Talk:Pelasgians

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pelasgians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll post proper comments within two days. -- Philcha (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Most of what you have said makes sense so I must wonder: why? You ought to do some re-editing of this article, why haven't you? 1. I must disagree with the sections on the quotations from classical authors, these are very useful and show the variety of theories starting in Antiquity. 2. As for explaining most terms, there's no need, at least not in detail. There's the hyperlink, one of the great features of Wikipedia and the web. 3. About the quotations: I would try and find better ones, that is from other editions/translations, because some of these are in very awkward English. 4.The major problem I find with the article is the lack of references and substantial evidence (either facts or deductions) about the origins of the Pelasgians (the middle section of the article). Plenty of theories are mentioned, and not one reference or a shred of evidence. 5.This is for those who have written the article: I would be very careful about defending one theory in one line and in the next the opposite. e.g. Pelasgian/Pelasgus and the etymology. Someone wrote that it must be non-indo-european; later on the text states that the etymology is clearly greek and comes from "flat", therefore, "people of the flat" or "people of the sea", etc. 6.There is some sort of obsession instead of a scientific approach that is about claiming that the Pelasgians were not indo-europeans and therefore not greeks.So it could be that they were not from the same wave of migration, and had a different accent (other tribes would immediately say, different tongue or different people!). They would still be under the designation of early Greeks. 7. This is another problem with many of these articles: there must be appropriate adjectivation/terminology: early Greeks, Minoan Greeks, Mycenean, etc, possibly for this period, Hellenes and early Hellenes are better terms

I will be reviewing the article in the future and making my contribution if someone like you makes some serious editing. I do not want to erase some of those very bad paragraphs yet because I do not have enough material from the web to include and create a good article, I would just leave blanks. This is not a good article, not yet, it is messy! We'll talk later. GFlusitania (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I apologise for taking so long to provide my first set of comments - I had to do some reading first to build up my background knowledge.

This is going to be difficult. Even after doing some reading, and despite the fact that I have a degree in Latin & Greek, I found it very difficult to follow this article. I think readers with no initial knowldge will be unable to learn much from it.

First I think the article has to explain some basic terms, for readers who are not familiar with the movements of "races" (physical / genetic types), cultures (artefacts, mainly pottery, architecture and religious items) and languages that created the East Mediterannean world. "Hellenes" is obviously the most important of these terms. Then the article must always make it clear which aspect of the "Hellene" vs non-"Hellene" is it discussing. It also needs to define the borderline between "Hellenes" and "Barbaroi", as the big quote from Herodotus states that the people of Attica were originally "Barbaroi".

I think it also has to give readers a lot more help with the geography - all those ancient names like Thessaly, Epirus, Thrace, Troad, Anatolia, Hellespont, Arcadia, etc. If I were writing the article I'd make a map with all the relevant regions colour-coded. Then I'd use Template:Annotated image to place notes on it, see for example Template:Annotated image/Spider main organs - this technique has the advantage that it's easier to edit than an image with embedded text, the text is alsways legible because its actual text, and the image can be used for other purposes. For example the map could show places with which ancient writers associated the Pelasgians, for example 1=Homer, 2=Hesiod, 3=6th-5th century BC summarisers of mythology (Acusilaus, Hecataeus of Miletus, Hellanicus of Lesbos) 4=5th century BC historians (Herodotus, Thucydides; probably), 5=5th century BC dramatists (tragedians, Aristopahnes), etc. I can help with this technique if it's used in the article, since I often use Template:Annotated image. Such a map will not be able to show town very clearly, and the text should say in which of the map's territories they are located. In particular the article also has to make it clear which Argos is being referred to at each point, as even undergraduate students of Greek history are likely to be aware only of the Peloponnesian Argos. The main text will also have to describe regions within regions, e.g. Pelasgiotis in Thessaly, Phthiotis, Acte. The same map can also be used with different annotations to explain the big quote from Herodotus.

The article should also relate modern place names to ancine tterriroties, e.g. Skourta.

The article needs to give dates for both the ancient writers and the events / peoples to whom they are referring. "Homer" is a particularly difficult case, as the Homeric epics were composed over a long period, transmitted orally and seem to have reached their "final" form in the 8th century BC. The point is that all these writers were descibing events / peoples from several centuries before their own time.

The descriptions of ancient writers' references to the Pelasgians need to be briefer. For example the article's comments on the Catalogue of Trojans include a few details in addition to the location ("fertile", "spearmanship", chiefs) that are irrelevant as they are not used in resolving the mystery of the Pelasgians. The big quote from Ovid is mostly irrelevant, and the important part is that Calchas addressed the Greek forces as "Pelasgian men" - but I'm not sure I'd include Ovid anyway, as he is generally regarded as a fantasy-writer rather than a historian. I'm also not sure Robert Graves is much of an authority on history. However I think the big quote from Herodotus should remain as it is (apart from needing wikilinks and other explanations).

There are several deductions that need to be supported by citations from "modern" classical scholars, otherwise they constitute WP:OR, for example:

• "Dodona,[17] which must be the oracular one in Epirus"
• that King Pelasgus' Argos in Aeschylus' play The Suppliants includes "all of east Greece from the north of Thessaly to the Peloponnesian Argos" - which seems to mean it included Attica. In this passage Danaids needs to be clarified, as it seems to refer to a specific family rather than to the ethnic term "Danaioi" as in the Iliad.
• Identification of Inachus with Peloponnesian Argos.
• "Herodotus also mentions the Cabeiri, the gods of the Pelasgians, whose worship gives an idea of where the Pelasgians once were."
• They colonized Crete and extended their rule over Epirus, Thessaly and by implication over wherever else the ancient authors said they were, beginning with Homer

Points about the ancient references that need to be clarified:

• The part about the Catalogue of Trojans also contains a source of confusion, as "they are mentioned between mentions of the Hellespontine cities and the Thracians of south-eastern Europe" suggests a location in the very south-east corner of Europe but the best-known Larisa is in Thessaly. Is there anything to support the idea that the Catalogue of Trojans follows a geographical sequence?
• Asius of Samos links to a disambiguation page, which does not link to an article. Do you mean the Asius of Samos listed in my ancient copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary? "(? 7th or 6th cent BC), poet; author of genealogies, satirical poetry ..., and elegiacs" If so, you need to identify him as a 7th or 6th cent BC poet and genealogist, cite the authority for this description (for dictionaries andother references works I generally use {{citation}} with contribution=....).
• Hellanicus of Lesbos wrote Phoronis.

The article needs more analysis of all the theories, both ancient and modern. For example:

• The fragment of Sophocles' Inachus has been used as part of a theory that Pelasgians were closely related to Tyrrhenians and that a group of Tyrrhenians from Asia Minor founded Etruscan culture by migrating to Italy. One of the Thucydides quotes also relates to this theory. But some recent analyses reject the idea of a Tyrrhenian migration from Asia Minor to Etruria (see "Additional sources" below).

Section "Theoretical interpretations" should probably be retitled "Modern aalyses", and possibly moved to the end, after all the evidence.

Section "Inscriptional attestations" looks irrelevant, as it is about the Roman-era inhabitants of Pelasgiotis and says nothing about possible pre-Hellenic inhabitants.

Section "Archaeological evidence" should explain at the start that these are analyses of sites described by ancient authors as inhabited at some time by "Pelasgians". The articles by scholars should be summarised as much as possible rather quoted in large passages.

Additional sources

I found these while trying make myself better-informed about the Pelasgians. You might like to look and see if these are useful.

• "Who Were the Minoans?" by Graham Campbell-Dunn (2006) suggests Pelasgians came from Sahara (desertified 3000-2500 BC) via Crete (Minoans). Campbell-Dunn presents linguistic and architectural evidence linking (in his opinion) Minoan culture to Nigerian Fulani and Yoruba cultures. However I'd treat this with caution, as the author is a retired scholar and may be indulging in a personal pet theory, and this appears to be the publisher's mission.
• The decline of Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climatic change suggests that Philistines were Pelasgoi, based on a quote from Iliad. Philistine cites pottery evidence that Philistines had Greek culture.
• Drews, R. (1992). "Herodotus 1.94, the Drought ca. 1200 B.C., and the Origin of the Etruscans". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 41 (1): 14–39. Retrieved 2008-10-26. debunks Herodotus 1.84 claim that Etruscans = Tyrrhenians and that there was a massive drought around 1200 BC.
• A Near Eastern Ethnic Element Among the Etruscan Elite? also debunks Etruscans = Tyrrhenian.
• The Colonization of Samothrace ( A. J. Graham, Hesperia, Vol. 71, No. 3, Jul.-Sep. 2002), pp. 231-260; doi: 10.2972/hesp.2002.71.3.231)
  • "the historical identity of the Pelasgians is very hard to pin down, and a strong argument can be made that they are largely a construct of Greek historiography."
  • Herodotus 2.51.2–4 described the pre-Greeks of Samothrace as Pelasgians who had migrated from Athens.
  • ". . . Pelasgians—a name which occurs throughout Greece and which would appear to be used without any particularly precise application to indicate a population that was believed to be aboriginal."
• "Bilingualism in Ancient Society" by James Noel Adams, Mark Janse, Simon Swain (p 333) Odyssey 19.175ff: "Every Language is mixed with others; there (Crete) live ... noble Pelasgians".

• • The Pelasgians are nonetheless coming back today. Lots of publications by amateur

historians are revitalising the Pelasgic theory. Books popularising these ideas are widely read and commented, not only among scholars and specialists. It is interesting to note that some of these books rely on works published outside Albania, such as Robert d’Angely’s books published in France at the beginning of the ‘90s and partly translated in Albanian in 1998 (d'Angely 1998), or Mathieu Aref’s books (Aref 2003), translated in 2007). 1 Pre-war studies on the Pelasgic origin of the Albanians are also known through a small number of studies conducted during socialist Albania which are rediscovered today. Such is for instance Spiro Konda’s book on “The Albanians and the Pelasgic issue”, published in 1962, at a time when these theories were already not in favour (Konda 1962). It is said that the book was eventually published, but without the imprimatur of the Academy of sciences (Bitraku 2008). Another study was written during these years (between 1948 and 1983) but published only recently, in 2005, under the suggestive title of “The Pelasgians, our denied origin” (Pilika 2005). Finally, these ideas are also making their way into academic work. Arsim Spahiu’s book on “Pelasgians and Illyrians in Ancient Greece” is thus the publication of his doctoral thesis defended in France in 2005 (Spahiu 2006)

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/34/36/PDF/de_Rapper_2008_-_Looking_for_Europe_on_the_margins_of_Alba_.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.24.27 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall impression

At present the article is so far from meeting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria that a "quickfail" would be justified. However I don't like "quickfail" as I know from experience that a determined editor with access to the right sources can make dramatic improvements in a week or two. Please read my comments and the Wikipedia:Good article criteria carefully, and then let me know if you think you can improve this article to GA standard within 2 weeks. You may find it useful to ask fo comments and assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. -- Philcha (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA review

It's been 2 weeks since I posted comments, and there has been no response and no significant editing of the article. I'm afraid I have to say that this artcile has failed the GA review.

That's a pity because there is a lot of good material here, and the main task is to present it in a way that's most helpful to readers who are neither Greeks nor historians. --Philcha (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Next time someone submits this for GA review, I suggest it should be under category "World history" - submitting it under "Miscellaneous" creates a risk that potential reviewers will ignore it as it doe snot relate to anything in which they have interest of knowledge. --Philcha (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Review Response: Sad, only just bumped into this article -as I did not expect an extensive article about the Pelasgians on Wikipedia- and found it surprisingly excellent. I do accept the comments though, it is indeed hard to follow for people who do not have a background knowledge of the greek world. I hope in the future - when time will be more on my hands - to improve this article myself according to the points of your critique. Even though it failed the GA review I still think that the main creators of this article deserve considerable credit for excellent contributions to Wikipedia. --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - Please add review comments / responses above this line - - - - - - -

Dorians? Myceneans?

This article should say atleast 1 sentence on how the Pelasgians differed from the Dorians. Was it Pelasgian-->Mycenean-->Dorian? In the timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.26.98 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pelasgia. Etymology

As it is said further down: "It is uncertain whether any ancient people actually called themselves Pelasgi. In later Greek usage their name was applied to all “aboriginal” Aegean populations." Britannica Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449112/Pelasgi" The points here: 1) the Greek called them such, IE: we are looking for a GREEK word. 2) The "... name was applied to all “aboriginal” Aegean populations." The solution seems to be obvious: palaios παλαιός meaning "old". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Pelasgia is clearly synonomous with Hellas. P is equivalent to C becomes Celasgia (eg Q and P celtic). s and g are both equivalent to s becomes Celassia. C is pronounced H in some cultures(eg germanic), hence Helassia..ie Hellas. So the Greeks did not call themselves the original Hellas without reason. Pelasg comes from the word Sun - Ήλιος - Πελασ. Children of the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristov7 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It just begs pointing out that Pelasgia -> Celasgia -> Celassia -> Helassia -> Hellas is quite a long shot, unless you can provide references to contextually relevant sources containing the intermediate links. It's especially rich to claim this synonimity in the light of the dismissal of Pelargians -> Pelasgians on the grounds that it's a "mere similarity of sounds" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.21.116 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgia I believe originated out of ancient Cilicia with possibly Tarsus as its capital. Pelasia again equates to Cilasia, or Cilicia. Pelasgia was I believe colonised by Indo European Cilicians(Themselves originally hurrians) and the people there had a sub stratum language which changed the Cilician to Pilacian..Pelagian. The same happened to the Q(C) Celtic and P Celtic language. An example of this is Cinc in Irish became pinp in Welsh, became five in English. And an example of H to C equivalance is the classic one between Hund and Cent..hundred. Much evidence points to the Phoenicians(or their close Northern kin) of Cilicia as being the source/creators of powerfull fleets in the mediteranean which initially colonised Pelasgia. --92.5.55.196 (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or the Pelasgians were simply Pelasgians and Hellenes were Hellenes (Ellenes), different people of different languages, as Herodotus said, and Hellenes came to the south with Doric migration, driving off the Pelasgian indigenes or assimilating them. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I am not per se a supporter of "Unsigned's" argument that Pelasgia and Hellas come from the same linguistic root (in fact I always have had a certain reluctance in accepting claims like these such as the claim of the appearance of "Alexandros of Ilios" in a Hittite treaty), still it needs to be pointed out here that the Pelasgians and Hellenes were not at all different people of different languages "as Herodotos said", dear Zenanarh, though the confusion is of course easily made :). For Herodotos actually claimed them to be a part of the Pelasgians which had split off very early on. This is actually said in the Wikipedia article itself and can also be found in Herodotos Book I §58 sentence 2: 'Yet weak after their separation from the Pelasgians from whom they were a branch, and have since grown from small beginnings to their present numbers by the addition of various foreign elements, amgonst which were the Pelasgians themselves.' The "Attic" race for example were originally, according to Herodotos part of the Pelasgians but then later became part of the Hellenes (Herodotos Book I §57 section 3). The fact that the original Hellenes split so early would explain why the "main" Pelasgians had a different language from the Hellenes, though most Pelasgians later took over the Hellenic language (being Greek) when they became part of it. It's all rather complicated but I hope this helps :) --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kretschmer used the word Pelasgian,for all the inhabitants of the lands around the Aegean sea.They came propably from the north after the great cataclysm.The pelasgian and greek myths for the cataclysm are quite similar.There are some linguistic similarities with the Phonecian deities Bell,Baal and the Celtic Belli.It's possible that the North-Semetic supreme god El (Phoenecian:Elyon) was not originally a Semetic god but a god of the area YS, who had the absolute control of the waters (YS-RA-EL).The etymology of the word πέλαγος (pelagos:open sea) remains uncertain in Indo-European therefore it's possible that the word Pelasgia is connected with the sea-people.193.92.181.203 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Right Article

this needs to be researched by non Greeks or Albanians , none corrupted Historians, Researches or anything related to Greeks or Albanians even tho we see Greeks stick their nose everywhere in Wikipedia and not approve anything related to Albanians we know their cause of doing this and it's childish from them but ill say this again don't let delusional people write history here i have found some proof.

Something really useful for pellasgian history <http://www.thelosttruth.altervista.org/SitoEnglish/pelasgian_etruscan_english.html> this website shows the proof of the Albanian language which can read the Pellasgians Words easily , why isn't this mentioned anywhere why are Greeks trying to delete and deny everything that is Albanian related , who exactly are Greeks in this year , why is Macedonia occupied by Slavics , why is History beind stolen from Albanians how hypocrite people can be , if i was them i would be ashamed but it looks like those people don't have shame or morals in particular , rewriting and stealing history is a crime and should not be allowed. -We also see the old statues and drawing with the (Plis) on their head an Ancient Albanian Hat a symbol , I have seen statues and drawings of people with Plis and Fustanella no one talked about that. -Why are such things allowed , I know historians from around the world know who exactly Albanians are and try to convince people that Albanians are Ancient and they come from Illyrians there is lots of proof , but seeing proof of Pellasgians with Albanian words says everything , it's enough for everyone to shut their mouth and watch for once read the truth about Pellasgians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWillis (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism???

The article says

Main article: Albanian nationalism
In 1854, an Austrian diplomat and Albanian language specialist, Johann Georg von Hahn, identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian. This theory is totally rejected by contemporary archaeological and historical circles, however it has retained staunch supporters among Albanian nationalists.[63]

Are you kidding me??? You have Hahn, Lochner von Huttenbach, Mathiew, Pilika, Konda, Buda, D'Angely, and Spahiu come up with volumes and you say here that this is Albanian nationalism??? What can I say, well done! There is not one single reference and I mean directly referenced (not "other sources") from the latter six (6)). To athenean: Please do NOT REVERT ME when I ask a reference on totally rejected by contemporary archaeological and historical circles with a liquidatory "tendentious". That totally rejected is either to be applied to all non-greek theories or not at all, your use of totally rejected sounds fishy. Don't be then surprized when this article doesn't pass GA Review you'll get that disclaimer of opinion ANY TIME if you keep doing what you're doing. The Trojan Horse has entered this article as well. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your tag placement is tendentious because it is common knowledge that this "theory" is completely rejected. All the "scholars" you quote are either from the 18th and 19th century, their work long since outdated, or pseudo-historians and Albanian national mysticists. Here's a suggestion: Why don't you ask Dr. Elsie and see if what he tells you is any different from what I'm telling you. And keep the trolling comments about "Trojan horses" to yourself. --Athenean (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the scholars that I mentioned are from the XVIIIth century. From the 7 scholars I mentioned only 1 is XIXth century (Hahn); Pilika, Buda, Konda and D'Angely are from second half of XXth century. Aref Mathiew and Spahiu have published in the XXIst century. I don't know what you call common knowledge, because it's not reflected in the article. And I have no idea what Elsie tells us about the Pelasgians because that is not his field of study. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears this small unhistorical paragraph creates several problems here, apart from beeing tottally useless for the article's meaning. I suggest to get rid of that, since it belongs to propaganda, mysticism and nationalism. Every dictators' secret dream needs to be seperated from scientific historical approaches, like in National Socialism and Occultism.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point Alexikoua. The paragraph has to be rewritten, not deleted. There are several non-greek theories and they have been presented. For the Albanian we have not presented or referenced to Hahn, Lochner von Huttenbach, Mathiew, Pilika, Konda, Buda, D'Angely, and Spahiu while their heavy books are there to show that albanians come from pelasgians. And what happens? They are labeled "nationalists"? Why are Georgiev's books heavier and not pointing out to the bulgarian nationalism? Or why shouldn't I say that the whole article points to the greek nationalism? All I'm saying is that the "nationalist" stamp is not well supported and the redirect to "main" is premature. However I do not dare change the article because if I do, I know that I'll be reverted and my references quietly deleted. I am looking for a nice way to represent theories that are not surpassed at all and are to be taken into consideration. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i think aswell the albanian paragraph is to be reviewed, first of all theories connecting albanians to pelasgians were born before hoxha, before even albania was created with an official flag, Alexikoua, and from non-albanian scholars. On the other hand, i consider tendentious the fact that someone has linked this theory with albanian nationalism, and this is actually useless for the article. The albanian connection theory should just say some scholars believed there's a connection and explain how, nationalism is not a scholar point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.188.6 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that this was a product of propaganda and it has nothing to do with serious academic research. This paragraph should be completely removed, as per wp:fringe too.Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply reports and does not take sides. Nor does it condone suppressing what has been published and the history of contention: it is certainly a fact that the theory has retained staunch supporters among Albanian nationalists, who I personally consider "fringe", but my opinion is irrelevant. The article must gives the broad picture without participating in localist squabbles on any side. The material has to be rewritten, not deleted.--Wetman (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that wiki simply reports, but this doesn't mean we have to create a wp:fringe concert.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

it might be consider that also this Encyclopedia is an expression of Albanian nationalisem ..?!

Great Greek Encyclopedia

(Volume XIX, page 878)

Forefather of today's Albanian, Pelazgians, have lived in prehistoric periods in the majority of the world, known to such time, conducting a very important civilizations and established acts with extraordinary value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.133 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted the usual cruft for the nth time [1]. This particular ip editor was a little more sneaky than the others, but there is nothing here. Athenean (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians-Hellenes

The name Pelasgian is used to identify all the inhabitants of the lands around the Aegean sea.They propably came from the north after the great cataclysm ,but around 4000BC there was a movement from Anatolia where the agriculture spread from Near East,to the big Greek plains at Thessaly (Pelasgiotis) and Thibe.(Compare:city.Larissa-Larsa,mount.Zarkos-Zagros,city.Thibe-Egypt.Thibe).The Pelasgian and Greek myths of the cataclysm are quite similar and the most older greek myths are connected with an area around Thibe.The etymologies of the names Pelasgian and pelagos(open sea) from Proto-Indo-European are not quite satisfactory.Amazingly there is not any satisfactory etymologie for the name Hellenes from Proto-Indo-European,but the name is connected with Pelasgian areas.In Homer originally the name is applied to the warriors of Achilleus and later to the rest of the Greeks.Achilleus was born in Pthia (Pthiotis) and there is an ancient city named Hellas in the area.Nearby there is an area which was called Graiki in ancient times and is connected with a cataclysm (Ogigis:Phoenecian word) and there was an ancient city named Graea which propably gave the name to the Greeks (Graekes),a word used by the Romans.(An ancient greek poet claims that the mothers of Hellenes were Graekes.)Propably these names are connected with a relegious cult.193.92.181.203 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians and hellenes could be the same thing , also was called graekes one of the epirotic tribues but the concept of to day Greekness is different , modern Greek and Hellene is not the same thing ...Pelasgians Hellene Illyrians Macedonians often express the same population , Albanians ore better "Shqiptaret" are their ancestors ...Pelasgians still live in to day Albanians and Arberoret ..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.19.210 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Albanians are the ancestors of the Hellenes, Illyrians, Macedonians and Pelasgians? I was under the impression all of them were considered ancestors of the modern Balkan populations. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard this before, not seriously presented for at least 25 years. The Pelasgians as ancestors of Baltic peoples, whose presence in Europe is way before 4000BP? Sources?LeValley 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

French scholar Luis Benloew came to the same conclusion in his book La Grece avant les Grecs )observed that “Many names of places ,mountains ,rivers and legendary personages which can not be explain by the etymology of Greek words apparently can be explained by a non-greek language .Only one language up to the present is able to cast light on the names of places ,and this is Albanian language.The author of this work He is compelled to support the thesis that the Albanian of our day are the descendants of the population which lived before of the Greeks in the region from Adriatic as far as the Halys”(x,xi,)

Halys in the eastern Anatolian highlands around 39°48′N 38°18′E39.8°N 38.3°E, flowing first to the west and southwest until 38°42′N 34°48′E38.7°N 34.8°E, then forming a wide arch, the "Halys bend" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.219.36 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. However next time please provide a reliable source and not a French philologist who born at Erfurt Nov. 15, 1818 and died at Dijon February, 1900. Thank you! A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pelasgi, also called Pelasgians, the people who occupied Greece before the 12th century bc. The name was used only by ancient Greeks. The Pelasgi were mentioned as a specific people by several Greek authors, including Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides, and were said to have inhabited various areas, such as Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice. In the 5th century bc the surviving villages apparently preserved a common non-Greek language.

It is uncertain whether any ancient people actually called themselves Pelasgi. In later Greek usage their name was applied to all “aboriginal” Aegean populations." Britannica Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449112/Pelasgi — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbanianCHAM (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

my opinion about this discussion page, i hope it will not be deleted

I personally cannot consider this article reliable, i saw the discussion page and it looks like its all a battle between Greeks and Albanians, fighting for the way a sentence is presented, and i found this to be funny tho, bye, and sorry to tell the spirit in wich the article was written cannot allow me to read it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some ancient authors about the pelasgians

"The name Pelasgians (Greek: Πελασγοί, Pelasgoí, singular Πελασγός, Pelasgós) was used by some ancient Greek writers to refer to populations that were either the ancestors of the Greeks or who preceded the Greeks in Greece[citation needed]"

There is a difference in time in the meaning of the term "pelasgians", you mean the older pelasgeans. Authors who wrote about them are Herodot (Histories II, 52 + 94 + 171; VII, 94 and VIII, 44) Strabo (Geography 5.2.4), Plinius (Natural History 4.10.20 about a later tribe of the pelasgians), Dionysius of Halicarnassos (Roman Antiquities 1.25.3 about the pelasgians in italy and various more times in the 1.book). --87.152.243.7 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fake Information

The reasons that why Wikipedia is faild in history topics articles, are such articles. This articles should be writen by trusted users who study history not by greeks. The whole article is manipulated and the references are superficial. React WIKIPEDIA. -  Euriditi  20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who write the article, but the source will be given would be reliable and strong right (I think you are opposed on wikipedian policies). I don't think there is anyone out there that do not support that Pelasgians are ancestors of the Greeks (for God sake), (What is the superficial about? 1 Users try to use factual sources, not blogs in any case, if you find any source as superficial, you have to provide it) Thank's a lot for racial personal attacks, too. --HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What else could a greek say. For God sake, the world out there, even you, could not believe what you are saying. Enjoy these moments, because soon all Albanian related articles are going to be corrected. -  Euriditi  16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

First we are talking about reliable sources 1-Apollonios Rhodios & Green 2007, p. 223 (Commentary on I.987).

2- "Pelasgian. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Retrieved 15 January 2008. "A member of a people living in the region of the Aegean Sea before the coming of the Greeks." 3 (plus Πελασγός is a well-known worldwide indigenous + hellenic name, so it couldn't be something else- "τοῦ γηγενοῦς γάρ εἰμ´ ἐγὼ Παλαίχθονος ἶνις Πελασγός, τῆσδε γῆς ἀρχηγέτης. ἐμοῦ δ´ ἄνακτος εὐλόγως ἐπώνυμον γένος Πελασγῶν τήνδε καρποῦται χθόνα. καὶ πᾶσαν αἶαν, ἧς δί´ ἁγνὸς ἔρχεται Στρυμών, τὸ πρὸς δύνοντος ἡλίου, κρατῶ." by Aeschylus) not just albanian magazines and second thank's again for your second personal attack, Im not going arase something because I hope someone see your above lines, thanks.--HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Map of Balkans linguistic groups late 3rd millenium BC, according to Georgiev.png

Pelasgians in the Southeastern Europe late 3rd millenium BC, according to Vladimir I. Georgiev

Regarding this image and whether is a good choice:

1. It is the only decent map we have
2. It is a view on the subject and described as such
3. If it is outdated, what is the new evidence, newer books/authors etc.? Please bring them forward
4. If it is not showing the whole area, this can be discussed with the map author and ideally fix it.

I am not saying is perfect at all but better than nothing Thanks--Codrin.B (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a "decent map" of the Pelasgians, because it is not a map of the Pelasgians. It shows mostly the Macedonia region, not the Pelasgian region. Why is that so hard to understand? It simply does not show the Pelasgian area (e.g. the Peloponnese), and as such is totally inappropriate for this article, much less the lede of this article. Also, someone with a revery finger as twitchy as yours is not in a position to lecture others on courtesy and manners. You would do well to read WP:BRD and familiarize yourself with it, because your behavior is in fact WP:EDITWAR. Athenean (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I only revert "reverters" who ignore WP:TALKDONTREVERT so don't lecture me. WP:BRD should not be abused per: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.". And don't forget, WP is not perfect. The whole wiki concept is based on incrementalism, i.e. things get improved over time, but that only works if people are willing to improve and not simply delete. To me, this is how wiki is suppose to work. Simply deleting will never create anything but offend people. But I am sure you can get your wiki education someplace else. This is not the point of this conversation. My point is, this is just a start and let's obtain a better map. If you have a better sample of a map, better/newer sources, please post them here and/or on the author's page (i.e. User:Slovenski Volk). He makes great maps and could either update this one or make a brand new one. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The map is not an improvement in any sense. It mainly shows the Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, people that have absolutely nothing to with the topic of this article. Nothing, do you understand? They aren't even mentioned in the article! On the other hand, the area of the Pelasgians is not colored, nor is it shown in its entirety. The Peloponnese, an important Pelasgian area is entirely omitted. "Just a start" it is not, and that is not a reason for adding a completely irrelevant map to this article (that you would even stoop to such an argument). When you have an actual map of the Pelasgian area, then you can add it. Till then, so long. By the way, the one in total violation of BRD is you. You made a bold change, I reverted you, and instead of discussing you reverted again. And again. Yes, it is never too late to get your wiki education. But that is not my problem. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Other than insulting again and again, you haven't suggested or done ANYTHING positive. No suggestions for better sources, new books, authors. Nothing just insults. And you call this collaboration? Or you believe this article belongs to you or Greece or something like that?--Codrin.B (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that map doesn't show the Pelasgian areas, but rather the Illyrians, Thracians and a whole bunch of irrelevant peoples just doesn't seem to register. I have nothing more to say to you. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The map does not, indeed, show the entirety of the presumed Pelasgian area. It can be exteded to do so (as does Georgiev's original which it depicts). However, we should keep in mind also that Georgiev's idea is just one theory, and the idea of some unified Pelasgian region or linguistic realm is now disputed - as mentioned aptly in the article. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tyrsenian

I've just blanked the one-sentence section called Tyrsenian under "Language" which is a poorly (but understandably) placed relic from the article's birth. It was misleading as it stood, implying that "Minyans" spoke Tyrsenian. Its content was:

According to the Iliad, Lemnos has no Pelasgians, but a Minyan dynasty. [citing Iliad 7.467 and 14.230]

(The Iliad does not, of course, say that "Lemnos has no Pelasgians", but that a son of Jason ruled their (7.467); 14.230 just calls Lemnos "the city of Thoas".) Protoprotospeculationese is not a language that I speak with any great fluency, so I hope that someone else might add at least some better place-holding content here. In the meantime I'll keep an eye out for reliable sources in case no replacement is forthcoming. In any event, please don't reintroduce the above sentence. — cardiff | chestnut — 23:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe nationalist nonsense

This stuff [2] is sheer nonsense. As if the stuff about "rapsodik homer" and "methodological heroes" (sic) wasn't enough, the replacement of a reliable source with fringe nationalist mysticist stuff is completely unacceptable. Athenean (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Albanian-Pelasgian theory - OBSOLETE THEORY

Reverting what I post in talksection and article will not change the fact. You will not be able to vandlism freely.

An obsolete theory is the caucasian theory, the pelasgian theory is most alive and sources have been provided. All edits have been reported to Wikipedia @ info-en-v@wikimedia.org for vandalism.

NativeEurope (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting your edits doesn't change the facts, nor does reverting edits of others. Your edits were initially reverted in accordance with WP:BRD. That's nothing to take offence from, It simply means you must discuss with others the best way to represent your point if you have good sources behind your opinions. However, edit warring is unacceptable and will only prompt others to revert your edits on sight rather than try to listen to you.
Please try to be civil.
—Sowlos (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

2012-10-23

Reason to remove false claim of "obsolete theory", other then what is stated above.

Once More Time, The Royal Institute Of Sweden, The Most Prestigious Institution In The World Of Languages And Other Doctorates Along With Trinity College And Oxford, Has Published That The Albanian Language Is The Oldest Indo-European Language and the Albanians are the oldest nation in Europe.

The Albanian language has been determined to be the oldest of the European languages by DNA/genes studies at Stanford U.(Luigi Cavalli-Sforza). In addition it has been determined by radio carbon dating that the first Indo-Europeans came to the Balkans by way of Asia Minor and then propagated as agriculturalists throughout the continent taking three thousand years to travel that many kilometers, UK(Colin Renfrow). The Albanian language is thus the "Mother-Language" of all the European languages existing today. This explains why Albanians readily pick up any of the European languages and speak them without appreciateable accents. (George Fred Williams 1914) - If we return to pre-history, before rhapsodic homer sang to goddesses and methodology heroes, before Greek language was written, one well known nation lived with the name of Pellazg. Albanians are the only ancestors who have the origins from this powerful prehistoric race. Recently has been established that Pellazg - et were ancient Ilirs. Albanian was the true language of Homer, as the Greeks have copied from rapsodian Pellazg their wealthy epos. Kujtim Shehu, Kacanik - translated from the book by Dhimitri Pilika "Pellazg - Our Denied Origin" who has completed an extensive research on the origins of Pellazg.

Johann Georg von Hahn in his 1854 Albanesische Studien identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian". In this, he followed earlier suggestions by Giuseppe Crispi (Memoria sulla lingua albanese, Palermo 1831). This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins was shared by some other 19th-century authors

"The ethnic mix of the Greek-speakers of the Ottoman empire (Greek was often learned as a second language by wealthier non-Greek people) was as diverse as any in the Ottoman Empire, possibly more.'The islands and the seafarers from the coastal regions were distinguished by their peculiar ethnicity, many were of mixed Albanian-Greek origin'. (P. 23 "The Balkans, Nationalism, War and the Great Powers" by Misha Glenny)

"The Koundouriotes, for example, the most powerful maritime family on the island of Hydra, who led a substantial faction during the war (of independence), were of Albanian origin'. (P. 25 "The Balkans, Nationalism, War and the Great Powers" by Misha Glenny)

"… the modern-day Greek has more in common genetically with the Albanians, the Latin speaking Vlachs and the Turks than with 'Plutarch's men'."

"So too is the fact that in the early nineteenth century the population of Athens was 24 per cent Albanian, 32 per cent Turkish and only 44 per cent Greek." (Simon Mcllwaine, The Strange Case of the Invisible Minorities, Institutional Racism in the Greek State, International Society for Human Rights, British Section, Dec 1993.)

The Croatian University study has shown clearly that are indigenous Albanians in the Balkans and Europe: "HLA Class I Polymorphism in the Albanian Population" Z. Grubič, V. Kerhin-Brkljačič, E. ČečukčJeličič, S. Kuci2 and A. Kaśtelan (1 National Referral Organ Transplantation and Tissue Typing Center, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 2 Faculty of Medicine Pristina, Pristina, Kosovo

Link: http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/15462

esearch other: "High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow among Slavic Populations" when: "Almost 93% of SEE E3b1 chromosomes are classified into ALPHA cluster. In Europe, the variance is highest among E3b1a Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks (table 1). " If you make a total% of Albanians of Albania and Albanians of Kosovo Albanians have the max all Erb1-a Freq. After say are the Armenians (Latinized Balkan subtract). And then after the Greeks and apulians. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/re...22/10/1964.pdf

One other study: Cruciani concluded that the distribution of the E3b1-alpha cluster in Europe indicates a Neolithic or post-Neolithic expansion out of the Balkans into Europe that spread as far west as the Iberian Peninsula, and Southeast to Turkey. Diversity STR analysis gives an estimate of about 8 thousand years ago for that expansion One other study: Semino: It's interesting to note that another recent study concluded that a J sub-group, J2e1 (J-M102), also expanded into Europe from the Balkans during the Neolithic period. Most likely due to Genetic drift, Kosovar Albanians peak frequency HARBOR J2e whereas a variance maximum declines from the Southeastern edge of the studied region

According to Semino: The footprint of J2e1 (M102) on the European map indicates some sort of connection between the southern Balkans and north-central Italy. One possible explanation is that J2e1 may have dispersed into Europe from the Balkans.Some of the highest frequencies that Semino et al saw for J2e1 were Albania (14.3% of total population), north-central Italy (9.6%), Greece (6.5% ) Croatia etc. Semino et al estimated the date of the M102 Mutation at about 8000 years ago. "

One other study was titled: "Maternal And Paternal Lineages In Albania And The Genetic Structure Of Indo-European Populations" Link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...f/5200443a.pdf

Another study Cavalli-Sforza: The Albanians show considerable Genetic distance with all the populations, however, 14 pair of comparisons between the Albanians and the European populations shows a high level of identity. This is a Correlation function not the sum of the Haplogroupe. And by this function that we conclude that Kosovars & Albanians have one of the strongest DNA Identity in Balkans. By a correlation of 14 values. It is not the some for Greeks (Greeks have a SE identity but not a greek one)

One other study called: "Survey of anthropological features of the Illyrians": The purpose of this paper is to bring to evidence the physical traits of the ancient inhabitants of Cyprus, the Illyrians, through an anthropological study of 93 human skeletons of different periods. Typological Based on the available data the author comes to the Conclusion that the Illyrians of the Albanian territory constituted an Adriatic-Mediterranean population with Nordic and Alpine Minorities. The results of this study throw light on Certain historical phenomena, Which are linked with the origin and formation of the Illyrians "

This survey have shown that Albanians of today are the direct descendents of Illirian-Thraco race!

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3...ubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This study is only 6 universities, where 2 of these universities are located in Germany:

• Charite - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Medizinische Bibliothek, Germany

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...de=tu&JrId=680

• Universitaets-und Landesbibliothek Duesseldorf, Germany

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...de=tu&JrId=680

• Universitarie of 3-Biblioteche dell 'Area di Bologna, ITALY

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...de=tu&JrId=680

• Harvard University Library in U.S.

http://sfx.hul.harvard.edu/sfx_local..._char_set=utf8

• University of Calgary Library, Canada

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...de=tu&JrId=680

• University of Vermont Dana Medical Library in the U.S.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...de=tu&JrId=680

One other study: "Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a Possible Indicator of Settlement in Roman Britain by Soldiers of Balkan Origin" Steven C. Bird. Steve Bird for news: the Genetic evidence would seem to support a much greater presence Thracian, in line with the rest of the Balkan Peninsula, but at a higher Percentage. In a spirit of Compromise, they are sometimes also described as "Thraco-Illyrians," a Blending of the two "barbarian" tribal groups north of the Greeks. Link: http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.pdf

Sir William Woodthorpe Tarn, of the British Academy, regarded worldwide as having written the definitive work on Alexander the Great, states in the opening paragraph of his book Alexander the Great that "Alexander certainly had from his father (Philip II) and probably from his mother (Olymbia) Illyrian, i.e. Albanian, blood!" from - P 1, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, W.W. Tarn, Beacon Press, Boston, 1956

‘Fis’ comes from Pelasgian ‘phys-us’ meaning common origin. The ‘fis’ is an exogamous patrilineal kinship group, without geographical attachments; several whole banners (bairaks) may belong to one ‘fis’; on the other hand one small village may contain branches of several ‘fis’, some large and national, others small and local. The ‘fis’ is the body of descendants in the male line of one usually eponymous ancestor Alexander (A le kesi ander – newborn dream) Cassandra (Ka ca andra – has dreams)

Atlandis is translated only in Albanian, and it means Atlashtet(Our fathers)

Hyllus the earliest king of Illyrians means STAR(YLL in albanian), the later king Bardhylus means white star in Albanian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.100.165 (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pelasgians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globaled.org/nyworld/materials/greek2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

‘Some’

‘Some’ is being added and removed in the Albanian language sub-section in the section ‘Language’. I believe we should keep the word, but instead of ‘some’ we use ‘most’, as not all scholars reject this theory (as an Albanian, I don’t think this theory is true; it is quite unlikely that we are descendants of Pelasgians or that our language is related to it, except from the Indo-European connection IF Pelasgian turns out to be an Indo-European language)(this book deals with this theory: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BZlBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&dq=pelasgians+ancestors+albanians&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmv5f5h6TeAhUJB8AKHZQ5DvAQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=pelasgians%20ancestors%20albanians&f=false). ArbDardh (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with you ArbDardh. Some editors are subjective and not objective!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. There isn't a single modern scholar who supports this "Pelasgian" nonsense. If you can find one, please post here. Khirurg (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The bit on Albanian needs to be expanded. The pseudo-science theory was revived in the 1980s in Arvanite circles (like with Aristeidis Kollias in Greece) uncomfortable with the Albanian connection (in terms of origins) and later it entered other parts of the Albanian speaking world in the 1990s. I doubt these editors are aware of this, its why from time to time we keep getting this kind of thing. Some mention of this in a sentence or two in the article would alleviate the matter.Resnjari (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I also think so!--Lorik17 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I don't disagree. However, it wasn't just Kollias, as the source posted by ArbDardh shows [3]. The tricky part is what to add, and keep it to one-two sentences. Khirurg (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg, i don't mind adding that that additional stuff as sadly entered it has the schooling system as well. maybe an extra sentence of two. Sadly its unavoidable, but not editors who come and contribute are well read or know the ins and outs of the issue and take things at face value. In the modern era it starts with Kollias, his text is still gospel in Albania on this for those who harp on about it and same with Arvanites too. De Rapper gives the chronology how it goes from Kollias into Albania. Its a sad state of affairs but it is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So far there is nothing historical for this, thus there is no evidence to present. Nationalistic myths should be added in correspondent articles (Albanian nationalism etc.). As such there is nothing that can be expanded here,Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Actually there is. Arvanites in Greece have revived the theory in the 1980s and it is still common in their community. It has been borrowed in Albanian circles from them. No other communities in the Balkans today use this pseudo-science except those two communities.Resnjari (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You believe that modern "theories", "mythologies", "pseudo-sciene" can be added in historical articles? I don't thing so. Take in account that according to those "Arvanite" theories Skanderbeg is a Greek national hero.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe i was not succinct here Alexikoua. This article already cites that the Pelasgian theory is disproven in relation to Albanian. What is clear is that as a pseudo-science theory it has been revived from the 1980s onward and used for national affirmation purposes (De Rapper: [4]). Any additions to article are on this basis. De Rapper is clear on this etc etc and a whole host of other academics have cited its return if you want more. No one else in the Balkans uses this pseudo-science on the Pelasgians apart from Arvanites and some Albanians now as well sadly. As for "Arvanite" theories and Skanderbeg being "a Greek national hero", well goes to show more nationalistic delusions. Its why we don't use the works of people Kolias on wiki.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-theory".... There is no place for such modern fringe in articles about history and archaeology. In the same rationale we could have added info of similar quality in various historical articles, such as Skanderbeg as I've noted earlier.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again we know its fringe idea, no one is contesting that and the article already states the theory is disrpoven. Scholarship (i.e De Rapper) however shows that the disproven theory it has been revived and is influential among two communities, Arvanites and (more so southern) Albanians in the modern era and also no other communities in the Balkans invoke the Pelasgians. That should be cited in the article for the bit under section Albanian in a few sentences as i said to @Khirug in the above comment.Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

De Raper offers an analysis of various social aspects of Albanian nationalism. I fail to see any historical-archaeological value in this paper. Perhaps an addition in articles like 'Greater Albania' or 'Albanian nationalism' is justified but not here. The current part about the so-called Albanian connection is more just enough. Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I know the article well and Arvanites are cited. The Albanian nationalism already has this outlined years ago and so does the Arvanites article. I made sure of that. Its this article that is lacking a sentence based on academia that the Pelasgian myth has been reused. As i said previously two sentences takes care of the matter in the Albanian subsection. Otherwise why have such a subsection at all?Resnjari (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: What specific new text would you like to see added to the article? Furius (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Furius. I'm just placing proposed text to get some feedback first. I also think the sentence on the rejection of the Pelasgian theory in the current article in the Albanian subsection would do well to go at the end of this proposed section leaving the reader in no doubt. It took some work condensing content from both the Arvanites and the Albanian nationalism article and this is the result. As for sources the proposed section based on de Rapper, Endresen [5] etc.

In post-dictatorial Greece the Arvanites have rehabilitated themselves within Greek society through the revival of the Pelasgian theory regarding their origins. The theory created a counter discourse that aimed to give the Arvanites a positive image in Greek history by claiming themselves as ancestors and relations of contemporary Greeks and their culture. The Arvanite revival of the theory was borrowed by other Albanian speaking populations within Albania and by Albanian immigrants in Greece through a series of translated foreign books published (late 1990s - early 2000s) on Albania. The theory is used to counter the negative image of Albanian communities and rehabilitate themselves as an ancient and autochthonous population in the Balkans to "prove" the precedence of Albanians over Greeks. The theory plays an important role in Albanian nationalism and Albanian schoolbooks have in relation to language asserted at times that the Illyrians are the heirs of the Pelasgians.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: The specific section is already two sentence long and there is no way to add something more than that. Pseudo myths and how todays Albanian nationalists myths are evolved are completely irrelevant with the subject. Imagine adding such pseudo Balkan stories in Skanderbeg. Not a reasonable initiative at all.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A better idea will be to merge this two-sentence subsection in one paragraph together with the rest of non-historical outdated wp:fringe. Even the head "Albanian" in an article that's about ancient history offers the wrong impression that this might be of some kind of Ancient Albanian history.Alexikoua (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is all interesting but the only two communities repeatedly going on about Pelasgians are Arvanites and (southern) Albanians and it has impacted their communities. Something needs to be said about it. Scholars have chronicled this as well over the years.Resnjari (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this needs to be stated in the correspondent articles, but this is the wrong article. No wonder the De_Rapper paper is focused on the myths of Albanian nationalism, there is no word about archaeology or ancient history. A better solution to get rid of this 2 sentences is merging.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Since there is a dispute on whether wp:FRINDGE theories should be extensively presented in historical articles, it appears that according to T. Yochalas there is "a long lasting tradition in Greek letters and arts which appropriated Skanderbeg as a Greek patriot and national hero" [[6]]. That's part of the same modern Arvanite myths.Alexikoua (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They have been covered in detail the correspondent articles for more than two years now. As i said before i added that information. The discussion is about this article. This article has a whole section about theories and their uses relating to Pelasgians. Some sentences about which peoples are invoking Pelasgians today and why that is not scholarly credible needs to be stated so a reader is aware. Not everyone who visits the Albanian nationalism or Arvanites articles are likely to check out this article and vice versa from the Pelasgians to those articles. Regarding Arvanite myths on Skanderbeg give me the source/s, its important to point that out. Links please.Resnjari (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid you are in the wrong article. The subject of this topic covers archaeological-ancient history issues. Socio-political 20th century nationalist fringe does not belong here (though it has it's 2 sentences and that's enough). By the way this Skanderbeg as a Greek hero theory was very much alive in 19th century Greek literature. Clayer claims that it was Greek literature that elevated Skanderbeg to a Albanian national hero. Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually not in the wrong article. There already is a theories section on language. Its important that it is pointed out to the reader. All that is highlighted is that the 19th century theory was used in relation to Albanian and is discredited. It fails to take into account that the theory is still ongoing even though its discredited. Also De Rapper, Endresen and others do not only refer to he 20th century but the 21st as well (their works are post 2000). The theory is still active among some Arvanite circles today [7]. Clayer and Yochalas has published a lot. As i said about Skanderbeg Alexikoua please provide the sources and i will take it from there.Resnjari (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That Skanderbeg gained the admiration as an Albanian national hero by Greeks needs to be backed by several sources. That some Greek authors claimed that Skanderbeg was a Greek is well-known and can be placed on the Skanderbeg article. Re the Pelasgians, were them real or mythical people? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Insisting to add Wikipedia:Fringe theories is against policy. No wonder De Rapper deals in the scope of Albanian nationalism which is not relevant with this topic. Feel free to find something relevant for discussion which supports the so-called Albanian-Pelasgian autocthony. @Ktrimi: Pelasgians were an ill-defined group in prehistory/antiquity all we know is sporadic info from ancient literature.Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, but the thing is the sources are credible as they give details of this and they in no way are presenting the Pelasgian theory as fact. My proposal outlines this so the reader is left with no doubts.Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that Alexikoua is right that this amount of detail is inappropriate in a section which is specifically about language. However, there seems to be a sufficient data for a section at the end of the article, with a title like Legacy which might catalogue the use of the Pelasgians in discourse since antiquity - cf. the final section of the article on Aryan. Furius (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Furius, hadn't thought of that though the suggestion sounds interesting. Its mainly those two communities (Arvanites and Albanians) who use the Pelasgian theory. For a Legacy section would you say the amount i wrote is sufficient for it? What other suggestions would you propose? Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the amount that you have written would be about right. Medieval and 19th century theories might be included in such a section as well (if there is any information on them in reliable sources). Furius (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool Furius. :) I am not sure about the existence medieval era theories (i stand to be corrected, they may exist) but what i have come across in scholarship its mainly to do with the 19th century and it relates to Arvanites and Albanians as well (as in modern times). I'm going need to find a Baltisotis source for the 19th century Arvanites thing. I was thinking around a sentence or so for it and one on Albanians to round it off for the 19th century. What do you reckon, something like that (in addition to my proposal for the modern era) to round off a Legacy section?Resnjari (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Furius: The specific pseudo theory is a modern era creation for the purpose of internal nationalist consumption. There is no way for Baltsiotis, De Rapper etc. (on works of modern socio-politics) who are completely unrelated to ancient era archaeology to be part of this article per wp:FRINGE.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually no the Pelasgian theory in relation to Albanian has been around since the 19th century. Its been revived in the 1980s onward in both Greece by the Arvanites and later it entered Albania where sadly its still doing the rounds in parts of society. I've been over this many times as per the scholarship. A legacy section would do fine in outlining it and that it is discredited in modern day scholarship leaving no room for doubt.Resnjari (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I think you are mischaracterising WP:Fringe. If there are reliable scholarly works discussing how this theory came about and how it has been important in nationalist movements, then WP:Fringe supports its inclusion. See WP:FRINGELEVEL, "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." (my italics). As for the argument against inclusion because the fantasies in this nationalist discourse are more recent than the fantasies in the ancient Greek and Roman sources, well, Classical reception studies are an important part of modern scholarship on the ancient world (actually 'modern reception' or some such might be better than 'legacy' as a section title). Furius (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable scholarly works on the subject of archeology then this can be a matter of discussion. Else, it's a typical case, like Holocaust vs Holocaust denial and Moon landing vs Moon landing conspiracy theories. Modern Pseudo-theories of limited approval fall in the same category.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Furius makes valid points here @Alexikoua, as per WP:FRINGELEVEL. The Pelasgian theory and its relation to Albanian was around for a long time before modern day scholarship refuted it once and for all. There is a history of it as per the scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari still needs to present classical scholarship which mentions this "theory". So far a couple of third-class authors (Kolias etc.) nothing close to wp:ACADEMIC with limited approval among some Albanian extremists (Albanian socio-politics are not classical scholarship). Clearly wp:FRINGE and UNDO WEIGHT attempt to add nationalistic nonsense. @Furious I fail to see something similar in Aryan legacy section which presents theories that were once approved by experts on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Aryan article makes extensive reference to the use of 'Aryan' and 'Aryans' by Nazism. See Aryan#Nazism and white supremacy and also Aryan#20th century which includes a screen grab from Birth of a Nation and discusses the use of Aryans by Alfred Rosenberg and other Nazis for a whole paragraph. Both of those things are definitely 'nationalistic nonsense' and neither are former 'experts in the subject'. They were vile. But it is still important for readers to know that dimension of the topic. The sources cited for those sections of the article are the works of historians of modern times (e.g. Ehrenreich, Eric (2007). The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution), not the archaeologists and scholars of ancient literature who are cited in the rest of the article. And that is perfectly sensible because the topic has a modern historical dimension. So I think your claim that the scholars cited by Resnjari are irrelevant because they are scholars of Albanian socio-politics rather than classicists isn't valid. I also think it might be time to ask for other opinions - perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Furius (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Scientific works on linguistics are included in the paragraph you point (for example Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture, is not a Nazi specialist work) on the other hand Resnjari needs to prove that literature about the Pelasgians mentions this alternative pseudo-myth. If correspondent literature says nothing about this case then Wiki has no reason to include similar info too (on the other hand literature about Indoeuropean language does mention the Nazi case).Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

To sum up the bibliography about the Aryan race tends to mention the Nazi myths, some examples [[8]][[9]][[10]]. On the other hand the Pelasgian-Albanian pseudo-myth is non-existent in classical bibliography. There is no reason for the correspondent wikipedia article to include this kind of information too. I even doubt if information that "some Albanian nationalists like this" should be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua "Albanian pseudo myth" first started off as a Greek pseudo myth. The Pelasgian theory starts its rounds within 19th century Greek circles trying to incorporate Arvanites into the Greek nation (see the chapter "Aspects of Greek “Myths” related to the Albanians during the Age of Nationalism", in Myths of the Other in the Balkans, 2013 by Lambros Baltsiotis and Ilias Skoulidas [11] (i will be using this source for that sentence i was referring to on the 19th century). As per Furius' recommendations i will be adding a legacy section soon with the appropriate references. I am also going to remove the content on Albanian from the theories section and incorporate it into the Legacy section. as its a defunct theory but its still around today affecting two peoples in a big way. By the way guys the article is about Pelasgians and things relating to that topic.Resnjari (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Since we're writing a general encyclopedia, we have no reason to limit any article to reliance on "classical bibliography". Andrew Dalby 09:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FRINGE should be treated with heavy precaution. There is already a brief mention that Albanian extremists support this "ethnic purity pseudo-myth" which is too much for this article. Nevertheles such nonsense "in detail" has no place in this article and also falls into wp:UNDO. By the way Resnjary still needs to provide literature similar to the Aryan race case (where Nazi myths are mentioned in relevant bibliography about Indoeuropean linguistics) .Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, other editors have offered constructive ways of handling this information. None here has said that the theory is accepted in scholarship. Quite the opposite. It is rejected. It has been said over and over again. That said Pelasgians as a topic has left a legacy and that has been cited in credible scholarship (which for some reason you keep referring to as 'fringe' !). As for 'ethnic purity myths', that chapter by Baltsiotis and Skoulidas has much to say about Greece and Pelasgians in the 19th century. Also i don't know why you keep referring to the Aryan race and Nazis. This article is about the topic of Pelasgians.Resnjari (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an obvious case of WP:Consensus here to add some content as proposed by Resnjari. As WP:Fringe is being brought to this discussion, some clarification should be added to the article on how historical and how mythical the Pelasgians are considered by modern scholars. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus? Absolutely "not". I believe you need to read the discussion first since Resnjary needs to provide a decent argument for his proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly. I am preparing the section now and will add it soon.Resnjari (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

One editor against many can not claim that there isn't consensus for changes to the article. Do you remember the case of the infobox on Greece? You opposed and opposed and in the end the Corinth League was deleted because of consensus. Consensus is based on a logical result after community discussion. One editor alone can not veto a change that is supported by many others. If you think that many other editors here are wrong, open a RfC and test your arguments with it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I was right when saying that you didn't read the discussion: doing right the math is 2 vs 3. I feel that's not a "consensus". Thus, pretending that there is obvious consensus can be quite disruptive in this case. Alexikoua (talk)

Your still getting all worked up over something that yet is not in the article. Have a breather. The finished product is yet to be added.Resnjari (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one that needs to relax. Also note the without consensus there is no way for FRINGE and UNDO to be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The finished product is not yet finished. In the mean a breather is always good.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) There is absolutely no consensus to include anything of the type discussed above. False claims of consensus are a form of disruption. Any material added without consensus will be removed. Khirurg (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Khirug previously you expressed support of adding some clarifications to this article [12]. What has changed considering you have not partaken in the discussion.Resnjari (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder where is this obvious consensus. I must be missing something since there is not even a precise proposal done yet.Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A proposal of sorts was already suggested, one to which you replied with Aryan theory comments which had nothing to do with this article. To do dialogue at the very least the topic must be addressed.Resnjari (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I cant see your proposed text. Feel free to post it for evaluation as soon as you feel ready. There is no reason to disagree about a non-existent suggestion.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you took my advice and had a breather. The proposed text will come shortly.Resnjari (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, those Pelasgians have been linked with the biblical Philistines and the Peleset (based on some limited classical research). You may also place a similar Albanian legacy there too if you feel comfortable.Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so and that would make an interesting add as a sentence (i' am curious now so source please). All i know is that in the scholarship i've have read so far the Pelasgians were linked to Arvanites and Albanians and through the course of time scholarship has disproven it. It is important this is outlined to a reader. As it stands now in the article, it gives off the impression that only Von Hahn came up with the idea and scholarship disproved it and outside of that it has had no impact in a socio-cultural or political way in the Balkans, which is not so. Yet there are people out there who also are not aware of this and still think that the Pelasgian theory is real because either they don't have access to credible scholarship or they don't know where to look and their only access is false sources that recycle it and they in turn do they same. I want to be clear to all editors here. In my above proposal i'm not suggesting some massive section or that it overtakes or becomes the article itself. Only a few succinct sentences in a Legacy section that outlined the Pelsagian theory in its emergence, uses (social/cultural/political -i have for most part done that with the rough proposal above) and that credible scholarship has rendered it false and into the dustbin of history.Resnjari (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Where does this end though? Albanian nationalists have claimed, in addition to the Pelasgians, Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Aristotle, etc...Are we to add a similar section to those articles as well? Turkish nationalists have claimed that the Sumerian language is Turkic in origin (because they are both agglutinative). Are we to add a similar section to that article as well? In my opinion, if nationalist cranks make claims about ancient history, that belongs in the article on the nationalist cranks, not the ancient history article. Otherwise there is no end to this. Khirurg (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We are discussing this topic on its talkpage, not other topics. So far other editors like Furius have noted that adding such content meets WP:FRINGELEVEL. You were in favour previously of such a clarification [13] to the article as well as i recall. The Pelasgian theory has had a socio-cultural and political impact and an ongoing one in the Balkans among two communities and no others. This has been consistant for more then a century with ebbs and flows. The scholarship refers to this and does not recycle the theory as fact. Quite the contrary, its clear that it is not.Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately you did not address my question: Where does this end? Also, judging by the content of the article on Aristeidis Kollias (which you have edited a lot), I am extremely skeptical of promises that any edits here will be done in a neutral manner. In the Kollias article, there is not one description the utterly fringe nature of his pseudo-history. The word "rehabilitation" is used throughout to create a victim narrative, but the terms "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-history" (which is what Kollias' work is) do not appear even once. Khirurg (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It starts and ends with this article. The topic of discussion is Pelasgians, not other topics. A word on Kolias. Apart from myself not having created or even edited the article until recent times (when i just did a massive cleanup of actual POV [14]), the section Legacy which you refer too is based on De Rapper. The use of the word "rehabilitation" (which is in the source) is in relation to explaining what this theory has meant to both the Arvanites and Albanians in their modern usage of it. It does not endorse or treat the theory as fact. The scholarly source is available online [15]. The section in Kolias was written based on the scholarly source not with additional OR terminology outside the source.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Kolias is suitable for the modern Albanian nationalist, but Byku who shaped 19th century Albanian thought isn't their favorite author today. I suspect that articles such as Albanian nationalism needs some serious cleanup in order to consider then which part might be added here then.Alexikoua (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua actually with Byku, i had a look at the Albanian nationalism page and there is a sentence about him referring to that very specific thing about Pelasgians. Looks like i had added it more than two years ago (its in the Western influences and origin theories subsection). Difference between my addition and your recent addition was that the sentence is based on a academic source (Skoulidas) that refers to both Byku and the Alb national movement/propaganda while your one who knows (can't even check the original source). Plus your addition for the article was repetition. As i said to you in the Alb nationalism talkpage your addition for the Byku article is fine (if you ever getting around to adding it), but in the Alb nationalism one its not.Resnjari (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Blue Branson,

basically you have right, but it is not true everything completely would be redundant, better paraphrased differently and/or not emphasized so detailed. There is no consensus for the removal the very few information I restored this time.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC))

I went ahead and fixed your edits. Blue Branson (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you wish to spare the phrase unlike that of any of their neighbours, that is very important, so this I still disagree, as well to classify Pelasgians as i.e., non-Dorian/Ionian Greeks, since Pleasgians were not Greeks, hence regarding these two it was not a fix.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC))

I appreciate your collaboration, but the phrase is important to you and not to Herodotus. So I don't know why you wish to emphasize an absolute unrelatedness between the Pelasgians and the Hellenes when, according to Georges, both groups in Histories 1.56–1.58 are a reflection of the "rivalry within Greece itself between [...] Dorian Sparta and Ionian Athens" (pages 129–130). And Georges's analysis is consistent with other passages in the Histories where, for instance, the Aeolian Greeks were originally called "Pelasgians" because they were non-Dorians and not because they were non-Greeks (Histories, 7.95). But consistency aside, your phrases (i.e., "unlike that of any of their neighbors" and "whom he derives") are good faith edits that, unfortunately, misrepresent Herodotus and Georges given the context mentioned on pages 129–130. Blue Branson (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why it would not be important to Herodotus, on what ground you judge it? We speak about tha language, and Herdotous was clear on that (I did not use any word like absolute), it is another thing that later the migrating population mixed with the indigenous population, we should not confuse the two, hence my edits were not a misrepresentation in this manner. Also you have to see, you have to solve somehow my concerns, otherwise I will have to revert back then the erlier version on these matters per no consensus (but before I will try again a copyedit).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

No, barbarian in ancient Greek texts denotes linguistic and cultural crassness applied to both Greeks and non-Greeks. Kalliopi Nikolopoulou (with editor Claudia Barrachi), for instance, states that "barbaric" was used by "Greeks, particularly the Athenians, [...] to deride other Greeks" (The Bloomsbury Companion to Aristotle, page 292). So by adding "unrelated" to "barbarian", you're putting words in Herodotus's mouth with your emphasis on (and insertion of) an absolute unrelatedness between Pelasgians and Hellenes that stands out without you having to use the word "absolute". And although I appreciate your continued collaboration, your recent good faith edits and their underlying rationale are unsupported by Pericles Georges who states that "Herodotus, like other Greeks, instinctively imagined the non-Dorian inhabitants of 'ancient' Greece [including the Pelasgians] to be essentially 'Greek' and ancestral to themselves, as Aeschylus imagined the Pelasgian Argives in the Supplices" (page 134). Blue Branson (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, your argumentation is again away from the topic a little bit, we did not discuss the meaning of barbarian, your emphazis on absolute is just a speculation as well, again. Similarly, this what you cite how in the end Pelasgians were considered - who contrubuted to the ethnogenesis of modern Greeks - may be explained in the article, but it does not change the fact that orignally they were meant non-Greeks. Hence, becuase you still did not get consensus - and yes of course I am collaborating - and still did not solved my concern (=collaborating in a constructive manner), I will have to reset the original version regarding these two. Of course, I will be still opened for a solution, but first you have to present your proposals here. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

The meaning of "barbarian" was brought up as a result of your edit misrepresenting the sources already in the section along with your inaccurate claim about languages and populations in Herodotus. But at this point, it is now you who has to address the facts I have presented every time you brought up your concerns. And your recent edit, unfortunately, does three things: 1) it reveals a narrow and historically inaccurate point-of-view that fails to acknowledge that Herodotus neither uses your verbiage nor neatly falls under your "Pelasgians = non-Greeks" category given Georges's analysis, 2) it suddenly games the system by using the law (i.e., WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD) to justify re-inserting content that weakens the entry's accuracy, and 3) it no longer represents collaboration, but rather subtle bad faith editing. Blue Branson (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, your edits and you personally introduced anything regarding Barbarian, I just tried to solve the problems with a few copyedits and close pharaphrasing finally you rejected all the time and failed to solve otherwise, on the other hand, no misrepresentation happened, since I followed what the article earlier stated, and no, the burden is on you, since you've made massive changes in the beginning.

Since you can't argue the facts, you now resort to deflections coupled with bullying all while, ironically, claiming to be bullied. In fact, your recent behavior does not make you a problem-solver, because real problem-solvers: 1) don't ignore facts needed to solve problems, 2) don't insist on arguments that the evidence doesn't support, 3) don't blindly follow trends, 4) don't misrepresent evidence while claiming to not misrepresent evidence, and 5) don't invoke the "burden of proof" argument when the burden of proof was actually met not only once, but twice. Also, it was you who consistently made "massive changes" (1, 2) to the entry that only weakened its navigability since your initial edits duplicated information already in the section. So drop the deflections and bullying tactics, because they are neither convincing nor helping your case. Blue Branson (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(1) my recent edit rolls back the page before you touched it on the concerning two element, per policy, it has nothing to with any narrow and historically inaccurate point-of-view that fails to acknowledge that Herodotus neither uses your verbiage nor neatly falls under your "Pelasgians = non-Greeks" category given Georges's analysis, etc., moreover (2) your gaming the system accusation is as mistaken, as your false accusation with bad faith editing (and here I have to warn you regarding WP:AGF as well).

Your fixation on edits (1, 2, 3) that misrepresent Herodotus (especially in light of Pericles Georges's detailed analysis of the Histories) is clear evidence of an historically inaccurate point-of-view that you refuse to admit you have and refuse to abandon in light of the evidence. And it's not a false accusation when you invoke the law to get what you want because you can't argue the facts. So don't arrogantly preach good faith to me, or anyone for that matter, when you have clearly failed to practice it and get called out on it. Blue Branson (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration you failed in the end, since all the time reverted any edits, although you should have stopped in and wait until end of the discussion until you build consensus for your changes, not just per wikietiquette, but per the policies of our community.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

No, anyone can see that your concerns were addressed point-by-point with evidence you clearly and consistently choose to ignore. It is you who has failed at collaboration the minute you invoked the law to reinsert edits I have factually shown weaken the entry's accuracy. And using the community as a shield to justify your strategic use of community policies that are actually against community policies is ironic. So there is really no misunderstanding when you've made it clear that you're not here to help by continuing to bully editors and hold the entry hostage all because you can't argue the facts. Blue Branson (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No way, as it has been demonstrated, your answers are not always touching or just approaching my concern, but in the end you deteriorate from the solution, I did not ignore anything you have written, on the contrary. On the other hand, it seems you are quite not familiar with our policies and how dispute resolution works, hence your argumentation that failing collaboration would be the appliance of the rules of WP is not just ridiculous (and the content you tendentiously remove does not weaken, accuracy, on the contrary), but raises futher concerns since anyway you should have known about these policies, invoking them was imminent since after more warnings you did not get that there is no consensus, and per policy you have to remain in the talk page until the end of the discussion, but systematically continued reverting (henceforth repeating your failed perception and accusation of battle strategy or against community policies is awesome from your side, since you systematically ignore our rules. Your last sentence is unfortunately again a misleading, bad faith statement that has nothing to with the reality. I am really sorry you chose edit-warring...(KIENGIR (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

Yes way, because what's really "awesome" (as in awesomely sad) is that your recent bad-faith behavior is part of a pattern (1, 2, 3) proving my point that you can't argue the facts (i.e., Pericles Georges, pp. 129–131, 134). And since you can't argue the facts, you continue to deflect (i.e., "repeating your failed perception", "misperception and accusation") and invoke community policy in order to reinstate edits that you claim offer clarity, but only serve to misrepresent the sources in the section. You even go so far as to falsely accuse me of ownership and edit-warring with the latter accusation shown by your bullying me with a "warning" on my talkpage, which is a calculated move that is part of a battle strategy you claim doesn't exist. So anyone can see that you're playing the role of a so-called "good faith editor" so as to manipulate the community of actual good-faith editors towards rallying around you (hence, your "consensus"). In fact, your deletion of the Pericles Georges citation right where your edits are proves everything I have said in this talkpage including the fact that you have ignored everything I wrote because you know you have no case. At this point, your arguments are, in Internet lingo, "muh concern" and "muh consensus" which are insufficient when the former has been addressed (despite your claims to the contrary) and the latter is clearly used by you to manipulate the entry's content and manipulate the good-faith editing community towards supporting your unhelpful edits. And yes, your arguments are regrettably laughable and insisting on them doesn't elevate the entry to anywhere near Good or Featured Article status. And I'm sorry that you've chosen to create a POV pattern along with a wall of deflections, policy invocations and false accusations of ownership/edit-warring designed to preserve edits that you claim are helpful without addressing the facts that prove otherwise (all while claiming to not have ignored the facts). So drop the charade because anyone can see right through it. Blue Branson (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am really sorry as well you continue/repeat these bad faith accusations, that are nonsense, since with this you again you try to insist if any editor follows the rules of our community that is something bad, it in a huge contradiction with as well as you try to justify your edit-warring. This repeated can't argue facts phrase is as well failed from your side, since your argumentation is a bit straw-man on the concerning points. Your demonstration about the events are sadly a build-up non-existent scenario with the similar bad faith you are persisiting (hence at this point I have wo warn you about WP:AAGF), but tells nothing of your behavior that you are not willing to recognize (along with the rules) or demonstrate:

Drop the fake penitence act, because your bad-faith deflecting doesn't make you the victim in all this. And until you address the facts, using phrases like "straw man" and "non-existent scenario" to describe your own actions isn't a real argument. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are on the wrong path, still having goundless accusations, that I have to reject, you are boring, I definetly did not this describe my actions.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "sage guru" act, because your denial of your own bully tactics and POV edits is what makes you boring and the entry is suffering for it. Blue Branson (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

BRD = Bold, Revert, Discuss -> you systematically harmed this, since if your bold edit is reverted, you should not force it ultimately but you have to remain in the talk page until the end of the discussion and build consensus, twice as mroe when you are immediately informed in the beginning about no consensus

How can I harm BRD when you're the one strategically invoking it when things don't go your way? Why didn't you invoke BRD when I "boldly" included Biliana Mihaylova's work on the Pre-Greek substratum? It's because Mihaylova didn't challenge your sacred category of "Pelasgians = non-Greeks". So I'm not buying your "voice of reason" act. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you still fail to understand what mean BRD. Too bad. Again, it means, you remain unitl the talk page until the ned of dispute resoltuion.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "tough guy" act, because you're strategic invocation of BRD is an abuse of BRD. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to be aware that any editor may restore the page to status qou ante version even concerning your edits that are not even contested until the end of the dispute reolution procedure, in case. (hence your argumentation about deletion any content with source is as well not holds, since I restored earlier content, irrelevant by whom and what was about it, the details is a matter about discussion here

Any editor you say? Because it appears that the only "any editor" is you, which makes your point nonsensical since the edits you restored were edits that you included and you insisted remain in the entry. So using strategy to get what you want and then pivot to the role of "impartial arbiter" when you get called out isn't helping. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Totally useless and misleading analysis, you still do not understand the policies of our community, BRD, and the status qou ante principle.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "policy expert" act, because your continued policy invocations only demonstrate the reality that you can't argue the facts. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

it is totally natural after a few reverts and warnings to avoid edit-warring you still continue, will get a notification on your personal page, per policy (and as usual, our policies has no connection to any manipulation, if you decided to edit this platform, you have to accept them)

Natural you say? That's laughable since there's nothing natural about you using a personal talkpage warning as a bully tactic because you couldn't address the facts that challenged your precious edits. So drop the "I was only doing my duty" act, because hiding behind the "nature" of the community to justify your battle tactics is not constructive. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, again you ignore out policies, you've been fairly warned.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Drop the "policeman" act, because if anyone's ignoring policies it's you with your POV edits. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who will read our conversation will understand and see who is following and abiding the rules, I have no concerns about it.

You can keep telling yourself that, but anyone who reads this conversation will notice your bullying tactics, lack of addressing the facts brought up every time you had a concern, and your POV pattern of edits, which go against the spirit of the very rules you claim to follow. So drop the "my posse has my back" act, because you're unapologetically the bully in all this. Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again useless speculation, I did not made any POV pattern, I just restored to the previous version (about this you have been told as well).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Yes you did generate a POV pattern and denying it doesn't really help your case. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

About the two content issues you don't mention, you deleted mass of quotes from Herodotus with a certain claim, some you worked in the article (this was ok and finally accepted), while some you ignored, it has nothing to do with Georges or anyone. The other issue may be easily solved if you would not ignore or would describe in more details the view on Pelasgians, which at a point may arrive on the view you want to demonstrate, but we cannot spare the information original situation (in another words, your short summarizations which would exclude important details are not welcome).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

(*Yawn*) You're still not arguing the facts and you think that relying on the "voice of reason" act will save your edits from scrutiny and removal. It apparently has not dawned on you that the "important details" you are POV-pushing are not details, but words you've chosen to put into Herodotus's mouth that Georges's analysis, which is very relevant to the section, doesn't support. Oh, and did you forget Kalliopi Nikolopoulou? Of course, she too is dismissed by you since her analysis challenges your sacred category of "barbarian = unrelated" just like Georges is dismissed by you because he challenges your other sacred category of "Pelasgians = non-Greeks". And your categorizing my edits as "unwelcome" is merely your way of denigrating well-written good-faith contributions that do not misrepresent sources (unlike your "mass of quotes from Herodotus", which was a hot mess of duplicated information lacking any meaningful navigability for easy reading). So drop the acts, deflections and prevarications and address the facts. I'm still waiting... Blue Branson (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, straw-man argumentation, since we still did not start to discuss the very details, you are POV-pushing better you own point of view, because did not care about other things I tell you, as now (you again invoke unrelated, although the status qou ante version I restored did not contain such, on the other hand you are silencing about the original qoute you removed etc.). You are waiting? As I see don't, I have to inform you as well, you have to wait per wikietiquette better 2 days as a minimum, but in mroe sever issues where you were told not to have consensus, even one week or more and the lack of it, anytime your edits may be contested.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

(*Yawn*) No, your claiming that I'm "POV-pushing better" is the straw man meant to deflect your own POV-pushing agenda, which you continue to pretend doesn't exist. But let's take a closer look at your edits you claim represent the "status quo ante" that you suddenly invoke because you can't argue the facts. It's clear that immediately before your first edit there was no mention in the section of the word "unrelated" or the phrase "unlike that of any of their neighbours" meant to convey the meaning of absolute unrelatedness between Pelasgians and Hellenes. Afterwards, you included the the word "unrelated" in your first POV edit, the phrase "unlike that of any of their neighbours" in your second POV edit, and the phrase "unlike that of any of their neighbours" (again) in your third POV edit. Also, invoking wikietiquette, waiting times and going so far as to summon an administrator to lockdown the entry are the typical moves bullies use when they know they can't win with facts and logic. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, shame on you of the misleading edit log of your current revert; A) does not matter, the discussion is is more broader and touch more topics, it has not finished yet, B) I responded to you, but you did not wait, this is again against policy and etiquette, and I did not accuse you, you commited edit warring after more clear warnings and what you do is really ownerhsip (=disregarding anything else, just your point), (C), last but not least, if you still do not understand the x-th time, that deletion does not equal with restoring a page to an earlier version - although I explained already - , with that all of your bad faith accausations (or accusations of bad faith) are a clear boomerang...(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

No, shame on you for bullying me and playing POV games with the entry while pretending to be the "voice of reason" so as to manipulate the good-faith community in supporting you (thank you for proving me right with the entry's current lockdown). And as for my edit summary, it was right on the money: A) the discussion isn't "more broader" since you're only fixated on the absolute unrelatedness between two groups in Herodotus that Georges's analysis, which is actually part of a broader discussion, doesn't support, B) it was you who committed edit-warring (albeit a slow one) with your POV edits, falsely accused me of ownership/edit-warring after ignoring/deleting sourced edits, used a personal talkpage warning as a bully tactic because things weren't going your way, and it was you who decided to ignore me after I responded to your latest talkpage submission until I upgraded the entry (the old "wait it out and hope s/he leaves" bully tactic), C) what I understand is that you're only good at deflections, invoking policies, and making false accusations when you get called out for all sorts of bad-faith behavior. And drop the "I'm better than you"/"woe is me" act, because had you addressed the facts in the first place, there wouldn't have been any need for the current lockdown. And you bringing up boomerangs is ironic since it's usually the people invoking boomerangs who end up getting boomeranged. Blue Branson (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it is really a problem that you fail to recognize what you did wrong, and continue this type of behavior.

If you want to convince anyone to change their ways, start by not talking down to them because saying that my editing behavior is "wrong" is no different than when you said that my edits were "unwelcome" even though they have actually helped the entry. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I will the last time explain to you:

- you were not bullied, after more warnings you deliberately commited edit warring (denying it is not really useful)

Prove me wrong, because you claiming I wasn't bullied is cheap rhetoric and calling me a denialist isn't helping your case. So if you want to start fresh and resume collaboration, then go over to my personal talkpage and get rid of your "warning" and leave a sincere apology message. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- I did not manipulate because of what you commited intervention was imminent (but because of my good faith I really waited much longer than usual because some of your edits were contructive), and the lockdown does not proving you right, on the contrary

You can keep telling yourself that. But if you want to prove that you weren't manipulating anything, then go over to my personal talkpage and remove your "warning" and leave a sincere apology message. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- A), no, the phrase absolute unrelatedness was your invention

No, it's what your edits semantically convey when you mix the English word "unrelated" (or the English phrase "unlike that of their neighbours") with the Greek word "barbarian". As I've already explained, barbarian in Greek already denotes a dichotomy that separates crassness from sophistication on linguistic and cultural grounds, which the Greeks used for both Greek and non-Greek populations. So when you add "unrelated" to "barbarian", you're magnifying the denotation of dichotomy already in the latter word beyond what is said and conveyed by Herodotus. It's that type of language that misrepresents Herodotus and, by extension, Pericles Georges. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- B), no, because I followed our policies - that you systematically ignored - and restoring status qou ante version is not equal with the deletion of sourced edits (as this fact also you recurrently ignore), I did not ignore you - just explained, you ignore the explanations and demonstration of your failed argumenation recurrently - you did not wait me to answer, see above how it is working in our community, you have to give time a considerable time for response

Tell me exactly on what grounds did you decide to "follow" community policies? Did you suddenly grow a legal conscience or is it that you only "follow" policies based on a personal attachment to edits that have been demonstrated to actually hurt the entry? And isn't it odd that you didn't seem to care about "following" policy when Mihaylova's research was added to the entry? So stop preaching to me about awareness, go over to my personal talkpage, remove your "warning" and leave a sincere apology message. Once you do that, we can start fresh and resume collaboration. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

- C, These are again all bad faith accusations from your side, what you quote or address to me never happened, I calmly and patiently cared about you and explained all the things (as you seem an editor having less experience), you chose reverting and ignoring our policies, boomerang I did not raise because of irony, but per policy.

If you care so much about me, then you can start showing how much you care by going over to my personal talkpage, removing your "warning" and leaving a sincere apology message. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, you systematically ignore WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, which I put in your attention, if you do not drop this style of invalid accusations, I am afraid a civility issue may follow.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Assume good faith you say? Well then, why don't you practice what you preach and go and take out that "warning" you left on my personal talkpage and leave a sincere apology message. Only after you've done that, we can start fresh and resume collaboration. Blue Branson (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You really fell the other side of the horse, although I've been really sure you'd understand some simple things, but your answer is again a complete rejection and denial, you wish to turn the things upside down...I won't describe the fifth time i.e., what already did in details, how could I change the past if you commited what you commited, despite the recurrent asks and warnings? Apology maybe I should have received because of your behavior, but I'd never bind this to any condition, in WP you have to be always collaborative, etc.

(*Zzzzzz*) Is being arrogant your way of showing how much you "care" and how much you "assume good faith"? Yeah, if anyone hasn't learned anything, it's sadly you failing to actually practice what you preach. But do get real, because helping to elevate the entry's accuracy is not a "wish to turn the things upside down" and preaching collaboration while arrogantly undermining it is just gauche. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No way, arrogancy is not from my side, again you are not civil and forget the golden rule, comment on content, not on editors (and it is obvious again, who did not learn in real), on the other hand, the problem was after some of your edits that accuracy has been harmed, so I have to again refuse your inobjective summarization.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

You can keep telling yourself that. Now drop the "holier-than-thou-art" act and take a look at the compromise edit since it has the word "different" and the phrase "according to" included in the section. Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow such acts you suggest. Of course will take a look.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

On the content issue:

you recurrently removed unlike that of any of their neighbours, although Herodotus referred to it "Even now the citizens of Creston and Plakiaspeak another language, different from their neighbours", etc.

(*Rolling eyes*) Nooooooo, really? Herodotus says "different from their neighbours"? Shut the front door. But wait a minute, he does not say "unlike/unrelated". I wonder why that is? Oh wait, it's because the word "different" broadly denotes mutual exclusivity that ranges from partial to total (consistent with Georges's analysis) whereas the word "unlike/unrelated" specifically denotes total mutual exclusivity (inconsistent with Georges's analysis). Do you still not understand that "unlike/unrelated" is your verbiage and not Herodotus's? Also, the term "language" in Herodotus can either mean mutually exclusive forms of speech or different dialects within the same group of speakers per Lynn Abel's analysis. So, "unlike/unrelated" isn't really reflective of even superficial readings of Herodotus not to mention that the word "barbarian" already denotes a level of difference that needs no emphasis in the paragraph prior to the Herodotus passage. But if adding "different from their neighbours" moves things along, then I'll put the phrase in the entry once the lockdown is over. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

In WP, we use copyedit and close pharaphrasing, your eyes should not rolling, since you practised the same in other cases. Yes the slight, precise meaning of each expression may be interpreted differently, but it's very pretty clear what he wanted to say with this. However yes, let's stick to different, expressis verbis. First present here your planned modifications to be reviewed, only after acceptance edit the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

Get real, because what you call "copyedit[s]" and "close paraphrasing" is really just comprehensibly navigable prose writing that readers expect and deserve to see. As for the modifications, just look at the compromise edit where the word "different" is included in the section. Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

Regarding the other part: it is well known to anyone who just superficially analyzed ever the topic that the term Pelasgians later became also used to any former inhabitant on Greece, shall they be related or not, or later melt in Greeks or any predecessor that contributed to their ethnogenesis, that's why you cannot use i.e. Pericles Georges's or anyone's opinion as an unilateral viewpoint. You may of course describe i.e. according to him etc., but the article has to inform the reader any associations regarding Dorians, Ionians, Hellenes and Greeks may be arbitrary and different regarding how various philospohers used and/or considered it, shall it be Herodotus or Georges or anyone else, per WP:NPOV.

(*Facepalm*) Do stay on topic, because we're talking about the meaning of the term "Pelasgians" in Herodotus specifically and not in Greek texts generally. So your whole spiel about ethnogenesis is just your original interpretation of Herodotus that Pericles Georges does not support. And there's nothing NPOV about putting incorrect/superficial readings of Herodotus into the entry when reliably accurate readings of the Histories are available to readers. But it appears that your focus on the NPOV policy undermines the other community rules you're expected to follow like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES. So the inclusion of Georges's analysis is not "unilateral", but in keeping with your own policies that, in this case, appear to supersede your fixation on neutrality (of course, I'd rather discuss the facts than discuss policy). Lastly, your certainty about "arbitrary associations" doesn't appear to be consistent with your certainty about the Pelagians being "unlike" or "unrelated" to their neighbours. But if the phrase "according to Pericles Georges" will help move things along, then I'll put the phrase in the entry when the lockdown is over. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear this section is denoted to primarily Herototus' interpretation, but WP:NPOV is never in conflict with the other policies you listed, they co-exist, since if there are various interpretations, both may be added and explained. Yes, the inlcusion is not unilateral until not only his approach is included and highlighted and presented as fact. Yes, put according to, but also the reader has to understand the several views on the Pelasgian ethnogenesis, to understand why x author consider y. First present here your planned modifications to be reviewed, only after acceptance edit the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

You sure about that? Because if WP:NPOV is "never in conflict with the other policies", then how do you explain WP:IGNORE? So if neutrality gets in the way of improving the entry's accuracy, then neutrality can be ignored. As for the modifications, the compromise edit includes the phrase "according to" in the section (leaving room for other, hopefully accurate, views to be added later). Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE would be very special and odd case, meaning WP's existing guidelines/policies could not satisfingly handle a situation, and result would ridiculous/hilarious inaccuracy/fallacy, etc. this issue and it's solution is by far from that.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

Thus any rewrite is only supported if these principles are taken into account, reflecting the still existing uncertainty and various views on classification, highlighting the primordial situations as well without giving chance for lazy confusion of the terminologies, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

(*Facepalm*) Lazy confusion of the terminologies, you say? Why do you think Georges and Nicolopoulou were mentioned in the first place if not to provide precise explanations of ambiguous terminologies? Also, Herodotus's classificatory ambivalence of the Pelasgian language was already in the entry before the lockdown and said ambivalence is already acknowledged in Georges's analysis. But if the phrase "different from their neighbours" is acceptable to you, then I'll include it in the entry when the lockdown is over. Blue Branson (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I explained to you very well the situation, your copyedit/close pharapharasings were not satisfying in some cases, if anyone read the article through after your modifications could be confused etc., some parts you really did well, but in some places not. The two problems I highlighted to you, the rest I had not problem. As outlined above, ok with "different...", but first present here your planned modifications to be reviewed, only after acceptance edit the article (not to run again into a possible sanction, per policy).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

You can keep telling yourself that. And you're really not fooling anyone by calling comprehensible prose writing "copyedit/close paraphrasings" just so that the entry can get screwed over (again) with that hot mess of quotes that weakens the section's book-by-book breakdown. And do spare me your passive-aggressive threats (i.e., "not to run again into a possible sanction"), because the compromise edit has the words "different" and "according to" included in the section. So congratulations, you won. Blue Branson (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to tell it myself and I did fool anyone, and you did not get any passive-aggressive threats, I just asked you preventatively per policy. You tone is still overexaggerated and offensive, you should avoid this in the future.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

Note: I have blocked the above abusive account, Blue Branson (talk · contribs), as another obvious sock of Deucalionite (talk · contribs). This article is still a massive mess of potentially distorted and tendentious content tainted by the years-long activities of this sockmaster, under numerous account names. A lot of cleanup may be necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:,

oh, somehow I had a bad feelings about this...as you see I had a very tyring long struggle with this editor, and tried to keep the article in order, at the least the moment I encountered here. It's so annoying recently any editor I have a long and time consuming struggle turns to be in the end a sock....these will nevet get depleted? (poetrical question). Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Prokopiou, Angelos; Smith, Edwin

Prokopiou is quoted, but what about Smith?Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Tabula Veliterna

An automated filter blocked this note identifying a very obscure item:

i.e., Lamina Borgiana, 6 Wetman (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References