This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
ok, here is the von Hahn reference [1]: Albanesische Studien (1854). N Malcolm in Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002) says: "The theory quickly established itself among Albanian writers ... The primary function of this Pelasgian theory was, of course, to establish a claim of priority." (pp. 76ff.) We can cite this here, with a link to Albanian nationalism for details. It is, however, childish nonsense and only makes Albanians look bad, and we have to avoid the implication that Albanians in general are uneducated nationalist zealots. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Revanchist justifications are often presented as based on ancient, or even autochthonous occupation of a territory, known by the German term Urrecht, meaning a nation's claim to territory that has been inhabited since "time immemorial", an assertion that is always inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in the eyes of their proponents.
sorry but, i think deeply this is a child comportment, all i said it is to have the albanian perspektive in the voice pelasgians with names and opinion of scholars from all the world (all enemies of greece?), not to say in wikipedia that albanians are pelasgians, so stop provokating, and the conversation for the "albanian perspektive" can't continue simply because the users change always subjekts and have always the right to say that this theories are comunist theories, or nationalist theories, if you want to hide the fakt that too much scholars supported this theories you are simply indoctrinated to the waves anti-albanian (and this information is maked with education), open your brain before judge other opinions, stop PelasgicMoon ( talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
if you read the source carefuly the authors does not exclude the fact that Albanian national myths might assume true historical fact , if you just take a sentences from the source you will come to the conclusion you believe, so there are speaking for National myth and many authors Albanians and foreigners that supported this view [2] Dodona ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Albanian nationalism does it say anything about pelasgian albanian link , it say that albanians have not archeologic evidence but serbs yes they have !!-- Dodona ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And the Greeks ,of course how i forgot them !-- Dodona ( talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
and this is my proposed statements:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodona ( talk • contribs) 12:41- 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
And this is the other completely point of view [3]-- Dodona ( talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Pelasgians, apparently a north Aegean people scattered throughout Greece by the migrations of the Bronze Age and preserving a common, non-Greek language. The Greeks used the name to describe the original pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece and the Aegean area, with whom they sometimes included the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans).How to cite this entry:"Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. Ed. M.C. Howatson and Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. [4] -- Dodona ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the text in the article, the text was "This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"
[51], "N. Malcolm, Myth of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements, in: Schwandner-Sievers and Fischer (eds.), Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002), 76ff."
Malcolm did not say that Johann Georg von Hahn was indoctrinated by the albanian nationalism (a part of he was not albanian), so, my honest editor of this text, if you want to write this, you have before to cite all the writers and albanian authors who support this thesis. And remember the "pelasgian theory of albanians" was born before the as called "albanian antionalism"
PelasgicMoon ( talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This letter is done by my teacher of history in the university who i asked suggestions in relation of this article
1) In the article in wikipedia is done a confusion between the term "greece" wich in the ancient time was used just like a territorial geografic concept and the term "hellen" wich a language term that indicates a population or a different group of different populations who lives in different states but who speak the same language, in this case the hellen language. In no way the history don't confuses the old term "greece" that was used by the romans after the fall of greece in roman influence with the therm "hellen" that indicates all the inhabitants of the mediterranean that spoken the hellen language, beginning from the hellen colonies to the Asia minor in africa to the ovest mediterranean.
2) You have mentioned the assumption defence which pelasgians were a people who spoke a hellen dialect, the theory of a contemporary shcolar! How, and why should be more credible the idea of a contemporary scholar and should be less credible evidence and the testimony of the "father of history" Herodotus and many other ancient historians tests that an infinite number of facts (even if hellens) testifying that the language of pelasgians was "barbaric", and then different than the hellen language?
3) why the hypothesis (always we talk about hipotesis!) Of the various similarities of the modern Albanian language has with the pelasgic language and that leads to the hypothesis that today's Albanian language is a branch of the ancient pelasgic language, is considered from you you Nationalist or produced by the "Albanian nationalism (!), why not be considered and treated in the same way the hypothesis that connects pelasgic language with the hellen language?
I would like to ask in the name of the truth and of the free thought, to delete the shameful allusion that the hypothesis linking the pelasgic language with the albanian one, is a "product" of what you called Albanian nationalism!
Respectfully PelasgicMoon ( talk) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The conversation is based between the hypotheses in relation to the nature of the pelasgic language. In the "albanian" section, is linked the hypothesis of the logon or the likeness that has the modern Albanian with the pelasgic language, specific that this theory has turned on from the Albanian nationalism! ("This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]") And this specification comes preceded from an other citation in the main article where it says that many of the theories about pelasgic language are moved from nationalist reasons and they are not objective ("Some are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language"). In the hypotheses on the pelasgic language it can be noticed that only the Albanian hypothesis is considered a result of the nationalism, and remembering the citation asserted to the beginning of the article, the reader arrives naturally to the conclusion that this theory is not objective and scientific.
The hypothesis that joins the pelasgic language with the modern Albanian is not the result of the Albanian nationalism, but a hypothesis written up from the science of the history and the world-wide linguistic, and there are some historical linguists that have advanced this hypothesis. Albania, as a state, was born in 1912, after the death of these scholars, is therefore impossible to suppose a nationalist origin of this hypothesis.
//---------------------
Conrad Malte-Brun (1755-1826)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050376/Conrad-Malte-Brun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Malte-Brun
"Annales des Voyages de la geographie et de l'historie" - paris 1809
In this book he express the thesis that the albanian language is related to the pre-homeric, and express the thesis of the descendenty of the albanians from the pelasgians
//---------------------
Johann Georg von Hahn (1811-1869)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Hahn
"1) He consider completly the albanians as the descendants of the pelasgians, 2) and he connect illirians with the pelasgians", considering this in all his publications of books.
//---------------------
Eduard Schneider, french scholar, specialist of the etruscan language, he translated etruscan insctiptions throught the albanian language, afferming deeply the theory of the descentancy from the pelasgians of the albanians, as he write in his book publicated in Paris in 1894 "Une race oublièe. Les Pelasges et leurs descendantes".
//----------------------
August Schleicher (1821-1868), big german linguist, knower of all the ancient and modern indo-european languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schleicher
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066145/August-Schleicher
"Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht" 1850 ,new edit 1982, in this book he was not sure about the albanian language, if more close to the greek or latin, and considering it more close to greek ans calling the albanian language as the "copy of the pelasgic language"
"Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht" 1850 ,new edit 1982, in this book he was not sure about the albanian language, if more close to the greek or latin, and considering it more close to greek ans calling the albanian language as the "copy of the pelasgic language"
With this, i ask firstly to be deleted "This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am responding to a request for a Third opinion.
As per the neutral point of view policy, the Pelasgians article should address this matter in an encyclopedic and neutral way.
As Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Undue weight explains: "It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided." (emphasis added)
The brief text in the Wikipedia article should be both informative and balanced.
A mere dismissal as Albanian nationalist mythology which entirely omits the opposing view is neither informative nor balanced.
One way to provide balance: "While some authoritative sources dismiss a Pelasgian theory of Albanian origins as an Albanian nationalist myth,[source(s)] it has support in others.[source(s)]"
An example of a source:
I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ RFChist}} Is the Albanian section in Pelasgians neutral and balanced? 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Heated discussions on this page and in its archives (particularly in Archive 2 and Archive 3) indicate that talk page discussions have not resolved the Pelasgians#Albanian section issues which recur. I am not involved in the dispute, which came to my attention as a Third opinion request. — Athaenara ✉ 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerns seem to center on whether the content in the section is accurate, balanced, neutral, and appropriately verified by reliable sources. — Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process is intended to invite comment from uninvolved editors, not repetition of previous arguments by those involved. — Athaenara ✉ 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ( [8]) before. Consensus was that the problem here was with Albanian nationalist editing by PelasgicMoon ( talk · contribs) and Dodona ( talk · contribs), the latter of whom is currently sitting out a lengthy block for tendentious editing. RFC is probably useless here. WP:FRINGE demands that we do not give undue credence to nationalist fringy myths - that we describe them exactly as they are. Moreschi ( talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to notice, Moreschi, this has been discussed just from the user Megistias and Dab (...)
The truth here is that i am still impressed of even if the rules of wikipedia give me the right to enrich the albanian perspektive of pelasgians, some users of wikipedia put themself in the role of virtual censurators even if we talk about theories, of course off all kinds of hipothesis there are always some others of contraddiction, but this movements to hide the albanian hipothesis sounds strange to me (...), book encyclopedies usually don't take in consideration the different hipothesis, but if we decide to put them in wikipedia, we must cite all of them, without discrimination.
I say hide because this scholars really was of this opinion, but what some users are intent to say? they were nothing? they were never existed? all the names i cited are scholars, so the rules of wikipedia consider them reliable, so i still continue to judge this "not neutral point of view", i've just been accused to be nationalist, a nationalist idea is to say "albanians are pelasgians", no, here the question is "is true or not that there were some scholars that consider this hipothesys? so if is true, why i can't write theyr names in the albanian hypothesis?
Maybe is better for us to begin a "dispute [resolution]" in wikipedia, it is ok? PelasgicMoon ( talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sock talk removed [ diff]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[ :::Unfortunately in to day Balkan we do not see any Albanian nationalism but quite the opposite the nationalism of our neighbors although ethnic Albanians are autochthon in Macedonia and Epirus they claim otherwise and work a lot to change the facts. This is more a national identity then nationalism-- Thrace - ilir-epirioti ( talk) [ contribs ] 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ]
[ ::This is called compulsive obsessive behaviour ,i advise you seek a specialist. Megistias ( talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ]
Megistias, please stop making provocations, if you want to provocate go somewhere else, not here in wikipedia, here we discuss about the articles in wikipedia, Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, ster per step
Ok, so the problem now seems to be "yes, they had this hypothesis, but some other scholars considered theyr theories confused or not affidable"
ok, but the rules of wikipedia gives me the right to cite this names aniway, in according to wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate."
So i think i am not falling in error if i write in the article:
"Some authors like Conrad Malte-Brun, Johann Georg von Hahn, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher advanced the hypothesis that links the albanian as the descendant of the pelasgian language, even if this theory has been considered from other authors confused and light (or soft)."
(as for the A.Schleicher, yes, in this book he consider the albanian and the ancient greek, as both ancestors of the ancient pelasgic language) PelasgicMoon ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is this, if we have decided to put the different hipothesys in the article, we must cite all.
Let's make it clearer, we are not talking about "are true or not what is said by Conrad Malte-Brun, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher, George Von hamn?" the discussion is not this, for the simple reason this are just hypothesis (like all the other hypothesys, "pelasgian as hellen" etj etj), you can find citations, this don't mean have never existed this theory, so, according to the rules of wikipedia, this hypothesis must be written, and then, if you have citations wich contraddict this hypothesis you can write in the article "even if some modern authors considered this theory confused" and giving the opportune citations. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some citations of scholarship:
//------------------------------------------------
"We have demostrations that supports that many things have been produced in a particular way where communities or groups of Greeks would want to make credible that they say in relation with their past, many Greek writers are become many fantasious connecting their descendancys from people not-Greeks and ancient logons between they and "hellens", as theirs descendants."
C. Baurain, Rome, 1989, page 131 "Heracles dans l'epopee homerique", Heracles, actes de la table ronde de rome
//------------------------------------------------
"The ancient Greeks appeal themselves honorable descendancys. They have noticed that mythology could serve for the political propaganda of the city state. Therefore for having heroic descendants, they lengthen behind their geneaologia until the mythical age"
S. Gotteland, Paris, 1995, page 379 "Genealogies mythiques et politiques chez isocrate", actes du VIIIe colloque du centre de Recherches mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.
//------------------------------------------------
"They choose the myth that the servants in order to support their politics, and after change it. They introduce the myth so that them servant for every political work."
W. Burkert, 1979, Los Angeles and London, Vol XLVII, page 78, 97, 379 "structure and history in Greek mythology and rituals", Sather classical lectures.
//------------------------------------------------
"They dream the names of theyr ancestors of various personages... these are manipulations that can ribaltare the tonality completely, the main meant one of a myth"
A.Moreau 1998, page 30 "Manipulations Genealogiques: les epouses d'Edipe, Medee, Promethee". Actes du VIIIe Colloque du centre de Recherches Mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.
//------------------------------------------------
In the principal article of wikipedia is written this:
“Some are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language. This article presents the mainstream theories and something of the long history of the theories. “
In the hypothesys that connects the albanian language with the albanian, it is said “This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins was shared by some other 19th-century authors but no longer has support in modern linguistic scholarship. It still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51] “
In the hypotheses on the pelasgic language it can be noticed that only the Albanian hypothesis is considered a currency of the nationalism, and remembering the citation asserted to the beginning of the article, the reader arrives naturally to the conclusion that this theory is not objective and scientific (even if I put in doubt this citation for the fact that the hypothesis that it connects the Albanian language with the pelasgic is produced from not-Albanians scholars nearly a century before independence of Albania in a time when the so-called "Albanian nationalism" did not exist, and, more, when we know that the modern official historiography of Albania does not support this theory, why are not treated in the same way the other hypotheses (ex. the “pelasgic as hellen”)?
So, if we want to consider the nationalist point of view, at the light of the modern scholars, i ask that the therm “nationalism” to be cited in all both hypothesys, or not cited in both of them, now, i suppose, we must take a decision for making the article neutral and balances according to the rules of wikipedia.
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but i have the right aniway to write this in the article:
"Modern scholarship refers the ancient greeks had introduced a national myth of honorable descendancy to serve the political propaganda indoctrination of the city-state, bringing behind their geneaology until the mythical age"
It is sourced&referenced, and in according to the rules of wikipedia, i can write this with the opportune citations.
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In according to the rules of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship
i can write this reliable sourced&referenced material written in good english.
"According to modern scholars, the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth."
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case i will contact Editor assistance, and just explain that someone removed my sourced&referenced material, or, if opportune, to begin a dispute resolution. The wikipedia rules give me the right.
respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Thomas Harrison (University College), Herodotus was ambiguous in differentiating between linguistically similar dialects and languages distinct from Greek.[53] As a result of this ambiguity, the language of the Pelasgians was "barbaric" in the sense that it was akin to Greek rather than being entirely non-Greek. Support for this lies within Harrison's citation of Herodotus (2.52.1) whereby the Pelasgians called their gods theoi prior to adopting specific names.[54] Direct connections between the Pelasgians and the Greeks are further reinforced in accordance to both ancient Greco-Roman literary evidence and modern archaeological evidence.
This below is what you added.And its irrelevant.Thomas harisson speaks of linguistics and the ambiguity of the barbarian tongue term.And ancient Greeks did not use Thomas harrison theory cause they existed 3000 years before him.Herodotus quoted isnt even about what you write below and the scholars below spoke of myths and you twisted their words as well.
According to modern scholars [55] [56] [57], the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth. Megistias ( talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Referenced material dont get removed just because someone insists"[ diff], this is the answer you gave me when we was talking about "the current issues of albanian nationalism", i just copied and pasted, and please, be balanced in the future (in according to the rules of wikipedia).
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
ok, here is the von Hahn reference [1]: Albanesische Studien (1854). N Malcolm in Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002) says: "The theory quickly established itself among Albanian writers ... The primary function of this Pelasgian theory was, of course, to establish a claim of priority." (pp. 76ff.) We can cite this here, with a link to Albanian nationalism for details. It is, however, childish nonsense and only makes Albanians look bad, and we have to avoid the implication that Albanians in general are uneducated nationalist zealots. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Revanchist justifications are often presented as based on ancient, or even autochthonous occupation of a territory, known by the German term Urrecht, meaning a nation's claim to territory that has been inhabited since "time immemorial", an assertion that is always inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in the eyes of their proponents.
sorry but, i think deeply this is a child comportment, all i said it is to have the albanian perspektive in the voice pelasgians with names and opinion of scholars from all the world (all enemies of greece?), not to say in wikipedia that albanians are pelasgians, so stop provokating, and the conversation for the "albanian perspektive" can't continue simply because the users change always subjekts and have always the right to say that this theories are comunist theories, or nationalist theories, if you want to hide the fakt that too much scholars supported this theories you are simply indoctrinated to the waves anti-albanian (and this information is maked with education), open your brain before judge other opinions, stop PelasgicMoon ( talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
if you read the source carefuly the authors does not exclude the fact that Albanian national myths might assume true historical fact , if you just take a sentences from the source you will come to the conclusion you believe, so there are speaking for National myth and many authors Albanians and foreigners that supported this view [2] Dodona ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Albanian nationalism does it say anything about pelasgian albanian link , it say that albanians have not archeologic evidence but serbs yes they have !!-- Dodona ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And the Greeks ,of course how i forgot them !-- Dodona ( talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
and this is my proposed statements:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodona ( talk • contribs) 12:41- 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
And this is the other completely point of view [3]-- Dodona ( talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Pelasgians, apparently a north Aegean people scattered throughout Greece by the migrations of the Bronze Age and preserving a common, non-Greek language. The Greeks used the name to describe the original pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece and the Aegean area, with whom they sometimes included the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans).How to cite this entry:"Pelasgians" The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. Ed. M.C. Howatson and Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. [4] -- Dodona ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the text in the article, the text was "This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"
[51], "N. Malcolm, Myth of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements, in: Schwandner-Sievers and Fischer (eds.), Albanian Identities: Myth and History (2002), 76ff."
Malcolm did not say that Johann Georg von Hahn was indoctrinated by the albanian nationalism (a part of he was not albanian), so, my honest editor of this text, if you want to write this, you have before to cite all the writers and albanian authors who support this thesis. And remember the "pelasgian theory of albanians" was born before the as called "albanian antionalism"
PelasgicMoon ( talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This letter is done by my teacher of history in the university who i asked suggestions in relation of this article
1) In the article in wikipedia is done a confusion between the term "greece" wich in the ancient time was used just like a territorial geografic concept and the term "hellen" wich a language term that indicates a population or a different group of different populations who lives in different states but who speak the same language, in this case the hellen language. In no way the history don't confuses the old term "greece" that was used by the romans after the fall of greece in roman influence with the therm "hellen" that indicates all the inhabitants of the mediterranean that spoken the hellen language, beginning from the hellen colonies to the Asia minor in africa to the ovest mediterranean.
2) You have mentioned the assumption defence which pelasgians were a people who spoke a hellen dialect, the theory of a contemporary shcolar! How, and why should be more credible the idea of a contemporary scholar and should be less credible evidence and the testimony of the "father of history" Herodotus and many other ancient historians tests that an infinite number of facts (even if hellens) testifying that the language of pelasgians was "barbaric", and then different than the hellen language?
3) why the hypothesis (always we talk about hipotesis!) Of the various similarities of the modern Albanian language has with the pelasgic language and that leads to the hypothesis that today's Albanian language is a branch of the ancient pelasgic language, is considered from you you Nationalist or produced by the "Albanian nationalism (!), why not be considered and treated in the same way the hypothesis that connects pelasgic language with the hellen language?
I would like to ask in the name of the truth and of the free thought, to delete the shameful allusion that the hypothesis linking the pelasgic language with the albanian one, is a "product" of what you called Albanian nationalism!
Respectfully PelasgicMoon ( talk) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The conversation is based between the hypotheses in relation to the nature of the pelasgic language. In the "albanian" section, is linked the hypothesis of the logon or the likeness that has the modern Albanian with the pelasgic language, specific that this theory has turned on from the Albanian nationalism! ("This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]") And this specification comes preceded from an other citation in the main article where it says that many of the theories about pelasgic language are moved from nationalist reasons and they are not objective ("Some are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language"). In the hypotheses on the pelasgic language it can be noticed that only the Albanian hypothesis is considered a result of the nationalism, and remembering the citation asserted to the beginning of the article, the reader arrives naturally to the conclusion that this theory is not objective and scientific.
The hypothesis that joins the pelasgic language with the modern Albanian is not the result of the Albanian nationalism, but a hypothesis written up from the science of the history and the world-wide linguistic, and there are some historical linguists that have advanced this hypothesis. Albania, as a state, was born in 1912, after the death of these scholars, is therefore impossible to suppose a nationalist origin of this hypothesis.
//---------------------
Conrad Malte-Brun (1755-1826)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050376/Conrad-Malte-Brun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Malte-Brun
"Annales des Voyages de la geographie et de l'historie" - paris 1809
In this book he express the thesis that the albanian language is related to the pre-homeric, and express the thesis of the descendenty of the albanians from the pelasgians
//---------------------
Johann Georg von Hahn (1811-1869)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Hahn
"1) He consider completly the albanians as the descendants of the pelasgians, 2) and he connect illirians with the pelasgians", considering this in all his publications of books.
//---------------------
Eduard Schneider, french scholar, specialist of the etruscan language, he translated etruscan insctiptions throught the albanian language, afferming deeply the theory of the descentancy from the pelasgians of the albanians, as he write in his book publicated in Paris in 1894 "Une race oublièe. Les Pelasges et leurs descendantes".
//----------------------
August Schleicher (1821-1868), big german linguist, knower of all the ancient and modern indo-european languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schleicher
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066145/August-Schleicher
"Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht" 1850 ,new edit 1982, in this book he was not sure about the albanian language, if more close to the greek or latin, and considering it more close to greek ans calling the albanian language as the "copy of the pelasgic language"
"Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht" 1850 ,new edit 1982, in this book he was not sure about the albanian language, if more close to the greek or latin, and considering it more close to greek ans calling the albanian language as the "copy of the pelasgic language"
With this, i ask firstly to be deleted "This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51]"
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am responding to a request for a Third opinion.
As per the neutral point of view policy, the Pelasgians article should address this matter in an encyclopedic and neutral way.
As Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Undue weight explains: "It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided." (emphasis added)
The brief text in the Wikipedia article should be both informative and balanced.
A mere dismissal as Albanian nationalist mythology which entirely omits the opposing view is neither informative nor balanced.
One way to provide balance: "While some authoritative sources dismiss a Pelasgian theory of Albanian origins as an Albanian nationalist myth,[source(s)] it has support in others.[source(s)]"
An example of a source:
I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ RFChist}} Is the Albanian section in Pelasgians neutral and balanced? 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Heated discussions on this page and in its archives (particularly in Archive 2 and Archive 3) indicate that talk page discussions have not resolved the Pelasgians#Albanian section issues which recur. I am not involved in the dispute, which came to my attention as a Third opinion request. — Athaenara ✉ 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerns seem to center on whether the content in the section is accurate, balanced, neutral, and appropriately verified by reliable sources. — Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process is intended to invite comment from uninvolved editors, not repetition of previous arguments by those involved. — Athaenara ✉ 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ( [8]) before. Consensus was that the problem here was with Albanian nationalist editing by PelasgicMoon ( talk · contribs) and Dodona ( talk · contribs), the latter of whom is currently sitting out a lengthy block for tendentious editing. RFC is probably useless here. WP:FRINGE demands that we do not give undue credence to nationalist fringy myths - that we describe them exactly as they are. Moreschi ( talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to notice, Moreschi, this has been discussed just from the user Megistias and Dab (...)
The truth here is that i am still impressed of even if the rules of wikipedia give me the right to enrich the albanian perspektive of pelasgians, some users of wikipedia put themself in the role of virtual censurators even if we talk about theories, of course off all kinds of hipothesis there are always some others of contraddiction, but this movements to hide the albanian hipothesis sounds strange to me (...), book encyclopedies usually don't take in consideration the different hipothesis, but if we decide to put them in wikipedia, we must cite all of them, without discrimination.
I say hide because this scholars really was of this opinion, but what some users are intent to say? they were nothing? they were never existed? all the names i cited are scholars, so the rules of wikipedia consider them reliable, so i still continue to judge this "not neutral point of view", i've just been accused to be nationalist, a nationalist idea is to say "albanians are pelasgians", no, here the question is "is true or not that there were some scholars that consider this hipothesys? so if is true, why i can't write theyr names in the albanian hypothesis?
Maybe is better for us to begin a "dispute [resolution]" in wikipedia, it is ok? PelasgicMoon ( talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sock talk removed [ diff]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[ :::Unfortunately in to day Balkan we do not see any Albanian nationalism but quite the opposite the nationalism of our neighbors although ethnic Albanians are autochthon in Macedonia and Epirus they claim otherwise and work a lot to change the facts. This is more a national identity then nationalism-- Thrace - ilir-epirioti ( talk) [ contribs ] 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ]
[ ::This is called compulsive obsessive behaviour ,i advise you seek a specialist. Megistias ( talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ]
Megistias, please stop making provocations, if you want to provocate go somewhere else, not here in wikipedia, here we discuss about the articles in wikipedia, Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, ster per step
Ok, so the problem now seems to be "yes, they had this hypothesis, but some other scholars considered theyr theories confused or not affidable"
ok, but the rules of wikipedia gives me the right to cite this names aniway, in according to wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate."
So i think i am not falling in error if i write in the article:
"Some authors like Conrad Malte-Brun, Johann Georg von Hahn, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher advanced the hypothesis that links the albanian as the descendant of the pelasgian language, even if this theory has been considered from other authors confused and light (or soft)."
(as for the A.Schleicher, yes, in this book he consider the albanian and the ancient greek, as both ancestors of the ancient pelasgic language) PelasgicMoon ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is this, if we have decided to put the different hipothesys in the article, we must cite all.
Let's make it clearer, we are not talking about "are true or not what is said by Conrad Malte-Brun, Eduard Schneider, August Schleicher, George Von hamn?" the discussion is not this, for the simple reason this are just hypothesis (like all the other hypothesys, "pelasgian as hellen" etj etj), you can find citations, this don't mean have never existed this theory, so, according to the rules of wikipedia, this hypothesis must be written, and then, if you have citations wich contraddict this hypothesis you can write in the article "even if some modern authors considered this theory confused" and giving the opportune citations. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some citations of scholarship:
//------------------------------------------------
"We have demostrations that supports that many things have been produced in a particular way where communities or groups of Greeks would want to make credible that they say in relation with their past, many Greek writers are become many fantasious connecting their descendancys from people not-Greeks and ancient logons between they and "hellens", as theirs descendants."
C. Baurain, Rome, 1989, page 131 "Heracles dans l'epopee homerique", Heracles, actes de la table ronde de rome
//------------------------------------------------
"The ancient Greeks appeal themselves honorable descendancys. They have noticed that mythology could serve for the political propaganda of the city state. Therefore for having heroic descendants, they lengthen behind their geneaologia until the mythical age"
S. Gotteland, Paris, 1995, page 379 "Genealogies mythiques et politiques chez isocrate", actes du VIIIe colloque du centre de Recherches mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.
//------------------------------------------------
"They choose the myth that the servants in order to support their politics, and after change it. They introduce the myth so that them servant for every political work."
W. Burkert, 1979, Los Angeles and London, Vol XLVII, page 78, 97, 379 "structure and history in Greek mythology and rituals", Sather classical lectures.
//------------------------------------------------
"They dream the names of theyr ancestors of various personages... these are manipulations that can ribaltare the tonality completely, the main meant one of a myth"
A.Moreau 1998, page 30 "Manipulations Genealogiques: les epouses d'Edipe, Medee, Promethee". Actes du VIIIe Colloque du centre de Recherches Mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.
//------------------------------------------------
In the principal article of wikipedia is written this:
“Some are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language. This article presents the mainstream theories and something of the long history of the theories. “
In the hypothesys that connects the albanian language with the albanian, it is said “This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins was shared by some other 19th-century authors but no longer has support in modern linguistic scholarship. It still has some currency as a national myth in Albanian nationalism.[51] “
In the hypotheses on the pelasgic language it can be noticed that only the Albanian hypothesis is considered a currency of the nationalism, and remembering the citation asserted to the beginning of the article, the reader arrives naturally to the conclusion that this theory is not objective and scientific (even if I put in doubt this citation for the fact that the hypothesis that it connects the Albanian language with the pelasgic is produced from not-Albanians scholars nearly a century before independence of Albania in a time when the so-called "Albanian nationalism" did not exist, and, more, when we know that the modern official historiography of Albania does not support this theory, why are not treated in the same way the other hypotheses (ex. the “pelasgic as hellen”)?
So, if we want to consider the nationalist point of view, at the light of the modern scholars, i ask that the therm “nationalism” to be cited in all both hypothesys, or not cited in both of them, now, i suppose, we must take a decision for making the article neutral and balances according to the rules of wikipedia.
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but i have the right aniway to write this in the article:
"Modern scholarship refers the ancient greeks had introduced a national myth of honorable descendancy to serve the political propaganda indoctrination of the city-state, bringing behind their geneaology until the mythical age"
It is sourced&referenced, and in according to the rules of wikipedia, i can write this with the opportune citations.
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In according to the rules of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship
i can write this reliable sourced&referenced material written in good english.
"According to modern scholars, the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth."
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case i will contact Editor assistance, and just explain that someone removed my sourced&referenced material, or, if opportune, to begin a dispute resolution. The wikipedia rules give me the right.
respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Thomas Harrison (University College), Herodotus was ambiguous in differentiating between linguistically similar dialects and languages distinct from Greek.[53] As a result of this ambiguity, the language of the Pelasgians was "barbaric" in the sense that it was akin to Greek rather than being entirely non-Greek. Support for this lies within Harrison's citation of Herodotus (2.52.1) whereby the Pelasgians called their gods theoi prior to adopting specific names.[54] Direct connections between the Pelasgians and the Greeks are further reinforced in accordance to both ancient Greco-Roman literary evidence and modern archaeological evidence.
This below is what you added.And its irrelevant.Thomas harisson speaks of linguistics and the ambiguity of the barbarian tongue term.And ancient Greeks did not use Thomas harrison theory cause they existed 3000 years before him.Herodotus quoted isnt even about what you write below and the scholars below spoke of myths and you twisted their words as well.
According to modern scholars [55] [56] [57], the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth. Megistias ( talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Referenced material dont get removed just because someone insists"[ diff], this is the answer you gave me when we was talking about "the current issues of albanian nationalism", i just copied and pasted, and please, be balanced in the future (in according to the rules of wikipedia).
Respectfully, PelasgicMoon ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)