Talk:Pelasgians/Archive 4

This page 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.

Albanian stuff

ok, here is the von Hahn reference[1]: Albanesische Studien (1854). N Malcolm in Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002) says: "The theory quickly established itself among Albanian writers ... The primary function of this Pelasgian theory was, of course, to establish a claim of priority." (pp. 76ff.) We can cite this here, with a link to Albanian nationalism for details. It is, however, childish nonsense and only makes Albanians look bad, and we have to avoid the implication that Albanians in general are uneducated nationalist zealots. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry but, i think deeply this is a child comportment, all i said it is to have the albanian perspektive in the voice pelasgians with names and opinion of scholars from all the world (all enemies of greece?), not to say in wikipedia that albanians are pelasgians, so stop provokating, and the conversation for the "albanian perspektive" can't continue simply because the users change always subjekts and have always the right to say that this theories are comunist theories, or nationalist theories, if you want to hide the fakt that too much scholars supported this theories you are simply indoctrinated to the waves anti-albanian (and this information is maked with education), open your brain before judge other opinions, stop PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry, this isn't going anywhere. See WP:FRINGE: Wikipedia isn't a collection of random "perspectives". We report on academically published hyoptheses, weight given relative to their notability. There was indeed an academic suggestion to the effect of your "perspective", forwarded in the mid 19th century. This is duly noted in the aritcle. If you have more recent academic sources, cite them. If you don't, stop spamming us. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

if you read the source carefuly the authors does not exclude the fact that Albanian national myths might assume true historical fact , if you just take a sentences from the source you will come to the conclusion you believe, so there are speaking for National myth and many authors Albanians and foreigners that supported this view [2]Dodona (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians are Albanians, Albanians were in Greece before Greeks, Albanians are the most ancient people in Europe, Albanians are the basis of the Greek pantheon of gods, Albanians are the master race and the source of all civilization and we should be aware of this, we should look with awe upon Albanians, we should become Albanians, we should donate all our funds to Albania---I assure you people across the world do not give a hoot as far as this article is concerned, we just want an article reflecting current academia and are somewhat bemused by all the hubbub, we see the shoddiness of the fringe theories, and the Albanian editors here rather than doing something positive for their nationality are doing a diservice. Those poor Slovaks, they don't have any Pelasgian, Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian or Egyptian preoccupations! What do they do for fun? Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is nationalism and evident at at that.The admins above have explained it to you dodona.And the "claim of priority" in the source shows the revanchism of the issue that is nationalism. Megistias (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

if do not show any respect wait the same in exchange , what you do is very bad for all the greek and albanians, they are talking about national myths nothing else is assumed as you describe.So if the link with the greek is describe is that Greek nationalisem ?? You are not doing any good to your country and to no one,i am sure about that.P.S For fun we F..--Dodona (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona, please respect WP:TALK. If you have a suggestion to make, plese do it, citing your sources. Otherwise please consider taking this discussion elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

yes i agree, just a joke, the source you indicate does not show anything about pelasgians and is irelevant and this national myth is not only among the Albanian nationalists but among simple people of Albania, so you understand saing waht you want is a insult for them, i am not assuming nothing,just mentioning facts ,old and modern sources supporting this theory.--Dodona (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been answered Dodona more than 500 times on more than 100 pages from a number of admins and users.You dont belong in wiki you just repost and ignore everything.Megistias (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your insults are not any answer to my argument you just are attacking me as you do always when you have nothing to say --Dodona (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism does it say anything about pelasgian albanian link , it say that albanians have not archeologic evidence but serbs yes they have !!--Dodona (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And the Greeks ,of course how i forgot them !--Dodona (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is of interest that Albanians and other peoples (Greeks, even some Romanians! )link themselves to Pelasgians, but devoting a large section of Pelasgians to the subject? No, rather create a separate article for that and link it. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Or add a small section in Albanian nationalism since Pelasgians are their means of revanchism as they link them to Illyrians-Aegyptians-Greeks-Romans-Thracians-Atlanteans the Gods of Olympus and Gods know what else.Megistias (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For example *Giuseppe catapano "Thot parlava albanese".He wrote that Thot the Egyptian spoke Albanianillire.Hilarious pseudohistorian.Megistias (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all a waste of time of course.The whole page if you guys havent noticed is full of albanian spamming fringe and nationalist theories.You admins should do something.Megistias (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right look this source:Reference:Albanian is identified as the descendent of Illyrian, but Hamp (1994a) argues that the evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language. Thracian has also been adduced as a possible ancestor of Albanian (Fine 1983, 10? 11). Hamp (1982; 1994b) argues that Albanian is descended from a language that was in intense contact with Latin, as was the language that produced Romanian (traditionally referred to as Dacian), but unlike the ancestor of Romanian, the ancestor of Albanian escaped Romanization. Source : Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 144.--Dodona (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is widely accepted that the substratum (pre-Romanization) language of Romanian was a type of proto-Albanian language; this is inferred from the vocabulary and the phonology of the Romanian languages. The Jirecek line suggests that this Romanization took place north of the line probably in Moesia (the new Dacia after Dacia itself may have been abandoned by the Romans). Thracians, Illyrians, Dacians, whoever was left became mixed into the new Romanian peoples, while some who escaped Romanization survived as Albanians. The Adriatic coast is not a likely place for Romanian to have developed because that is where a different Romance language, the Dalmatian language, developed. Dalmatians were probably Romanized Illyrians. Romanians Romanized Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, whoever was left in Moesia, Dacia, etc. Now the Pelasgian belief found among Albanians and some Romanians today is something else. In both cases, arising from the mysticism and shadows that surround the pre-Romanization languages that were spoken in the area, with some early Thracologists linking Thracians with Pelasgians, etc., and these early Thracologists are the source of much of these wild theories. See:"Bulgarian scholars (Alexander Fol, Ivan Marazov, Elka Penkova) have theorised that Thracians were part of a wider Thraco-Pelasgian group of peoples, due to the observed parallels between the Thracian culture and the ancient Minoan, Mycenaean and Phrygian cultures." Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

yes i agree, thank you and here more new sources: Best, Jan and De Vries, Nanny. Thracians and Mycenaeans. E.J. Brill Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. (1989), --Dodona (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

and this is my proposed statements:

The theories that link Albanian language with Thracian have stepped forward to this point, since Thracians are considered by some scholars as Pelasgian tribe [V. Georgiev. La toponymie ancienne de la péninsule balkanique et la thèse mediterannée Sixth International Onomastic Congrees, Florence-Pisa, April 1961 (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), 1961, noted in M. Delcor, "Jahweh et Dagon (ou le Jahwisme face à la religion des Philistins, d'après 1 Sam. V)" Vetus Testamentum 14.2 (April 1964, pp. 136-154), p. 142 note.; Bulgarian scholars (Alexander Fol, Ivan Marazov, Elka Penkova) have theorised that Thracians were part of a wider Thraco-Pelasgian group of peoples, due to the observed parallels between the Thracian culture and the ancient Minoan, Mycenaean and Phrygian cultures. Thracians; Best, Jan and De Vries, Nanny. Thracians and Mycenaeans. E.J. Brill Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. (1989]. Albanian is identified as the descendent of Illyrian, but Hamp (1994a) argues that the evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language. Thracian has also been adduced as a possible ancestor of Albanian (Fine 1983, 10, 11), from where the term Thraco–Illyrian-Epiriot is derivated. [Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006; R. D'Angely L’Enigme. Vėll. I Les Pélasges, 1990 France; Vėll. II Des Thraces et des Illyriens ą Homčre, 1990 France; Vėll. III Des Etrusques ą l'Empire Byzantin, 1991 France; Vėll. IV De l’Empire ottoman - Les Albanais- De l’Epire, 1991 France; Vėll. V Les secrets des Epitaphes, 1991 France]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodona (talk • contribs) 12:41-16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

No no no .These have been rejected STOP SPAMMING us.Megistias (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is the other completely point of view [3]--Dodona (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians, apparently a north Aegean people scattered throughout Greece by the migrations of the Bronze Age and preserving a common, non-Greek language. The Greeks used the name to describe the original pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece and the Aegean area, with whom they sometimes included the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans).How to cite this entry:"Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. Ed. M.C. Howatson and Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.[4] --Dodona (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cannot be Verified and nothing to do with Albanians,Illyrians....Etruscan is covered alreadyMegistias (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What you mean can not be verified, you have all the sources linked! --Dodona (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona, you seem to be confusing Illyrian and Pelasgian. The debate whether Albanian can be considered as being derived from Illyrian belongs on Illyrian language and Albanian language. "Thraco-Pelasgian" is not a meaningful term. I appreciate you are citing sources, but you need to stay on topic as well. You may be interested in compiling a separate Proto-Albanian language article, where these various theories can be discussed at length. Your "Thraco–Illyrian-Epiriot " simply has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Now please try to behave within Wikipedia policy, and discuss the topics you are interested in within WP:NPOV and WP:RS, under appropriate titles. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I argued the links Thracian- Albanian , Thracian – Pelasgians ,Pelasgians –Albanians , Pelasgians –Rumanians , Ilyrians –Albanians (does not seem to exclude the other links as sourced ) Ancient Greeks –Albanians and of course Epirotic-Albanian. --Dodona (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All sources overall are compatible --Dodona (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the talk order --Dodona (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is random pie-in-the-sky nationalist pov-pushing. Please be aware of Origin of the Albanians where such theories will at least be on-topic. Alternatively, feel free to create Epirotic-Albanian or similarly titled articles and see if they survive. Failing all that, you may still want to edit Albanian nationalism, where such theories will have a place even if they have no scholarly merit. Be also aware of Illyrian movement, which is the same sort of nonsense with a Croatian flavour. dab (𒁳) 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian movement is completely different matter. Croatian language during Reinessance was also called Illyrian and Slavic. Horvatski, Ilirski or Slavenski were synonims of the same language, in the 19th Illyrian movement was actually Croatian Slavic movement with "borrowed" name from indegenious population, however Croats have the most of pre-Indo-European genes in the region so it looks there's some sense in it. Linking Pelasgians to modern ethnicities in the Balkans is crazy. Their descendents could be anywhere less or more. An isolated group hidden in the Albanian mountains saved some fragments of extinct languages spoken in the area, is it enough for linking to Pelasgians? Zenanarh (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That brings up a question. Are there any Albanian words that are claimed to be linked to "Pelasgian" lexical material (whatever that may be)? I don't know if the Albanian editors here realize that to editors like me, the Pelasgian-Albanian idea is just so against Occam's razor (nevermind that academia also rejects it) that it surprises me that some editors here are asking for it to be given more prominence in the article. Where is the evidence in ancient Greek of Albanian loan words? Where is the evidence in Albanian of Greek loans dating back to Ancient Greek etc. I have never heard of such hermetically sealed languages. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to elaborate further this reference :

Pisani is well known to be against simple "Stammbaum" connections, yet he has from time to time pointed out apparent parallels in Albanian and Illyrian. In Paideia (1958:12.271) he draws an isogloss for "Macedonia-Tracia" with the words for 'name': Alb. emen, Slavic im, Baltic emnes/emmens, Keltic ainmN, etc. Doric would also show Illyrian relics in EnumakratidaV, EnumantiadaV (both Laconian); and to these Pisani adds Laconian diza 'capra' = Albanian dhi. In Paideia (12.298) he adduces Laconian grifasqai = grafein, with "Illyrian" * > ri and Hellenized phi; and deisa 'sterco', first attested in deisozos in Leonidas of Tarentum, which he equates with Albanian dhjes 'defecate'. In his review of Volume I of A. Mayor's Die Sprache der alten Illyrier (Paideia 1958: 13.319-320) Pisani lists various Illyrian glosses, most of which show no hopeful connection with Albanian, but do show considerable philological difficulty: pelioV, pelia 'vecchio, -a' might conceivably be put in relation with plak 'old man'; we could guess at tritw 'testa' alongside trû 'brain'; medoV 'hydromel' does not occur in Albanian (see below); perhaps the most interesting is dibriV 'qalassa' ("senza etnico"), which has been suggested in connection with Albanian déet, but which Pisani thinks probably Phrygian[5]--Dodona (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference : Near it are the ruins of the temple of Dodona, the cradle of pagan civilization in Greece. This oracle uttered its prophecies by interpreting the rustling of oak branches; the fame of its priestesses drew votaries from all parts of Greece. In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks.: Source: Albania. Written by Elisabeth Christitch. Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodona (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the claim isn't so much against Occam's razor as simply without any falsifiable content. It's a bit like stating that Albanian is directly descended from the language spoken by Ötzi the Iceman. Since nothing is known of the latter, the claim is strictly a non-starter. There is a reason we don't have an article on a Pelasgian language. "Pelasgian" is simply a conventional name for any Pre-Greek substrate. Now while there may be some very limited merit in discussing the possible connection of Illyrian and Albanian, arguing on whether Illyrian should be considered as related to "Pelasgian" is simply pointless. There is no debate in it, and the people who keep bringing it up are not interested in debates either, they're just driven by childish nationalism that would be dismissed with a shrug anywhere but on Wikipedia. This is a weakness of Wikipedia rather than a weakness of the nationalists, who after all simply are what they are: we cannot aim at uprooting nationalism, but we should aim to keep Wikipedia as clean of it as possible. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It could not be very relevant but by the authors’ background who write it I think has significance, I think we can continue to elaborate in the relation of Doric Greek with Albanian language

Reference .' 'Barleti repeatedly stresses the national aspect of his work. Scanderbeg is not only an impressive hero, but also the saviour of his native country. When he is compared with Alexander the Great and Pyrrhus, these are not arbitrarily chosen models from antiquity, but national heroes, for Alexander's Macedonia and Pyrrhus' Epirus are for Barleti synonymous with his own country. Mostly he calls it Epirus, but also often Albania' Source : A Heroic Tale: Marin Barleti's Scanderbeg between orality and literacy Minna Skafte Jensen (b. 1937) Ass. professor of Greek and Latin, Copenhagen University, 1969-93. Professor of Greek and Latin, University of Southern Denmark, 1993-2003. Member of the Danish, Norwegian and Belgian Academies of Sciences and Letters. Main fields of research: Archaic Greek epic and the oral-formulaic theory; Renaissance Latin poetry in Denmark.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodona (talk • contribs) 15:52-15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Please stop talking about things you don't understand. This has gone on too long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"

[51]: "# ^ N. Malcolm, Myth of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements, in: Schwandner-Sievers and Fischer (eds.), Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002), 76ff."

I deleted the first text, Malcom did never say that Johann Georg von Hahn was indoctrinated by the Albanian nationalism (a part of he was not albanian), so, if you want to write this, you have to cite the considered "pelasgian theoryes" that you are talking about, so you have to cite before the albanian authors that support this theory. And remember, the "Pelasgian theory of albanians" was born before the albanian nationalism. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Eindeutige Belege für den illyrischen Ursprung des Albanischen lassen sich nur schwer beibringen, da es an aussagekräftigen Zeugnissen für diese antike Sprache fehlt. Das Illyrische ist nur in sehr wenigen Inschriften und Erwähnungen bei lateinischen und griechischen Autoren überliefert. Bei den bekannten Worten handelt es sich zumeist um Personen- und Ortsnamen. Trotz allem ist die Illyrerthese die wahrscheinlichste Erklärung für die Existenz der weder slawischen noch romanischen Sprache, zumal sich ihre grammatische Struktur deutlich vom Lateinischen einerseits und von den östlich des Illyrischen gesprochenen thrakischen Idiomen (soweit feststellbar) andererseits unterscheidet, aber eine Reihe von Ähnlichkeiten mit dem Griechischen hat. In jedem Fall aber ist Albanisch neben Griechisch die einzige noch heute gesprochene Balkansprache mit autochthonen vorrömischen Wurzeln.Albanische Sprache --Dodona (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Homer's Iliad calls him “Zeus who thunders on high” and Milton's Paradise Lost, “the Thunderer,” so it is surprising to learn that the Indo-European ancestor of Zeus was a god of the bright daytime sky. Zeus is a somewhat unusual noun in Greek, having both a stem Z n– (as in the philosopher Zeno's name) and a stem Di– (earlier Diw–). In the Iliad prayers to Zeus begin with the vocative form Zeu pater, “o father Zeus.” [7] --Dodona (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism?

I deleted the text in the article, the text was "This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"

[51], "N. Malcolm, Myth of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements, in: Schwandner-Sievers and Fischer (eds.), Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002), 76ff."

Malcolm did not say that Johann Georg von Hahn was indoctrinated by the albanian nationalism (a part of he was not albanian), so, my honest editor of this text, if you want to write this, you have before to cite all the writers and albanian authors who support this thesis. And remember the "pelasgian theory of albanians" was born before the as called "albanian antionalism"

PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doenst say that Johann was Albanian.And you are misreading again.-Johann Georg von Hahn in his 1854 Albanesische Studien identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian". In this, he followed earlier suggestions by Giuseppe Crispi (Memoria sulla lingua albanese, Palermo 1831). This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]-Megistias (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

denied: the theory that you are talking about (Johann Georg von Hahn) is not considered from Malcolm nationalist, so, i repat you, if you want to write this, you have to cite the authors of the considered theories that you are talking about. PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

dimostrate where is writed that the hipotesis of Johann Georg von Hahn have a nationalist background, now that you cannot demostrate this you decided to ban me? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", demostrate in wich book is writed that the hipotesis of Johann Georg von Hahn have a nationalist background, i am waiting your answer, if you cannot demostrate you cannot write what you said. PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doenst say that Johann was Albanian or that he was a nationalist.And you are misreading and misleading again..Megistias (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

no, you are joking with the words, your text writes "this pelasgian theory etj etj", referring to the pelasgian theory of Johann Georg von Hahn, (never considered nationalist), if you want to write this, you need to cite the albanian authors of the nationalism that you are talking about. PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions about the pelasgian voice

This letter is done by my teacher of history in the university who i asked suggestions in relation of this article

1) In the article in wikipedia is done a confusion between the term "greece" wich in the ancient time was used just like a territorial geografic concept and the term "hellen" wich a language term that indicates a population or a different group of different populations who lives in different states but who speak the same language, in this case the hellen language. In no way the history don't confuses the old term "greece" that was used by the romans after the fall of greece in roman influence with the therm "hellen" that indicates all the inhabitants of the mediterranean that spoken the hellen language, beginning from the hellen colonies to the Asia minor in africa to the ovest mediterranean.

2) You have mentioned the assumption defence which pelasgians were a people who spoke a hellen dialect, the theory of a contemporary shcolar! How, and why should be more credible the idea of a contemporary scholar and should be less credible evidence and the testimony of the "father of history" Herodotus and many other ancient historians tests that an infinite number of facts (even if hellens) testifying that the language of pelasgians was "barbaric", and then different than the hellen language?

3) why the hypothesis (always we talk about hipotesis!) Of the various similarities of the modern Albanian language has with the pelasgic language and that leads to the hypothesis that today's Albanian language is a branch of the ancient pelasgic language, is considered from you you Nationalist or produced by the "Albanian nationalism (!), why not be considered and treated in the same way the hypothesis that connects pelasgic language with the hellen language?

I would like to ask in the name of the truth and of the free thought, to delete the shameful allusion that the hypothesis linking the pelasgic language with the albanian one, is a "product" of what you called Albanian nationalism!

Respectfully PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1.No it means Hellas and the Hellenes.Read the appropriate articles and tell you "teacher" to do the same cause he doestn know what he is talking about.

2.Barbaric meant also a Bad-Greek speaker.Read the appropriate articles.

3.Albanian language has nothing to do with hellenic or "Pelasgian".The above have been explained many times over.

Megistias (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The albanian nationalism and myth part is sourced and written by an admin and beside sources it has become self evident.Megistias (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1) my teacher asks, in order to wich scholar qualification and storical documents are you to put in doubt what he said, and wich university support your authority in history?

2) In the official article of wikipedia is evident the confusion between the term "greek" and the term "hellen", (example, "even though some writers described the Pelasgians as Greeks" (!) ), from the ancient historians never hase been cited and existed a population called "greek", but just a territory called "greece" in the roman era. Never has been existed a population called hellen, but just a language called hellen. The hellen language in all the encylopedies of history related by the most internationall supported scholars (bitannic encyclopedia, encarta,, etj etj) is linked with the arrival of the doric populations in grece. The history of the dorian civilization in greece chronogycally is approved internationally (archeology) 5 centuries after the pelasgic civilization, but it is not just your incompetence the main of the discussion, the real reason of this contraddiction is your own use of the historical articles of a respectable encyclopedia as wikipedia for dark political reason... i hope this is not true!

else i will forced to begin a operation of complaint against some affermations in this voice in wikipedia, for the reason of razzial discriminiation and distorsion of historical facts in order of a extreme dark nationalism PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been aswered in the above section many times by users and admins and Non-Greek individuals.Megistias (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

for the question that i asked you, you did not answered me, if you haven't storical competence to answer me, let someone more competent to answer me. Respectfully PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1.Read the sources in the appropriate articles.

2.No it was Hellenes/Greece as a nation and not only as a Language.Read Hellenes same thing with Greeks.names for the Greeks

Your above paragraph is largely unintelligible.

Megistias (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the pelasgians.If you want something else you can go to the according pages or have a discussion in your talk page.But before discussing an article you have to read it first and its sources and then initiate a talk.Megistias (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "teacher"'s opinion is not a source in wikipedia.

The article was reverted in the past not only by me but

scarian

tsourkrp

the cat and the owl

And added by Dbachmann and referenced and removed by you pelasgic moondiff

and it is sourced.Megistias (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete request of a wrong information

The conversation is based between the hypotheses in relation to the nature of the pelasgic language. In the "albanian" section, is linked the hypothesis of the logon or the likeness that has the modern Albanian with the pelasgic language, specific that this theory has turned on from the Albanian nationalism! ("This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]") And this specification comes preceded from an other citation in the main article where it says that many of the theories about pelasgic language are moved from nationalist reasons and they are not objective ("Some are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language"). In the hypotheses on the pelasgic language it can be noticed that only the Albanian hypothesis is considered a result of the nationalism, and remembering the citation asserted to the beginning of the article, the reader arrives naturally to the conclusion that this theory is not objective and scientific.

The hypothesis that joins the pelasgic language with the modern Albanian is not the result of the Albanian nationalism, but a hypothesis written up from the science of the history and the world-wide linguistic, and there are some historical linguists that have advanced this hypothesis. Albania, as a state, was born in 1912, after the death of these scholars, is therefore impossible to suppose a nationalist origin of this hypothesis.

//---------------------

Conrad Malte-Brun (1755-1826)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050376/Conrad-Malte-Brun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Malte-Brun

"Annales des Voyages de la geographie et de l'historie" - paris 1809

In this book he express the thesis that the albanian language is related to the pre-homeric, and express the thesis of the descendenty of the albanians from the pelasgians

//---------------------

Johann Georg von Hahn (1811-1869)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Hahn

"1) He consider completly the albanians as the descendants of the pelasgians, 2) and he connect illirians with the pelasgians", considering this in all his publications of books.

//---------------------

Eduard Schneider, french scholar, specialist of the etruscan language, he translated etruscan insctiptions throught the albanian language, afferming deeply the theory of the descentancy from the pelasgians of the albanians, as he write in his book publicated in Paris in 1894 "Une race oublièe. Les Pelasges et leurs descendantes".

//----------------------

August Schleicher (1821-1868), big german linguist, knower of all the ancient and modern indo-european languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schleicher

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066145/August-Schleicher

"Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht" 1850 ,new edit 1982, in this book he was not sure about the albanian language, if more close to the greek or latin, and considering it more close to greek ans calling the albanian language as the "copy of the pelasgic language"

With this, i ask firstly to be deleted "This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced and was added by an admin that isnt even Greek ,that person is Dbachmann.You offer above 4 links to bio's of certain individulals from 100 to 250 years ago.Referenced material dont get removed just because someone insists.Megistias (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that pelasgians are the alpha and the omega to albanian nationalism is self evident,sourced in the article and observed in nationalist albanian sites.Megistias (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a Third opinion.

As per the neutral point of view policy, the Pelasgians article should address this matter in an encyclopedic and neutral way.

As Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Undue weight explains: "It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided." (emphasis added)

The brief text in the Wikipedia article should be both informative and balanced.

A mere dismissal as Albanian nationalist mythology which entirely omits the opposing view is neither informative nor balanced.

One way to provide balance: "While some authoritative sources dismiss a Pelasgian theory of Albanian origins as an Albanian nationalist myth,^[source(s)] it has support in others.^[source(s)]"

An example of a source:

Edwin E. Jacques. The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present (748 pages). Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 1995. ISBN 0-89950-932-0.
From the publisher's description on its website:

"Many Albanians, who are descended from the Illyrians and Pelasgians ...

"During twelve consecutive periods of foreign domination, the ethnic identity of the Albanians has been constantly threatened ...

"With the employment of Albanian, French, Italian and many other documentary sources, the roots of Albanian civilization, the struggle of the Albanians to maintain their cultural and linguistic integrity, the impact of foreign influence on the country, and its recent move toward democracy are all detailed here."

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edwin Jacques is not a reliable source and is unsuitable for use in wikipedia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Tsourkpk here. We discussed Jacques on one of these pages a while back. He's an amateur and absolutely doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to language history. I can see where you are coming from, Athaenara, finding the current passage tendentious-sounding. But to the best of my knowledge, it's completely true and accurate. ... it has support in others? No, it simply hasn't. Last time anybody in the academic, reliable literature took such claims seriously was a hundred years ago. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe, and sometimes a nationalist myth really is just a nationalist myth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Pelasgians Albanian section

{{RFChist}} Is the Albanian section in Pelasgians neutral and balanced? 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Heated discussions on this page and in its archives (particularly in Archive 2 and Archive 3) indicate that talk page discussions have not resolved the Pelasgians#Albanian section issues which recur. I am not involved in the dispute, which came to my attention as a Third opinion request. — Athaenara ✉ 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns seem to center on whether the content in the section is accurate, balanced, neutral, and appropriately verified by reliable sources. — Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue was actually resolved if you read all the page.The fact is that interested users supporting albanian-pelasgian theories (that are fringe and on a tightrope between impossible & ridiculous) simply insist with no stop.Megistias (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted the RfC section to draw the attention of uninvolved editors [not previously involved in the dispute] for a fresh look at the problem. — Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure they were resolved, Megistias, this is your own opinion, i brought reliable sources as you can see and you gave your opinion as answer, i demostrated with world-wide big linguists that this "pelasgian theory of albanians" is not a product of albanian nationalism, as this theory was born before the creation of albania (1912), so if you want to have right, you must demostrate me this big linguists have never existed. And this is not my insistence, is your rebounding of the reliable sources i brought... Respectfully PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You brought only unreliabe sources that were rejected and the theory rejected by a number of users and admins and people who are not greek .This is merely insistance.Megistias (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not state that it was a product of albanian nationalism......albanian.Your above comment thus makes no sense.Megistias (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops rfc we shouldnt talk pelasgicmoon,either of us.Megistias (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable..." (taken from the rules of wikipedia)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schleicher

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066145/August-Schleicher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Malte-Brun

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050376/Conrad-Malte-Brun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Hahn

I suppose this are reliable sources

And for the words that consider this theory nationalist

"It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided" (taken from the rules of wikipedia)

as Athaenara remembered you...

Respectfully PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis was entertained by some authors in the 19th century. Everything older than Hahn is nothing but a fanciful guess – these people had absolutely no way of knowing, they knew hardly anything even about what Albanian was like, and precisely zero about what "Pelasgian" had been like (if it ever existed). After Hahn, there are two or three serious linguists who played with the idea, still on the level of pure speculation. Nobody ever made a concrete proposal based on actual evidence linking specific linguistic elements together between Albanian and "Pelasgian". Schleicher, the most prominent linguist cited here, did not actually deal with any concrete records of "Pelasgian" at all, as far as I know. He was using "Pelasgian" as a fanciful arbitrary label for a proposed genetic sub-grouping within Indo-European, linking Latin with Greek, and was expressing the hypothesis that Albanian belonged into the same subgroup. That was a serious proposal in his time, but has since become obsolete. If he implied anywhere any concrete connection of this hypothetical subbranch with the historical "Pelasgian" (the historical language(s) known to the ancient Greeks under that name), I'm not aware of it and would like to see a quotation. After 1900, all these Albanian-Pelasgic speculations have become thoroughly discredited. The article has it exactly right: no serious linguist is maintaining such a hypothesis today; the only people who are interested in it are, exactly, Albanian nationalists pursuing a national foundation myth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To focus this more specifically on PelasgicMoon's objection: Yes, it is true that the hypothesis is not in its origins a product of Albanian nationalism. But the article never claimed such a thing. It states - rightly - that it is an object of Albanian nationalism today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your above paragraph is largely unsourced. Secondly, why i must believe your unsourced words when in the universities of all over the world are still studied the discoveries of August Schleicher, called from your opinion "fanciful guess" ?

Thirdly, the article of wikipedia is violating the rules of wikipedia ("It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided"), i ask to be modified in accurate, balanced and neutral way in according to the rules of wikipedia. I can be of help if needed.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you want sources (not for the article, but for our discussion here), I'll start with W. Fiedler, Einführung in die Albanologie ['Introduction to Albanology'], University of Munich [http:www.albanologie.lmu.de/Einf_Alb_Fiedler.pdf]. It contains a good overview of the history of research on Albanian in the 19th century. Here's everything it contains about "Pelasgian", my translation from the German, emphasis mine:

[quoting a passage from Jokl, who is giving a survey of older research, talking about A.F. Pott, a co-worker of Franz Bopp, writing in 1887:]: [Pott] saw the basic stock of Albanian as the last remnant of an Illyrian-Pelasgic family that supposedly once covered all of South East Europe, reaching out also into Italy and Asia Minor – an entirely speculative idea brought forward without any linguistic evidence.
[About von Hahn:] Hahn was the first who genuinely tried to support the hypothesis [of Albanian-Illyrian descent] with linguistic facts, partly by trying to explain attested ancient Illyrian toponyms by means of Albanian. This did not prevent him from sticking to nebulous notions about "Pelasgians", equating Pelasgian with Illyrian.
[a bit further down, still about von Hahn:] His statements that Illyrian and Pelasgian can be equated must be rejected today.

Here you go. Present-day Albanologists treat "Pelasgian" ideas as a curious error of earlier research, worth a footnote, not more. If there are modern Albanologists who assign more weight to them, now it's your turn to bring them forward. That these ideas are, on the other hand, the focus of nationalist myths is already sourced in the article. Sticking with WP:UNDUE provides all the balance and neutrality we need here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I made a small error, Schleicher actually wrote slightly earlier than Hahn. Schleicher's work is of course not a "fanciful guess", I didn't want to imply that. Schleicher is on e of the greatest figures in the history of linguistics, no doubt. That doesn't prevent him from being wrong on a couple of things, such as the Latin-Greek-Albanian subfamily. But anyway, he apparently never claimed Albanian was descended from "Pelasgian" in the first place, so it's moot to discuss him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, finally i can have a serious conversation.

Ok let's continue, 1887, so now this kind of date is not outdated as someone told me for all sources i brought to him?

sorry but, for my opinion, something is going strange here...

ok, let's talk step per step, speaking 1 argument per time.

We should'nt leave alone the 3 linguistis i brought above, and discuss of them seriously and nautrally, Conrad Malte-Brun, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher.

1) Are they reliable sources? i suppose yes, as i demostrated with links and the definition of "reliable source" in wikipedia rules

2) They really speaked about a connection between albanians and pelasgians? i suppose yes, i cited the books

3) "But anyway, he apparently never claimed Albanian was descended from "Pelasgian" in the first place", yes, he considered the albanian language as the "copy of the pelasgian family languages", as he writed and designed in its book "Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht" 1850 ,new edit 1982.

now, step per step, you agree the fact these are reliable sources that can be added in the section "albanian" with the name of Johann Georg von Hahn?

Always in according to the rules of wikipedia,

"Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate." (taken from wikipedia rules), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one at a time. About Malte Brun (1808): That one clearly falls under "fanciful speculation". His contribution is discussed by Schwandner-Sievers & Fischer (2002), Albanian identities: Myth and history, p.75., where his hypotheses are described as "confused", self-contradictory and embedded in a "mythopoeic frame of argument" characteristic of some writers of his time. This could warrant a footnote in the "Origins of the Albanians" article, but hardly here, as it is clearly not a serious contribution to the study of Pelasgians. (Remember that is still the topic of this page; Albanians are only a side issue here.) -- About Schneider: He seems to be a thoroughly non-notable fringe author, apparently an amateur, his writings seem to have very little echo in modern scholarship. Thus, the principal proponent of the Pelasgian hypothesis in the 19th century, and the only one that is somehow to be taken seriously, is still von Hahn.

About Schleicher, we'd need more context. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, please. Did you read Schleicher in the original? I haven't, but from what I see quoted of him I see no indication that he was making any concrete claim about any actual, historical Pelasgians (some of those guys who lived next door to the Greeks in historical times), but is just occasionally using the term as a convenient label for some entirely hypothetical prehistoric unit. Remember, before we can determine whether any particular author links Pelasgians to Albanians, we need to find out what he actually means by "Pelasgians". Because the very idea that any such people, let alone a language, in the sense of a unified coherent historical identity, ever existed, is far from trivially given. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process is intended to invite comment from uninvolved editors, not repetition of previous arguments by those involved. — Athaenara ✉ 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ([8]) before. Consensus was that the problem here was with Albanian nationalist editing by PelasgicMoon (talk · contribs) and Dodona (talk · contribs), the latter of whom is currently sitting out a lengthy block for tendentious editing. RFC is probably useless here. WP:FRINGE demands that we do not give undue credence to nationalist fringy myths - that we describe them exactly as they are. Moreschi (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'd like to point out that, despite the collusion with Dodona, I do regard PelasgicMoon as a perfectly good-faith and legitimate editor and I don't mind debating this with him at all, though I obviously strongly disagree with him. People would certainly have been more patient with his views if it hadn't been for the fact that they had previously been discredited so thoroughly by Dodona. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to notice, Moreschi, this has been discussed just from the user Megistias and Dab (...)

The truth here is that i am still impressed of even if the rules of wikipedia give me the right to enrich the albanian perspektive of pelasgians, some users of wikipedia put themself in the role of virtual censurators even if we talk about theories, of course off all kinds of hipothesis there are always some others of contraddiction, but this movements to hide the albanian hipothesis sounds strange to me (...), book encyclopedies usually don't take in consideration the different hipothesis, but if we decide to put them in wikipedia, we must cite all of them, without discrimination.

I say hide because this scholars really was of this opinion, but what some users are intent to say? they were nothing? they were never existed? all the names i cited are scholars, so the rules of wikipedia consider them reliable, so i still continue to judge this "not neutral point of view", i've just been accused to be nationalist, a nationalist idea is to say "albanians are pelasgians", no, here the question is "is true or not that there were some scholars that consider this hipothesys? so if is true, why i can't write theyr names in the albanian hypothesis?

Maybe is better for us to begin a "dispute [resolution]" in wikipedia, it is ok? PelasgicMoon (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with albanian nationalism and it is sourced.You havent even read what the article says.....First read it then post.It doesnt say what you say

[9]Albanian

Johann Georg von Hahn in his 1854 Albanesische Studien identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian". In this, he followed earlier suggestions by Giuseppe Crispi (Memoria sulla lingua albanese, Palermo 1831). This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51].Megistias (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock talk removed [diff]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[ :::Unfortunately in to day Balkan we do not see any Albanian nationalism but quite the opposite the nationalism of our neighbors although ethnic Albanians are autochthon in Macedonia and Epirus they claim otherwise and work a lot to change the facts. This is more a national identity then nationalism--Thrace - ilir-epirioti (talk) [ contribs ] 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ]
[ ::This is called compulsive obsessive behaviour ,i advise you seek a specialist.Megistias (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ]

Megistias, please stop making provocations, if you want to provocate go somewhere else, not here in wikipedia, here we discuss about the articles in wikipedia, Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, PelasgicMoon, but you are again a victim of the sockpuppeting abuse of your own fellow countryman, Dodona. As long as he was away and quiet, we could have a decent reasonable talk with you. Now that he's back sockpuppeting with his throwaway accounts, that's no longer possible. Do me a favour, go and try to get in contact with User:Dodona and try to persuade him to stop his attacks, because he's seriously harming his own and your cause. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, ster per step

Ok, so the problem now seems to be "yes, they had this hypothesis, but some other scholars considered theyr theories confused or not affidable"

ok, but the rules of wikipedia gives me the right to cite this names aniway, in according to wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate."

So i think i am not falling in error if i write in the article:

"Some authors like Conrad Malte-Brun, Johann Georg von Hahn, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher advanced the hypothesis that links the albanian as the descendant of the pelasgian language, even if this theory has been considered from other authors confused and light (or soft)."

(as for the A.Schleicher, yes, in this book he consider the albanian and the ancient greek, as both ancestors of the ancient pelasgic language) PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, an addition of one more sentence along these lines might work. Just: (1) I maintain my skepticism about Schleicher. I want to see more context. He is too great a linguist to quote wrongly. (2) Make it clearer that this is not an issue of simple disagreement between scholars, but an issue of one era of scholarship made obsolete by another. These hypotheses were commonplace, and presumably respectable, in the 19th century. They no longer are now. Today, absolutely nobody (except fringe Albanian nationalists) proposes these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just can't bring myself to placing Schleicher, Schneider and the rest in one row like that. They are too much of a mixed bunch, of radically different stature. Better to leave it anonymous. There were actually many authors who, more or less arbitrarily, invoked "Pelasgian" in that context. No evidence that Schneider, for instance, played any particularly important role there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i don't agree in points you said, so in this case i don't accept your point of view, as you don't accept mine, the only change is to provide a dispute resolution, as the third opinion was not useful as i can see. PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you not accept about what I said? That "absolutely nobody" in modern scholarship proposes these views? Well, it's difficult to prove a negative, but I did give you a source where at least two reputed present-day specialists treated them as completely obsolete. Now the ball is really in your field. If you know of modern reputable linguists who still maintain such hypotheses, bring them forward. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: if these ideas are outmoded 19th century scholarship that no one accepts anymore, why should they be in the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is this, if we have decided to put the different hipothesys in the article, we must cite all.

Let's make it clearer, we are not talking about "are true or not what is said by Conrad Malte-Brun, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher, George Von hamn?" the discussion is not this, for the simple reason this are just hypothesis (like all the other hypothesys, "pelasgian as hellen" etj etj), you can find citations, this don't mean have never existed this theory, so, according to the rules of wikipedia, this hypothesis must be written, and then, if you have citations wich contraddict this hypothesis you can write in the article "even if some modern authors considered this theory confused" and giving the opportune citations. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't put every hypothesis we can find into the article; we only put in the significant ones. If there are no modern adherents of the theories you're trying to put in, that suggests that it's not a significant theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, Akhilleus, so you consider this hypothesys non significant

so, find me the demostrated actual theory about pelasgians... it doesn't exist, always we talk about hypothesys

it can't be said the "albanian hipothesys" is non-significant, example:

- long time ago, peoples thought the earth was flat

- someone demostrated the earth was not flat, but spherical

- the theory that consider the earth as flat was now obsolete

in this case, wich is the demostrated theory of pelasgians that makes the "albanian thory" obsolete? so why we must hide the albanian hypothesy even if we have demostrations this hypothesis existed? PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious linguists in the 19th century, like Schleicher, used "Pelasgian" (if they used it at all) not in the sense of claiming that Albanians were descended from those particular peoples in the neighbourhood of the Greeks who were called like that in antiquity. Rather, they used it as an arbitrary modern label to refer to a wider, hypothetical union of vaguely related peoples, including the ancestors of the Greeks, the ancestors of the Latins, of the Celts, Illyrians and others. The hypothesis of this prehistoric relation is now obsolete. Linguists have found that Latin and Greek are not after all more closely related to each other than to other IE languages. Therefore, this particular notion of "Pelasgian" no longer has anything to refer to. Since nobody has ever claimed in earnest, not even during the 19th century, that Albanians were descended from any one particular tribe of historically attested "Pelasgians", there is thus really nothing much left of the hypothesis. It's not so much that the hypothesis is false, it's more that the hypothesis lacks any concrete meaning at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

we can continue discuss infinitely, as you see, for this i think it is better a dispute resolution. PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no other or better dispute resolution process than what we are just now doing. Do you want formal mediation? It means the same, continuing talking, talking, talking, only that it will be under the supervision of a third party. The only way to speed this up will be if you begin actually responding to the points other people raise. For instance, I just answered your question about what it was that made the Pelasgian hypothesis obsolete. So, what question is next? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some citations of scholarship:

//------------------------------------------------

"We have demostrations that supports that many things have been produced in a particular way where communities or groups of Greeks would want to make credible that they say in relation with their past, many Greek writers are become many fantasious connecting their descendancys from people not-Greeks and ancient logons between they and "hellens", as theirs descendants."

C. Baurain, Rome, 1989, page 131 "Heracles dans l'epopee homerique", Heracles, actes de la table ronde de rome

//------------------------------------------------

"The ancient Greeks appeal themselves honorable descendancys. They have noticed that mythology could serve for the political propaganda of the city state. Therefore for having heroic descendants, they lengthen behind their geneaologia until the mythical age"

S. Gotteland, Paris, 1995, page 379 "Genealogies mythiques et politiques chez isocrate", actes du VIIIe colloque du centre de Recherches mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.

//------------------------------------------------

"They choose the myth that the servants in order to support their politics, and after change it. They introduce the myth so that them servant for every political work."

W. Burkert, 1979, Los Angeles and London, Vol XLVII, page 78, 97, 379 "structure and history in Greek mythology and rituals", Sather classical lectures.

//------------------------------------------------

"They dream the names of theyr ancestors of various personages... these are manipulations that can ribaltare the tonality completely, the main meant one of a myth"

A.Moreau 1998, page 30 "Manipulations Genealogiques: les epouses d'Edipe, Medee, Promethee". Actes du VIIIe Colloque du centre de Recherches Mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.

//------------------------------------------------

In the principal article of wikipedia is written this:

“Some are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language. This article presents the mainstream theories and something of the long history of the theories. “

In the hypothesys that connects the albanian language with the albanian, it is said “This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins was shared by some other 19th-century authors but no longer has support in modern linguistic scholarship. It still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51] “

In the hypotheses on the pelasgic language it can be noticed that only the Albanian hypothesis is considered a currency of the nationalism, and remembering the citation asserted to the beginning of the article, the reader arrives naturally to the conclusion that this theory is not objective and scientific (even if I put in doubt this citation for the fact that the hypothesis that it connects the Albanian language with the pelasgic is produced from not-Albanians scholars nearly a century before independence of Albania in a time when the so-called "Albanian nationalism" did not exist, and, more, when we know that the modern official historiography of Albania does not support this theory, why are not treated in the same way the other hypotheses (ex. the “pelasgic as hellen”)?

So, if we want to consider the nationalist point of view, at the light of the modern scholars, i ask that the therm “nationalism” to be cited in all both hypothesys, or not cited in both of them, now, i suppose, we must take a decision for making the article neutral and balances according to the rules of wikipedia.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not understood anything told by be towards you or that told by any other participants in here or you choose to ignore it.Willingly or not.Megistias (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but, i suppose this is not an answer, if you are not competent in this argument to answer let someone more competent than you to answer me, Respectfully PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am as competent as any and so the answer is ;this is an RFC and you have strayed from the subject after being aswered by many users already.Your "insistence" does not rejuvenate the issue at hand.The article does not say what you write above, you have been told many times.Seeing that you carry on its obvious what you are doing.The article is sourced & referenced.Megistias (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

you want to denie me to cite in the article sourced&referenced material? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Myth is Myth and is taken into account as Myth never as a fact.It is taken in account as the folkoric beliefs of pagan antiquity.For the ancient this was their cosmotheory.Megistias (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis from Hahn was not in itself nationalistic but the adoption from Albanians when the theory is more then 100 years obsolete is nationalistic.Other nationalistic hypothesis is the Turkish theory.Megistias (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern Greek nationalism has to do with Epsilon Team and ridiculous notions of aliens and portals to other worlds mixed with angels and varied comical material added to typical nationalist mumbo jumbo and anti-semitism.The Pelasgians as Hellenes in this article has to do with ancient myths and ancient folklore and a theory by a modern scientist.Is has no equivelant to modern nationalism in Greece.Whilst for albania it is the core of their nationalist theories.As "pelasgians" albanians claim any and all ancient cultures.Megistias (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And add the fact that for most of the ancient myths pelasgians were hellenes.And the names existed as locations and tribe(s) in thessaly....So no pelasgic moon.Megistias (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but i have the right aniway to write this in the article:

"Modern scholarship refers the ancient greeks had introduced a national myth of honorable descendancy to serve the political propaganda indoctrination of the city-state, bringing behind their geneaology until the mythical age"

It is sourced&referenced, and in according to the rules of wikipedia, i can write this with the opportune citations.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So since you have been unable to push the "theory" of Albanians as Pelasgians, you are now trying to undermine the theory that the Pelasgians were Hellenes. All cultures have myths of national origin (with the Albanians as the prime example) and the ancient Greeks were no exception. What you have added therefore has no value and I have removed (not to mention it is written in extremely poor english). I also highly doubt that your source uses such poor language and phrasing such as "political propaganda indoctrination". That reads like it's your own synthesis. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe you are right to remove for the reason that it was written in poor english, but if i write in good english, you can't denie me to cite sourced&referenced material, else you go in violating the rules of wikipedia. Tomorrow i will write it in good english.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No pelasgicmoon all ancient cultures have such myths & folklore and its not going in here or in other cultures articles.Megistias (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In according to the rules of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship

i can write this reliable sourced&referenced material written in good english.

"According to modern scholars, the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth."

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep ignoring everything here.Remove it and dont pretend you dont understand.Megistias (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't accept sourced&referenced material we can have a dispute resolution, this is ok for you? PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The position is explained above.If you dont get and remove it yourself it someone will simply remove it for you.Megistias (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case i will contact Editor assistance, and just explain that someone removed my sourced&referenced material, or, if opportune, to begin a dispute resolution. The wikipedia rules give me the right.

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove it the you even make it look as if the proffesor is doing propaganda for the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago.Its ouf of context.You can contact anyone you want there are admins involved here alreadylyMegistias (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am repeating you, if i have the right of the rules of wikipedia i can contact editor assistance,

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgian as Hellenic

According to Thomas Harrison (University College), Herodotus was ambiguous in differentiating between linguistically similar dialects and languages distinct from Greek.[53] As a result of this ambiguity, the language of the Pelasgians was "barbaric" in the sense that it was akin to Greek rather than being entirely non-Greek. Support for this lies within Harrison's citation of Herodotus (2.52.1) whereby the Pelasgians called their gods theoi prior to adopting specific names.[54] Direct connections between the Pelasgians and the Greeks are further reinforced in accordance to both ancient Greco-Roman literary evidence and modern archaeological evidence.

This below is what you added.And its irrelevant.Thomas harisson speaks of linguistics and the ambiguity of the barbarian tongue term.And ancient Greeks did not use Thomas harrison theory cause they existed 3000 years before him.Herodotus quoted isnt even about what you write below and the scholars below spoke of myths and you twisted their words as well.

According to modern scholars [55] [56] [57], the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth.Megistias (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the descendancy between ancient greeks at the age of myth, and what i cited is to enrich the paragraph. The wikipedia rules says there is not a theorical limit how many you can enrich a parapgraph with reliable sources,

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

and of course most of the ancient greek myth were pelasgians. PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No they were not and its irrelevant.You dont understand anything.This is clearly on purpose13:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop insulting, wikipedia is not the right place to insult, and please have a civilized educated language as i have with you.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just Remove it the issue has been explained.If you dont remove it now others will remove it and "scold" you on your actions.Megistias (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Referenced material dont get removed just because someone insists"[diff], this is the answer you gave me when we was talking about "the current issues of albanian nationalism", i just copied and pasted, and please, be balanced in the future (in according to the rules of wikipedia).

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They are irrelevant here.Megistias (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgian as Hellenic

According to Thomas Harrison (University College), Herodotus was ambiguous in differentiating between linguistically similar dialects and languages distinct from Greek.[53] As a result of this ambiguity, the language of the Pelasgians was "barbaric" in the sense that it was akin to Greek rather than being entirely non-Greek. Support for this lies within Harrison's citation of Herodotus (2.52.1) whereby the Pelasgians called their gods theoi prior to adopting specific names.[54] Direct connections between the Pelasgians and the Greeks are further reinforced in accordance to both ancient Greco-Roman literary evidence and modern archaeological evidence.

This below is what you added.And its irrelevant.Thomas harisson speaks of linguistics and the ambiguity of the barbarian tongue term.And ancient Greeks did not use Thomas harrison theory cause they existed 3000 years before him.Herodotus quoted isnt even about what you write below and the scholars below spoke of myths and you twisted their words as well.

According to modern scholars [55] [56] [57], the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth

Remove it.

Its irrelavant.Megistias (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

your insistence is not a secondary source, the title is "pelasgian as hellen" ? we are talking in relation to the mythical age? so this is a related citation.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your irrelevant addition is disrupting and your behaviour and denial the same.Megistias (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, here in wikipedia sources speaks in the articles, not opinion of editors, so, if will be re-opened the "Pelasgians as hellens" section, the rules of wikipedia gives me the right to relate in the article the sourced&referenced-modern-scholarship point of view in relation of this connection.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)