Talk:Pelasgians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Another critical review

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

Hi Dave, while I appreciate what you have done for this article, in this change you have made [[1]], by stating "connected" instead of "attempted to connect", you seem to imply that Hahn was successful in connecting the Pelasgian language with Albanian. To my knowledge this is not the case, and this is just another example of a 19th century theory that ended in the dustbin (only to be resurrected by Albanian nationalists). The uninformed reader, however, might think that Hahn was indeed successful in his endeavors, and that Albanian and Pelasgian are connected. Thus it seems that the statement is slanted the other way. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Storing this please leave

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

1. During the 1980s, the Skourta Plain project identified Middle Helladic and Late Helladic sites on mountain summits near the plains of Skourta. These fortified mountain settlements were, according to tradition, inhabited by Pelasgians up until the end of the Bronze Age. Moreover, the location of the sites is an indication that the Pelasgian inhabitants sought to "ethnically" (a fluid term according to Foreigners and Barbarians) and economically distinguish themselves from the Mycenean Greeks who controlled the Skourta plain.

Why erase the whole section? Bring some of it back up?You mean you will merge the preexisting part with archaeological elements?There are primary and secondary sources on pelasgians as hellenes.Megistias (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Megistias. I'm answering your question by "bringing it back up" but in a more approriate location. It didn't prove what it was suppose to prove but offhand (it needs to be checked out) it looks like interesting archaeological material shedding additional light. Wait a few minutes and then check the article again. Dave (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please continue you are truly imroving the article its starting to look great and orderly.Megistias (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians as hellenes

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

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

Thanks - most of the material is way out of date. No one now thinks Pelasgian was Greek. But as we are covering something of the history of the major theories it once was a major theory so there is a logical place for it. I will get to it if no one else does. One of the problems we have to face is standardizing source citations. Someone has to check that long bibliography against final content and try to work the appropriate items into the notes with cite book, Citation, cite journal, and so on. That is a lot of work. it is complicated by the fact that whoever was trying to prove the Greeks did not mean non-Greek when they said non-Greek threw in a lot of irrelevant "sources" and also the attempt to prove Pelasgian is Tyrsenian cost a lot too. We need that space for the legitimate evidence.Dave (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. These were the neolithic folk or latter that had no "nationality" in any shape or form we would recognise today anyway right? We just inherited part of their language and some of their cultural elements were passed down to later cultures. Megistias (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this article is improving significantly. I cannot thank you enough Dave for all of your contributions. However, I wish you had contacted me first before removing any essential data from the article. So far, I have implemented some important tweaks and I intend to add further improvements where necessary. Keep up the good work. Deucalionite (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way Dave, I would have to disagree with your statement about no one today thinking that the Pelasgians were Greek. There are a number of modern authors who possess this argument in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence. However, it is more accurate to call the Pelasgians "Greeks before the name 'Greek'/'Hellene' existed." Even though "Greek proper" identity did not exist during the time of the Pelasgians, "Greek improper" identity did exist (see Minyans and Helladic). Deucalionite (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi guy, maybe you are right, I don't know. We are putting it in anyway. I left a space for it. I'm starting out at the top now and am going to do a line-by-line. My main main concern with this particular article is conciseness. Let's try to say it in as few words as possible. I also think the long quotes in footnotes are a bad idea. If it needs that much space it belongs in the text, but can we not just refer them to the source for many things? Also I use cite book, cite web, Citation and I put in page numbers wherever possible. I say this because I have to go intermittent on this for a while. So I will just work top to bottom whenever I can. This is my top priority because I need it for Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, Danaans, Achaeans and Hellenes. Then I think I will get back to archaeology. And I never did finish Battle of Thermopylae. So I will see you from time to time. If the matter is pressing you can use my discussion page but everyone really should be able to follow the development. I'm working on the etymology next. Ciao.Dave (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the term Pelasgian is missused at great extend but from the inscriptional data i'm checking, an area keeping that name until today is the Pelasgia of Fthiotida-Thessaly border.

I found two gems that we should examine a bit...The one below is from 150BC and is about the Thessalian league. 32 000 pelasgians are mentioned amongst the Thessalians.

[9]

The second inscription has the phrase "Pelasgis Hellas". From a fast look at the content i understand that the mainland is reffered as Pelasgian Hellas, like we use ipirotiki ellada today.

[10]

It would be nice to analyze those texts and draw some conclusions if possible. I would like to hear your opinions. Megistias (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for a reaction I am quite delighted. Inscriptions are precious gems to be sought by the historian as they represent history unadulterated by transmission errors and later insertions (or removals). Thanks. In due course I will get around to reading them. Right now it appears that we need another section on inscriptions. I would put it right before archaeology. I am determined to go line by line right now (or nearly so) as the matrix method leaves unfinished business and the reader reads line by line. Inscriptions? What a delight! Dave (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Megistias. I'm just going to throw in basically what you said and make a few cite webs to the inscriptions. That's only a temporary measure to fill in the gap as no one seems to be moving on it. If you have or find some inscriptional analysis by all means write it up and put it in. One question - I never did get much modern Greek - is ipirotiki "Pelasgian"? It looks to me as though it came from the name of Epirus. If it is Pelasgian then it surely ought to be in there.Dave (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on the inscriptions. I was able to do one of them. The second is on a statue base from the library at Pergamum but the first dedicatory line is lost and the date is uncertain. The statue evidently was of some sort of muse. The inscription quotes some verse. I was not able to identify the verse and who knows when it was composed but anyway it is literature and not a document so although an inscription - anything put on stone would be - it does not record anything so I left it out. The same concept of pelagis Hellas is presented in other authors. It seems to mean "that part of Hellas which is Pelasgian" and in this inscription is lumped with the cities and islands of the Ionian range. But we already knew that.24.63.185.195 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to log in. It's me.Dave (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I love such inscriptions myself, I would warn against committing "original research" here. To "analyze those texts and draw some conclusions if possible", as Megistias proposed above, would be just that. Please don't insert such things in the article. That said, I find your thoughts about these texts entirely plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The barbarians of Herodotus

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

I am assuming that this message is for me. Just so you know Dave, I am determined for all the right reasons. I have no intention whatsoever of hindering you from the enormous amounts of work you have provided to this article. Nevertheless, flexibility lies in the fact that one has to acknowledge (from an historical and sociological standpoint) that the term "barbarian" possessed a dual meaning. As you well know, Herodotus was not a linguist. However, to the linguistic standards of his day, anything that was not of "Attic orientation" was considered "barbaric." You will find plenty of moments in ancient Greek history where the term "barbarian" was used to describe unsophisticated Greek cultures. It does not make sense for Herodotus to call the Pelasgian language "non-Greek" and then go off to state that the Hellenic language never changed and that the Hellenes descend from the Pelasgians. Herodotus may not have been the perfect historian, but there is consistency in his work if you know how to properly interpret it.

[Interjected.] You got a point there, I concede. But, I wouldn't go drawing any such conclusion that by proper interpretation you can make Herodotus consistent. If that could be done it would have been long ago. That's one of the problems with the Pelasgians - inconsistencies. Hot dawg I feel like I'm in college agin. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As for my sense of "single-mindedness," you'll find that adhering to accurate interpretations and translations of ancient Greek text is key to ensuring NPOV let alone in ensuring that misinterpretations of primary sources are not presented in the article. Moreover, it seems that the supposed "theory" of the Pelasgians being Greek is becoming more of a fact in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence. Therefore, I am not worried about proving a direct link between the Pelasgians and the Greeks only through the prism of Herodotus's utilization of the term "barbarian" to describe the Pelasgian language.

[Interjected.] Aw, deucy, I left a place for it and I put the note in. I don't agree with it but that has not a thing to do with it. Anyway it isn't just Herodotus the exponents of that view have to deal with. What do you do with the Etruscan and Anatolian side of it? So, we need balance here. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I could care less about your opinions pertaining to the so-called "long-winded spiel" regarding the dualistic nature of the term "barbarian." Plenty of primary and secondary sources acknowledge this basic dynamic. You may be a classicist, but remember that classicists are not the only people who have contributed here or who have valuable contributions to make towards enhancing the article's quality.

[Interjected.] Of course! On that score you are quite right. I say long-winded spiel because I think the point can be made in just a few words and to take roughly half a long article on this one theory seemed to me unbalanced and to tell you the truth still seems so. The main theory I do believe is the lost language known through non-Greek roots but the Etruscan and Anatolian possibilites are too strong to deny. This ought to be a multi-viewpoint article I believe just because there are no clear answers. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Babara glosson" in Herodotus either means "barbaric dialect" or "barbaric language". Keep things direct, accurate, and simple when it comes to translating ancient Greek texts to English. Deucalionite (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's barbara glossa in the nominative. Herodotus uses the accusative case, but thou shalt not mix cases. As for the rest of it I fail to see what you mean. I thought accuracy IS the concern here and as far as I am concerned non-Hellenic IS accurate. The translator rendered an accurate, simple, direct translation and that is why it is on Perseus. However because barbara glossa is possibly equivocal we are putting in this note. And by the way those are not the only two possible renderings. After seeing this now I got to check what you did. Dave (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked. You didn't do anything. OK. Don't put me on a pedestal, man. Classicists are responsible for writing some of the worst tripe you ever saw. The 1911 EB article was written by a classicist. I guess it is a kind of cockiness; you think because you know Greek and Latin and a lot about the subject you can say what you like and not be careful. That's what I like about Wikipedia. It is no respecter of narrow credentials. I always was a generalist. I'm taking note of the fact that other persons wrote the basic article. I'm only stepping in to polish becase it is a grade B article. If it had a star on it I would not touch it with a 10-foot pole for fear of making it worse. I have no such fear on this article. My interest is in pushing history back to its most ancient limit by concentrating on these names. That is a perfectly predictable interest for a classic major. I know you are miffed by my criticisms. I get miffed, thou getteth miffed, he she ot it gettest miffed, we get miffed ... I think you see what I mean. I ain't miffed. I'm taking Wikipedia's advice and concentrating on producing a good article. So, you won't get half so mad if you do not build me up! There are no heros or anti-heros darn it. I used to like the Shadow and Superman myself. But, there is no one on earth anyway to save us from ourselves. We have to do it as best we can. I got to get on with this as I want to get back to Ionians. Ciao. Dave (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference tag used for original research

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

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

OK, that's fine. I got carried away a little by the spirit of the thing. If you check the ref given to Perseus and follow the note down you will see that there are indeed inconsistencies with Creston. I did not wish to put the whole argument in because it seems to me it is off the point. If they want to follow the argument they can look up the ref. Dave (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way I notice these arguments are coming up only with Herodotus. What about all the other sources? Is there something special about Herodotus?Dave (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The barbarians of Herodotus (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Interjected.] I hardly know how to respond to this. I must say I personally am much moved by it. I was trying to put you more at ease. I see I have failed but my failure is disconcerting to me. I can't see how I was "judging you." I will say one thing though because it seems relevant. You say you have conducted extensive research. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not for personal research. I could have understood better if you said you had taught yourself Greek as many people have done that and done it successfully. I'm not saying, conducting the research was not a good thing, all I am saying is, Wikipedia is not the place for it, and what you say about balanced views is wrong. I don't think unbalance is a place for us to go so maybe you should reconsider. Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, "barbaric language" is just as much of an interpretation as "non-Hellenic language." All translations are interpretations. The one to use here is whichever is the more common way of translating the passage. I don't see that either one of you are making very much reference to recent academic literature--which would be a better way to go than arguing about your own interpretations of Herodotus. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[Interjected.] Well thanks for speaking up. I was beginning to wonder if anyone else was out there. I had some text in there about the possible translations of of barbara glossa and the fact that this has been a long-standing issue but the young man deleted it. I don't see it as a big issue. All you need to say is that there are different possibilites. You know, I looked for a translation I could use that said it his way, in which case I could put the note on that, but I could not find one! His translation wasn't the clearest in other regards so I took it out. You just can't please everyone. Would you like to solve this problem? Maybe you have a nice translation or a ref from last year or this that repeats the issue yet one more time?Dave (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and all interpretations are translations. Even though you make a sound point Akhilleus, the term "barbarian" is directly derived from the ancient Greek term "barbaros" (see Barbarian article). Therefore, we have to follow that basic linguistic paradigm. There is a difference between derivation of terminological paradigms and derivation of terminological meanings. I am emphasizing the former despite the fact that I am well aware of the latter. Deucalionite (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strays from topic

I'm trying to improve this article as requested. I'm a trained classicist. One of the things wrong with it are long copies of Internet material placed in notes that aren't really relevant. On attempting to remove one of these because the material is already covered in the Barbarian article and it is not relevant to the archaeology I encountered a refusal on the part of Deucalion to allow it to be changed. The removal of these long notes would be a major step toward article improvement. Duplicated material on barbarians does not belong hung on the word ethnicity. For the committee to asked for trained help and then just toss it out is highly contradictory. I have suggested Deucalion resign from the committee on the grounds that as an obvious Greek nationalist he cannot maintain a NPOV on the subject. What do you think? Dave (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"committee"? Who appointed a committee? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

: The name is Deucalionite Dave. Deucalionite. Not Deucalion (though I appreciate the compliment). Listen, no one denies the fact that you are improving the article and I am sure you have proven your skills as a trained classicist thanks largely to the edits you have made so far. However, you have yet to convince me why the Foreigners and Barbarians citation should be removed. The source directly explains the dynamics of "ethnicity" in ancient Greece. I am sure that the fluidity of the concept was just as applicable in classical times as it was in Mycenean times.

[Interjected.] Well, sorry about the name. This is a formal reply. The passage you cite talks about barbarians as they were considered in classical times as well as various other epithets and social categories of the Greeks in classical times. It is not a general or sociological consideration of ethnicity. But the archaeological quote means something quite different altogether. It speaks of a time possibly before there were Greeks or when there was proto-Greek. It hypothesizes that the population controlling the plain was different in some way from the population building the hill defenses and as the region is one known to have been inhabited by Pelasgians suggests that the cause of the difference is "ethnicity." By this the author does not mean the classical Greek concept of ethnos or barbarians and Hellenic. This is 1000 plus years before then. He is using the word in our sense of ethnic; that is, he hypothesizes that some ethnic distinction was being made and suggests that it was Pelasgian versus proto-Greek. He and we would have NO idea how the antagonists saw those distinctions. That is why the passage does not fit. One is apples and the other oranges; that is, one talks about classical views of those who were not considered to be a bona fide part of Hellenic society and the other talks about the English concept of ethnicity as applied to anciently recognized such categories. So that is partly why I removed it and why you should back me up. The other part is that since you have the link and the link is fairly direct and live, you do not need to quote the text and can save considerable space by not doing so. A third reason is that you are using the note for quotes that are bigger than the whole section. I recommend taking it out but if it stays in it should be up in the text. End of reply.Dave (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend not spreading useless comments Dave. Though I admit I have a Greek bias (check my userpage), this does not hinder me from making positive contributions and helping this article achieve NPOV. If you bother to read this discussion page, you will notice that I had to deal with users who were more "nationalistic" than I and I somehow managed to convince them to contribute in a more positive manner. If I was so "disruptive" Dave, then I would have removed every edit you made so as to satisfy my "Greek nationalist" appetite. However, such a thing has not happened and you have largely improved the article without hindrance.

I will not resign from the "committee" since I have made major contributions here for a long time and am here to ensure that all edits are scrutinized properly. Just because you are a trained classicist Dave does not make you superior to other users. I recommend speaking to me about the issues you have with the article rather than just doing whatever you want (which is exactly what you have been doing for many days). I think you need to re-evaluate your position and cease distributing useless value judgments against me just because I am being reasonable. Deucalionite (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are making a claim of special authority? This is obscure to me. I've worked on many articles and this is the first time anyone has said to me "I suggest you get my permission before working on the article." You claim that your special authority is to check the edits of other people. I would like to know on what basis you make that claim. I believed and still believe that we all check the edits of each other. For the superiority, no, I'm not saying that. I am claiming to know more than most untrained persons. There are always exceptions, of course, but I must be perfectly candid and say I do not see you as one and I regard your claim of authority of right over the article as invalid. I plan to ignore it. Nobody owns any articles here as far as I can see. If you don't want your stuff edited mercilessly then do not put it up, or some such thing. To be perfectly honest it looks to me as though you just plain lost your temper because I critiqued material you worked on. While I think long editorship and many contributions are creditable nevertheless no one is always right and no one owns the articles except the owner, Wikimedia foundation headed up by James Wales. That is my understanding. James has asked for the public's assistance in creating worthy articles and that is what I am helping to do because the subject is of interest to me and it is an intellectual advantage to have information that is correct and balanced. I got things to do now. If you should choose to apologize I will accept it but you don't own the article. If James or some one he has designated says in essence to me in some way, Dave you need to get Deucalionite's permission and you must accept his opinions as authority then I will believe it (I also won't work on this article) but until then I will go on working in conscience and you can do as you like as can any editor. I'm not inclined to do multiple rv's so you will have to live with the public and the other editors about it. I really got to go now. I would rather have spent the time on the material.Dave (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last shot. I see you deleted my tag. Hmmn. I read your user page carefully. Again hmnn. Apparently you are the way you are because that is the way you want to be. I read the history of our conversations. Hmm. How did it get to this? I see by your user page you sort of expect some consequences of behaving in this way, such as being kicked off Wikipedia. That is probably what has kept it from happening. I can see it is no good confronting you. Well, you know, I'm in this for the intellectual stimulation and excitement. It helps keep me alive. So playing "yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is - no it isn't" seems like a waste of time. And apparently once your pride is stung you never back down. I expect you will never, ever change your mind on this but will insist right to the bitter end, whatever that might be. I got mixed feelings. As we started out well it grieves me that things have got to this pass. On the other hand, sorry to say, it seems pointless to try to communicate with you. What you want is to win. So, I could put the tag back in, and then again after you take it out, and start the process against you - but - what would that gain? I want the article - but I don't want the hassle and there is no point in making things worse. So, the article will just have to be less than perfect. I'm letting you win - if you consider that victory - for the sake of general peace. Apparently you have sort of threatened to start in on it after I finish. Think now. Isn't that really saying, if you don't get things your way you are going to ruin the article? Is that the way you really want to be? I think not. The emotions have carried the day. Well, I stand on my work and you must stand on yours. Articles on Wikipedia melt away like the sands and that is one disadvantage. It would be nice to have a nice article on Pelasgians but it may not be possible. I'll contribute what I can and then the article must fend for itself. I hope I have started a train of thought for you that eventually will make it unnecessary to fear getting kicked off Wikipedia. The mean, the golden mean. As a Greek you should understand that. I'll be in the background. Dave (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is Meddling with a standard translation allowed?

{{RfC}} section=Literary evidence#in Herodotus Is meddling with the translation by Godley allowed !! reason=can an editor reject a standard translation in favor of a biased one? !! time=02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The translation by Godley of the passage in Herodotus translates barbara glossa as non-Hellenic. I put a parenthetical expression in to cover the possibility that it might mean barbaric Hellenic. The latter view was rejected in scholarship at least 50 years ago. Deucalion whom I believe has a nationalist prejudice refuses to allow non-Hellenic to stand, changing Godley's translation. What should we do? Dave (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at other translations, such as Grene's? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't happen to have a copy. Can you throw him in there and see how he flies? Thanks. Dave (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. A decision should be made here. We're tagging the passage as Godley's but deucalionite has altered one word of it. The footnote was designed for the Godley translation. Just whose translation is it? That's why I put this RfC in here, which is my first, and which pains me to do. But, we need some decisions, otherwise it will just hang here forever. Dave (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue apparently has been resolved. Deucalion found an acceptable translation that uses barbarian language in such a way that it does not imply a translational decision as to whether the language is the same. The reader can decide that for himself. It does not need more editing from me. Dave (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"The issue apparently has been resolved." No kidding. I told you a hundred times that the direct translation of "barbara glossa" was "barbaric language" (or "Barbarian language" in accordance to the modern secondary source I added). Despite the fact that Macaulay believes the term "barbarian" to mean "non-Greek," the author is smart enough to provide a direct translation of Herodotus's work instead of transplanting "non-Greek" in every place where Herodotus uses the term "barbarian." That is why Macaulay's work is more valuable than Godley's interpretation of Herodotus's statements from the Roaring 20s. Enough said. And for the last time Dave my name is Deucalionite, not Deucalion. Deucalionite (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting an end to this.

More useless assumptions from the "trained classicist." Let's clear up a few things before our disagreements go too far.

1) I was not implying that the "Etruscan" and "Anatolian" views should be removed. I was simply stating that the data in the literary and archaeological sections provides a stronger case. Moreover, discussing the realities that exist in academic institutions also does not imply that I want to remove the "Etruscan" and "Anatolian" views. Direct evidence is needed to support any viewpoint whether literary, archaeological, or both. Stop using the "original research" card just because you don't agree with other users let alone base your notions of other users on faulty assumptions.

[Interjected.] OK. Stay balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2) You state that Herodotus meant "non-Hellenic" when he called the Pelasgian language "barbaric." Well, I am afraid you are wrong. In accordance to modern secondary sources, Herodotus called the language of the Pelasgians "barbaric." Here is just a sample to prove this basic fact (more sources are on their way):

[Interjected.] What? What is the colon for? In any case we are not going to agree as there are two camps (at least) and I am in the non-Hellenic one because of the Anatolian and possibly Etruscan affinities. But so what? I just did not want you to slant the reader but to give a balanced view and then the reader can be aware of the issue and decide for himself. That is NPOV. Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Herodotus's Conception of Foreign Languages - I do not know why you deleted this when you began editing the Pelasgians article. However, the information it contains is valuable for clarifying whatever "disputes" exist over Herodotus's statements. It is as much of a valuable external link as your Godley reference. The only difference entails the fact that Thomas Harrison's article is from the 1990s and Godley's interpretation of Herodotus's statements dates back to the Roaring 20s.

[Interjected.] I explained why. Mainly the link is also made and explained in barbarian. I think the digest is a good an interesting one even though I wonder if it is not a copyright violation. Google Books is not letting us see any of the book. I suppose it can be made relevant but why use the space again here, why not just a link to barbarian?Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3) Your interpretation of the Skourta Plain project's findings is atrocious to say the least. The areas that were identified as "Pelasgian sites" were Middle Helladic (i.e. Minyan) and Late Helladic (i.e. Mycenean) sites. Either way you slice it, you are talking about two different kinds of "proto-Greek". I am well aware of the fact that the Foreigners and Barbarians addition causes some dissonance, but the source reflects a "carry-over effect" (i.e. since the Pelasgians lived until Herodotus's time, then it would make sense to acknowledge the fluidity of ethnicity between Greeks and Pelasgians and not just between Dorians and Ionians or Spartans and Athenians). If you want to remove the verifiable text associated with the Foreigners and Barbarians citation, then by all means do so. I don't care. However, I deliberately cite direct quotes so that readers can find more easily the source of any data shown in the article.

[Interjected.] Here I have beg off. I don't have an interpretation. Any changes I made there were strictly English-language. The main point is that of the two populations archaeologically defined one predominated on the plain and the other fortified itself on the hills. It looks OK now. Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

4) Just so you know, I am not making any claim to special authority. I am merely emphasizing the fact that I have experience with the article's content evolution. The only reason my statements are "obscure" to you is because you perceive them as "obscure." Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that you should "get my permission" before working on the article. I stated that you should consult with me so that a rudimentary form of collaboration can be established. Moreover, I do not "own" the article since I do not carry the "deed" in my pocket (except, yes, Jimbo Wales). So, please don't waste your breath about such notions. Also, I did not "lose my temper." Being adamant does not always have to entail losing one's temperance. You of all people should know that much. So, please don't waste your time with such notions. On a sidenote, you didn't bother to critique my work since you simply deleted the majority of it. For me to question your edits on minor levels is not a crime just so you know. I don't want you to get permission to work on the article, I want you to work with other reasonable users regardless if you agree or disagree with them. Simple. As for the apology you requested, I am sorry if I have vexed you because I reasonably questioned some of your edits. Sorry to have been such a terrible impediment just because I questioned a trained classicist. Are you happy now?

[Interjected.] I accept your apology. But really, don't you think it is better now and covers more territory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

5) You've read my userpage. Congratulations. Did you read the disclaimer or did you skip it? All my actions (including what I wrote on my userpage) are all under the aegis of "academic business in progress." As for my "pride," I never had any to start with. I had to build it, destroy it, rebuild it, and destroy it again (not a big deal if you think about it). So, spare me the useless interpretations. I am not here to attain "victory" (whatever the hell that means) since you my friend were already "victorious" in the successful edits you have made to the article. So, pat yourself on the back for a job well done despite facing a couple of stumbling blocks. No, I am not going to "ruin" the article if I "don't get my way." Trust me, I know all about article ruination and if I wanted to ruin the article, I would have done it the instant you began editing. I have no intention of wasting time destroying the wonderful edits you have made so far to the article. So, stop with the useless assumptions.

Let's make a deal and end this "rivalry." You work on the article and you leave Herodotus section and the Foreigners and Barbarians citation to me. I have a few more modern sources I would like to add to the roster. Trust me on this. Continue with your work and let me do my work so that we can both show what we are capable of as users. Understand my classicist friend? Deucalionite (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. If you really want the ethnic stuff keep it, but I think it need more work to integrate it. By the way I always work on groups of articles so after these ethnic Greek ones have been worked over you will not see me for a while unless you do other things. I am getting the urge to get on to the Balts and Slavs or back to archaeology or revisit the Germans some more. I also left the Etruscans hanging. There is a method in my madness but I am not telling you what it is. On this article the basic outline is there so I will just be filling in minimum amounts per section. On the theories I would like to find some theorists. If you can't come up with an authoritative Hellenic theory theorist I can always throw in Mueller (or you can). That will be last. There is one theory left out, the Semitic one (a la Cyrus Gordon et al.) The article is getting long I see but I also don't see any help for it if the Pelasgians are to be done justice. Dave (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians language

I propose to add this new reference:

Pelasgians language which is now identified by most of scholars as an Indo – European Language Reference:A language attributed to this people ( Pelasgians ) , proposed by some as a link in the development of other languages, and now identified by many as an Indo-European language. Source: "Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Timothy Darvill. Oxford University Press, 2002.Dodona --Burra (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What page is this in?.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This book is not available online,provide one that is or the same book scanned or in some form that can be checked.The Concise Oxford Dictionary of ArchaeologyMegistias (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You will need an academic password , to enter the site sorry !Dodona--Burra (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then press printscreen and show the text.Megistias (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a book not a site you quoteMegistias (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have a more than adequate section on the various linguistic interpretations. Come back to discuss this here when you've read and understood what's already there. Hint: You'll need some very technical knowledge of linguistics to understand what's there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes template

I put the quotefarm template on as it seemed appropriate since we are probably going to make major changes anyway merging some of the article into another. This is not a personal thing at all. I'm not currently arguing with any editors and previous issues were able to be negotiated. Above and beyond that is the issues of the quotes, which lengthen the article. The issue is, necessarily or not? Some of course are necessary. The ones I think may not be are mainly the duplicated link material; i.e., a link is given to Internet material and then extensive text is pulled from there and duplicated in the same note that makes the link. The editor that does this does it also in other articles so we need some input for his and our benefit. Is this a good practice and why or why not? A second issue is the length of the long quotes. Should we not try to condense? I do not think this should have been or ought to be a topic of contention between two editors personally so I am asking for the community's advice. Dave (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New and old references

I propose to add the following based on this new references:

Pelasgians are pre-Hellenic people living in central and Northern Greece, Athenians claimed Pelasgian ancestry and the Pelasgian element survived , whiles the language of Atiki latter become standard for all Hellenic tribes.

Reference: Pelasgians [CP]. The name in Greek literature for the pre-Hellenic peoples living in central and northern Greece at the time of the immigration of the first true Greeks about 2000 BC. The Pelasgians were widely dispersed in these mass movements, and Herodotus mentions pockets of the Pelasgian language surviving to his own day in Chalcidice and near Cyzicus on the Sea of Marmora. The Athenians claimed a Pelasgian ancestry and in doing so believed that they were the autochthonous inhabitants of Attica. The name of their city and goddess is indeed pre-Hellenic: more probably, a Pelasgian element survived and was absorbed when Attica was occupied by Greeks in the early immigration. The Dorian invasion had little effect on Athens, which was the only citadel of Mycenaean times to survive into the Hellenistic period. How to cite this entry: "Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Timothy Darvill. Oxford University Press, 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

Pelasgians language which is now identified by many as an Indo – European Language, is consider the base for development of other languages of this group by some scholars.

Reference:A language attributed to this people ( Pelasgians ) , proposed by some as a link in the development of other languages, and now identified by many as an Indo-European language. Source: "Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Timothy Darvill. Oxford University Press, 2002.Dodona--Burra (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pelasgian-Athens link is already covered a lot better and doesn't need additional material. The rest of what you wrote is again the result of you misreading your sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is modern, secondary and informative, if you have other suggestion please feel free , but the sources can be used . Dodona --Burra (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources cant be checked and they miss that Athenians claimed that they were ancient Hellenes by being pelasgians.So the attiki that was pelasgic replaced the other Greek langugages that were also pelasgic?!Megistias (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is believed that the parallels between ancient Greek and Albanian language would have occurred early as inheritance from Proto-indo-European without such case found elsewhere in the Indo- European family

Reference: Given that Ancient Greek had both the question usage and the "fear"-complement usage and that there are numerous uncertainties about the prehistory of Albanian, it is tempting to think of these Greek-Albanian parallels as innovations that spread from Greek to Albanian, but such a spread would have occurred, if at all, in an early, pre-Balkanizing, period of contact between the languages. Alternatively, the occurrence of both the question usage and the "fear"-complement usage in Ancient Greek and Albanian could be taken to warrant positing these as inheritances from Proto-Indo-European, even if they are not found elsewhere in the Indo- European family. Source : Author Brian D Joseph : Is Balkan Comparative Syntax Possible? [Version of August 28, 1998] [11]Dodona--Burra (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats about the Balkan liguistic Union that has been explained to you.Albanian have nothing to do with ancient Greek.Megistias (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

yes but the source does not say that, and another source: By linguistic Albanian language is indicated as oldest living indo- European language The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language.Dodona --Burra (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1892 is outdated to say the least.Megistias (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you after all will come to this logic conclusion, because the sources after all are compatible.Dodona --Burra (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence makes no sense. First of all, "the parallels"? Which parallels? All of them? You are again ripping things out of context. Joseph is talking about one particular grammatical feature. Your sentence makes it sound as if it was about a whole bunch of parallels that make Greek and Albanian particularly similar. They are not. And as for inheritance, Joseph is basically saying we know absolutely nothing about where this particular feature comes from. He's just guessing. By the way, have you even understood what feature he is talking about?

About your second "source", the one with the Wackernagel stuff: that is no source, because you didn't even tell us where you got it from. I know you have posted this chunk a million times before. Posting it another million times will not make it more credible. The person who first wrote that sentence was utterly ignorant of linguistics. I'm not blaming you for not recognising it, but I can tell you it's plain and simple bullshit.

To Megistias: The Wackernagel work from 1892 isn't outdated, it's a classic. But it isn't talking about Albanian. Somebody, whoever it is Dodona is quoting, has been ripping Wackernagel out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We can change the parallel with similarities if you like; the second source is mention already in article by another authors Johann Georg von Hahn and Vladimir Georgiev . Please do not get this personal I have nothing with you in particular but I am just expressing my opinion.Dodona--Burra (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian has some affinity with Thracian [12]and is not Greek nor Pelasgian.The article already cover most cases on PelasgiansMegistias (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thracian were Pelasgian tribe in fact.. Reference : 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. Le Pélasgique (1952) and Études pélasgique (1960).Dodona--Burra (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mixgrilling things you dont understand .Pelasgians were in Greece not Romanian areas if they ever existed.Megistias (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are doing that the pelasgians were pre-Hellenic people living in central and Northern Greece as source indicates.Dodona --Burra (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Central Greece and Northern Greece were Ancient Greece and Pelasgians were considered hellenes in the ancients.Megistias (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources indicate that they lived all over Greece and parts of the Aegean shores.Not Romanian areas nor Illyrian ones.Megistias (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no link established from Albanian to Illyrian and scant evidence exist to relate it to a form of Thracian.There is no "Pelasgian" link and Albanians were not Ancient Greeks.Megistias (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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.Source : Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 144.Dodona --Burra (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We cant know if it is a descendent of Illyrian since we the evidence are poor and We cant know if it is a descendent of Thracian since the evidence are poor as well but we know more and its Satem.Albanian is not Greek nor Pelasgian.Megistias (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian as sources indicate is the oldest indo-europian language with similarity with ancient Greek and of course with Pelasgian but not so much with the new Greek language i am afraid , but Arvanitika propably.Dodona--Burra (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern and Ancient Greek is one of the languages with the greatest continutity.Albanian is not Greek nor Pelasgian.Albanian is a language recorded in the past 500 years-we dont know what it was nor the origin of the albanians- at most while Greek in the past thousands of years.16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs)

You can find out from ancient inscriptions if you are able and fare enough.Dodona --Burra (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All secondary sources

Feel free to improve it, do not deleted !

The French author Zacharia Mayani proposed the thesis that the Pelasgic language has connections with the Albanian language. Although this theory has been advanced by other authors (Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, D'Angely, Kolias, Pilika), most scholars considered the arguments of Mayani extremely soft.

Nermin Vlora Falaski, in his book "Heritage linguistic and genetic" (written also in English), has cracked pelasgic inscriptions (like Lemnos steal) with the Albanian language, the same argument was achieved by Niko Stylo when he translated old transcriptions with the help of Arvanitika ( a form of Albanian ). The theories which links Albanian with Thracian language add further to this point, since Thracians are considered by scholars as Pelasgian tribe.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 is derivated. This would prove that the Albanians are the descendents or have significative links with the pelasgians. --Dodona (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thracians & Illyrians are not considered Pelasgians and in the antiquity only the Greeks were.Stylo,Falaski and Kollias are laughable pseudohistorians.Thracian is already covered in the article.Megistias (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

what about others i can delete some if you want?!--Dodona (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How you could make such a strict claim!How you will define who the Greek were, because this is a modern name and you contradict a lot the term, do not assume then means nothing if many sources comes to one argument.Then why you "patrioti" anywhere :-)--Dodona (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What Mayani(Enver Hoxha era) has ingeniously pursued can be anything but science.So nothing can be used.Pelasgians represent a mythic entityMegistias (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian

Dear Burra.The paragraph is about Albanian and not the Albanians.Lemnos translations with Albanian (or Turkish) are pseudo history and unscientific.Thracians are covered.You repeat yourself and add redundant elements and forum links.There is no "Thraco-illyrian-Epiriot" and making up things isn't very nice.infoMegistias (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mathieu Aref-an Albanian- you quote is not a reliable source as well as he goes against any and all scientific data and finds and simply baptizes Albanian as Mycenaean,Carian,Pelasgian and so on.We know what Mycenaean is but seems this fellow was asleep during class.Megistias (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who mention Turkish , but i would mention your similarity, in accusations , all fringe because has do to with Albania and not with Greece, it can not be more stupid --Dodona (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More about Albanian-Pelasgian link

(Offensive section title changed)

this is what i added in the "albanian" section in the pelasgian article in wikipedia

"The French author Zacharia Mayani proposed the thesis that the Pelasgic language has connections with the Albanian language. Although this theory has been advanced by other authors (Falaski, Catapano, Marchiano, D'Angely, Kolias, Pilika), most scholars considered the arguments of Mayani extremely soft."

what's wrong in this citation? this text that i put in wikipedia is for information, is the albanian perspektive, you can't delete this, else this is not right, this is indoctrination (and not the comunist indoctrination), so you want to hide the fact that Mayani said that the pelasgic language have the connection with the albanian? you want to hide that nermin vlora falaski, giuseppe catapano, robert d'angely, kolias, dimitriu pilika and more others supported this theory? in wikipedia i don't want to say that albanians are pelasgians, i want just to put this theory available of the persons that want to know the different theoryes and thesis, for you this is wrong? so, if for you this is wrong, wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia, but is a encyclopedia where administrators decide just the informations that they like to put in the articles

i am waiting for an answer especially from Megistias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.15.92 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been answered above on all accounts and you have been answered by admins as well like FuturePerfect.Is this another sockpuppet Burra?Also "greek propaganda".....no further comment.Megistias (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not burra, i just put this text on the article and i am asking you why you have deleted my text, so for you i lie if i say that mayani said that the pelasgian language had connection with the albanian? you did not answer me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.15.92 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You logged on with your Dodona alias and wrote it[13] More suckpuppetry.Oh my.You can see it above in the page as well.Megistias (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias ( in fact I double your combination with Tsourk ) do not make accusation and be civilized enough not to delete anything I write, because Hellenes were civilized you see.

I propose the following improved statement,feel free all the user for suggestions:

Johann Georg von Hahn connected the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian language with Albanian.

Pelasgic inscriptions (like Lemnos steal,Dipylon inscription )were translated with Albanian language, this were considered fringe by some scholars and supported by some others. ..

The theories that link Albanian language with Thracian have stepped forward to this point, since Thracians are considered by some scholars as Pelasgian tribe . 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.

Albanian national ethnography and symbolic has been argued to be linked with Pelasgians by some modern Albanian historiographs with international reputations like Dhimiter Pilika. , Spiro Konda, Muzafer Xhaxhiu

--Dodona (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My question is very simple, is true or not that Mayani, d'Angely, Falaski, Catapano, Pilika etj etj support the thesis that the pelasgian language had connections with the albanian?

if yes, why i can't write this in the section "albanian" in the voice "pelasgians" in wikipedia?

this is what i asked, if i can't write this, it means that wikipedia is not free and i have the only change to consider this a "greek propaganda in wikipedia"

I am still waiting the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.2.209 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See above subjects-don't pretend you cant- where the text is that you copied and change the offending subject name "Greek propaganda" .Megistias (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He pretends that we are the same editors ! Can you see now that it is not just me that i have this opinion. I mean who knows better then you the democracy . --Dodona (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not be very impressed 151.81.2.209 they do this thing all the time. Feel free to participate in this discussion where I am judged by them , they are most originally Albanian but they loath everything Albanian , you know what I mean it is just “schizophrenic “ [14]--Dodona (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Its about sources it doestn matter how many people copy paste them.And the "loathing" and “schizophrenic “ accusations against us i leave them with no comment.Megistias (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not making accusation, and i am sorry for who maked that accusation, i am asking you a question and you still not answered me, "it's about sources", with this what do you mean, i must prove you what i said about mayani? answer me and don't change subject please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.16.192 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudolinguistic and Pseudohistorical fringe theories don't belong here since they are questionable sources.Above in the page the sources you quoted have been rejected many times in the recent past and long before that and not only by me.Dont pretend you cant read the page.Megistias (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here as well.Albanians as pelasgians sectionMegistias (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Now i am registered, i am the user that created this subject), Megistias, this is not an acceptable answer, i did not asked you for Pseudolinguistic and Pseudohistorical fringe theories, i asked you if it is true or not that mayani and more others support the theory that pelasgian language had connections with the albanian? if yes, i am asking you why i can't write this fact (that mayani supported this theory), maybe you did not understand me, or maybe you did not want yourself to understand me, in the albanian perspektive in the voice pelasgians, i want just to add the names of some scholars and wich theory they support without talking if they are right or not

if you denie me this, i repeat you, i can only consider this a greek propaganda, and not free encyclopedia

i am waiting the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have answered many times-and other users in the subjects above- but you are a Disruptive user.They are pseudo historians and questionable sources.Kollias for example is hilarious and he goes against all science to claim that Albanian is Pelasgian,Ancient Greek...and he was a lawyer not a historian or linguist.Megistias (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, I know it comes as a surprise (it was one for me too), but apparently the 151.* IP user may in fact not be Dodona. 151 is located in Italy, while Dodona has so far always posted from Albania. Of course, he might be travelling. But as long as we've no clear indication to the contrary, we should assume they are different people. You know, Dodona is not the only Albanian who writes not-so-brilliant English and has a bee in their bonnet about Pelasgians. If you want more certainty, I recommend you request a checkuser. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He did contribute exactly the same thing at exactly the same time and the above converation is "weird"Megistias (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, 151 made a new contribution [15] which, though in equally poor English, was noticeably more coherent and more aware of NPOV requirements than what Dodona usually writes. Dodona then reinstated that material half a day later and mixed it with some of τα δικά του. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

what's this, a discussion about my ip? i am the owner of a website oh ancient history, and i am not here to talk with you about this, i am asking you why you make this discrimination.

Megistias, so now you say that you denie me do write what thesis they support because you say they are not historians and linguistics? so if i find names of international supported scholars you will let me put wich thesis they support, right?

i am waiting your answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what "of" owner you are.This is about relevant reliable sources.You got my answer plenty of times but you dont like it it seems.Reliable sources properly quoted with relevance go in just like of any other user.Megistias (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, calm it please. A mistake was made due to the superficial similarity of Dodona's and PelasgicMoon's edits, PM's edits were met with the impatience Dodona had earned. Now, let's take a step back and look at PM's proposal in its own right, calmly and dispassionately. If he can quote people in the literature who have actually proposed some kind of link between "Pelasgic" and the ancestor of Albanian, let's see who these authors are, discuss politely what status we should give them in the article and how they will best fit in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

finally someone that is not influenced by the discrimination, i will bring as soon as possible some material —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the above except the one already in the article.The proposed addition has pseudohistorians with fringe theories and no value for an encyclopedic article.Even Mayani was invited by Enver to theorize on pelasgians to cultivate albanian nationalism but he commited pseudohistoric work to say the least.Pseudohistorians dont belong here for the simple reason that if this happens than every and any nationalistic theory will start going in and in a while we will have hordes of "theorists" going in.Kollias caused this problem and so on.Only secondary reliable verifiable sources.Megistias (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In order which reason all this horror for this ascertainment? Believe me, to no Albanian never has gone in head to widen the borders of Albania in the Greek earth because only inhabits them Greek citizens with Albanian origins, and because dark agencies of Greek politics have a century that they have made and still they make demanded similar to disadvantage of Albania. I remember the so-called organizations of "vorio epirit" that interlaced with segments of the Greek orthodox church still today continue in the 21 century their gestures anti-Albanians. But never I have for this reason not thought to make guilty all the Greek people!

Of sure I do not accuse you of being part of this current but however its infuence in the political and social life of Greece has been strong and is natural that many persons have fallen without wanting it in the waves of these theories before seen nationalists but that in second truth me they have not made nothing else that they have rung today Greece in the borders from "the enemy" people.

So, please, leave the comunist era, i am not here to speak about comunist indoctrination ot the greek church indoctrination, (if you want to discuss about this i can invite you to join my website for discussion about this arguments), the discussion is not this, i am here to have the right to put the albanian prespektive supported from different scholars, i will bring as soon as possible the names and the reliable source that is nedded, —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about wiki articles not about politics or the irrelevant things you talk above.Its not a forumMegistias (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

you are sayng me this is not a forum? you begun with Enver, so please stop accusing me, i told you from the begin i am here to put in the albanian section of pelasgians the thesis of scholars —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"dark agencies of Greek politics " you say above and some other stuff.......Megistias (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

so you discriminate albanian scholars, ok, this is a small part part of the not-albanians that support the theory that the pelasgian language had conenctions with the albanian, let's begin from the book of the greek citizen "Aristidh Kola, "The language of the Gods" publicated aswell as in greek language,

the french Robert D'angely with "Enigma" and more more others, the italian Giuseppe catapano "Thot parlava albanese", -karl treimer "the contribute of the albanian language" (1914), "the problem ilir-celt and the indoeuropians" (1957). "the iliro-albanian contribute of the europian culture"(1968)

-Hans krahe "ancient geographic names of the illyrians of the balkan" (1925), "the illyrian language"(1955)

-Antun mayer "the language of the ancient illyrians" (1957)

-H.olberg "the dictionary indoeuropian of the albanian"

-G. uhliche "precisations greke in the spoken dialekt albanian of atica"

"NOCTES PELASGICAE", published to Atene year 1855 from KARL HAINRICH THEODOR REINHOLD.

if this for you it is not ok, i can add more and more others

you can't hide the fact that there is a hipotesys that links the pelasgic language with the albanian, if in this section is putted "Pelasgians as hellenic" it must have space the albanian section aswell, because i never saw a international book where is writed that hellens are the descendants of the pelasgians (and this is really to prove!), so if you denie me to write in the space "albanian" in the voice pelasgians you should delete the section "pelasgians as hellenic" aswell, because i have 0 proves that links pelasgians with hellens!

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes .

• Kollia was a lawyer.A pseudohistorian
• D' angely is from hereillyrians org and claims that Napoleon was Albanian.In pages 113-117 he wrote that "Napoleon Bonaparti was an albanian origin, same as it was Great Alexander".A laughable pseudohistorian.
• Giuseppe catapano "Thot parlava albanese".He wrote that Thot the Egyptian spoke Albanianillire.Hilarious pseudohistorian.
• karl treimer "the contribute of the albanian language" (1914)"the problem ilir-celt and the indoeuropians" (1957)."the iliro-albanian contribute of the europian culture"(1968).You wrote the titles wrong .Even today illyrian albanian connection is not established and illyrians were not Pelasgians.Read the article first.
• Hans krahe "ancient geographic names of the illyrians of the balkan" (1925), "the illyrian language"(1955).Outdated and Even today illyrian albanian connection is not established and illyrians were not Pelasgians.Read the article first.
• Antun mayer "the language of the ancient illyrians" (1957).Outdated and Even today illyrian albanian connection is not established and illyrians were not Pelasgians.Read the article first.
• H.olberg "the dictionary indoeuropian of the albanian".Albanian is Indoeuropean....we knew it.
• G. uhliche "precisations greke in the spoken dialekt albanian of atica".Post Ottoman conquest maybe during Byzantine era effects.Unrelated.
• "NOCTES PELASGICAE", published to Atene year 1855 from KARL HAINRICH THEODOR REINHOLD.Outdated.

-You didnt even quote from the books and some are completely irrelevant.On the pelasgians and the hellenes read the Article for the many ancient quotes that they are the same people.

Megistias (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

so for you all are liers, greek italian french doich liers, aniway i will bring more material, (even if i am sure you will not let me because you want to hide this hipotesis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said they were "liars". Why do you put words in people's mouths? The sources you list are unreliable or irrelevant to the article. Since you are new to Wikipedia, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you want your sources to be taken seriously, they must be reliable, secondary and modern, and have a reputation for fact checking. This is not the case for any of the sources you list above. It doesn't matter if you list a million more such sources, none of them will be taken seriously as long as they are so unreliable. Quantity is not a substitute for quality, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because there are a lot of pseudo-historians and pseudo-linguists doesn't mean their ideas are fit to print in an encyclopaedia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok just prove with sources that all authors and references that were mention are fringe as you describe them, for me you are fringe , no body knows you and who you are , only thing known about you is that you are Greek, this tells me nothing and a lot, therefore prove again that they are fringe, Outdated, laughable pseudohistorian , liars,hilirous and what ever term you used for them.--Dodona (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona is right, you must prove even who "internationally acepted" sayd that they are liers...

Let's begin 1 per 1:

Nermin Vlora falaski, is a supporter of the thesis that the pelasgian had links with the albanian, especially in this book she explain that, "Linguistic and genetic heredities"

now i demostrate she is not a lier

Major Awards

1981, "Oficial de la Orden de San Carlos" motu proprio President of the Republic of Colombia;

1986, honoris causa in Comparative Linguistics of the World University Benson (Arizona, USA);

1987, Senator (Science Section) of the International "Guglielmo Marconi" Rome;

1989, Mr Senator of the International Medici of Florence;

1993, Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic;

1998, Commendatore dell'Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana.

now i demostrated who is she and what she supported, now i can add her in the albanian section in the voice "pelasgians" —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been answered on his theories before by admins,users and you just keep at it.It doesnt matter if he had good grades at school or if he was president of the galactic federation.Your insistance is not a secondary source.Megistias (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(From above and previous many answers)He used Arvanitika a medieval language to translate....the Lemnos steles and the Dipylon inscription as"Pelasgic"!!!!!. The dominant opinion these days is that the Lemnos steles are in a language closely related to Etruscan. To assume that this is part of what classical Greek writers would have understood by "Pelasgic" is a joke. As for the Dipylon inscription, that is simply beyond ridiculous. That inscription is Greek, period. Anybody who claims otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. Come on, we have an article on the thing, read it. Falaski Not a reliable source but a laughable one.Megistias (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

who is speaking for the translations of falaski? maybe you are changing subject? you told me about "reilable sources" and this is a reilable source, and falaski is internationally supported, so i have the right 100% to put her thesis in the albanian section, and if you want to denie me, first demostrate me that falaski is not a reliable source with "reliable sources", i demostrated that she is internationally supported and now if you want to delete my text you must dimostrate me the opposite, i am waiting your demostration that falaski is not internationally supported PelasgicMoon (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have and you are disrupting.Read wiki rules before you post.We work on wiki rules here not your own.He is the paramount of the questionable sources.Making me repeat myself is very annoying.Megistias (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

don't change subject, because, you know, here your opinion or my opinion is nothing, here are accepted only internationa theoryes as you told me, so now i am still waiting your demostration PelasgicMoon (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported.I have read the rules and obviously either you & Dodona havent or choose to ignore them.Me and the rest of the interested editors dont want to waste all my wiki days replying to you about something you dont understand or dont want to .Read the rules.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No enough with speculations (most or all greek editors) , no one believes you anymore. So give a source for any opinion you express otherwise any thing you declare is controversial, do you get that. Give sources to prove that all honorable scientific authors : Pilika , D’Angeli , Vlora , Majani , Catapano, Stilo , konda , Xhaxhiu, Marchiano,l Hans, Reinhold etc etc are what ever you say. Do you get that, we do not believe you!--Dodona (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So even Futureperfect the admin and your Mentor Deukaliniote are in it too?.....You should have read the rules and went by them.Megistias (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let the speculation, there are some that in fact I respect more then you , answer what I ask give a source ok--Dodona (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

so you want to report me? i am just asking you, you can demostrate or not what you said? PelasgicMoon (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have many times above and i dont intend to write again what you ignore for 1000th time.Megistias (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Verify with source any thing you declare ,that is all we ask--Dodona (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop disrupting and pretending you dont see what is written.Megistias (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No independent secondary source to support your argument, I double any thing you say, I am sorry ! --Dodona (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add this statement,please prove any argument against you give with independent secondary sources:Albanians' national ethnography and symbolic has been argued to be linked with Pelasgians by some modern Albanian historiographs with international reputations like Dhimiter Pilika. , Spiro Konda, Muzafer Xhaxhiu--Dodona (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please again do not speculate , prove with secondary indepedent source any declaration you make so you mention "Pseudohistorian" give a source that Pilika for instance, is describe as you say--Dodona (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Pilika is not verifiable so we can fully discern what he is and truly the part you posted on Pelasgo Symbolism was more than enough to show what he is.... and you didnt quote him,you linked a forum post in Albanian in your ref 26......Megistias (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And I did not participate in any Pelasgic forum, in a Greek forum yes !--Dodona (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote"you linked a forum post in Albanian"not that you took part yourself in any forum you mention above.Megistias (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not change the argument, so you do not know nothing abou Pilika, why in hell you call him psuedohistorian , just give source and prove your arguement otherwise i will say that simply don not say the truth, you know wAHT I MEAN !--Dodona (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok of course you do not have, so I will give you two sources in Albanian, but I am not gone a translate to you s,b else may help you :

“” Merr ftese per te mbajtur ne "Palais du Luxembourg", Paris, nje referat gjate Kongresit "Hapesire adriatike", ku ishin ftuar 600 erudite nga 5 kontinente. Dokumenton me deshmi specialistesh te huaj dhe shqiptare se, populli yne eshte me i vjetri ne Evrope. Teza e botuar ngjalli jehone ne rrethet akademike (1994).””

“”Nderohet nga qeveria e Republikes Franceze me ftese zyrtare njemujore per kerkime shkencore ne Paris. Pervec qindra dokumenteve te zbuluara per lidhjet midis popujve franceze e shqiptare, ai sjell ne Tirane riprodhimin e nje vepre unikale per historine e Shqiperise. Fale ndihmeses fisnike te profesorit Dominique Briquel, i cili vuri ne perdorim aparaturat e sofistikuara me rreze lazer, duke i sjelle kombit shqiptar nje kopje te traktatit historik, gjeografik, enciklopedik, te zbuluar ne nje arkiv mesjetar italian nga iluministi yne, Dhimite Pilika. Doreshkrimi prej 1040 faqesh format madhor ne latinisht, i eshte dhuruar arkivit te Muzeut Historik Kombetar””

P.S.Please seperate your talk from mine i don't want to belive that mixing the pages is part of your plan --Dodona (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?Megistias (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Forum posts are not a verifiable source or a source for anything and your translation of them arent as well.Megistias (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk of Director of National museum of Albania.Dr.Moikom Zeqo [16].And for translation are you serious , you can find one to translete from Albanian or Arvanitika (a from of Albanian), i mean it can not be that worst , shame on you ! --Dodona (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an internet forum in Albanian.Megistias (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

When Megistias (talk) does not like what the authors say about Illyrians-Albanians and Epirus (his main propaganda agenda) or even in this case the Pelasgians,he calls them psuedohistorian.(e.g.and some pseudo-historians like Edwin E. Jacques and Kollias, Aristidis.[17] [18])--Taulant23 (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Taulant23, it is inappropriate to comment on another editor's "propoganda (sic) agenda". Please discuss the edits, not the editor. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what they are.Megistias (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edwin E. Jacques was a Priest and Kollias, Aristidis a lawyer.They both wrote fringe theories on history contradicting the whole of linguistic,historical,linguistic science.If you dont like reality its your issue not mine and not of wiki's.Megistias (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, please don't say this because you make angry someone, i demostrated you that nermin vlora falaski is not layer and she is internationally supported, and you denied me aniway. This is OF COURSE a greek propaganda, i tryed to speak with you seriously but this is impossibile, because you said yourself, you consider the recent storians "pseudohistorians" and the old one (before the enver era) outdated, so how can i make a serious conversation with you? it is impossible, for the simple reason you're greek and you want to hide this hipotesis as hundreds greeks before you done in other ways. salutes. PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You dont understand what (Offensive section title changed) is? What questionable source and disruption is? All the answers above and nto only by me are more than enough.Megistias (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are what you were called,this is the best word to describe you and someothers , at least this thing what you do here could be done by someone more skillful then you ..If s.b is Lawer ,Doctor , Eng etc is nothing wrong if he is dediticated to another field, some of the best Arkeologist were people of other proffesions, so there is not enough to call them what ever you call them without apperently any suitable reasons os source . What strike me is how they let you do what ever are you doing and why support you in any dull thing you write around. I am sorry that you have Albanian background.--Dodona (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nermin Vlora Falaski

PelasgicMoon, I don't know where you got that list of credentials for this author called Nermin Vlora Falaski from. But anyway, the only entry that looks like some qualification in linguistics is what you quote as "1986, honoris causa in Comparative Linguistics of the World University Benson (Arizona, USA)". Now, apparently, The World University at Benson, Arizona is an unaccredited institution "dedicated to education in esoteric, spiritual, and non-traditional subjects", and it gives out its diplomas by "distance learning". In other words, it's most likely some kind of diploma mill, one of those places where you can essentially buy fake Ph.D. titles for money. Having a "degree" from that place is worse for his/her reputation than having no degree at all.

As for these other impressive-sounding awards, I don't know what he/she got those for, but certainly it wasn't for their advances in linguistics.

Moreover, if N.V.F. is the author of those "decipherments" you quote at your website [19], then the issue is finished, those are indeed on the same level with those idiocies about the Dipylon inscription and all the rest. "Fringe" is putting it mildly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PelasgicMoon, stop spamming this article. You are in violation of WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT (and Future Perfect at Sunrise, you may be in violation of WP:DFTT :p) If you can substantiate the von Hahn reference, you are welcome to do it. That would be of marginal historical interest. Apart from that, "Pelasgian" simply has nothing to do with Albanian. See WP:ENC. If you can reference crackpot claims of Albanian nationalists to the effect, you want to edit the Albanian nationalism article, not this one. dab (𒁳) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, PelasgicMoon is actually a bona fide newbie, so I'm just trying not to bite him too much :-) Apart from that, I agree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

bona fide newbies need to be told once to review earlier debate and the relevant policy pages. Those that keep spamming fringe theories regardless have already lost their innocence. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)