Jump to content

Talk:Arvanitika

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shqiptar nga Kosova (talk | contribs) at 11:23, 2 November 2005 (→‎Compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. Archive: Archive 1

Page move

I propose moving this page to Arvanitika. I think that Arvanitika is the best choice. It does not toe the separate language line of Arvanitika language, nor does it toe the Albanian dialect line of Arvanitika Albanian (which is the name that UNESCO uses). It is the middle way, and normally should not provoke reaction from anyone who has good faith, given that Arvanitika plain is the name that the Helsinki Report uses and is a compromise between both pro-Albanian and pro-Greek views expressed by different groups of Arvanites. If no serious objections are raised in the next 72 hours, I'll proceed in moving the page to Arvanitika. REX 13:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming policy

It is Wikipedia policy to include the word "language" in the names of all such articles. Whether or not User:REX considers Arvanitic a mere dialect is irrelevant. Perhaps he objects to Tosk language, then?--Theathenae 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please keep "Arvanitic", not "Arvanitika", because that is the name of the language in English. bogdan | Talk 13:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's move Tosk language to Tosk. It should be there. Rex(talk) 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from moves

This page, and this talk page, have been protected from moves by myself and Master Thief Garrett until this damn mess is sorted out. There are inconsistent redirects all over the place. There has been no consensus to move this to Arvanitika or Arvanitica - language or any of these such locations. Consensus is not a case of "if no-one objects within 24 hours" nor is it a case of what the majority wants.

Some of you are dangerously close to violating our three-revert rule insofar as these moves go, which will mean an immediate 24-hour block. Please begin discussing ideas for:

  1. Where you want the article and the talk page to be
  2. What redirects should point to the new location

I'll be keeping an eye on this situation, as well as cleaning up this damn redirect mess as far as possible. Please let me know on my talk page if a consensus is reached. This will not be today - I want some proper, mature discussion of this. Revert warring and move warring are not the answer. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think that's all the redirects cleaned up. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that User:REX's page move was completely arbitrary and in contravention of Wikipedia policy on the naming of language articles. It's a pity that a mini-edit war was required to draw the attention of the administrators.--Theathenae 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears someone is willing to begin building consensus. However, you were moving the page to Arvanitic - language, which doesn't actually fit naming conventions. We may need to settle for copious redirects on this one. I'm looking for more opinions before I unprotect this, however. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A useful example

To try to provide an example of how things generally work on Wikipedia, I thought I'd look at English and see how it's done for that language.

Therefore, I'd surmise that the accepted style in this case would be:

At the same time, it might not hurt to have that disambiguation page pointing to:

regarding moves and deletes

It took me some minutes to find where is this wiki today. Just two hours ago it existed in Arvanitika. There's an open ArbCom case I'm involved, and it is about Arvanites as well. And I must point out, that Arvanitika or whatever should have a redirect here. +MATIA ☎ 14:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the inconvenience caused, but there was an absolute mess of redirects as I explain to you, so I thought it better to delete them and have them re-created once this article had found a permanent home. Please try to build consensus on this page to determine where that home should be. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Joseph calling Arvanitika a dialect/variety of Albanian

  • link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented. Without discussing the very difficult theoretical issue of what the difference is between a language and a dialect, it is important to note that most of the attention that has been paid to dying speech forms in recent years has been to whole languages that are threatened, not to marginal dialects of languages that are otherwise thriving. Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. … While it is certainly true that there are some

such cases of loss in Arvanitika, some of Trudgill’s claims may be overstated in the light of the full range of Arvanitika dialect diversity, as Hamp has shown.

  • link 2: In a sense then, looking at an on-going contact situation such as that mentioned above involving Urdu, Marathi, and Kannada speakers in Kupwar is more crucial for understanding the Balkan Sprachbund than are constructs from modern syntactic theory. Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund, for these typically village-based situations approximate the contact situation in the Balkans 600 years or so ago in ways that an examination or comparison of the various present-day, generally urban-based, standard languages cannot. What one sees in examining the urban standards is perhaps the aftereffects of the contact from several centuries ago, but it is not such a direct window on the conditions that gave rise to the Sprachbund effects.
  • link 3: Arvanitika is to be considered a

dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect).

  • link 4: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian.

I believe that it is now perfectly clear that the above, in conjunction with the Helsinki Report and UNESCO and Ethnologue and Encarta and Britannica Arvanitika is a dialect of Albanian regardless if MATIA and Theathenae like it or not.

Also, the Helsinki Report says that the Arvanites of northwestern Greece (Epirus and Western Macedonia) call themselves Shqiptar

Also, Ethnologue says that there are 150,000 speakers of Arvanitika.

Can MATIA and Theathenae explain themselves, they have not provided ANY sources to support their edits, all they do is revert and then not be able to explain why. So much for MATIA, I at one moment in the past had thought better of you, silly mistake of mine, to think that you were neutral. Even if God himself verified what I say above, I bet you wouldn't believe it. GET SOURCES!

To get to the point, it appears to be perfectly clear that the status of the language/dialect is disputed. That is why is should be at Arvanitic (linguistics) as per Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) and Cantonese (linguistics). There are no sources which say that Arvanitic is a language in its own right, are there? Therefore ity should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics). I have to go now. Regards Rex(talk) 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a move request and contact everyone from other talk pages for a vote, as per Talk:Macedonian denar. Wikipedia's naming conventions must be observed, that explains Flemish (linguistics). I'll propose moving it to Arvanitic (linguistics) as its status is disputed, like Mandarin (linguistics). Rex(talk) 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I believe that Arvanitic language should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics) to reflect the fact that its status as a dialect or a language in its own right is disputed. All other disputed languages/dialects on Wikipedia have titles of the form X (linguistics) (eg Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) etc), which is a neutral and NPOV form as it doesn't take sides. I have provided evidence at Talk:Arvanitic language#Discussion that it is viewed as a dialect by the majority (if not all) of the scientific establishment (UNESCO), but as its status on Wikipedia is diputed (the users who believe that it is a language haven't provided any sources whatsoever), I believe that the form used by all other disputed dialects should be used and not take sides. Especially given that there is no evidence to suggest that it is a language in its own right in the first place.


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages): languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages. Arvanitic does not share its name with anything else, therefore the qualifier language is not required and plain Arvanitic would suffice. Please note that Arvanitic is the English word for Arvanitika (a Greek word) according to Ethnologue. However, the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right is disputed. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, sources say that it is a dialect of Albanian.
Specifically:

  • UNESCO [1] uses the name "Arvanitika Albanian" and says that it is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian.
  • Ethnologue [2] also uses the name "Arvanitika Albanian", but states that Arvanitic is an alternative name.
It has been argued that those sources refer to Arvanitic a language and therefore they are calling it a language. That is misleading. If you look up language, you will see that language is a form of communication and therefore, calling something a language does not in itself mean that it can not be a dialect. Having read dialect, it becomes clear that all dialects are languages, but not vice versa.

As these two reliable sources call this language Arvanitika Albanian, they are obviously indication that it is a variety (linguistics)/dialect of Albanian. Also, UNESCO unequivocally calls it a dialect. Other sources include the professor at Ohio University, Brian Joseph staunchly defends the term dialect to refer to Arvanitic. Some of his works include the quotes:

  • link 1: That is to say, one way of looking at the endangerment of Arvanitika is not treating it as an endangered language but rather as an endangered dialect of a language that is otherwise relatively robustly represented [[[Albanian language|Albanian]] is robustly represented in all its other forms]. … Thus, another way of thinking about the endangerment of Arvanitika is in relation to the rest of Albanian. [ie Arvanitic is a part of Albanian (ie a dialect)]
  • link 2: Similarly, current contact within Greece involving standard Modern Greek interacting with Arvanitika, the variety [look up variety it means dialect] of Tosk Albanian spoken in Greece for some 600 years or more, or Aromanian, also known as Vlach, the variety of Romanian spoken in Greece for at least several centuries, provide important insights into…
  • link 3: Thus Arvanitika is considered a dialect of Albanian (in the broad sense, not a dialect of the gjuha e njesuar, the standard language I referred to) because it is roughly mutually intelligible with other varieties of Albanian. [I think that this one is clear enough]
  • link 4: Arvanitika is to be considered a dialect of Albanian, part of the sub-group of Albanian dialects known as the "Tosk" dielcts (essentially southern Albanian -- the

present-day standard Albanian language (so-called gjuha e njesuar 'the unified language') is based on a Tosk dialect). To get to the point, I believe that Arvanitic language should be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics) to reflect its status (according to the above reliable sources) as a dialect (or disputed dialect). All other dialects or languages with disputed status use the form I am suggesting. For example Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Cantonese (linguistics) etc. if you check the talk page of these articles, you would notice moving them to Flemish language etc ha been suggested, and it has been found that their current form is more NPOV (it doesn't take sides) and is more stable. Using the name Arvanitic (linguistics) is not a violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and that form is used by almost every other article on a (disputed) dialect on Wikipedia. It is the NPOV way to go about this. Rex(talk) 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

enough

Wikipedia is not a tyranny of majority and certainly not a tyranny of a small group of users. I'll take it to the related open ArbCom case within this week. I'm sick and tired of REX's tactics. +MATIA ☎ 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had left some comments at Talk:Arvanites#Brian_Joseph_calling_Arvanitika_a_dialect.2Fvariety_of_Albanian and if a group of neutrals review the 4 links I've provided before (Talk:Arvanites#Brian_Joseph_on_Arvanitika) it'll be proven that REX misinterprets him. +MATIA ☎ 15:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA, If you have any sources, please "sing" them to us. If not, let us proceed with the move, it is not tactics. Didn't you say: I'm sick and tired of a certain group of users who disrespect everything. There was a poll, long discussions ... I don't get it are votes only tyrannies of the majority on selective cases? Why wan't that poll a tyranny of the majority? Rex(talk) 15:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am NOT misinterpreting those sources. They clearly say the word DIALECT. How can that be misinterpreted? I am saying that given that the status of the language is disputed a neutral way of saying it should be found. What's wrong with that? Rex(talk) 16:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean logic cannot be applied to my comments. You misinterpret my comments as well. +MATIA ☎ 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring everything related on the open ArbCom case. As for my sources I always write them at the buttom of the wikis I edit (that includes Scanderbeg, Arvanites and Arvanitic language). I am not going to sing them to you, I've already spent too much time with your tactics. You haven't told me before if you believe that the first two letters of ISBN stand for Invisible Sources (that's how you called my sources before). Don't answer here, save it for the ArbCom. +MATIA ☎ 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First up, the Arbitration Committee is not for content disputes. Second, there's obviously a clear problem between you two here. Thank you both for not resorting to personal attacks thus far. Matia, if there is a problem with Rex personally, please do take it up with ArbCom, who will try to sort out that mess. And what is this ISBN rubbish? The acronym stands for International Standard Book Number. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as you've read before: if we have an article called Macedonian language for MKD then I'm sure we can have an article called Arvanitika language for AAT. +MATIA ☎ 16:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA, I'm trying to find a neutral solution, what do you want? Do you want everyone to agree with everything you say? I have done nothing wrong. This is a standard procedure to make a consensus to move a page. I don't see what the big deal is. Do you not want a consensus? I have told you. Are my arguments and sources invalid or something? Does UNESCO not call Arvanitic a dialect? Please try and co-operate. UNESCO is a neutral source. Are saying that you know better than them? Rex(talk) 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a poll is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate; the Arvanites know very well whether they speak a language or a (linguistics). By the way, User:REX, your red blots are polluting the screen. Most aesthetically unpleasing.--Theathenae 17:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough of that. The only thing I see here is Rex attempting to do things properly, i.e. to garner consensus on where the page should actually reside, and what redirects we should have. Things need to fit in with the Manual of Style. Please do not make personal attacks again. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 19:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with a poll. This way we'll find something neutral that has a consensus. Unless of course you want to move the article back to Arvanitika, that is what I want. But, as we've said. This is not about our happiness. It's about NPOV, and that is what polls give (like on Macedonian denar). Wikipedia should be neutral. Rex(talk) 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brian Joseph all say that Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. They can't all be wrong, can they? Rex(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't call the Albanian flag a little red blot! It is the eagle of Gjergj Kastrioti Skenderbeu, an Albanian hero! Rex(talk) 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't push me too hard Robchurch, especially not today. I've tolerated PA from REX at least since early September. He accused me, even today, that I don't bring sources (he wrote MATIA, If you have any sources, please "sing" them to us), and he repeatedly talked before about MATIA's invisible sources. Since I wrote reffering to books and providing ISBN, believing naively that REX might want to check the books on a local (to him) library, I wanted to know whether he interprets ISBN that way. I don't think that's more a PA than your word rubbish about my comment. And I now regret that I hadn't responded to REX's PA in the past. +MATIA ☎ 20:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make threatening comments, or comments which could be interpreted as implied threats. Thank you. Incidentally, my choice of word may not have been 100% brilliant; but the "rubbish" I referred to was the affair surrounding what, apparently, is some problems with sources you were citing. You appear to have been acting in good faith, and for that I applaud you. Can we keep this discussion as civil as possible? You appear to want the article moved to Arvanitika language, correct? Is that your position in this matter? If so, good - I understand what your wishes are, and now the process of consensus building begins. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I try to read this talk page, it looks like the red flag is blinking (it's an eye illusion). As for Scanderbeg anyone can say whether I respect him by checking my edits there. +MATIA ☎ 20:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA, be serious! I also think that you should know that the AAT code is for ARVANITIKA ALBANIAN [3] you are cutting half the name out! Of course papier-mache sources are a speciality of yours, but if you want to use the AAT code, it should be Arvanitika Albanian language. Is that what you want? It's like Megleno-Romanian. Would you cut the name in half and say that it is called the Megleno language? Find real sources. Even now, you haven't provided any real arguments. It's just invitations to check your previous contributions, just because you know that no one will be bothered to check them as no one gives a hoot about the issues. It is just a bluff. You have no real sources. Would it be too much to ask that you place a link here which confirms your theory *smirk* :-) Rex(talk) 21:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will just have to wait for the poll to be over, and then use their result. So far, it's a unanimous YES to Arvanitic (linguistics). There will be a Wikipedia:Consensus. You love consensi, don't you (quote: there is no consensus for REX's changes). So now we shall make an enforceable consensus to solve this problem. All we need is 60% of the vote, so far, it's 100%, Gee! To quote me: This is the way the System works and the System requires it. If you had sources, the result may have been different, but so far, they are still under the cloak of invisibility *snigger*. As for your accusing me of tactics, HA! If observing WP policy I am being dishonest, then my only wish is that everyone behaves dishonestly. Rex(talk) 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, Rex; the result of the poll will not unanimously decide things. Consensus is not a majority vote, and as some objections appear to have been raised, we'll have to talk through this. That's how it works. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was happy when it was at Arvanitika, as it is NPOV. It doesn't take the pro-Greek Arvanitika language, not the pro-Albanian Arvanitika Albanian (which is what UNESCO and Ethnologue use). It was happily at Arvanitika until Theathenae arbitrarily decided to move it without notice. I would be happy to see it returned to the neutral Arvanitika, which is allowed according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), which says languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages. Arvanitika does not share its name with some other thing, it's like Esperanto. It doesn't need the qualifier "language", which is what is disputed. I say that it would be POV to say that it is a language what ALL the sources I cite above call it a dialect and not an independent language and Matia's invisible sources say that it is a language in its own right, I haven't see these sources yet. Matia is hiding them very effectivly, so far. Anyway, my point is that Arvanitika is neutral as it does not address that issue at all. I am willing to consider that. (Matia, the ball is in your court now - compromise) Rex(talk) 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

about pre-decided "consensus"

You keep claim that I don't have sources but my contribs in main, proove the opposite. As for your tactics:

Just like the other time. +MATIA ☎ 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... and again ladies and gentlemen, MATIA has not produced any sources, but redirects us to his contributions to find something that doesn't exist (a bluff) as he knows that no one will be bothered to check. And what's wrong with pre-arranging consensi? That notice I got on the Greek Wikipedia asking me to vote in the Macedonian Slavs Poll, what was that? I'll repeat: I'm not in violation of any policy! You are, you are removing accurate statements (the Arvanites of Epirus call themselves Shqiptar) and adding false ones (Arvanitic is a language in its own right). Do you have any edidence like I do, Britannica, Encarta, anything will do? Rex(talk) 22:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough, the pair of you. I don't care about your personal disputes, but I am now going to have to read about a bit more it seems, to see if there is something deeper here. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was a little inappropriate in tone, and after a request for clarification from Matia, I realised that it was also not at all constructive. However, please could all parties try to present their points clearly, and without subtext, and things will run smoother. Thanks. Rob Church Talk 11:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments by +MATIA

First of all Arvanitika and not Arvanitic is the most common term among linguists.
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(languages):
Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" in the case of natural languages or "programming language" in the case of programming languages.

We do have Arvanitic (or Arvanitika) language, and Arvanitic (or Arvanitika) songs.
"Anthology of Arvanitika songs of Greece", Thanasis Moraitis, 2002, ISBN 9608597676

We have Macedonian language for the modern Slavic language, which is characterised by some (I won't argue here whether it's majority or minority view) as a Bulgarian dialect.

There is the Language-dialect aphorism (I've read the wiki today, but I had read similar discussions before) and on Arvanites#Famous_Arvanites I had listed some Arvanites who had positions in Greek Army and Navy (along with Arvanites prime ministers of Greece etc).

And of course we can have more. +MATIA ☎ 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Rex

In that case, it could be moved to Arvanitika (linguistics), no problem. Arvanitika language and/or Arvanitic language are completely unacceptable. It is quite clear that evey source on the planet bluntly denies Arvanitic being a language in its own right, but it is a DIALECT OF ALBANIAN. Calling it Arvanitic language is your POV. You haven't provided any sources, even at this point of duress, I guess that this means you don't have any. As for Macedonian, if Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO, the University of Ohio called it a dialect of Bulgarian, then it would be disputed. But they don't, only Greek and Bulgarian nationalists say that. Quite clearly your views are an isolated minority, you should try to compromise. Arvanitic language and Arvanitika language sre out of the question. Find something else. Rex(talk) 08:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even "your" sources sometimes use the term language (UNESCO red book) and Ethnologue clearly says that Arvanitika is a language
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aat
+MATIA ☎ 08:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA, is that the bst you can do? Language means oral written or in another form of communication. Therefore ALL dialects are languages. Acrually UNESCO and Ethnologue DO NOT call Arvanitika a language. They call Arvanitika Albanian a language. We could I suppose mover the article to Arvanitika Albanian language, it suits me. Rex(talk) 09:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC) k MATIA, I suggest you read Straw man, your tactics are outlined there. You have STILL not provided any sources, nothing. Rex(talk) 09:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop telling lies, aka that I don't provide sources? Ethnologue cleary calls Arvanitika a language and it categorises with the Albanian language. That means Arvanitika language is ok according to Ethnologue. You 've been told numerous times that Arvanites loathe the term Albanian to be forced on them, even your precious Helsinki reports states it clearly. You are the one who uses strawman arguments, or misinterpret anything using circular or boolean logic. +MATIA ☎ 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it calls the it Arvanitika Albanian, and why would it use the term Albanian if it were not a varitey of Albanian? UNESCO also clearly says that it is a dialect. Therefore, the status of Arvanitika is disputed, much like that of Mandarin. That's why Wikipedia should not take sisdes, and should use the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics). Rex(talk) 10:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting removed. Please don't - capitalisation actually makes things harder to read. Rob Church Talk 11:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue calls it Arvanitika Albanian in big bright letters. MATIA's boolean logic interprets this as meaning that it can be called Arvanitika language. Except you are cutting half the name out! Rex(talk) 11:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Might I suggest a compromise? Arvanitic (linguistics) would appear to be the neutral form of the name, as opposed to, say, Arvanitic language or Arvanitic dialect. Could we not have it at that, with redirects from Arvanitic language, Arvanitic dialect, Arvanitika, etc. or would that still be a problem?

As I understand it, "Arvanitic" is the English word for it, and so the base article does need to be Arvanitic... in order to comply with this encyclopedia's language. However, I believe Français redirects appropriately (i.e. to French language), and I don't see why we couldn't have as many redirects as there are variations; provided there is one centralised article, and one centralised discussion.

Is this compromise acceptable to the main parties here? Rob Church Talk | FAHD 09:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous comments here on Arvanitic and Arvanitika and do check the links. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 10:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it isn't. That precise proposal was made earlier by User:REX to deny the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right, despite the feelings of the people who speak it. It would be like moving English language to English (linguistics) because some German extremists might take issue with considering English anything other than a West Germanic dialect. Such extremism cannot be allowed to hijack Wikipedia. There are many instances of other tongues whose status is also disputed but are located at Bosnian language, Croatian language, Montenegrin language, Moldovan language, etc. There is no reason why Arvanitic should be treated any differently.--Theathenae 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be treated differently because Britannica says that Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect. It doesn't say that English is a German dialect. Rex(talk) 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Theathenae makes at least one point: ..."to deny the status of Arvanitic as a language in its own right, despite the feelings of the people who speak it". But we need evidence about the peoples' feelings on this issue. Alexander 007 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Would it be possible for all the sources on the issue to be collected on this page once more, in a neat list? Then the involved parties have laid their cards on the table, so to speak, and can begin reviewing as a group. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 10:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm worried about here, in absence of evidence, is hearsay and exaggeration. In the case of Moldovan (one of the cases noted above), the last Moldovan official census showed that two-thirds (the majority) of Moldovans declared that they speak Romanian, not "Moldovan", so if we are going to observe self-identification, Moldovan language would be in violation of the majority's feelings. However, with Arvanitic, what data do we have? Alexander 007 10:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had gathered few notes on User:Matia.gr/Arvanites_sources. I also have some paper notes scattered around. +MATIA ☎ 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from User:REX's admission that the Arvanites have a Greek national consciousness, we also have the Greek Helsinki Report which specifically states that the Arvanites loathe the use of the word Albanian to describe themselves or their language. That in itself is evidence enough to avoid such blatant attempts to deliberately disregard and offend their feelings.--Theathenae 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC) The Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia woud appear to disagree with you Theathenae (from the Helsinki Report). You disregert that report when is says that they identify as SHQIPTAR. Rex(talk) 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to call it as I see it. If the majority of Arvanites consider their speech a language, then it should stay at Arvanitic language. It seems to me that this should not be decided by a poll, but according to self-identifying policies. However, this situation should be described in detail in the article: e.g., "linguistically, Arvanitic may be considered a Tosk dialect of Albanian", etc., but "due to the feelings of the ethnic group, it is treated as a language in this article and in a number of sources" (just an example, not in these words). Alexander 007 10:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has tried to deny the genetic relationship between Arvanitic and Albanian. What we have objected to is User:REX's attempted whitewash - defining Arvanitic simpl(isticall)y as Albanian with complete disregard for the Arvanites' feelings on a matter which affects them more directly than anybody else.--Theathenae 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now we are getting somewhere. +MATIA ☎ 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Brisn Jospeph (University of Ohio) and every other source on the planet calls Arvanitic a DIALECT OF ALBANIAN. It's status is disputed, like that of Cantonese. Some people say that it is a language in its own right, some say that it is a dialect. Therefore Wikipedia should not take sides by saying that it is a language and directly contradicting EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE. MATIA still has not provided any sources, all he says is that we should check what he has written elsewhere. Wikipedia should be neutral, it should not be a hotbed for propaganda. Clearly in all other disputed cases, the form X (linguistics) is used. Why should the POV with on verifiability be used? Rex(talk) 10:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't MATIA and Theathenae provide a source which rules out the possibility of Arvanitic being an Albanian dialect? Because they can't. Even the Helsinki Report says that linguists use the word Albanian for that language, every linguist uses the word Albanian. You cannot contradict every linguist, that's a fact. The status of this language is disputed, and the neutral Arvanitic (linguistics) should be used. If MATIA and Theathenae have a problem with this, they should contact Britannica etc and tell them that they are wrong! Rex(talk) 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need some experts on Wiki-policy here. My reasoning is that, yes, it is 100% accurate to call Arvanitic a Tosk dialect of the Albanian language, and most or many linguistic sources refer to it as such, and I personally agree that it is a Tosk dialect of Albanian. But, because of Wikipedia's self-determination policy, it should (?) be treated as a language, but the situation should be described in detail in the article. But how can we verify that most Arvanites are determined to consider their speech a language? Alexander 007 11:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, you do realise that in Northwestern Greece all Arvanites call themselves Albanians (Shqiptar). Therefore, opinions are divided on this issue as follows. Pro-dialect:

  • Every linguist and encyclopaedia on the planet
  • The Arvanites of Northwestern Greece.

Pro-seperate language:

  • Greek extremist nationalists
  • The Arvanites of Southwestern Greece (Attica).

Therefore, opinions are divided, the only neutral way to go about it is to use the solution found inj Cantonese (linguistics) by not taking sides. We should not rule out either possibility. To call it Arvanitic language is taking sides and is POV. Arvanitic (linguistics) does not rule out either possibility. It's neutral. Like Mandarin (linguistics), wholse status is also disputed. Rex(talk) 11:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Shqiptar slipped my mind, but they are very important here. I have to agree that the Shqiptar should not be ignored, and they may well consider their speech a dialect. In this case, I have to go with Arvanitic (linguistics) 100%. I have to call it as I see it, but one has to see as much of the picture as possible. Alexander 007 11:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is a convenient cover-up of Theathenae's. As for his straw man argument that English language can be moved to English (linguistics), HA! No linguists call English a German dialect, nor do any English people identify as Germans. As opposed to EVERY linguist are credible authority which call Arvanitic a dialect and of course the Shqiptar of Epirus and Western Macedonia (according to the Helsinki Report). It's status is clearly disputed, and it would be taking sides if one were to say that it is a language and by so doing, rule out the possibility of it being a dialect. Arvanitic (linguistics) is neutral, as it does not rule out either possibility. Rex(talk) 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arvanitika&oldid=27155582"