Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

crap

such a romantic nationalistic wanabe irredentist crap. broadening it's historical claim on serbia, croatia, montenegro, macedonia and greece with little or no proof. arbanasi means landworkers and nothing more. there is arbanasi willage in bulgaria and so what? albanian nationality appeared 100 years ago with the help of the europeans. they are the same as all the balcan nationalities. some illyrian, some tracian, some slavic, some aromanian. mix of cultures with romanian language. how can wikipedia allow this kind of writings? i guess there is nobody at the top?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.225.8 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Source? Macedonia's school book? Not reputable for being filled with propaganda. For now, all the one listed have been studied by neutral sources. These are the conclusions. What you're claiming is original research.

albanian is a latin term for White Serbs that lived in poland that came from caucasus serboi that lived in caucasian albania.79.126.237.2 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

you skip the serbian period, turkish, veneto, bulgar, roman, macedonian, hellenic and go directly to pelasgians. where were you all this time? in cryogenic capsules? hillarious. and the scientific community just sits and picks their noses. unbelievable.79.126.237.2 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Albania is also the name for Scotland. Considering your logic, why shouldn't Albanians be of Scottish descent then? The scientific facts, like genetic studies, linguistic evidences etc. are what this article is all about. They're all referenced from reputable sources, and they're not original conclusions in this Wiki. They're all results of multiple studies. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Great article

Great and informative article. So much work has been put into it. I really enjoyed reading it. Why isn't it marked as "good article"? --Barzefutz (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some political issues as you can see in this talk page. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Greek influence in Albanian mythology ?!

This statement i consider inapproriate and unproven instead i propose :"Albanian mythological figures can be traced back to homeric time" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatet e zanat (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. Can you prove that? Senshi 02:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clausangeloh (talk • contribs)

Edits by Newhost19

The edits by Newhost19 are a tendentious attempt to discredit Georgiev's theory for the well-known national-dogma reasons. If Hamp disagrees with Georgiev, that does not mean he "refutes" Georgiev's theory, only the he himself disagrees with it. "Refute" implies that the rest of the scientific community agrees with him. Interestingly, that Hamp connects Albanian with Balto-Slavic is completely omitted. The stuff about "for the fullest demolition, di Giovine, Tracio, dacio ed albanese" is not properly referenced, it's just a bunch of names being dropped. Furthermore, http://groznijat.tripod.com/balkan/ehamp.html#16 does not claim "demolish" anything, Newhost is just making this up. Lastly, this [1] is entirely unacceptable. www.alb-net.com is not a valid source, and the essay does not even mention Georgiev. Thus, there is nothing to suggests that his theory is "politically motivated". I find it especially ironic that pro-Albanian editors accuse Georgiev's theory of being "politically motivated", as if these editors are not politically motivated themselves. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section to be more in accordance with the sources given, and removed some of the more SYNTHy and "creative" interpretations of the sources. Athenean (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

some of the genetic section isnt that good..the editors who added some material couldnt tell the difference between some suppositions by the authors of the papers and their actual findings..85.73.217.158 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

or other misinterpretations85.73.217.158 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Genetics section is simply atrocious, which is not surprising. Athenean (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, although I am one who would not dismiss 'genetic evidence', too many people on wiki equate haplogroups with ethnic groups. All that the genetic evidence shows is that Albanians (like all other Balkan peoples) have evidence a of genetic continuity with peoples who lived in the Balkans many thousands of years ago. Hardly surprising and something few would doubt. It tells us nothing about the actual conditions which generated a specific Albanian ethos in the Middle Ages. Hxseek (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Genetic evidences are the only ones which can be trusted. It would be insane to dismiss it. It's because people forget, lie, don't know, don't care, that we can't trust their words, but have to rely on facts. Have this last sentence in mind while interpreting genetic evidence. If someone says he is Albanian, that doesn't mean he is. You can't say that Albanians are this or that, because some genetic analysis of a certain man (which claims to be Albanian) indicates so. First thing we have to dismiss is that he is Albanian. Only when we have genetic data WE can tell HIM, if he is Albanian or not. Anyway, evidences suggest (so far) that Albanians are of Asian origin, and Kosovars are of African origin. You must not mix these two. Bye, Seculla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.66.65 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology

Little mention of archaeological finds has been made, which show continuity of population in Northern Albania, from Roman period to medieval, although there are indeed some finds suggesting movement from the Danube Gates region toward Albania during the 7th century 119.225.114.161 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why this stupid article

Why should an article about the origin of the Albanian people exist, there is no such an article about similar European and proto-european populations, I don't understand and it is nonsense to create such an article about the Albanian people... The article should instead be renamed "History of the Albanian people" or something similar... I would like to delete this article, can somebody help me do it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasaruss (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think this article can be used for personal purposes and that the information may come from unreliable sources or books written from unknown authors. Given the fact that there aren't any official studies concerning the origin of the Albanian people, I find this article false and I am concerned that this article can easily be manipulated giving sources that can threaten it's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"...there is no such an article about similar European and proto-european populations..." Yes there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_on_the_origin_of_Croats etc.

turkish defters, dechanski hrisovulji and michael ataliotae confirm that albanians came here during the turks. the wikipedia page about european haplogroups can find 19% of native balcan blood in the albanians. on the other side, the illyrian gene is bigest in bosnians. so cut this national-romantistic lie would you pretty please?89.205.2.29 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"In this study we first examined the extent and nature of Sout-East European paternal genetic contribution to the European genetic landscape based on a high-resolution Y chromosome typing involving 681 unrelated males from four modern states: Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro (including the province of Kosovo), and Macedonia."

Results and Discussion:

"One-third of the studied SEE Y chromosomes has the derived P37 C allele and is classified to haplogroup I1b* (xM26). A detailed survey demonstrates that I1b* (xM26) lineages reach maximum frequency in South-East Europe and that I1b* (xM26) STR variance peaks over a large geographic region encompassing both southeastern and central Europe. I1b* (xM26) frequency peaks in Herzegovinians (64%) and Bosnians (52%) while preserving substantial (30%) frequencies in all SEE populations with the EXCEPTION OF TWO reproductively isolated and non-slavic speaking populations: - Kosovar Albanians and Macedonian Romani."

>>High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic (and other) Populations<< http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964.abstract.89.205.2.29 (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Orel's quotation

The phrasing it seems that Albanian-Greek isoglosses are surprisingly high is a slanted and misleading rephrasing of Orel's actual quote. Firstly, there is no 'apparently' or 'perhaps' when comes to isoglosses, either they are present or they are not. Second, of what 'reconstruction of other proto-languages' is the editor talking about? Orel in this section deals exclusively with Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek forms (or with Albanian and Greek direct comparisons), and historical phonetics is not a matter of opinion, as far as I'm concerned. First I'm not allowed to insert a direct quotation of a scholar because 'to personal in interpretation', and when I insert his direct quote now it gets distorted 'ad libitum'. Really?? Etimo (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But you still cannot present Orel's claim about isoglosses without saying that they are Orel's claims. There is, as you say, no "apparently" about the isoglosses themselves, but there is when it comes to what is a "surprisingly high amount". --T*U (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And what is that supposed to mean? It is 'surprisingly high' because Orel supports the theory of those scholars who claim a "north origin" for Albanian (thus away from Greek-speaking people) and to him this is a surprise because it challenges his personal convictions, but this doesn't mean the isoglosses are not a fact!! Read the whole chapter again (I'd recommend you to read the entire book), and you will understand his position and why he says 'surprising' as well. Etimo (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point: It is Orel who finds it surprisingly high. You cannot then just say that it is surprisingly high. It must be said that it is Orel who finds it surprisingly high. --T*U (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it mate. Let's make a step back. Orel maintains that the original Albanian Urheimat is not the Adriatic coast region because of the lack of indigenous sea-faring original lexicon (and not even in the Balkan Alps for that matter). This is the theory he supports!! BUT, his theory is shaken/challenged/weakened by the SURPRISING FACT that Albanian shares common words with Greek (isoglosses) more than it shares with any other linguistic group (with the exemption of Balto-Slavic, although the gap is not huge), and THIS surprises him because he doesn't expect that, but he's forced to admit it!! Isoglosses are not a personal opinion, because they are compared scientifically, and no author has ever dreamed of accusing Orel of 'unprofessionalism', so it would be very naive if we start engaging in it!! I hope I made myself clear Etimo (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not accusing anybody of anything. I just state that "surprisingly" is such a subjective word that you have to state who is surpriced. You cannot just say that the amount is surpricingly high. You have to say that Orel finds it surprisingly high or similar. I could suggest "However, in a reconstruction attempt of proto-dialects by V.Orel, he finds the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses surprisingly high," etc. --T*U (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not contesting the fact that we should write 'Orel is surprised..', that's obvious. The problem is that the phrase according to a reconstruction attempt of proto-dialects of various languages by V.Orel.. is senseless because: 1) Orel does not 'reconstructs proto-dialects of various languages' he deals with Greek and Albanian or Proto-Greek and Proto-Albanian concrete words (e.g. Alb.ag ~ Gr.augè both meaning 'dawn' is an example of Alb.-Gr. isogloss). 2) The term 'Proto' doesn't mean theory, it denotes the different stages of a word according to historical phonetic laws, which are not a matter of opinion, but a scholarly established fact, no matter if you support the 'Northern Europe' theory, the 'Daco-Baltic-Illyrian' or the 'Martian origin' of Albanian (for that matter). Albanian-Greek isoglosses ARE, not SEEM TO BE. It's like saying PIE 'p' 't' 'k' seem to become 'f' 'th' 'h' in Germanic. Does that make any sense? Etimo (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1) Your last edit started: "the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses is surprisingly high" not mentioning Orel, so it is good that you now state that you are not contesting to mentioon who is surpriced. 2) If you read my suggestion, I have proposed to strike out the "various languages" bit. 3) If you have problems with the "reconstruction attempt of proto-dialects by V.Orel", please suggest another way to mention what he was doing. I take it that we do agree on the rest, which would now be: "However, ... smth Orel smth ... , he finds the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses surprisingly high." Or? --T*U (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention Orel because whoever wrote the article already supports the theory of a 'montainous' or 'away from the sea' origin, (which is the same of Orel's), so I was phrasing in the spirit of the article. Anyway, these are only minor details. My proposal: However, in view of the amount of Albanian-Greek isoglosses, which V. Orel considers surprisingly high (in comparison with the numerous Indo-Albanian and Armeno-Albanian ones), the author concludes that this particular proximity could be the result of intense secondary contacts of two proto-dialects. In the last part you have the exact words of the author (i.e. a direct quotation). I think this could work out well Etimo (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Only one thing: It sounds a bit as if we already have met Orel. Maybe we should say "... which the linguist Vladimir Orel considers ..." to present him better (and wiki-link him). --T*U (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to meEtimo (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient & early medieval references

There has been an edit warring lately about the "albanoi" and also "arbonios and arbonites" in the same section. The user Thanatos666 keeps on claiming without any veryfying source or references that "arbonios and arbonites" were mentioned in singular form.If there is no source for this there is no need to give pov data. I want to remember that in greek language there are many plural ethnic names ending names that end in -es.Example epirotes, arvanites etc...The same thing can be said about the ethnic plural names ending in -os gallos(french), irlandikós etc... About albanoi, im going to give the references here that they are named in different western bibliography as an illyrian tribe.Here [2],[3],[4], [5], [6].I hope that this sources are enough.Lunaur (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Lunaur is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Egad.... /facepalm/

On your imaginary unknown/uncertain grammatical number of the Greek -es suffix-es (i.e. pertaining to Stephanus' τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἀρβώνιος καὶ Ἀρβωνίτης, ὡς Ἀντρώνιος καὶ Ἀσκαλωνίτης):
In e.g. monotonic Modern Greek, it's ΝΟΜ sg Αρβανίτης, NOM pl Αρβανίτες, while in polytonic Ancient Greek, it's NOM sg Ἀρβωνίτης, NOM pl (EDIT:)Ἀρβωνῖται (NOTE: I'm contrasting the declension of the words in question; I'm not claiming they're the same word in two different forms; they could be or they could be not, but that's not the point here). To say the least, you're erroneously confusing Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, the romanisation and probably the phonology thereof.
- And then you're doubling down claiming the same about the -os declension group. WTF?!?! Seriously dude? Γάλλος, Ιρλανδικός could be plural?!? Who knew?!?! Go ahead and "correct" these articles 1, 2 then; and then the grammar books...
On "Ptolemy also mentions the Illyrian tribe[citation needed] named Albanoi":
I've added the cn tag because, as I've said many times, Ptolemy doesn't say anything like this, again as I've said many times, check the cited text. If I'm wrong please show me where he does and I shall correct it myself. You could perhaps reword/rephrase but you're not allowed, among other things, to misquote/misrepresent the sources. I've now, btw, added a similar tag elsewhere for similar reasons.
- On Albanoi being an Illyrian tribe etc. outside the scope and context of Ptolemy's text and the quotation thereof (per your cited sources above):
  Serious scholarly views on the Origin of the Albanians and even of the name thereof itself, is the raison d'être of this article. Do you get the importance of this? If you want to present, to add to the article, that some secondary or tertiary sources claim x, y, z, do it at the proper place of the article and in a proper way; preparing meanwhile yourself of course, for other editors reacting.

The fallacy/argument from ignorance you have been using is, to say the least, something from your personal ignorance, not from a universal one... ;-)

PS To other editors: please take a look at Lunar's edits; they include many other, let's say, interesting things, apart that is, from the ones he has written above.
And then please comment and intervene.
For god's sake, semi-edit-warring on account of, inter alia, basic Greek noun/adjective declensions is pretty lame, it's a huge waste of my time...

PPS Btw the "ar sg forms" part of my last edit summary should obviously read "are pl forms". Trying to respond to so many things within such a short space, I had run out of it, so trying to abbreviate, I erred.

Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Igonred trolling.Please follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks.What i edit here are not of your personal bussines.It's a good thing you mention other editors because i would like to hear their opinion too.

You don't have a source saying whether they were mentioned in singular or plural that's why i suggest not to hurry and add something like you did, even if they were mentioned in singular.Otherwise a "citation needed" tag should be added. The term "epirotes" in ancient and medieval greek was used in plural. However i propose to change the text into a more neutral form. About albanoi please understand that wikipedia accepts the reliable sources as i presented.It does not only accept primary sources.Please follow WP:RS You asked for a citation and i gave that citation.Albanoi are considered an illyrian tribe in modern western bibliography. This article should be as clear as possible for the readers, thats why by adding references we can clarify the parts which need a citation. If you oppose this idea please bring the references that in the same time and in the same place,2 century, there were living a different ethnicity aside from illyrians in the area of Albanopolis.Lunaur (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Lunaur is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

1.Enough is enough!
This is the relevant part of the cited definition: τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἀρβώνιος καὶ Ἀρβωνίτης, ὡς Ἀντρώνιος καὶ Ἀσκαλωνίτης.
It's singular! End of story.
I don't have to include a source explaining and verifying the declension, grammatical gender, number and so on and so forth of every word inside a cited and quoted text written in a language that you obviously don't understand.

2.You, you, are accusing me of trolling and personal attack! Egad... /doublefacepalm/
3.I've reworded/rephrased to emphasise that it's not Ptolemy's words, to differentiate clearly what he said from what the cited sources you've added claim.
4.Learn wiki syntax. E.g. in this case the Citation templates. Also more importantly provide the important details thereof in each and every case. The way you've added citations is miserable; I (and/or other editors) now have to do much more work, something YOU should have done...

Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop reverting reasonable and substantiated edits. As I've many times explained (also see 3 above), Ptolemy does not say they were Illyrians. Please stop edit warring. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A thing I had missed, now discovered after going through your older edits, is the removal of an almost verbatim quotation of a cited source (of course this was a personal pov sentence according to you Lunar) and a removal of a phrase that could have easily been provided with a reference to the same source (pages 1-2). This of course will also have to be remedied, reinstated, in due time...
PS. À propos, I had not reverted this edit of yours despite not being a simplification fo the text (as your edit summary claims), at least according to my reading of the latter; I don't think the end result is wrong per se, but it has altered the meaning of the passage. Perhaps again this edit has to be reconsidered?
PPS. Going through your contributions to other articles is also interesting; I may be seeing things, but a trend seems to be (re)appearing... Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days

This edit-warring had to stop somehow! Favonian (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK although I had already started to fix and insert/complete the syntax/form and bibliographic details of the recently added sources.
Now please, you and other editors and/or administrators, read the entirety of the relevant edits and edit history (I hope I don't have to list and explain in detail each and every edit) and the discussion above and then comment; i.e. the actual content of the disagreement, of the edit-warring; something already requested above... Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone should intervene here. Why do we have to be selective in regarding to the sources? Albanoi are mentioned as an illyrian tribe. The references are given.16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Lunaur (talk)

Certainly not by Ptolemy at the cited passage and then there's among other things this.
And yes other editors should intervene; us two coming to an agreement seems improbable (mind the self-referential paradox)... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ptolemy is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It is unacceptable to use it to push a nationalist POV. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A.At last, someone else has commented!
B.Please elaborate explaining who's done what when and how, according to your view. I dare say that laconizein is not philosophein in such a case... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not here to analyse any actions. I just stated my opinion that Ptolemy is a primary source and it should not be used to advance the view that he mentioned the Albanoi as an Illyrian tribe. This should be left to secondary sources to analyse. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1.Well the thing is he didn't say any such thing about them (we have also put them under 'unknown ethnicity' which makes things contradictory). I.e. the most important thing in this case in my opinion, primary source or not and use thereof, is the misrepresentation of the source. Had he written anything relevant I personally would have no problem, in fact I would agree (or put in another way, I couldn't care less about whether Ptolemy's Albanoi were Illyrians or Martians) having the relevant part of the passage read for example:
'According to Ptolemy(reference) the Albanoi were an Illyrian (or Chinese or whatever) tribe living in Albanopolis'.
In any case please see the 2 actual phrasings and please explain where you agree/disagree with each one; you could also propose a different phrasing. Otherwise your intervention would be of no help to end this dispute.

2.This not the only difference/disagreement in this semi-edit-war, in this dispute. See previous talk section and the article's edit history.Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct in your assessment that he does not mention that they are Illyrian. But that doesn't really matter. Because Ptolemy is a primary source and we don't quote primary sources, especially in controversial matters involving the ethnic origin of people. This is why I said before we need a secondary source to interpret the primary source of Ptolemy. If some academic mentioned that Ptolemy said that we could quote him. Otherwise any such mention is out of the question. By the way, what are the two phrasings you are mentioning? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A. Among other things I have to remind you that the section before us is titled 'Primary sources' and the subsection 'Ancient & early medieval references to people of unknown ethnicity' :-" We have every right to quote what ancient sources say. Then come the medieval refs etc.. Then comes a scholarly presentation and analysis. The structure of the article imo is very good; congrats to whoever constructed it. B. I'm obviously referring to my phrasing vs Lunaur's phrasing; you know the phrasings of/inside the latest of the edits that were going reverted back and forth causing the page protection, the call for intervention etc..... Am I writing on the right talk page??? :D Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am I to understand that you expect me to read through all that mess? Can you not just simply tell me what the two alternatives are? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, to be frank, I actually think that when intervening in an actual disagreement and dispute, one has to, among other things, actually go read through all of it... That's what I do or at least that's what I think I must do. :-"
But anyway, here it is (I remind you again that this is not the only disagreement).
PS Btw I also think that instead of referring to the map, the passage should refer to Ptolemy's text, the Geography. Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I had seen that diff. I agree with your version. I simply thought there was yet another version hiding somewhere in another section. I just can't bring myself to read through all the catcalls, facepalms, edit-warring accusations and all that stuff. I try to skim through all that as much as I can. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK next request:
please also check the latter part of this; I don't object to the use of 'ethnic name' instead of 'ethnonym', but clarifying that the terms are in the singular number is imo something obviously necessary and not... (see previous talk section).
PS To cut a long story short the final request will then be to see whether this should be reverted (removal of a practically verbatim quotation of the source claiming personal POV) and then whether the cn tag should be removed using this (same source, different pages: 1,2). That's it for now. Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The removed part could be readded, but rephrased. For instance, I didn't see in pages 1 and 2 of the Fine reference that the Albanians would have retreated to the mountains of Northern Albania. The reference only mentions "mountains" without specifying which ones. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1.You haven't commented on the grammatical number part/issue (different edit). Please do! 2.That's partially true. I had already thought about it, thinking that there should be a clarification inside the ref not the text per se. Fine talks about mountains, mentions i.a. the northern part of Albania (page 1), and then goes on about mountains "concluding" (page 2, middle of) that's this is how&where Vlachs and Albanians retained respectively their Dacian and Illyrian character/origin. My cause for concern and for the need of clarification (inside the ref) was not that he doesn't mention Northern Albania (he does) but whether citing this could be considered SYNTH or whatever (recall that prior to this the wikiarticle paragraph and the cited/quoted pages of the book/source (page 11) are about the Dacian Origin of the Albanians hypothesis while in page 2 it's the Illyrian one). Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the connection to page 11. Don't forget, this is neither my area of expertise, nor of interest. I only came here to help eliminate the edit-warring, so please give me some leeway. I had only looked at pages 1 and 2. Now looking at page 11, for starters, the phrase: Thus it would have been a region whose indigenous population would naturally have fled is a close paraphrase from page 11 of Fine and should be modified. Second pages 1 and 2, when they mention fleeing to the mountains, cover the Illyrian theory so strictly speaking it is synthesis to connect it to the Dacian theory. Not only it is synthesis but noone knows what would have happened to the people after they left the Morava valley. It is not clear that they would go to the Albanian mountains. They could have gone somewhere else for shelter. Conclusion: We cannot mix details form pages 1-2 and page 11. As far as your comment: You haven't commented on the grammatical number part/issue (different edit, please let's deal with one topic at a time. This is bad enough as it is. We don't need additional complications. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1.Just to be clear, here's my disclaimer: I'm also neither an expert nor particularly or very strongly interested in this.
2.a.The first part is sourced and should reinstated (EDIT: with a slight rewording so that it wouldn't constitute plagiarism). Do we have an agreement? b. Now to the second part ie for example.... I've already pointed to the possibility of regarding this, adding said ref, as SYNTH (or whatever). The possibility on the other hand and hence the use of phrasing of this kind for example..., seems reasonable to me, seems fine within this context or at least easily solvable through rewording/rephrasing; it's also not unreasonable imo to assume, that interested parties might be able to provide in the future relevant references, so we could just stick with it as it would be after reinstating it, i.e. by not removing the cn and or tags. In any case, I can just say to hell with it, go ahead if you must and remove this completely; one could argue that this or something of the sort is already implied in the text and in the sources...
3.Would I sound too pedantic if I were to point out that the gr.number request came first and that is arguably the most trivially easy thing to actually respond to (and hence to edit-war and argue over this is, as I've many a time said, ridiculous...)?? :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with proposal 2a., i.e. I agree with reinstating the first part, subject to suitable paraphrasing. As for no. 3., I haven't looked at it in any detail, so I can't comment. Bear also in my mind that we have sockpuppetry involved. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

1.See 1-2(minor rewording)-3(fixed typo), 4, and if necessary, comment and/or edit. 2. Yes I had been informed about the sockpuppetry allegation at my talk page by a thoughtful IP editor (and later about its conclusion/verdict by you...). Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The references given were from historians, so i think that we should change "according to some modern views was an Illyrian" → "viwed as illyrian by modern historians". The term "according to some modern views" is too vague and does not represent the fact that this tribe is not mentioned in any book as any other ethnicity asside from illyrians.17:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Lunaur (talk) Lunaur is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't use such negative existential statements so freely, so trivially, when reasoning inductively, but well, that's just me... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology section

To sum up, the specific section points to the Illyrian-Albanian discontinuity rather than continuity, and should be in specific parts re-written:

It start with a theory rejected by mainstream scholars.
Then continues with a Roman-medieval archaeological analysis and concludes that "most of the west Balkans (including Dardania) appears to have been depopulated after the early 7th century from almost a century.", i.e. the historical link with Illyrians is broken.
After that we have "Another aspect of continuity" (or better discontinuity) ... the tombs in the 7th century, such burials are in a Christian context (placed next to churches) rather than reversion to a pagan Illyrian past. Ok again the link is broken.
At the end again the Komani culture stuff, which is rejected by mainstream bibliography per same section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide reals studies rather than just webpages? This is an article that needs a broad range of views and it is not just informative. It is first of all scientific. The latest source you added on the "Pelasgian theory" section is from some webpage of an Aromanian society in US. It's like if go to edit the "Origin of the Greeks" and put as a source the webpage of the Macedonian league of US, or Vatra's webpage. You tend to blurry everything that is related to Albania, but you cannot pretend to be reliable with sources like this.

There are archeologists, Albanians (Ceka), or Croatian (Stipcevic) that have studied the Komani culture which are never mentioned. The only one surprisingly are the Serbian, Romanian, or Mecedonian. If you don't have any real scientific source, which is fine, jump to another article. You are not obliged to edit everything that is related to Albanians.

By the way, the theory of Pelasgian origin was mainly pushed by a vast nr of Greek authors of 19th century. I will come soon with a list. I think you know that too, it is just that you don't like the idea.

Mondiad (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) What's really weird is that you claim that a top graded, professor of the University of Oxford [[7]], Peter Mackridge, is [[8]]... a biased source. Before reverting you need to explain what makes such an author non-rs. Moreover, per Mackridge, all these that claim about the Pelasgian link are not to be treated seriously (some Greek 19th century authors too, who used it for political reasons). In general ancestral connection with mythical people is at least ridiculous and can’t be regarded as a scientific approach. Alexikoua (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The supposed Konami hypothesis, which by the way is unknown outside of Albania and the western world is heavily questioned and rejected without hesitation:

"Archaeologists in Albania, a country cut off from western Europe between 1945 and 1991, have made much of the sub-Roman Komani culture (see Chapter 4 below). These (undocumented) peoples, they deduced on the most tenuous grounds, were a link between the prehistoric Illyrians and the Albanians first mentioned in an eleventh-century Byzantine chronicle."

To sum up fringe theories such as this one should be treated with heavy caution.Alexikoua (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In general ancestral connection with mythical people is at least ridiculous and can’t be regarded as a scientific approach..really?? Coming from a Greek?? Irony abounds..Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etimo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ducagini in the 7th century

Highly dubious. See Talk:Dukagjini_family for discussion.--Zoupan 19:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Update, Makushev published this as part of a "14th-century manuscript", which is not used in scholarship. Removed.--Zoupan 00:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I put it again. I don't see any single reason to remove this source that still remains valid until contrary is proved. Herakliu (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Herakliu: No, you don't put it again. It is unvalid, taken from an alleged 14th-century manuscript made up of legends.--Zoupan 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I may sound harsh, but you don't minimally possess the authority do decide if this source is invalid. It's your opinion against Makushev, Hammond and Gegaj. I will be obliged to report you if you persist. Herakliu (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Authority? Please report me. If you refuse to identify Reliable Sources and choose Undue Weight, this is your problem, and not mine.--Zoupan 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. Both of these two criteria are respected, or maybe we start to doubt about Hammond? Apart from the fact that you aren't giving any argument except for, "it's false, it talks about legends etc.etc.", your personal impressions and opinions that couldn't be less relevant in the context Wikipedia operates. This is my final edit, next time this will go to the attention of administrators. Herakliu (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Following the advice of EdJhonston, I thought it was good to continue the discussion here.

@Zoupan:You are talking to me citing "common sense", a thing you clearly lack judging from the numerous messages you wrote to me. You made 5 points, 4 of wich are completely irrelevant to the veridicity of the source or just made up by you in order to suit your agenda ( (1)14th century, (2)Gin Tanusio are the irrelevant ones; the false ones are (3)made up histories and legends, (4)not used in scholarship, the document doesn't contain any strange history of magics or mythology, it's just a historical account with a chronology coherent in space, time, situation and circumstances; and unfortunately for you, yes, it is used in scholarship). The only semiserious thing you wrote in so many messages is that there is a mistake in chronology (precisely the part more removed in time, the oldest), a thing that if taken seriously as an argument would consequently invalidate the majority of historical sources we use today in order to write history. But that's exactly the work of a historian, to tell apart mystifications from truth, in order to give an accurate account of facts. But nobody sane of his mind would say that the Bible is all a farse just because it contains obvious mythology in it (same discourse could be done with an insane amount of old documents and sources we use today).

Now, unfortunately Wikipedia put me in condition to reason with people possessing an IQ many STs below mines, or that simply have a pathetic and obvious antiAlbanian agenda, therefore you are effectively blocking this page of wikipedia being enriched with a legit source used in scholarship.

Don't even think for a second I will back down from this. Herakliu (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Herakliu, if you have questions about the usability of sources, they can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The people who disagree with you are expressing surprise that you want to make a large change to the history of Albania based on what might be considered a 'thin' source. Whether something is trusted as valid by the majority of scholars is an answerable question. Consensus is the best way to determine that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Smashed at RS board.--Zoupan 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Map of E-V13 and study by Cruciani, et al.

Some editor is trying to remove this image from inclusion in the article. This image is accurately based on the study by Cruciani [9]. The anonymous editor is claiming certain sampled locations are excluded, but that is not a reason to remove an image with a proper source.173.238.79.44 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The frequencies on the map are based on scarce samples and are overally misleading with just one sample location in each country and many countries excluded. Why then the map should be included? There can be plenty of sourced content, but misplaced. The best place of that map is the article of the haplogroup, where the sampled locations are listed. Here it is better to replace with a sentence, stating that the highest levels of the haplogroup belong to the Kosovar Albanians. The map shows Albania with higher levels of E-V13 than Kosovo and Peloponese simply because of lacking dataset from these regions. QLao (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The map is based on the data of the study. Just because you have issues with the study is not a valid argument against its inclusion in the article. The Cruciani study has samples from Albania, northern Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, southern Italy, Sicily, northern Italy, etc. Thus, the map is completely valid. The map also does not show Albania has a higher frequency of E-V13 than Kosovar Albanians, but only of the frequencies of the populations sampled in that specific study, which includes Albanians from Albania and thus is useful to include in this article. The Albanians from Albania sampled in the Cruciani study had greater than 30 % frequency of E-V13. Every other study has shown that the highest frequencies of E-V13 are exactly like those in the map - Kosovo Albanians, Albanians in Macedonia and Albanians in Albania. Albanians have the highest frequency by far in Europe of the subclade of this haplotype, which is what the map shows, and it decreases steadily as one travels further from the Albanian area (Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia), and is absent among many Europeans in northern and western Europe. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Anyway, I didn't ask you to explain if the data is based on the study or is it sourced. I am asking you to explain why is the image accurate and suitable for the article. See, the frequencies of Albanians in Y-DNA haplogroups in European populations, Kosovar have the highest E-V13 and the map is unrealistic, you can see there many areas of Greece, the Balkans and Kosovo having different and higher levels of E-V13 than Albania and what the map shows. That's why I say the map isn't objective and unsuitable for the article. QLao (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that Kosovar Albanians and Albanians in Macedonia have higher frequencies, based on other studies. This map is only based on the Cruciani study, which is why I stated this in the insert of the image. You seem to be having trouble understanding that a reliable source, especially a peer-reviewed academic study, is allowed to be included in the article, regardless of your own opinions on the study. The map is accurately based on that study, and shows that Albania has greater than 30%, which is what the sample in the study said. Parts of the map like Kosovo and Macedonia, where Albanians have even higher percentages, are also shown to be +30%. The other locations are all based on the sampled populations in the study. It is relevant to showing the uniquely high amounts of E-V13 in Albanians, and neighbouring areas, and is the only image available from the study. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So you confirm that Kosovo and Macedonia have higher percentages, but just because this is based on one sample location in Albania you think is suitable to be included here? That represents misleading and subjective frequencies to represent a topic of the Albanians and the Balkans. The whole western Balkans, including Kosovo, is not sampled by the study. QLao (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally I'm not a fan of the map and agree with QLao. It's also important to note that there are pockets of heavy concentrations of the haplogroup in Southern Greece -- higher than any Albanian population except that in Kosovo, breaching 40% -- which aren't shown... --Yalens (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroup J2b

I don't understand why my (added) content regarding haplogroup J2b among Albanians is being removed, when I cited multiple sources backing up my claims. Is this not how Wikipedia is supposed to be?! This is very relevant, as this is one of the main Y-DNA haplogroups among Albanians and the same sub-branch as Albanians was recently found in an ancient DNA context from Bronze Age Croatia, dated at 1500-1700 BCE. Trojet15 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: The problem with your edits seems to be well illustrated by your own description: "multiple sources backing up my claims". There is nothing wrong with the sources, but none of them are actually expressing the conclusions you present. Please read here about original research and here about synthesis. Neither original research nor synthesis is allowed in Wikipedia. What you will need is reliable sources expressing those conclusions. Your personal conclusions are as worthless as mine or any other editor's. --T*U (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you T*U for looking into this. I see a lot of IPs and new accounts pushing the same edits. I may have to open an SPI. Unfortunately, I'm still on vacation. Dr. K. 18:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Tu-NOR. What conclusions did I make? All I did was add under haplogroup J2b that the same J2b sub-branch, J2b2a-L283 (which is one of the main Y-DNA haplogroups among Albanians), was found in an ancient DNA context in Bronze Age Croatia. You have an issue with this? Trojet15 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15, I don't think TU-nor needs to repeat himself, does he? I highly recommend you check the following: Original Research (click here) and Synthesis (click here). If you have any questions regarding the rules, feel free to ask and we will be glad to help. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes he does. He accused me of "expressing conclusions". I did none of that. How many times do I need to repeat what I actually added. I believe it can be seen here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782165791

I see a great deal of bias here. I'm starting to lose credibility to Wikipedia administration. I added something very relevant to the topic (Origins of the Albanians) under the Genetics section, which is based on scientific paper, and not a hypothesis by a linguist. Trojet15 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: Please read again: I have not "accused you" of expressing conclusions, I have said that you have presented them. You stated a fact based on sources, and presumably "found in an ancient DNA context from Bronze Age Croatia" is not just a random fact, but a fact that you find relevant to the article. In your statement you present an implicit conclusion that the find in Croatia is relevant to the origin of Albanians. I repeat: What you will need is reliable sources expressing this conclusion. I will remind you about what WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (my bolding). --T*U (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole. Now you say: "I have not accused you of expressing conclusions". What is this from your first reply then: "There is nothing wrong with the sources, but none of them are actually expressing the conclusions you present." BTW, I didn't even make any conclusions, besides pointing out what was found in an ancient DNA context from Bronze Age Croatia (Dalmatia), and how it compares with the Albanian J2b. (My actual edit can be seen in my previous reply). Look "TU-nor", I understand you will undo anything that in your mind implies a connection between Albanians and Illyrians, as this was one of them. This is also pretty evident based on your previous edits on the subject. And it's quite unfortunate for the Wikipedia administration to allow this. (It raises the question how fair they are, and who they it's actually controlled by).

DNA analysis of ancient populations is only getting started. The edit I made was one of them. Scientific facts will come out sooner or later. We will soon not have to rely so much on the theories of Slavic or Albanian linguistics and historians on these matters. Trojet15 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: I'm afraid I do not see any hole...

First a grammar lesson. In the text "none of them are actually expressing the conclusions you present", the subject for the verb "are expressing" is "none of them", and the verb connected to "you" is "present". So I repeat: "I have not "accused you" of expressing conclusions. What I have "accused you" of, is "present[ing] ... the conclusions" You are presenting the conclusions that are not expressed in the sources.

Then you say that you did not even make any conclusions. Superficially that is true, but as I tried to explain, you presented an implicit conclusion. I will try to explain the principle again. Let us assume that an article about A tells us (with a reliable source) that A has the property X. Let us further assume that we have a reliable source saying that B has the property X. This fact is admissible in the article about A if and only if the fact is relevant, and it is relevant if and only if a connection can be established between A and B. And now we come to the point: That connection has to be sourced. If you just enter the fact "B has property X", you are implicating that there is a connection. That is an implicit conclusion, exactly what WP:SYNTH is saying: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.".

Your allegations about biased editing does not really deserve an answer. Anyone can inspect my contributions. Feel free to report me. --T*U (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor, there is no point to report you when it appears that Wikipedia is administered by your friends. (Me thinks there is a reason why this topic was all of a sudden blocked from editing, without even having the dispute on the "Talk" section first). You're talking about conclusions presented, which my edits expressed none, but were rather based on what my sources were presenting. I can point you to many such conclusions presented in this article when the source doesn't even present it. However, I do not want to change the subject, but I would rather like to reach an agreement of how do we present the edits I made regarding haplogroup J2b in Albanians which there is already a section about and relevant to the topic "Origins of the Albanians". I believe wholeheartedly this agreement can be reached, assuming Wikipedia doesn't show bias. Trojet15 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That is quite simple. You can add it to the article if and when you find a reliable source that makes the connection and establishes the relevance of the Croatia find for the origin of Albanians. Without such source, you cannot add it. And if you still have not understood what synthesis is, I cannot help you. --T*U (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor, I already did that. Apparently you have a problem with it, as you were so quick to delete it multiple times. I do not need to repeat myself again and again about the situation. So I shouldn't bother with you. This needs to be addressed with the Wikipedia administration. BTW, I very well understand what synthesis is. Apparently such things can be interpreted in different ways here, as it's evident in this article. Trojet15 (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Repetitions are necessary when there is lack of understanding. You need a reliable source that says that the Croatia find is relevant to the origin of Albanians. So far, you have not. --T*U (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

TU-nor, Yes, I did. It's relevant to Albanian J2b, which is one of the main Albanian Y-DNA haplogroups. Why even have an (outdated) section about genetics under this article, and even one about J2b when it's irrelevant. All I'm editing is some updates about it based on sources I provided. But you are too quick to undo it because in your mind it implies a scientific connection between Albanians and Illyrians, which I never even mentioned (as the my reference didn't either). I have nothing further to add with you, so please do not reply to me with the same excuses. Trojet15 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Trojet15: Yes, it is quite obvious that the two of us will not get any further with this. But if you want to proceed, there are some options. The simplest one is to ask for a "third opinion", which you can read about here. What is probably a better choice, is to open a "request for comment", see here. Then you will probably get input from more people, and you may have the chance to create a consensus for your view, regardless of the page being protected. --T*U (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Do not remove maps

Please do not remove maps that show Albanians in the VIth and VIIth century. Albanians did not come from the moon in the XIth century: they were there. sulmues--Sulmues 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

no they didn't come from the moon nor they were here. albanians came from today's azerbaijan. It is funny as you accept "albanoi" and other similar words as possible origin, but you forget the 1:1 match - albania in azerbaijan... truth is one, and you may twist it as much as you want - azerbaijan will return always again because it is clear what is the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.209.193 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The map needs to go, since it is scientificly wrong: a school atlas of a communist regime of 1970... ignoring the entire western bibliographyAlexikoua (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) latin language(surrounded by red color ,from 100bc to 1400 ad)

Why is E-V13 = E-V68 used for E1b1b1a?

"In human genetics, E-V68, also known as E1b1b1a, is a major Y chromosome haplogroup " - you write on Wikipedia. Then, here there are strange formulations - no sense ! What are THEY HIDING ?

No idea what you're talking about but it's WP:NOTAFORUM. --Yalens (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Claim not supported by inline reference

I've removed the specific inline [[10]] due to the fact that it's not supporting the correspondent text.Alexikoua (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Coming late to this. I'm pretty sure that was mis-attributed -- it was probably Pericic who said that. --Yalens (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, only thing Pericic says of that sort is for E-V13 specifically having a high value due to genetic drift. --Yalens (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pelasgian theory

I neither support nor reject this theory because I don't know enough of it. However I made these edits to enter a doubt on the references:

It's not well referenced that the theory is dead.
Page is needed for the reference from Schwandners.

Thank you. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Made another edit to reference where Malcolm says that the pelasgian theory would be rejected by modern linguists, which is unreferenced to a modern linguist who rejects it openly: if that's the case we can't have this in an "obsolete theory" paragraph. Still can't find the reference as to where would the Albanian nationalists TODAY would endorse these theories, so pointed out to only the Albanian early 20th century publicists. As far as I can read, Malcolm talks about Chekrezi, Dako, and Noli who lived in the beginning of the 20th century.--Sulmues ^(talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pelasgian "theory" is completely rejected by serious academics. Only in nationalist circles does it still retain support. We don't need Noel Malcolm to tell us that "it would be rejected by today's linguists", because it IS rejected by today's linguists. It is also obsolete, not "another" theory. Athenean (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was the only reference I saw, and I would like to have better ones from linguists. Changed to "obsolete" back, since I don't have any new linguists who support it. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Still problematic. I noticed you changed "Another obsolete theory..." to "A theory". The Pelasgian theory is obselete, it's not just "another theory". It's interesting how you are quick to label the Caucasian theory "obsolete" and "debunked", but are unwilling to do the same for the Pelasgian theory. Also you are wrong about the Pelasgians. We do not know if they "preceded" the Hellenes, or if the Hellenes were Pelasgians originally. In fact, we don't know anything about them, so the best we can say is "autochthonous inhabitants", which is how the ancient sources describe them. Athenean (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because I don't have references for the obsolescence of the Pelasgian theory, and as long as I have a reference I'm not quick to judge. Regarding the pelasgians, they precede the Hellenes according to the very first sentence of their article [11]. And how come you are so sure that the Albanians are not coming from the pelasgians if you know so little about the latter? --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference provided states quite clearly that the theory is obsolete, so stop playing games. As for the Pelasgians, the burden of proof is on the claiming that the Albanians descend from the Pelasgians, not the other way around. Athenean (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does it state it? It says that "modern historians would reject it" and that's what I entered in the article. We have to stick to sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, they do reject it. The only reason he uses "would" is because the theory is so fringe, that most scholars can't even be bothered to actually reject it. Stop playing word games. The title of the source is "Myths in albanian national identity". Myths. Get it? Athenean (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the title of the book. Written by a sociologist and by Noel Malcolm whom you have several times rejected. Now that I am using him correctly you want me to say "another obsolete theory" when Malcolm himself doesn't say it. It would be OR if I do. And that's why we have it under "obsolete theories" anyways. However from there to state myself that it is an obsolete theory is far fetched. I guess it is Ok to put "Obsolete theories" or "Other theories" or "Non-mainstream theories" in the paragraph title, but my wording should be coherent with what the source says. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the Pelasgian "theory" is in fact a "myth" and nothing more. There is no OR on my part, only an ORish attempt on your part to make the Pelasgian myth appear more respectable. It's bunk and you know it very well, so stop this.

Your revert and entry of the old wording is disruptive, Athenean, I entered references there. Please review those references before you bring old versions. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The "old" version is far more encyclopedic that yours. At least I read and understand the sources. It looks like I have no choice but to ask for mediation by Future Perfect or DBachmann, and you will once again be humiliated like at Bardyllis, remember? Athenean (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How about I remind you of this, where you are specifically asked to avoid grave-dancing? And why would be your version more encyclopedic? --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. That refers to ZjarriRrethues' interaction ban. Since I am not interacting with him in any way shape or form, there is no "grave-dancing" on my part. My version is more encyclopedic because I call an obsolete spade an obsolete spade, not a "non mainstream" spade. That's weasel wording to make a debunked theory appear more respectable (in contrast to the "Caucasian theory" section, where you are very very keen to use words like "obsolete" and "debunked. Athenean (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if I call it obsolete, your version doesn't reference to a specific page where the Albanian nationalists would be still linked to the pelasgians theory. The book as I referenced makes a review of early 20th century Albanian publicists. In three pages (77-79) Malcolm talks only about them, not today's nationalists. That's just your original research, so if you write something in Wikipedia, make sure to reference it properly, not with a book and that's it. You need to fully cite. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Must consider the authors like Mathieu Aref about the Pelasgian who presented his theory in University of Sorbonne in France: https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathieu_Aref So it is actually widely accepted the Pelasgian with Thraco-Illyrian and possibility connection to Dacian, Hititi, etc. Please add references to his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWeb13 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

In order to reach higher statuses serious sources should be used for this article. Just entered the first one. [12] --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Shaban Demiraj is a WP:RS per several comments of FPS on him. [13] [14], [15] --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) A review of the book can be found here. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC) As a reminder for the last thread, Demiraj rejects the Pelasgian theory fully. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Caucasian theory is based on Serbian and Greek prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.238.24 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Albania - Odissey of a pre-hellenic people, Mathieu Aref 2007, https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shqip%C3%ABria_%E2%80%93_odiseja_e_pabesueshme_e_nj%C3%AB_populli_parahelen

Mikenët = Pellazgët: Greqia ose zgjidhja e një enigme (Mycenaean = Pelasgian : Greece or the solution of an Enigma), Mathieu Aref 2004, https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miken%C3%ABt_%3D_Pellazg%C3%ABt:_Greqia_ose_zgjidhja_e_nj%C3%AB_enigme

The messianic role of the Albanian language, Petro Zheji 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Zheji --BenWeb13 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I would like to edit this page as I would like to include some info on the section about Ydna, I would like to include how a major Albanian haplogroup called J2b2-L283 was found in a proto-Illyrian site in Croatia/Dalmatia which suggests that Albanians genetically could descend from Illyrians or other Paleo-Balkanites also I would like to include how two other major Albanian haplogroups were also found in ancient sites of Croatia(One R1b-Z2103 found in Vucedol and the father clade of the main Albanian haplogroup, E-V13 being found in Dalmatia/Croatia as well as the grandfather clade of this haplogroup being found in ancient Bulgaria). Also I think that the opening on how Albanians aren't descended from a single group is very much inaccurate as genetics and lingustics as they suggest that Albanians originate from a very small and homogeneous community so saying that Albanians are basically a mix isn't really accurate although there could be some foreign elements among Albanians like Germanic, Celtic, Vlach etc they are very insignificant. Thanks.

Kelmendi123 I gotta disagree with you on Albanian linguistics-- in fact more than half the vocabulary comes from Latin, coming in the ancient times, for words as basic as peshk (fish, Latin piscis), mashkull (male, Latin masculus), and according to some analyses, even katër (four, Latin quattuor) -- all core words that should be "resistant" to replacement. Native vocabulary by the most generous estimates makes up less than 20% of the Albanian lexicon, making Albanian one of the most heavily loanword-influenced languages in Europe (and providing loads of frustration for historical phonologists). Likewise, genetics shows a lot of commonalities with neighboring Balkan peoples, especially Greeks, who share all the major haplogroups with Albanians, although ironically its the Ghegs and not the Tosks who appear more similar genetically to Greeks, and among the Greeks its Southern Greeks that are more like Albanians.

Anyhow, as for your edit request-- that does seem relevant, despite my disagreements with you. However, in order to state that it supports any theory, a usable source must first say this, otherwise its WP:SYN. Otherwise, the best we can do is say it, in one sentence preferably a short one. Still it is relevant. --Yalens (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yalens You do make some valid points although Latin accounts for around 40% of the the Albanian language and the native words are higher than 20% since only Latin left a major linguistic influence. Also Greeks share our haplogroups but they usually don't share the subclades or STRs really closely for example both Albanians and Greeks have J2 but Greeks have J2a in majority whilst Albanians have J2b2-L283 etc. As for genetic similarity on PCA plots Tosks are slightly more southern than Ghegs on average and are thus plot closer to Greeks than Ghegs and IBD sharing shows that Albanians are really homogeneous. I do have sources showing the J2b2-L283 being found in Croatia as well as the other haplogroups found among Albanians and they are these https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616 and http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b2a1. Am I now able to edit the page? Thanks. --Kelmendi123

Greeks have J2b as well, just in lower quantities (but higher than non-Albanian neighbors -- i.e. 6-9%), while their E1b1b subclade is mostly the same (while R1b doesn't favor one subclade in either group). Over 50% Latin comes from Orel, who's kind of the expert, but that's not the only foreign influence as you also have Gothic, Ancient Greek, Byzantine Greek (incl basic words like nevojë), Modern Greek (akoma, etc), Old Church Slavonic and later Slavic languages, Turkish, Italian, French, English (especially nowadays) and others. Even Albanologists regularly mess this up and will mistake a Latin or Ancient Greek word for native-- Elsie called "qytet" native but it's Latin for example (as nouns with lemmas ending in -tet). Even the name for the language itself (shqip) probably comes from Latin (excipere, to enunciate).

As for the genetics on the page, please don't use Eupedia. As for the other source, uhh sure, just make sure you don't make any WP:SYN violations. Specifically, you can't say the data favors one theory if the source doesn't explicitly say that. All you can do is present what it says.--Yalens (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

P.s. Kelmendi123 I find OR like this [[16]] that BATO just removed fascinating, but you gotta know that WP:OR is not supposed to go on pages. Thanks for your contributions but please take a bit to consult the OR policy I linked. Thanks! --Yalens (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yalens Ok, i'm new to this so sorry if I make some mistakes lol. Thanks.--Kelmendi123

Yalens I think you need to accept the edit request for me to be able to edit but i'm not sure so I thought it best to ask you.--Kelmendi123

Kelmendi123 I apparently don't know how to do that -- actually I can't see any edit you may have made, neither here nor on your contribs. Maybe ask a mod? Furthermore, I just noticed the convo above-- if you happen to be the same person as Trojet15, you may not be aware of this, but there are people who won't take kindly to that, and if you aren't straightforward about it, you could get yourself banned. Please see WP:SOCK. You've got to make sure you don't come off as if you're trying to be deceptive. If that is the case that you own both, I recommend stating it outright, and then committing to only using one account. As for the edit, if I get a moment, I'm going to inspect the source and see if there's something worth adding, and if so I'll do it myself I guess.--Yalens (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the paper about Illyrians or Albanians. Therefore all this falls under WP:OR. Khirurg (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg Let's say the source mentions J2b---- historically somewhere in Croatia. That doesn't necessarily favor the Illyrian theory at all. On the contrary it's notable because it pertains to the external distribution of the haplogroup, which is discussed for all the haplogroups listed in that section. Ironically it could also open the possibility of Slavic-speaking (from Croatia) mediation of the J2b into Albania in some analyses followed by massive genetic drift in an isolated mountain population (of course this would also be OR to say on the page). --Yalens (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yalens No I am not Trojet15, yh would be great if you could do the edit and maybe just mention how the three haplogroups associated with Albanians were found in ancient Croatia. J2b2 in Albanians can't be from Slavs since they have it in a very small amount and the sample of J2b2-L283 pre-dates Slavic migrations.--Kelmendi123

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane ^talk 04:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)