No edit summary |
|||
Line 288: | Line 288: | ||
::Ronz, as long as you are not prepared to go into a library and read those equally valid and equally reliable books on the issue that just don't happen to be online, Britannica is not a perfect source but just a perfect pretext to be lazy. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
::Ronz, as long as you are not prepared to go into a library and read those equally valid and equally reliable books on the issue that just don't happen to be online, Britannica is not a perfect source but just a perfect pretext to be lazy. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Nope. Just following policy here. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::Nope. Just following policy here. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
And i miss the part where it says Some historians and Linguists, Britanica is very clear, in other words the Illyrian origin its not 100% so thats why ther is the Thracian theory aswell. However you as a Greek have hard time accepting that even a prominent historian and analyst such as dr Sam Vakning suggest that Greeks and southern slavs have hard time accepting the idea of Albanian Illyrian connection, it highly political issue, observ; |
|||
'''There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians'''[http://samvak.tripod.com/pp31.html] |
|||
Even slavs such as '''dr Alexander Stipcevic''' (one of the leading authority on Balkan history)is very clear on the subjekt; |
|||
[http://www.alb-net.com/illyrians.htm |
|||
THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY] |
|||
"The '''question of the ethnic and cultural continuity between the early Illyrians and the mediaeval Albanians, besides being one of the most attractive issues of Balkan history, has also acquired a political dimension in recent decades. This is not the first time such a thing has happened in history'''. |
|||
I would like to see less Greeks and Serbs editing/abusing the article of Illyrians (Albanians)[[User:Trojani|Trojani]] 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:00, 18 May 2007
Illyrian tribes were present in Epirus, at least Northern Epirus, but no one is claiming they were the majority. Here are some links:[1], [2]. The second link quotes an historical work that cites numerous Illyrian remains found in northern Epirus. Alexander 007 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Science
Science, ladies and gentlemen. That's what I'm doing here. Please refrain from adding pseudo-science, nationalist or otherwise, into the article. I will ask for authoritative references for all dubious claims added. Alexander 007 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Illyrian arrival in the southern Balkans
For now, I will go along with Wilkes' text in the Illyrians article, and primarily present the hypothesis that the Illyrians arrived into the southern Balkans in the Early Bronze Age, though it will be presented as a hypothesis, not a fact. I am skeptical of this hypothesis, and so are some archaeologists and historians. The Illyrians may have arrived some centuries later. Alexander 007 06:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Illyrians have been atested that are present population in region of Hercegovina and most of the population in the Dinaric montaneous region in the Balcan peninsula.Their origin probably is based on Gravetian culture and we can accept that they are one of the oldest population in the region and in Europa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.226.11 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits
Miskin, I was expecting a later invasion and so are many archaeologists, but others hypothesize an earlier invasion. You have just replaced one POV with another. I will later integrate the two schools. Alexander 007 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The "completely unknown" chronology on the arrival of the "Proto-Illyrians" didn't ring very neutral to my ears, but maybe I was wrong. You can restore it if you want. Miskin 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert since you say you have a source for the info. I will later present the two views in the article however. Alexander 007 05:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Clear enough now?
The following thought has been reverted more than once by an editor who perhaps does not grasp it: "Pliny in his Natural History tacitly implies that there is a broader usage when he instances a narrower one, speaking of Illyri proprie dictii ("Illyrians properly so-called") among the native communities in Roman Dalmatia." How could there be a problem with such an obvious inference of the implications of Illyri proprie dictii, which is translated for the Latin-impaired? How could this simple thought be more clearly rendered? --Wetman 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is no logical inconsistency, but the formulation you prefer is simply awkward. It can simply be termed a stricter usage, leaving aside ruminations over "broad" and "narrow". This has nothing to do with Latin; the meaning of the Latin phrase is quite clear. I prefer to refer to it as a stricter usage. Alexander 007 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- The "stricter usage" implies that in Pliny's time a broader usage existed. What could be simpler than that? What does "prefer" have to do with it? These aren't "ruminations"— they are the very simplest inference made by all but the dimmest of readers. Is there something in the thought that you just don't like?--Wetman 09:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I had initially written that Pliny implies a narrower usage, aside from the broad usage (more commonly encountered) that "they are all Illyrians" from Illyria to Pannonia. You reversed it. Within the context, I felt that it is better to refer to the broad usage (Illyria to Pannonia) as broad, and Pliny's usage as narrow. However, referring to it is a stricter usage seems best, to avoid what indeed seems to me like a semantic rumination. And since, as you say, most readers will understand the implication, calling it "stricter usage" seems fine. I did always understand your point by the way, that the narrower usage implies a broader usage, but to me that seems like an awkward pass for the reader. It's not that I didn't get the point, I felt the point wasn't worth tripping up the sentence. When I refer to a lion as a cat, then I refer to a house cat as a cat properly so-called, what is more relevant is that a stricter usage is implied, not whether the usage is broader, narrower, quadrilateral, or oblong. Alexander 007 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
New info added
I added some crucial information that has been missing. I somewhat fail to see really any quotes from old sources such as Strabo etc. I also added the current state of historian belief on Illyrians. If you have the works of Strabo consult the original in Greek in part 7 pages 304-313. Also consult Athen. 6, p.234; Nat. quaest. 3,11; Plin. 31, 4; Aelian. h.a. 17, 41; cf. Kadlubek I ep. 2 ed. 1711 --> Boguchwal Chron. Polon. ap. Sommersberg, script. rer. Siles. tom. II. p. 19. etc. etc.
--SGS 12:51, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)
Sources stated above, read this first before making your own assumptions.
--SGS 09:35, 15 Oct 2006 (UTC)
You said "The current stand of historians is that Illyrians were named by the Romans and Greeks and that most of the tribes residing in the geographical area called Illyria were not related, neither did they speak the same language". Nowhere here do I see anything that can justify asserting there is a consensus among modern historians that supports your pov.--Aldux 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, how about reading those books and excerpts ;-) --SGS 19:08, 16 Oct 2006 (UTC)
To whoever keeps removing this line. Proof I am wrong. Above I stated historical sources, so if you really think those sources are wrong give me some quotes or at least read these books so you know what you are talking about. If this is going to be a quality Wiki on Illyrians then for crying out loud stop making political edits.
--SGS 08:19, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I've already read the books; and you still haven't told me what are these "current" historians, without mentioning providing sources that they represent today historical consensus. I have no position on regards, so I'm open to accept your pov; but to be clear, ancient historians does not mean current historians. Like it or not, WP:V is not an opinion.--Aldux 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well thnx for mentioning you read them ;-). OK taking your word you read them, then you also read about the tribal divisions at that time and the difference in languages. These old sources state what I mentioned. To get a historical concensus as you say by modern day historians isn't that hard. I would like to refer to the DNA research on the Balkan Peninsula by: Marijana Pericˇic´,*1 Lovorka Barac´ Lauc,*1 Irena Martinovic´ Klaric´,* Siiri Rootsi,� Branka Janic´ijevic´,* Igor Rudan,�§ Rifet Terzic´,k Ivanka C ˇ olak,{ Ante Kvesic´,{ Dan Popovic´,* AnaSˇ ijacˇki,# Ibrahim Behluli,** Dobrivoje Ðord--evic´,�� Ljudmila Efremovska,�� Ðord--e D. Bajec,# Branislav D. Stefanovic´,# Richard Villems,� and Pavao Rudan*
Y chromosomal SNP tree and haplogroup frequencies (percent) in seven SEE populations.
Have fun reading ;-)
--SGS 19:57, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the very well written and easy to understand article. May I suggest that you include some guidance about how to pronounce the word "Illyrian"? Thanks for your consideration of this request.
Bubkes!
Illyrians = albanians!? Not likely! More likely: carpi = albanians. But that's just speculation, not as much as illyrians = albanians, but yet... Rursus 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know :) Nevertheless, it's commonly claimed and Albanian nationalists use it to assert land claims over neighboring countries' territories. The logic is "our nation is descendent from the ancient Illyrians - we were here first ergo our rights to territory supersede those of nations who immigrated and settled in Illyrian territories later".--Domitius 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for them! The fact that they are where they are is reason enough for them staying where they are. History aside. Besides, Wikipedia should be free from nationalists, especially expansivists! Rursus 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Saying the truth that Albanians are decedents of Illyrians do not have anything to do with nationalism and expansivism. Some Albanians are unstable and say we want all the areas Illyrians inhabited. 90 % of Albanians when they say they are decedents of Illyrians do not have any nationalism or expansivism in mind. (Swedes = Viking!? Not likely! More likely Swedes = Russians and Eskimos. But that's just speculation, not as much as Vikings = Swedes, but yet...) --Noah30 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- We cannot claim either albanians=illyrians, or albanians=carpi to be true, we must have good reasons for claiming either one to be true. If I am to speculate I prefer albanians=carpi however - the Albanian connection to Romanian becomes easily explainable, and there's actually a historical record of what the alleged albanians=carpi did. But we haven't reasons enough to claim anything for true. As for the Swedes, besides being unpolite, they're a mixture of Low Germans, Vikings, Slavs (Russians and such, actually), some Vallonians from France, some Scots, and a little this and that, like every other people. They sometimes seem to believe they're the most reasonable and wise people in the world. How much do we believe that "X is smartest in the Universe because X is the only one to think as X"? Very seldomly. Rursus 09:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- And besides: you have the right to be proud of yourself, and of being Albanian (or such). Just take care to not offend others by claiming superiority, your proudness doesn't depend on others being inferior - your proudness depend on your own skills and wisdom in their own rights. Stay calm, be cool! Rursus 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, this is what their dream looks like [3], they call it Ethnic Albania or Greater Albania (both historically ludicrous because of the Albanians' historical lack of statehood).--Domitius 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- OMG Domitius based on what he says is a hard-line nationalist( don`t get offended if your aren`t). I have sources and will use them!!! If Albanians are not Illyrians tell then where they are from? Moon? Take a look at Domitius edits. Hellenic nationalism all the way --Noah30 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Noah30, I find your edits rather not relevant here. Off topic, cheers ;) Riversongsmajorcopy 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Noah30, this article is about the Illyrians, not their suspected descendants. Your information belongs at Illyrians#The fate of the Illyrians, which is where it is. It does not belong in the first sentence in the first paragraph!--Domitius 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- We can not mention old Greeks without mentioning todays Greece. The same apply to Ilyrians. --Noah30 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Check how Noah's version starts:
“ | The fate of the Illyrians is not 100% clear, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. | ” |
The unbold text is sourced, I just assert it does not belong in the lead, but in the section on the fate of the Illyrians; this article is about the Illyrians, while they existed, not what happened to them. The bold text is uncontextualized POV attempting to legitimize Albanian irredentism (the "we were here first therefore our rights override" principle discussed in the beginning of this section).--Domitius 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying that, it is Britannica and I trust Britannica more than self-proclaimed experts.--Noah30 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- please don`t offend be. Now you have joined the "Wikipedia vandal club" (3RR). Please read what I did, I removed it from the beginning and placed it at the bottom but you still removed it. Remember you don`t own Wikipedia.--Noah30 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's no 3RR violation, you should polish your understanding of the rules. Nevertheless, I'll readd some of your text, the Britannica. As for your complaining about me offending you, considering that you have repeatedly slandered me as a "nationalist" who uses Wikipedia for "anti-Albanian" purposes etc... etc...; I really wouldn't go there if I were you.--Domitius 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- if you are offended by me, I apologize but I still believe your edits are biased. For me it is still a enigma how two people like Albanians and Greeks who have lived with and helped each other for many thousands years can despise each other. --Noah30 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was opposite in the past. Greeks and Albanians were to create a joint Albano-Greek state and one of the reasons justifying it was the position that Albanians and Greeks are closely related peoples who are both hostile to Slavs. In the end however, for various reasons, it was decided that Albania would become independent and then the chauvinist claims re Çamëria-Northern Epirus began.--Domitius 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was opposite of what you are saying. Greeks wanted a greekisation of Albanians thru pushing for use of Greek alphabet in Albanian, Greece controlled Orthodox Church etc. Cameria was populated by Albanians and they were ethnically cleansed by Greeks after WW2. Some remained but were assimilated the same way as Arvanites. But south of Albania is not my speciality, so I am not interested in further discussions.--Noah30 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- What a heap of utter crap! The Albanian language was always written in the Greek alphabet by the Orthodox Albanians who cherished it. Chameria was not only populated by Albanians, don't be ridiculous. They were about 20,000 at the time of the war, a minority (which explains how Greece got the region in the first place), and after having committed atrocities on Greek civilians (dreaming of "Greater Albania") during the Axis occupation, they chickened out to face the military courts so they fled. Now history is rewritten to portray the Chams as "victims" and the defense units as aggressors, typical. As for the Arvanites, they loathe anything even remotely related to Albania (which explains the state of their language), and they consider the UCK something like Al-Qaida.--Domitius 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Say whatever you want BUT Arvanites were Albanians. Your comments are influenced by fascism. Don`t want to offend you but this is how I see it. Example Domitius says to a Serb: Don't you think on some level that it may be best if it's accepted? It will solve the issue once and for all. The "cancer of Kosovo" will at last be gone and Serbia will have learned its lesson; in future do what the Greeks and Turks do: encourage ethnic Greeks and Turks respectively to move to ethnically sensitive territories, in other words encourage ethnic Serbs to move to the Sandžak along the border with Bosnia, to Vojvodina along the border with Hungary etc, just to be on the safe side in future. Is it still too late for the government to sponsor a mass Serb migration to the Serb areas of Kosovo to boost the population by several thousand?--Domitius 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)--Noah30 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm moderately amused and flattered that you take the time to read everything I post. I sincerely hope that you are more educated now by having undertaken that exercise.--Domitius 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for this! I should not have awakened the bear. Rursus 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Illyrian Ships found
I thought some of these findings might be incorporated into the article, and the article updated further as more information is made available: Bosnian archaeologists discover fabled ships --Ronz 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Albanians and Illyrians
Britannica is a reliable source and everyone should respect this. Your edits are nothing more than original research claiming Serbs and Croats assimilated all the Illyrians. Maybe some but not all. Today’s Albanians are direct decendents according to Britannica.--Noah30 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, Edrigu's edits unlike yours are quoting reliable specialist research literature, which is generally preferable to tertiary sources such as Britannica. So, Britannica says that "linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies" have led to this result? As long as we don't know which linguistic achaeological and anthropological studies these were, that statement is pretty worthless. I often find citing Britannica is a lazy substitute used by people who can't be bothered to read the actual research literature instead, or are not competent to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- You and edrigu have not provided any source. Original research? --Noah30 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider Britannica a reliable source only in non-controversial topics. The specific article was written by an Albanian scholar whose views definitely don't reflect scholarly consensus. The author takes the Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis for granted and builts most of Albanian history on theories that simply do not reflect mainstream views. Some of them I'd say reflect Albanian views, such the "Epiroti" being an Illyrian tribe, contradicting Britannica's very article on 'Epirus'. I remember that after reading this article I was quite disapointed on Britannica's reliability. Btw I've got no agenda whatsoever, I'm just speaking the truth. Personally I do believe in the Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis, but that does not change the fact that many alternative theories exist. Miskin 13:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the answer but also The Library of Congress says the same and Albanians consider themselves descendents of Illyrians. The Illyrian origin is mainly opposed by nationalists in the neighbouring countries like Serbia and Greece. They say Albanians are not descendents of Illyrians in order to justify the wars and land disputes --Noah30 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
- Do we actually get to read these purported statements, since when is merely namedropping authors (evidently inaccurately in this case) enough?.--Domitius 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Britannica is world’s best encyclopedia in many ways. You had it also in your user page. You can not like Britannica when they say things you like and completely ignore when they say things you don`t like. Unfortunately many of you are using Wikipedia for political activism and are acting in many articles as owners of the truth. I recommend you to read the Wikipedia- rules. Could you please tell me where Albanians originate from? March?--Noah30 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bla, bla, bla. Re-read what I wrote and avoid personal attacks.--Domitius 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Personal attacks? Not my intention and I wrote to all wikipedians discussing this article. --Noah30 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Noah30 I admit that my personal evalution of Britannica and its article should not affect the current content dispute. However, that does not change the fact that alternative theories exist in other sources. Britannica can be taken as credible but no more credible than the sources suggesting different theories. Therefore per NPOV, your version is giving undue weigh to only one side of a controversial topic. Miskin 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. WP:WEIGHT says:
--Ronz 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.
- Precisely. What Britannica's author takes for granted, is in reality a controversial issue. So despite Britannica's credibility, the specific view is outweighed by a large number of alternative theories, coming from no less reliable sources. I'm not saying that the Albanian-Illyrian connection should be ignored or presented as a minority theory. It may as well be presented as a mainstream view, but it should by no means be taken for granted because Britannica does so. That would be giving this view undue weigh. Miskin 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I find the question on the origin of Albanians a fascinating one, and while I do believe that the Illyrian connection is the most plausible, the edit "Data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited" sounds very unscientific. Maybe a more specialised source should be consulted. Miskin 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- "What Britannica's author takes for granted, is in reality a controversial issue." Cite a reliable source that says this, otherwise it looks like a personal opinion. --Ronz 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there is a theory that says Albanains are the descendents of Illyrians deserves to be mentioned in the article, but the fact remains that this theory is disputed by others, so we cannot say that Albanians descend from Illyrians as if it's a fact, especially when you consider that there are more linguists who dispute the Albanian-Illyrian connection than there are who support it, due to Illyrian being centum and Albanian being satem. Edrigu 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- per WP:WEIGHT we should present the different theories, each according to it's prominence. Britannica is a great reference for identifying the most prominent theories. --Ronz 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Illyrian-Albanian theory is already mentioned in Origin of Albanians, which is linked to in this article. For the Illyrians article it is sufficient to note that the Illyrians no longer exist, and that there is a (widely disputed) theory that says they might be related to Albanians, and if anyone wants more information they can click on the Origin of Albanians article. Albanian nationalists tried to insert the same propaganda into the Pelasgian article, but as that article was better monitored by knowledgeable linguists than this one, many people opposed it and it kept getting reverted until the Albanian editor gave up. Also I'm a bit confused as to why you felt it necessary to warn me about violating the 3 revert rule as a brief look at my edit history would've revealed that I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time and so am more than familiar with all the rules, not to mention that one revert per day doesn't even come close to violating any rule. Besides, most of my reverts were not just reverts but also included addition of sources into the version I reverted to. Note the specialist sources I added, surely they are more appropriate than Britannica (whose entry on the Illyrians was written by an Albanian historian). Edrigu 14:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded to your questions about edit warring on your talk page.
- If you can provide secondary and tertiary sources showing that your references are better than those in Britannica, then you may have a point about how the various viewpoints should be weighed. Please see WP:ATT for more information about the importance of secondary and tertiary sources. Please see WP:WEIGHT for more information on how to give proper weight to different and competing information and points of view. --Ronz 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Britannica also says the theory is disputed. Why is that always "forgotten"?--Ploutarchos 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not forgetting it. Why are you using it as an excuse to remove it? --Ronz 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy ;) 83.131.128.160 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Got reliable sources for this? --Ronz 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- So is there a summary or analysis of what it means, or am I overlooking it? --Ronz 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- That doesnt answer my question. How about I instead ask, how does this relate to the article? --Ronz 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Victor A. Friedman - University of Chicago 2001 The theory that the Vlahs and Romanians on the one hand and the Albanians on the other represent linguistically related populations one of whom became completely Romanized while the other barely escaped Romanization has significant historical linguistic support (Hamp 1982). What does not have adequate support, owing to the paucity of reliable data, is the notion that the ancestral language of Albanian was Illyrian. Aside from the arguments that support the possibility of a Thracian ancestry (cf., e.g., Fine 1984 10-11), the data we have for Illyrian are utterly meager and speculative: We have only four words identified explicitly in ancient sources as Illyrian (Polomé 1982:866-67) and do not have a single sentence. All other speculations are based on onomastics or on Messapic, both of which involve assumptions that cannot be verified. We cannot even be certain that the term Illyrian refers to a single language as opposed to being a cover term used by the Romans and Greeks for various tribes they encountered, much less to the ancestor of modern Albanian (Hamp 1993-94:1665). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.226.11 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverting
If you revert back further than a single version, please indicate what version you're reverting to so we can easily tell. Also, please avoid making incivil edit summary comments. Thanks. --Ronz 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pelasgia=Illyricum=Albania
There is no daub about Albanian Illyricum continuity but the point is that the Illyricum is what Pelasgia use to be, so all Albanians come from pelasgic origin and Thracian are part of pellasgic group so making Britannica quit right .See prefecture of Illyricum map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Prefecture.png That’s why you do not see Greece in this map because did not exist . The first Byzantine empire Konstadine I was from Illyricum as well from where other could it be. Dodona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)
Verifying references
Trying to verify the references. Having some problems, so I thought I'd list them all and ask for help. Specifically, I'm looking for ISBN (or the equivalent), links to the actual documents, links to their being cited in other works, etc.
- 1. ^ By implication, a broader usage was current when Pliny wrote.
- 2. ^ Ptolemy, Geographia, Book 3, ch12.
- 3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42640/Albania
- 4. ^ Margiljaj, Preloc “The Illyrians spoke albanian – The Albanians speak illyrian” - unable to verify
- 5. ^ Malcolm, Noel. "Kosovo, a short history", 1998 ISBN 0-814-75598-4
- 4. ^ Duridanov, Ivan. "The Language of the Thracians" (abridged translation) from
Ezikyt na trakite, Ivan Duridanov, Nauka i izkustvo, Sofia, 1976.
- A. Benac, 'Vorillyrier, Protoillyrier und Urillyrier' in: A. Benac(ed.) Symposium sur la delimitation Territoriale et chronologique des Illyriens a l’epoque Prehistorique, Sarajevo 1964, 59-94
- J. J. Wilkes, The Illyrians. Blackwell Publishing, 1992. ISBN 0-631-14671-7
- Dragoslav Srejovic, Les Illyriens et Thraces, 1997.
- Alexander Stipčević, Iliri (2nd edition), Zagreb 1989 (also published in Italian as Gli Illiri)
- P. Cabanes, Les Illyriens de Bardylis à Genthios: IVe – IIe siècles avant J. – C., Paris 1988 (ethnic Illyrians and Illyrian kingdom up to 168 BC)
--Ronz 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm unable to verify the Margiljaj reference. Anyone know what it is?
I haven't tried finding the non-English references. Help would be appreciated. --Ronz 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
POV
I added the POV tag, after editing "The fate of the Illyrians" to remove the weasel words that editors are warring over. Following WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT, I've tried to give proper weight to the different theories. I'm worried we're giving too much credence to the centum vs satem language issue. --Ronz 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Undisputed Genetical link bwteeen Albanians and Illyrians
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5494/images/large/se4308962003.jpeg
Notice that the to Oldest people of the Balkans Greeks and Albanians share common genetical haritage while southern slavs are even by genes slavs. I think the message is very clear even for a user such as Chlämens Trojani 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the message is not clear. What does this have to do with the article we're trying to edit, and where is a source that actually states what you think is so obvious? --Ronz 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure it is If you bother to look at the genetical resarch you will discover that Croats and Macedonians (southern slavic people) cluster toghether with other slavs like Ukranians,Polish people. Albanians Greeks and Sardinians are a distinct, in other words, very much different from southern slavs, now you dont really belive that Illyrians were slavs do u???Trojani 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesnt matter what I believe. I'm waiting for sources. --Ronz 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you bother to look at the genetical resarch you will discover that Croats and Macedonians (southern slavic people) cluster toghether with other slavs like Ukranians,Polish people. Albanians Greeks and Sardinians are a distinct, in other words, very much different from southern slavs, now you dont really belive that Illyrians were slavs do u
- Ahh... This diagram (link sciencemag.org)looks like a diagram of the genetical mixtures: Croats and Macedonians cluster together with Ukrainians and Polish because of dispersion of genotypes I1b from Adriatic Sea to the north, R1a the opposite way. Germans or Spanish are in other fields of the diagram because they have much more R1b! Illyrians are not Slavs of course, but if you meet some Illyrian these days it is the very best possibility that he(she) speaks southern Slavic language 83.131.142.135 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Answer to Ronz by Trojani
Read the source I posted here (The Genetic Lagacy of Paleolithic Homo sapie in Extant Europeans) it not very hard to understand that the Southern slavs (In this case Croats and Macedonians) cluster closely with other slavs such as Ukranians and Polish (a zoomed version). My point is unless you got the impression that Illyrians were slavs than the idea of southern slavs having Illyrian genepool its acceptable, but you and i know very well that history tells us different.[5] In other words Albanians are (by most historians, anthropologs, and linguists)direct descendants of Illyrians [6] and very much distinct from southern slavs, dont you think that it is a resonable assumtion to suggest that the genepool you see in the resarch is Illyrian (Albanian/Greek/Sardinian)?Trojani 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the predominant haplotype of South Slavs is I1b which is unanimously accepted as being in the Balkans since the last ice age. See Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA). From a genetic point of view, the Serbs/Croats/Bosnians have been in the Balkans for tens of thousands of years. They are the descendents of Illyrians mixed with invading Slavs. As for the genetic similarity of Albs and Greeks, it could simply be attributed to both of them mixing with Turks. Also, the genetic studies have shown significant differences between Kosovo Albs vs the ones from Albania. Clearly modern Albanians are a relatively recent mix of many different ethnicities, one of which may have been the Illyrians. If you want more info you should look around the various forums on the net devoted to ancestry and DNA testing, it's a fascinating subject. Edrigu 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ther isnt a single source wich indicates that Southern slavs have a genetical composition which is native to the Basllkans, the source you presented simply dosent say that, so why claim somthing which dosent have source???????? Ther is a single reserch which suggest that Kosovar Albanians and proper Albanians are 2 different people, ther isnt a single source which suggest that Albanians have mixed with turks. On the other hand thar are 1000 of sources which link Albanians and Illyrians by Race,Genetics and LanguageTrojani 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Slavs and Illyrians have nothing incommon
Try to stay on topic, none of your claims are supported by science, the genetical resarch i presented is a undisputed fact that Slavs have nothing to do with Illyrians, if they were proto Illyrians than they would have similar genetical composition as other old Balkan nation, such as Greeks maby?ehehehehh.
"Mitochondrial DNA HV1 sequences and Y chromosome haplotypes (DYS19 STR and YAP) were characterised in an Albanian sample and compared with those of several other Indo-European populations from the European continent. No significant difference was observed between Albanians and most other Europeans, despite the fact that Albanians are clearly different from all other Indo-Europeans linguistically. We observe a general lack of genetic structure among Indo-European populations for both maternal and paternal polymorphisms, as well as low levels of correlation between linguistics and genetics, even though slightly more significant for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA. Altogether, our results show that the linguistic structure of continental Indo-European populations is not reflected in the variability of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers. This discrepancy could be due to very recent differentiation of Indo-European populations in Europe and/or substantial amounts of gene flow among these populations. European Journal of Human Genetics (2000) 8, 480-486."
Kosovar Albanians Y chromosome haplotypes in Albanian population from Kosovo. Pericic M, Lauc LB, Klaric IM, Janicijevic B, Behluli I, Rudan P. Institute for Anthropological Research, Amruseva 8, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. mpericic@luka.inantro.hr "Eight Y chromosome short tandem repeat (STR) polymorphisms (DYS19, DYS385, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393) were analyzed in the sample of 117 unrelated Albanian males living in Kosovo. A general STR allelic frequency pattern in the Albanian population from Kosovo corresponds to other European populations. Fourty six haplotypes were observed in single copy. The most frequent haplotypes were (DYS19-DYS385-DYS389I-DYS389II-DYS390-DYS391-DYS392-DYS393) 14-11/11-13-29-24-11-13-13 (10.26%), 14-14/17-12-28-24-10-11-12 (9.40%), 13-16/18-13-30-24-10-11-13 (9.40%), and 14-17/17-13-31-24-10-11-13 (9.40%)."[7]
Would you like some anthropological data aswell, i would love to show you some, FASCINATING STUFF CheersTrojani 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
POV Albanians and Illyrians
“ | Historians and linguists conclude that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians and that the Albanian language derives from the Illyrian language[5][6]. Some dispute this, claiming that Albanians were not autochthonous and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language[5] while others claim that the Illyrians were assimilated by the Serbs and Croats when they arrived in the Balkans, and that Albanian cannot derive from Illyrian due to Illyrian being a centum language and Albanian being a satem one.[7][8] | ” |
Various issues. How you you make a sweeping statement about "historians and linguists" (all of them?) claiming that is "NPOV", when in the next sentences, it says (sourced of course) that those claims are disputed?--Ploutarchos 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read Talk:Illyrians#Albanians_and_Illyrians, then let's discuss any questions or alternative viewpoints you may have. --Ronz 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ronz version is correct end of story Trojani 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ronz, I've read it, I participated in it more than you (I'm User:Domitius). All I see is you unilaterally deciding to impose your POV. Even Britannica does not say "all" historians, as it specifies it's disputed.--Ploutarchos 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Edits by Ploutarchos
I would like to point out to the admins that this user is vandalizing the article Illyrians, the version by Ronz is correct, it correspondents with most scientific claims, example;
The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians,[8]
or; Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians[9]
Trojani 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's cut the bullshit. Britannica also says "some scholars, however, dispute such theses, arguing that Illyrians were not autochthonous and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language". Their opinions don't count though, eh? As for the other one, who the hell is Sam Vaknin? All I see is that that's a tripod site and should be treated with extreme caution.--Ploutarchos 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- We've covered that in the article though, so why the need for your edits? --Ronz 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
An issue like this can only be decided on the basis of specialist, reputable, peer-reviewed primary and secondary research literature. Enc.Brit. is nice as far as it goes, but it is by no means a privileged authority, just because it's easily available on the net. The relevant literature for this issue is most likely not online. It's highly technical, highly specialised academic literature, and you need specialised knowledge yourself to even read it, let alone understand it and be be able to summarise it appropriately. Nobody should feel competent to argue either side here unless they've gone to the trouble and actually walked into a university library and read stuff. On paper. A proper, recent, reputable academic state-of-the-art report, which undoubtedly exists somewhere. Everybody else who comments here, me included (at this moment, because I haven't done that yet), should simply not be taken seriously. Hands off this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Britannica is a tertiary source, representing research that we cannot (and have not) even begun to approach here. It's the perfect source to determine WP:WEIGHT. --Ronz 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I miss the part where it says that "historians and linguists conclude that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians and that the Albanian language derives from the Illyrian language". That's mutually contradictable with what's in the following sentences...--Ploutarchos 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see how it contradicts. To me it's a textbook case of presenting appropriate WP:WEIGHT based upon the sources we have. --Ronz 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's your POV though, isn't it? Quite clearly historians and linguists generally, do not hold that view. It's not as if dissenting viewpoints are crackpot fringe views (or they wouldn't be mentioned in Britannica at all - see comparable cases). If historians and linguists generally subscribed to the Illyrian view, how can others be disagreeing (also, Britannica doesn't even mention historians and linuists).--Ploutarchos 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see how it contradicts. To me it's a textbook case of presenting appropriate WP:WEIGHT based upon the sources we have. --Ronz 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I miss the part where it says that "historians and linguists conclude that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians and that the Albanian language derives from the Illyrian language". That's mutually contradictable with what's in the following sentences...--Ploutarchos 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ronz, as long as you are not prepared to go into a library and read those equally valid and equally reliable books on the issue that just don't happen to be online, Britannica is not a perfect source but just a perfect pretext to be lazy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Just following policy here. --Ronz 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ronz, as long as you are not prepared to go into a library and read those equally valid and equally reliable books on the issue that just don't happen to be online, Britannica is not a perfect source but just a perfect pretext to be lazy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And i miss the part where it says Some historians and Linguists, Britanica is very clear, in other words the Illyrian origin its not 100% so thats why ther is the Thracian theory aswell. However you as a Greek have hard time accepting that even a prominent historian and analyst such as dr Sam Vakning suggest that Greeks and southern slavs have hard time accepting the idea of Albanian Illyrian connection, it highly political issue, observ;
There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians[10]
Even slavs such as dr Alexander Stipcevic (one of the leading authority on Balkan history)is very clear on the subjekt; [http://www.alb-net.com/illyrians.htm
THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY]
"The question of the ethnic and cultural continuity between the early Illyrians and the mediaeval Albanians, besides being one of the most attractive issues of Balkan history, has also acquired a political dimension in recent decades. This is not the first time such a thing has happened in history.
I would like to see less Greeks and Serbs editing/abusing the article of Illyrians (Albanians)Trojani 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)