me the view of Deucalionite is very objective and respectful he states that “multiple authors support the supposed connections between Albanians and Pelasgians” , I feel that . Tsourkpk from the way treats this thesis express a strong bias, the theories that he expresses here about nationalism and revansisem in fact prove quite the opposite, indicate his own view that he does not welcome and accept this reality. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
PIRRO BURRI,
The only "bias" I have is against bad science. I am scientist by profession, and in my work, if you want to claim something is true, you damn better have evidence to prove it. So I require a very high standard of proof, which the hypothesis of Albanians as descendendents of the Pelasgians simply does not have. I'm afraid you also misunderstand me. I am not saying that the Albanian hypothesis is impossible, simply that at this point we just do not know enough about the Pelasgians to make such a connection. It is not even possible to conclusively link the Albanians to the much more recent Illyrians, let alone the Pelasgians of so long ago. You also claim you want to avoid an edit war, but then you do the exact opposite by modifying the consensus version. If you want to create your own section, you will have to provide more evidence for it, like Deucalionite did for the section on Pelasgians as Hellenes. Please read Deucalionite's post below, as he makes a better case than I do, and kindly refrain from modifying the consensus version of this article until you have REAL, scientific evidence to back your point. Cheers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Pirro Burri

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

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

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

You spoke too soon. Pirro Burri already modified the consensus version --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely not good. I hope Pirro changes his position soon. I really want to avoid having to engage in another revert war. I am afraid that if this continues, we will have no choice but to call an administrator. Deucalionite (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I did modify the consensus version because Tsourkpk modified Albanian section, considering Greek language indo-European and contradicting also the section Hellenes as Pelasgian. In fact in or view any prove that connect Helens with Pelasgians , prove that they are direct ancestors of Arvanites and Albanians. In this respect these thesis should not be separate. At least we must agree now to let an Albanian section as it was which will be extended in progress. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Greek is by definition Indo-European, see how the term was coined: "In 1583 Thomas Stephens, an English Jesuit missionary in Goa, noted similarities between Indian languages, specifically Konkani, and Greek and Latin. These observations were included in a letter to his brother which was not published until the twentieth century." -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Greek not an Indo-European language? LOL! Man, what have you been reading (if anything)? Just make sure you don't insert crap like that in the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course everybody knows that Sfurk but we are talking about ancient Greek! “This theory places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscan and ancient Greek “ yes it places in Proto-Indo-European group of languages where Pelasgian language may enter Pelasgian language was pre-Indo-European and also “large proportion of the vocabulary of Greek does not have demonstrable Indo-European roots.” So your argument for deleting this paragraph is inadequate. --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please Tsourkpk, be reasonable before be engaged in edit warning --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You've got some nerve accusing me of edit-warring. I will remind you that you were the one who kept messing with the consensus version. Now go and read some (real) books, learn a few things, and stop wasting everyone's time with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Pirro Burri II

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions

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

  • Suggestion #1 - A plethora of citations in the "Classical Greek uses" section are in the form of parenthetical citations. Though this standard is a sign of bibliographical integrity, I think that all of those parenthetical citations can be easily converted into references shown in the "Notes" section of the overall article. Of course, this is not necessarily an urgent problem that needs to be solved immediately. Yet, this suggestion should not be entirely neglected. On a sidenote, it would also be helpful to provide any other reference citations that are potentially missing in the "Classical Greek uses" section just to make sure that everything is covered.
  • Suggestion #2 - In the "Modern theories" section, I propose that reference citations be placed despite the fact that the "References" section contains a list of all of the books that discuss the Pelasgians. For instance, the section describes the archaeological excavations at Çatalhöyük as having revealed Pelasgian settlements. However, the Çatalhöyük article does not mention anything about any "Pelasgian sites." Therefore, it is imperative that any mention of archaeological excavations and Pelasgian sites be presented with full citations (author, page numbers, and direct quote from source if possible). This standard will help ensure that all claims and arguments presented in the "Modern theories" section are properly cited.
  • Suggestion #3 - The "See also" section was once the "battleground" for multiple revert-wars. I honestly recommend that all topics listed in the section are actually relevant to the Pelasgians article. Case in point, the Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians article contains no relevant information whatsoever about the Pelasgians. Therefore, it must be removed. Of course, this is not a significant problem that needs to be overcome immediately. Yet, this suggestion should not be entirely neglected since it would not be prudent to misguide Wikipedia readers who may be interested in finding any related information about the Pelasgians in other articles.
  • Suggestion #4 - The World Wide Web seems to possess pictures that supposedly depict the areas where the Pelasgians inhabited. Though I am uncertain as to the copyright status of such pictures, it would be nice to have some visuals depicting anything relevant to the Pelasgians. Of course, this is not a major priority nor is this necessarily a problem. However, pictures would definitely help augment the visual quality of the overall article.

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

It will never get improve, because even when you bring references,books,articles it will be deleted.Albanian Pelasgian case,deleted!Why It had a lot of references,I din't want to fight it anymore.I will never get it why Greeks hate Albanians so much,why when u show a connection between this two group of people,the nationalist will go crazy? So sad--Taulant23 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say that? I believe that the article will improve over time since it has come a long way. Also, you need to stop assuming that Greeks hate Albanians just because there is nearly no direct literary or archaeological evidence to prove that a connection between Albanians and Pelasgians exists. Unfortunately, the books and references supporting this connection mostly constitute theories rather than direct forms of evidence.
I am afraid my friend that it is erroneous to believe that anyone who disagrees with having an "Albanians as Pelasgians" section is a "Greek nationalist." Moreover, the paragraph from the section has only been moved by Tsourkpk to the "Pelasgians as pre-Indo-European people" section and has not been deleted. Therefore, the "Albanian perspective" has not been compromised in the least bit.
I did my best to argue in support of maintaining a separate "Albanians as Pelasgians" section. However, Tsourkpk is correct in stating that more evidence is needed in order for the paragraph supporting an Albanian-Pelasgian connection to have its own section. Therefore, I recommend that you (or any other Albanian user) provide direct evidence here so that all users can scrutinize it properly.
I am sorry my friend, but the article's quality and stability cannot be constantly compromised. To "disrupt" an article in order to improve it is understandable (whether your contributions are right or wrong in the end since everyone makes mistakes). However, when you edit an article just for the sake of imposing questionable content supported by questionable sources, then nothing gets accomplished and nothing gets improved.
I do not like to repeat myself. However, if you still believe that the Greeks are suppressing a possible Albanian-Pelasgian connection, then you are simply wrong. There are no Greek cabals here and there is definitely no anti-Albanian sentiment here. I beseech you to cease making needless assumptions, because they are distracting you from conducting proper research and providing valuable resources that support your arguments.
Though I am happy to see you participating in this discussion Taulant23, I advise you not to commit any disruptive activities since many users here do not want another series of revert-wars. Thank you and best of luck in all of your endeavors. Deucalionite (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian-Pelasgians

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

The French author Zacharie Mayani[3] (1899 – ) put forth a thesis that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This thesis places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscans[4]as well as ancient Greek.[5] Nermin Vlora Falaschi published a translation of the Lemnos stele on this basis, with the help of Arvanite Albanian. The theory is supported by Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, Mathieu Aref[6], Faverial, D'Angely, Kolias[7], and Cabej support this point of view. [8][9][10]. It is estimated that of the actual stock of the Albanian language, more than one third is of undisputed Ilyrian origin, and the rest are Ilyrian-Pelasgian, ancient Greek and Latin, with a small admixture of Slavic, Italian (dating from the Venetian occupation of the seaboard) and some Celtic words, too.The most active supporter of this theory was Austrian linguist Hahn who attempted to connect the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian. Today, however, Albanian is universally classified as an Indo-European language by linguists--Taulant23 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

what do obsolete theories of Etruscan-Albanian or Thraco-Illyrian-Albanian have to do with Pelasgian? If at all, this may be notable to the Paleo-Balkans languages article. dab (𒁳) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I could care less where the paragraph goes. Professionally, I'd recommend having the paragraph go the Etruscans article. However, if you disagree Dbachmann, then please explain why the paragraph should go the the Paleo-Balkans languages article. There have been too many discussions about one paragraph here and I would like to see some closure (consensus-based or otherwise). Deucalionite (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"the paragraph" needs to be fixed anyway. The historical remarks on obsolete classifications of Albanian can go to Albanian language. If there are any notable suggestions of Etruscan influence, mention it at Etruscan language. The Thraco-Dacian-Albanian stuff should go to Paleo-Balkans languages if substantiated. I frankly don't see any merit in the cobbled-together paragraph as it stands. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In short, your stance entails breaking apart the paragraph. Not a bad idea. Should we establish a consensus now or wait until other users pitch in and provide their standpoints regarding this issue? If you prefer the latter of the two options, then I'll go speak to Tsourkpk and find out what he thinks about all this. However, if you prefer the former of the two options, then I recommend we dismember the paragraph and finally bring an end to this issue. What are your thoughts? Deucalionite (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Critical Review

I critically reviewed the paragraph prior to removal:

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

{{offtopic}}

The French author Zacharie Mayani[11] (1899 – ) put forth a thesis that the Etruscan language had links to the Albanian language. This thesis places the Albanian language outside the group of Indo-European languages sharing one branch with Etruscans[12]as well as ancient Greek.[13] Nermin Vlora Falaschi published a translation of the Lemnos stele on this basis, with the help of Arvanite Albanian. The theory is supported by Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, Mathieu Aref[14], Faverial,{{fact}} D'Angely,{{fact}} Kolias[15], and Cabej{{fact}} support this point of view.

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

Sounds like a plan. Deucalionite (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On Albanian claims regarding Pelasgians and other ancient folk

Here are some quotes from famous Albanian historians;

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

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian): After him followed the Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi who in the middle of Tirana openly opposed the hypothesis about the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. With me agreed, via the printed media, several other younger scholars of whom I would especially mention Fatos Lubonja, Prof. Adrian Vebiu and others."

Quote: About the Albanians, Wilkes writes "NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."

Wilkes was proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European lineage.

Quote: That's the way it is with our culture, which is mythomaniac, national-communist, romantic, self-glorifying. You can't say anything objective without people getting angry. The Albanians are a people who still dream. That is what they are like in their conversations, their literature... In light of Hoxha and 'pyramid schemes, Albanians are a people who still dream. That's just the way they are..." Fatos Lubojia - Albanian historian

Quote: Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi writes: I can say that today appear a group of new Albanian scholars who do not agree with the false myths (About Illyrian & Epirote descent) and courageously accept the scientific truth that they are not whatsoever connected to these ancient peoples. I am proud that I lead this group and that they took up from me the necessary scholarly courage."

Quote: Ardian Vebiu Famous Albanian historian writes: My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticism

Megistias (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Megistia. I couldn't have said it better myself. Now be prepared to be verbally savaged by Taulant23 & co. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
With this anti-albanisem you are going no where; remember that you live in country Greece where Albanian or originally Albanian what ever are call them are majority from other race. We belong to the same Pelasgians trunk and everybody knows that, Epirotes Macedonians, Athenians , Doret are our race. You will never escape that … --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not an answer. Your persistence in albanian nationalist fantasy is not evidence to your claims but rather evidence to the opposite. Your "pelasgian statement" and that all the above ancient greeks were !albanian! is typical of albanian nationalistic mythology. Megistias (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PIRRO BURRI

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

critical review

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

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

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

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

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

why ?! because that is how you like, i can see that you come from the street and from new nationalist "Greek" stock --PIRRO BURRI (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just read sources in the according talk pages and stop insulting. I have told you before that persistence is not a secondary source. Megistias (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I see in the above Greeks and no Illyrians or Albanians. Megistias (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see;Dionysus of Halikarnassos "Roman Antiquities" 1.17.2.1

καὶ τὸ τῶν Πελασγῶν γένος Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκ Πελοποννήσου

translation:

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

No illyrians or Albanians again Megistias (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All Greek can not be Pelasgians only those originally ancient Albanians http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11260506&dopt=AbstractPlus --PIRRO BURRI 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you even read any source?
I see in the above Greeks and no Illyrians or Albanians. Megistias (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Also see;Dionysus of Halikarnassos "Roman Antiquities" 1.17.2.1
καὶ τὸ τῶν Πελασγῶν γένος Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκ Πελοποννήσου
translation:
for the Pelasgians, too, were a Hellenic race originally from the Peloponnesus.
No illyrians or Albanians again Megistias 12:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another critical review

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

Hi Dave, while I appreciate what you have done for this article, in this change you have made [[4]], by stating "connected" instead of "attempted to connect", you seem to imply that Hahn was successful in connecting the Pelasgian language with Albanian. To my knowledge this is not the case, and this is just another example of a 19th century theory that ended in the dustbin (only to be resurrected by Albanian nationalists). The uninformed reader, however, might think that Hahn was indeed successful in his endeavors, and that Albanian and Pelasgian are connected. Thus it seems that the statement is slanted the other way. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your comment. I'm not implying anything right now and I have no idea of the worth of Hahn's argument. I have not got that far yet. All I am doing is cutting out the stuff I know is wrong or inappropriate. Then we can start in to fine-tune this article. In answer to your objection, I would say, "attempted" implies that the editor personally knows that Hahn tried and failed. Why are we presenting failed arguments? This is not an article about failed arguments. The point is there might be some chance of Hahn being right. So more objectively we do not want to present him as someone we know is a failure but only as someone with a theory to which objection A, B, C, etc. has been brought but which explains D, E, F, etc. The issue is strictly one of protocol and manners. If he were on a TV show the announcer would not present him as the man who attempted to do thus and so unless there were something remarkable about the attempt, such as jumping over 50 barrels or piloting a glider over Everest and crashing. No, either Hahn can to some degree be taken seriously or we have no business mentioning it. I don't know which yet so I left it in without the failure slant, for now anyway. But now, your statement has certain non-objectivities about it also. How would you know whether he succeeded or failed? Pelasgian did not survive except theoretically in some possible roots. That is the point. The whole thing is very subjective and all we are doing is looking for the best fit. By the way the editor of the article seems to prefer arguments that did fail. His understanding of what we are trying to do has to grow here. But I think I know who, in terms of articles, wrote this. There is one fellow who is absolutely determined to press his view that Pelasgian is Tyrsenian and all those unknown Aegean scripts including Linear A are all Pelasgian and furthermore his decipherment of them is correct. This is, in other words, at bottom an attempt to publish an original decipherment. He is responsible for at least a dozen unsourced articles "translating" various unknown inscriptions. Well I admire scholarly zeal and persistence and maybe someday he might be considered the Einstein of inscriptions. Until then though he is not supposed to use Wikipedia for publication of original research and anyway I dare say he has a long way to go yet on his theories. But the human spirit is irrepressible. Bravo! Keep up the attempt whoever you are; meanwhile, get you stuff off Wikipedia. Try finding some minor and obscure periodicals that will take your stuff; you never know who will be reading them. Today's minor periodical is tomorrow's great and famous journal, etc. etc.Dave (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Storing this please leave

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

  1. During the 1980s, the Skourta Plain project identified Middle Helladic and Late Helladic sites on mountain summits near the plains of Skourta. These fortified mountain settlements were, according to tradition, inhabited by Pelasgians up until the end of the Bronze Age. Moreover, the location of the sites is an indication that the Pelasgian inhabitants sought to "ethnically" (a fluid term according to Foreigners and Barbarians) and economically distinguish themselves from the Mycenean Greeks who controlled the Skourta plain.[16]
Why erase the whole section? Bring some of it back up?You mean you will merge the preexisting part with archaeological elements?There are primary and secondary sources on pelasgians as hellenes.Megistias (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Megistias. I'm answering your question by "bringing it back up" but in a more approriate location. It didn't prove what it was suppose to prove but offhand (it needs to be checked out) it looks like interesting archaeological material shedding additional light. Wait a few minutes and then check the article again. Dave (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please continue you are truly imroving the article its starting to look great and orderly.Megistias (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians as hellenes

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

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

Thanks - most of the material is way out of date. No one now thinks Pelasgian was Greek. But as we are covering something of the history of the major theories it once was a major theory so there is a logical place for it. I will get to it if no one else does. One of the problems we have to face is standardizing source citations. Someone has to check that long bibliography against final content and try to work the appropriate items into the notes with cite book, Citation, cite journal, and so on. That is a lot of work. it is complicated by the fact that whoever was trying to prove the Greeks did not mean non-Greek when they said non-Greek threw in a lot of irrelevant "sources" and also the attempt to prove Pelasgian is Tyrsenian cost a lot too. We need that space for the legitimate evidence.Dave (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. These were the neolithic folk or latter that had no "nationality" in any shape or form we would recognise today anyway right? We just inherited part of their language and some of their cultural elements were passed down to later cultures. Megistias (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to see that this article is improving significantly. I cannot thank you enough Dave for all of your contributions. However, I wish you had contacted me first before removing any essential data from the article. So far, I have implemented some important tweaks and I intend to add further improvements where necessary. Keep up the good work. Deucalionite (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way Dave, I would have to disagree with your statement about no one today thinking that the Pelasgians were Greek. There are a number of modern authors who possess this argument in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence. However, it is more accurate to call the Pelasgians "Greeks before the name 'Greek'/'Hellene' existed." Even though "Greek proper" identity did not exist during the time of the Pelasgians, "Greek improper" identity did exist (see Minyans and Helladic). Deucalionite (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi guy, maybe you are right, I don't know. We are putting it in anyway. I left a space for it. I'm starting out at the top now and am going to do a line-by-line. My main main concern with this particular article is conciseness. Let's try to say it in as few words as possible. I also think the long quotes in footnotes are a bad idea. If it needs that much space it belongs in the text, but can we not just refer them to the source for many things? Also I use cite book, cite web, Citation and I put in page numbers wherever possible. I say this because I have to go intermittent on this for a while. So I will just work top to bottom whenever I can. This is my top priority because I need it for Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, Danaans, Achaeans and Hellenes. Then I think I will get back to archaeology. And I never did finish Battle of Thermopylae. So I will see you from time to time. If the matter is pressing you can use my discussion page but everyone really should be able to follow the development. I'm working on the etymology next. Ciao.Dave (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I know the term Pelasgian is missused at great extend but from the inscriptional data i'm checking, an area keeping that name until today is the Pelasgia of Fthiotida-Thessaly border.
I found two gems that we should examine a bit...The one below is from 150BC and is about the Thessalian league. 32 000 pelasgians are mentioned amongst the Thessalians.
[12]
The second inscription has the phrase "Pelasgis Hellas". From a fast look at the content i understand that the mainland is reffered as Pelasgian Hellas, like we use ipirotiki ellada today.
[13]
It would be nice to analyze those texts and draw some conclusions if possible. I would like to hear your opinions. Megistias (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are looking for a reaction I am quite delighted. Inscriptions are precious gems to be sought by the historian as they represent history unadulterated by transmission errors and later insertions (or removals). Thanks. In due course I will get around to reading them. Right now it appears that we need another section on inscriptions. I would put it right before archaeology. I am determined to go line by line right now (or nearly so) as the matrix method leaves unfinished business and the reader reads line by line. Inscriptions? What a delight! Dave (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Megistias. I'm just going to throw in basically what you said and make a few cite webs to the inscriptions. That's only a temporary measure to fill in the gap as no one seems to be moving on it. If you have or find some inscriptional analysis by all means write it up and put it in. One question - I never did get much modern Greek - is ipirotiki "Pelasgian"? It looks to me as though it came from the name of Epirus. If it is Pelasgian then it surely ought to be in there.Dave (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up on the inscriptions. I was able to do one of them. The second is on a statue base from the library at Pergamum but the first dedicatory line is lost and the date is uncertain. The statue evidently was of some sort of muse. The inscription quotes some verse. I was not able to identify the verse and who knows when it was composed but anyway it is literature and not a document so although an inscription - anything put on stone would be - it does not record anything so I left it out. The same concept of pelagis Hellas is presented in other authors. It seems to mean "that part of Hellas which is Pelasgian" and in this inscription is lumped with the cities and islands of the Ionian range. But we already knew that.24.63.185.195 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to log in. It's me.Dave (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
While I love such inscriptions myself, I would warn against committing "original research" here. To "analyze those texts and draw some conclusions if possible", as Megistias proposed above, would be just that. Please don't insert such things in the article. That said, I find your thoughts about these texts entirely plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The barbarians of Herodotus

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

I am assuming that this message is for me. Just so you know Dave, I am determined for all the right reasons. I have no intention whatsoever of hindering you from the enormous amounts of work you have provided to this article. Nevertheless, flexibility lies in the fact that one has to acknowledge (from an historical and sociological standpoint) that the term "barbarian" possessed a dual meaning. As you well know, Herodotus was not a linguist. However, to the linguistic standards of his day, anything that was not of "Attic orientation" was considered "barbaric." You will find plenty of moments in ancient Greek history where the term "barbarian" was used to describe unsophisticated Greek cultures. It does not make sense for Herodotus to call the Pelasgian language "non-Greek" and then go off to state that the Hellenic language never changed and that the Hellenes descend from the Pelasgians. Herodotus may not have been the perfect historian, but there is consistency in his work if you know how to properly interpret it.
[Interjected.] You got a point there, I concede. But, I wouldn't go drawing any such conclusion that by proper interpretation you can make Herodotus consistent. If that could be done it would have been long ago. That's one of the problems with the Pelasgians - inconsistencies. Hot dawg I feel like I'm in college agin. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As for my sense of "single-mindedness," you'll find that adhering to accurate interpretations and translations of ancient Greek text is key to ensuring NPOV let alone in ensuring that misinterpretations of primary sources are not presented in the article. Moreover, it seems that the supposed "theory" of the Pelasgians being Greek is becoming more of a fact in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence. Therefore, I am not worried about proving a direct link between the Pelasgians and the Greeks only through the prism of Herodotus's utilization of the term "barbarian" to describe the Pelasgian language.
[Interjected.] Aw, deucy, I left a place for it and I put the note in. I don't agree with it but that has not a thing to do with it. Anyway it isn't just Herodotus the exponents of that view have to deal with. What do you do with the Etruscan and Anatolian side of it? So, we need balance here. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I could care less about your opinions pertaining to the so-called "long-winded spiel" regarding the dualistic nature of the term "barbarian." Plenty of primary and secondary sources acknowledge this basic dynamic. You may be a classicist, but remember that classicists are not the only people who have contributed here or who have valuable contributions to make towards enhancing the article's quality.
[Interjected.] Of course! On that score you are quite right. I say long-winded spiel because I think the point can be made in just a few words and to take roughly half a long article on this one theory seemed to me unbalanced and to tell you the truth still seems so. The main theory I do believe is the lost language known through non-Greek roots but the Etruscan and Anatolian possibilites are too strong to deny. This ought to be a multi-viewpoint article I believe just because there are no clear answers. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. "Babara glosson" in Herodotus either means "barbaric dialect" or "barbaric language". Keep things direct, accurate, and simple when it comes to translating ancient Greek texts to English. Deucalionite (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's barbara glossa in the nominative. Herodotus uses the accusative case, but thou shalt not mix cases. As for the rest of it I fail to see what you mean. I thought accuracy IS the concern here and as far as I am concerned non-Hellenic IS accurate. The translator rendered an accurate, simple, direct translation and that is why it is on Perseus. However because barbara glossa is possibly equivocal we are putting in this note. And by the way those are not the only two possible renderings. After seeing this now I got to check what you did. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked. You didn't do anything. OK. Don't put me on a pedestal, man. Classicists are responsible for writing some of the worst tripe you ever saw. The 1911 EB article was written by a classicist. I guess it is a kind of cockiness; you think because you know Greek and Latin and a lot about the subject you can say what you like and not be careful. That's what I like about Wikipedia. It is no respecter of narrow credentials. I always was a generalist. I'm taking note of the fact that other persons wrote the basic article. I'm only stepping in to polish becase it is a grade B article. If it had a star on it I would not touch it with a 10-foot pole for fear of making it worse. I have no such fear on this article. My interest is in pushing history back to its most ancient limit by concentrating on these names. That is a perfectly predictable interest for a classic major. I know you are miffed by my criticisms. I get miffed, thou getteth miffed, he she ot it gettest miffed, we get miffed ... I think you see what I mean. I ain't miffed. I'm taking Wikipedia's advice and concentrating on producing a good article. So, you won't get half so mad if you do not build me up! There are no heros or anti-heros darn it. I used to like the Shadow and Superman myself. But, there is no one on earth anyway to save us from ourselves. We have to do it as best we can. I got to get on with this as I want to get back to Ionians. Ciao. Dave (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference tag used for original research

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

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

OK, that's fine. I got carried away a little by the spirit of the thing. If you check the ref given to Perseus and follow the note down you will see that there are indeed inconsistencies with Creston. I did not wish to put the whole argument in because it seems to me it is off the point. If they want to follow the argument they can look up the ref. Dave (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way I notice these arguments are coming up only with Herodotus. What about all the other sources? Is there something special about Herodotus?Dave (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, PS. The ref tag is just a conventional programming word. The set-up is for footnotes. I deny that it ever was intended only for the source of the information. Whatever goes in a footnote goes in here. As for putting opinions in, that is a different matter, but that would be true in the text as well. So, you might put qualifications or additional information in a footnote, or links to relevant information. Wikipedia does not offer a rigid design. It offers a capability for design with recommendations for what looks best. For example, you can put contents right or left or leave them out. The recommendation is for the default but the situation might call for the other options. For a while people were telling me I had to use "thumb" for pics without a px number. But no one followed that "rule" so after a while it stopped being promulgated. The idea is, one uses these capabilities with sufficient flexibility to achieve a handsome and appropriate design. So, while the policy against personal opinion is fairly strong, there is no hard and fast rule about the footnotes. By the way what I said is not "original research." I did no research here. It was and is personal opinion. I was attempting to summarize. Sorry. However, quelling me will not get you out of the inconsistencies in Herodotus, which are one of his worst faults. If they dont get it from me they will from someone else. Ciao. Dave (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The barbarians of Herodotus (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Interjected.] I hardly know how to respond to this. I must say I personally am much moved by it. I was trying to put you more at ease. I see I have failed but my failure is disconcerting to me. I can't see how I was "judging you." I will say one thing though because it seems relevant. You say you have conducted extensive research. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not for personal research. I could have understood better if you said you had taught yourself Greek as many people have done that and done it successfully. I'm not saying, conducting the research was not a good thing, all I am saying is, Wikipedia is not the place for it, and what you say about balanced views is wrong. I don't think unbalance is a place for us to go so maybe you should reconsider. Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, "barbaric language" is just as much of an interpretation as "non-Hellenic language." All translations are interpretations. The one to use here is whichever is the more common way of translating the passage. I don't see that either one of you are making very much reference to recent academic literature--which would be a better way to go than arguing about your own interpretations of Herodotus. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[Interjected.] Well thanks for speaking up. I was beginning to wonder if anyone else was out there. I had some text in there about the possible translations of of barbara glossa and the fact that this has been a long-standing issue but the young man deleted it. I don't see it as a big issue. All you need to say is that there are different possibilites. You know, I looked for a translation I could use that said it his way, in which case I could put the note on that, but I could not find one! His translation wasn't the clearest in other regards so I took it out. You just can't please everyone. Would you like to solve this problem? Maybe you have a nice translation or a ref from last year or this that repeats the issue yet one more time?Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and all interpretations are translations. Even though you make a sound point Akhilleus, the term "barbarian" is directly derived from the ancient Greek term "barbaros" (see Barbarian article). Therefore, we have to follow that basic linguistic paradigm. There is a difference between derivation of terminological paradigms and derivation of terminological meanings. I am emphasizing the former despite the fact that I am well aware of the latter. Deucalionite (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Buck, p. 79. The presence of the Pelasgians in Boeotia should represent in some traditions the original inhabitants, many, if not most, of whom were expelled to Athens. The confused story in Herodotus (6.137) about the expulsion of some (non-Athenian) Pelasgians from Athens may be a dim memory of the forwarding of refugees, closely akin to the Athenians in speech and custom, to the Ionian colonies.
  2. ^ Pelasgians and others The French author Zacharie Mayani (1899 - ) has put forward a theory that links Etruscan to Albanian. This theory places Albanian (which is generally considered to be an IE derived langauge, probably a survival from the ancient Ilyrian IE) outside of the IE group of languages, sharing one branch with Etruscan and another with ancient Greek. (The latter language is also considered by nearly everyone else to belong to the IE group.) Mayani's view is espoused by the Albanian poet, Nermin Vlora Falaschi, who has published a "translation" of the Lemnos stele in accordance with this theory. This "translation" and the other evidence she adduces in support of the theory may be found in L'Etrusco lingua viva (Antiche Civilità Mediterranee - II, Bardi Editore, Roma 1989). This point of view is also supported by Robert d'Angély, Giuseppe Catapano, Matthieu Aref and one or two others. The theory, however, commands little general support.
  3. ^ http://www.answers.com/topic/pelasgians
  4. ^ Other sources that support the Etruscan and Pelasgian connection with Albanians:Nermin Vlora Falaschi. L'Etrusco lingua viva Roma : Bardi, 1989 http://www.azetalibri.it/main/product.asp?sku=898173&idaff=0
  5. ^ Pelasg,An ancient form of Albanian The French author Zacharie Mayani http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Zacharie+Mayani&fr=slv8-&u=www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/Pelasgians.html&w=zacharie+mayani&d=DAU5X_4-PQm2&icp=1&.intl=us
  6. ^ Mathieu Aref. Albanie ou l'incroyable odyssée d'un peuple préhellénique (2003)http://www.amazon.fr/Albanie-Histoire-Langue-lincroyable-pr%C3%A9hell%C3%A9nique/dp/2951992106/ref=sr_1_5/402-2596869-0530502?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177613835&sr=1-5
  7. ^ Aristeidē P. Kollia. "Arvanites kai hē katagōgē tōn Hellēnōn : historikē, laographikē, politistikē, glōssologikē episkopisē , Athens : [A.P. Kollias], 1985, [i.e. 1986]
  8. ^ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, Book 1, 17 (LacusCurtius).
  9. ^ Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book 12.1 (Perseus).
  10. ^ Strabo,Geography, Book v,2.4 (LacusCurtius).
  11. ^ http://www.answers.com/topic/pelasgians
  12. ^ Other sources that support the Etruscan and Pelasgian connection with Albanians:Nermin Vlora Falaschi. L'Etrusco lingua viva Roma : Bardi, 1989
  13. ^ Pelasg, An ancient form of Albanian The French author Zacharie Mayani http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Zacharie+Mayani&fr=slv8-&u=www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/Pelasgians.html&w=zacharie+mayani&d=DAU5X_4-PQm2&icp=1&.intl=us
  14. ^ Mathieu Aref. Albanie ou l'incroyable odyssée d'un peuple préhellénique (2003)
  15. ^ Aristeidē P. Kollia. "Arvanites kai hē katagōgē tōn Hellēnōn : historikē, laographikē, politistikē, glōssologikē episkopisē , Athens : [A.P. Kollias], 1985, [i.e. 1986]
  16. ^ French, p. 35. Skourta Plain project. The fourth and final season of the survey of the Skourta plain was conducted in 1989 by M. and M.L.Z. Munn (ASCS). "Explorations begun in 1985 and 1987 were extended into new parts of the plain and surrounding valleys, so that by now a representative portion (approximately 25%) of most of the inhabitable areas of the three koinotites of Pyli, Skourta, and Stefani have been examined intensively. 66 sites were discovered or studied for the first time in the course of this highly productive season, yielding a total of 120 premodem sites studied by our survey since 1985. The survey should have identified all major settlement sites (over 5 ha) and a representative sample of smaller sites in the study area. A summary of the chief conclusions to be drawn from the four seasons can be made. ... MH settlement is established on two summits overlooking the plain (Al, A10), one of which, Panakton (Al), becomes the most substantial LH site in the area. A fortified MH settlement is also established on a peak in rugged country beyond the NE edge of the plain (Jl), between the Mazareika and Vountima valleys, in which other settlements are established in the LH era (B21, 52 also B33 in the Tsoukrati valley). The remoteness of this NE sector, and the great natural strength of the MH site and a nearby LH IIIC citadel (J2), suggest that the inhabitants of these glens and crags sought to protect and separate themselves from peoples beyond the peaks that surrounded them, perhaps because they were ethnically distinct and economically more or less independent of the Myc Greeks who dominated the plains. Traditions of Pelasgians in these mountains at the end of the BA raise the possibility that these may have been Pelasgian sites. Once abandoned, in the LH IIIC or PG eras, most of these sites in the NE sector are not again inhabited for well over a millennium. Elsewhere, within the more accessible expanse of the Skourta plain itself, LH settlements are established on many sites which are later again important in the C era (Al, B4, B7, B11, B18, C17, cf. A50, C3).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pelasgians/Archive_2&oldid=1274260901"