User talk:BenWeb13

Welcome!

Hello, BenWeb13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Alba Iulia have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.   – Corinne (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne,

If I tell you to look up any dictionary of Albanian-English languages than you would understand that Lulia=Flower! Something that is public knowledge does not need a specific publication. Try simply the Google Translate and you find out for yourself!

https://translate.google.com/#en/sq/flower

Please let me know if any dictionary is reliable prof to you?

Also by translating Hungarian Gyulafehérvár into Albanian language i get Alba Iulia. When translate only second part fehérvár I get White. The other part Gyula shows a direct reading of Iulia or Lulia (Lule in general, Lulia in singular, Lulet in plural). Anyway, so I have to make a specific study and publish it in order for Wiki to accept the obvious?! While you accept any idiot study as reputable?! Why don't you look at the image to identify the shape of the flower? This is a no brainer please!

Thanks, Ben

Albanian language

Please discuss the Albanian language page on Talk:Albanian language, not on my user page. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, you say "Please do not delete my section without consulting first." Articles and sections of articles do not belong to individual editors. We edit collaboratively. --Macrakis (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Macrakis: That is exactly what I meant, to edit collaboratively! In order to do that I have to write something to so you know what I intend.

But you are saying that you do not understand Albanian language, than how are you able to 'collaborate' in that page by deleting anything for no reason?! --BenWeb13 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert about the Balkans

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Dr. K. 00:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Albanian language. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dr. K. 00:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Albanian language. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 00:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Thank you for the advice, but it seems that I am doing as you suggest and it is someone else deleting without commenting what concerns he has.

Now can you please check the discussion and provide answer to how come someone who does not know Albanian language has access to 'contribute' to without having a clue? Thanks for the Wiki Admin rules as for that I am new. When others told me to write better than I wrote better. When I needed to cite better, I did cite better. But I could not convince someone who does not know Albanian that a particular world is Albanian! If the book I am referring is in Albanian than what is reliable source just any non-Albanian language?

I did not reverted other people contribution but since somebody else revert mine without cause than I try to get it back. What am I suppose to do if someone delete my contribution just because and do not answer? And than start saying nonsense just to look like he had a reason? Is there a way to limit the administrators that do not pertain to the context and add those who understand? For instance, in Albanian language page to be an Administrator that knows Albanian language as well?

This is a very contentious area where many new editors try to impose their WP:POV and use bad sources and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to add WP:FRINGE ideas to the article. There is no need for someone to speak Albanian to understand if an edit is good or bad and if a source is WP:RELIABLE or not. The editor who is talking to you is experienced. If he thinks your edit is not good, then most likely it has big problems, and you should not try to revert back. If you want to discuss this further, you can wait until other editors arrive at the discussion page and see what they have to say about your edits. If you don't want want to wait, you can go to WP:RSN to ask about the quality of your sources, but, most likely, they'll tell you what Macrakis has been telling you already. Good luck. Dr. K. 01:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the time to explain to me all this. I understand better now of you view point and it means a lot.

There are still for my view some gray areas and these has to do with the fact that I am stating the obvious which I can tell instantly when I see the words that are Albanian. Apparently that is easy to say by someone that is not Albanian and say he does not trust me for saying even the obvious. But he trust some "good sources" who tell him all disturbing lies. Yes, I can see now why it is 'needed' that the Albanian be managed by some sort of dictatorship, otherwise they would not accept all the truth to be hidden. :) BTW, Etruscan or Pelasgian language is being deciphered everyday and more using Albanian language... you can trust me on that. The truth is coming out no matter if some 'Greeks' are not tuned up yet. We all know that any source that say Greeks did genocide against Cham Albanian will not be good until the Greek Government forced to accept it. I wonder what reliable source is in those pages that talk about those hot topics?! I am sure that if you let a Greek Admin would delete all. Please check my page and you will see he also agree to everything, but the fact that the word that is Albanian. I wonder who has the write to say it. That is what I still do not know: What is considered a reliable source? For instance, he suggest his own judgment to me by saying that one author is a 'Fringe' because she say Etruscan could be Albanian. So, what if that proved soon to be correct, what would he do about it? Do yo have a black list for some authors that if they mention such a topic would automatically be target as 'fringe'? --BenWeb13 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It is funny to here from those who feel proud as 'descendant from Socrates' to tell me that "Socrates is not a reliable source"! :)

Aiyaiyai, please don't blame the fact that you get reverted on "Greeks". If I had noticed your edits about the "Messianic" role of Albanian, I would have reverted you too. Nobody knows much about "Pelasgic", "Etruscan" was probably not even Indo-European let alone akin to Albanian, and I'm sorry but no book claiming a "messianic" role for any language is going to be considered reliable. As you might be able to tell from my TP I'm not exactly the archetype of a "Greek" nat'list editor. Now please contribute constructively, or don't. --Calthinus (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Socrates is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It cannot be used to add claims to the article. That is called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Only recognised experts are reliable sources. But you don't have to believe me. You can go to WP:RSN and ask them. Dr. K. 03:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: they just said they call any source as "fringe" just because it does not fit their knowledge database?! They deleted everything I contributed, what could be more clear that you have censorship over Albanian language page. So, you are keeping it as a political propaganda tool.

What is 'reliable' source? What is contribute 'constructively'? What is contribute 'collaboratively'?

@Calthinus: I do not have problem with Greeks. I feel sorry for them as I feel for my self, cause I am Greek. But I am inclusive person so Greek AND Albanian. I do not accept sources that lie to the public as 'reliable' sources. I do accept new information even if most people do not understand them. Anything that has a logic in it, is more reliable than just someone who is invested by politicians to deliver propaganda. And I did learn a lot today, but you not getting the point. All I want is for you to learn something new that is out there and it will be RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER in matter of time because it it the truth. I was only hopping that you would ask me more question about them, but you freaked out. I do know that a wide spread propaganda against Albanian have made you so hateful, it was spread to justify why Albanian were so isolated in the past. I hope you can tell that all information about our history is changing and it will continue to change quite a lot. Thank you for your time. --BenWeb13 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay well you were accusing others of reverting you because they were "Greeks" or even "Greek Nazis". Attributing someone's behavior to their ethnicity is never the way to go, even if you are ... ummm... "sorry for your self for being Greek" (o...kay). Wikipedia is not about what you think is the WP:TRUTH or whether sources are "lying", it is about what is verifiable based on sources considered by our policies to be reliable sources. I'll talk straight with you, you keep this up and you'll, probably be blocked. History has often not been kind to Albanians but this is no excuse (whatever your background is) to add fringe material. You're just wasting your own time. Knowledge of history can change but some sources simply aren't reliable, and you're not accomplishing anything by trying to add them. If the fact that (at least) three editors independently take serious issues with your source isn't enough for you, you can always take it to WP:RSN (the noticeboard) but I have no doubts that the result will not please you. Please edit constructively, or don't. --Calthinus (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

BenWeb13, WP is not the place to present novel research. It intentionally only presents what is generally accepted as correct by the best sources we can find. Perhaps Mayani and Kocaqi will be vindicated some day, and you will have the last laugh (though I seriously doubt it). In the meantime, WP presents the scholarly consensus, not what one or another editor considers to be "the truth". We even have a slogan about that: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".

Also, accusing other editors of being "hateful" is a personal attack, and not acceptable here. I have warned you about this before. And it's really very funny, because I regularly get accused by Greek editors of being anti-Greek because I want to make sure that we present accurate information about Albanians/Arvanites, Vlachs, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

An edit summary of yours from last summer adds a bizarre etymology for București and claims that "Albanian language is not only the oldest ragional langauge but also the oldest Indo-European language. As per Petro Zheji it is the only surviving language that preserves the roots of all languages." That is just kooky. If you want to contribute to WP, you really need to base your edits on mainstream scholarship and avoid ultra-fringe sources like that. --Macrakis (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, since you are so expert in WP (I am being perfectly honest with you guys as I ma reading about all the rules and please forgive me for being bold), why don't you make it clear for me how to determine what is reliable source? Do you have a list of books or authors somewhere that filters out the unwanted? Correctly if I am wrong, but all I understand is that you filter 'acceptable sources' based on how it sounds. Who is there to decide if a book contain a good research or not? When I cited a new author as you have seen, I do not delete the other old content on purpose to discuss it with you and arrange the whole page after collaborating with you all. Have you seen me ever delete someone else contribution?

Please consider a small advice: Being technically right does not make you always right. The gray area of understanding for me is the fact when the context is switching between languages. For instance, if some 'acceptable sources' in WP try to find the origin of the ward 'Lule' and it shows an image of a 'Flower'. A person that know Albanian would say ... the caption is wright because it is Albanian word "Lule" (Al.) = "Flower" (En.). That is what I call stating the obvious. Because, any basic knowledge in Albanian and English languages would clear it. It is a mere translation. But the "trusted researcher" or "accepted sources" in the past did not want to consider and purpose have avoided to use Albanian language in defining the word origin. They simple try 'Greek', 'Latin', 'Jewish', 'Arabic', basically only the languages approved by Religion Institution. Please, understand that this is only to explain to you for your own understanding only. The war in Balkan is realized to the Religion Competition for extending power in Balkan which is overlapping and therefore would never be peace. The only way to peace is to publish the right information ASAP. Albanian language has been a 'taboo' for long time, but things are changing slow but certain.

Like 'Macrakis' said, 5+ years ago to say that Arvanites and Albanian have same origin was NOT acceptable but now the WP accept it as true!

So, when I take a book that has 2 authors Plato and another English translator which is on Google Books to show that a particular word is Albanian. I understand now by what you saying that in WP is not acceptable. Although it is obvious to any Albanian readers! But what I am still not understanding is that how to tell (as per WP rules) which Author is acceptable and which is not, while we know that will be a contested point of view? Can we express both points of views from varies authors? In fact I have seen that happening in some WP pages but it looks like is impossible to add new authors. As you see at this page a lot of information is old and inaccurate. If I tell you that I am bring true info, is only for your own knowledge and not as an excuse from me. But, I want you to know that many info are controversial from different sources and I am not trying to spam. Simply, all new books about Albanian language and Albanian origin soon will a lot different from the last 100 years of propaganda spread in Balkan and elsewhere.

For instance, the book "The messianic role of Albanian language" it is highly rated by all Albanian and because the Albanian Academia of Science did not know what to do with it as they were all the old Approved State Academics from the previous Dictatorial Regime... they were fired (requested to live their job) .. and the Academia is about to get restructured and with new Academic leadership. There are a lot of great research in Albanian and it will not stop. But soon you will be interest to learn Albanian language to appreciate how all languages relate to each other. Previous Academics like Eqrem Cabej although are considered respectable or approved sources, were in fact forced to limitation set by Totalitarian Dictatorship. There are others who went to life long prisons for publishing something different. Now all of you experience a great difference happening and the free research is being spread. Vatican and many other are publishing secrete archives. Why would Vatican have in secret archives books about Albanian history?! I am not asking you to decide ... just to let you know what is happening and why the new books who were not allowing by the governments are now being allow and soon will be the relevant source.

What I am asking is what some of you are doing already: To represent both views and document them. For instance, Francesco Crispi and many others in 18th century believed that Albanian origin is Pelasgian (or Etruscan). But in 19 and 20 century Albania was under dictatorship and many Albanian speaking territories under Genocidal processes. So, all the true information about the real origin of Albanians were Not Acceptable for political reason. That also meant that Pelasgian and Etruscan theories must be a taboo for the researchers and nobody must know anything and those stone scripts found must be called undecipherable. Nowadays, century 21, things are changes and many new books reviewing and researching further those theories that started in 18 century and earlier. That means that there are mainstream authors of both camps and soon (it could be 5, 10, 20 years) the whole truth will be accepted and we will laugh at how smart we all were accepting being manipulated by politicians and religions.

If you look properly at this page you will find many places or uncertainty and enigma about Albanian language and its origin. While there are already clear information published that will open your mind. The question are you ready to reflect the transition by representing both reliable sources?

Or you will be defensive about the new information and accept what most people say that WP is not trust-able and is all propaganda controlled information?! Can we find something between? That is why I repeatedly asked you what are considered reliable sources?

The reason I responded harshly yesterday is that I was not getting directly answered but being linked to so many other WP ... while you could help me do what exactly you are telling me: Collaborate. All I am asking you (that is why I am wasting time) is to collaborate and fix a page conveying the new information and old which were politically censored. My explaining has to to with the fact that the politics are changing anyway and will help to set peace in the region while we allow all logical 'debate' in a health and of course technically correct. At least you saw my desire to explain my attention and to follow proper citation and linkage. But I can not change all simultaneously and be same time all technically correct without your help. My question is do you want to talk logically or you simply using you admin privileges and technical expertise to exercise censorship?

Wiki is run by policy, not us debating likelihoods of things, though that does happen a lot. Why don't we take this to WP:RSN. Post your source there, see what people say. I know what the answer will be, but you might want to see for yourself.--Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, I accept the policies but the policies are made and supported by humans. I want to understand if you are about to follow what you are saying: to collaborate. The problem is when the administrators of WP are reflecting the Political War or not. Everything has its place and its time! Maybe one day I could be invited to extend the policies so everyone could contribute in peace instead of use it as a war tool. The fact that you do not have any Albanian Administrator reflect an important issue. I am not going to contribute to an Greek language page, or Italian, Romanian, etc. I told you that the facts stay between us. If I say Bucharest is 'Bukuresht' in Albanian... you may feel bad about it and any source would be called 'Fringe' as long as you administer that particular page.

I understand that and did not waist any time further at all in the Romanian pages. I do not mean war but friendship and closeness. It is interesting to see how many thing people in Balkan have in common. Those who want us to fight are spreading lies. So, when the true information get fully published, than we will have peace. --BenWeb13 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the case with Bucuresti (engl. Bucharest) is that oddly enough you're right in a way, because it's from the word bucur which is a substrate influence in Romanian which is in fact akin (but not identical to) Albanian. It's not that the Romanian came from the Albanian, but that they both have the same source (which is likely the parent language of Albanian, which is not "Albanian" anymroe than Latin is the same as Italian, which it isn't). Whether this substrate is Dacian or Illyrian or something else is of course controversial. Also you keep bringing up this Ancient Greek supposedly loaning modern Albanian's meni (should be the schwa but screw my keyboard) example-- you should know this is impossible unless you're talking about Gheg, since that intervocalic -n- (between vowels) always renders "r" in modern Albanian-- so if they have a common root it should be "meri" or "mberi"... but it isn't. Anyhow there are plenty of Albanian admins at Shqip Wikipedia, and if you ask them what tehy think about this I suspect they will agree with me. Should I ping them? --Calthinus (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

BenWeb13, you ask that I "make it clear for me how to determine what is reliable source? Do you have a list of books or authors somewhere that filters out the unwanted". Of course there is no list. On the other hand, over time, many WP editors have assembled advice and guidelines on identifying reliable sources. More specifically, there are many fields -- notably history, archaeology, linguistics, food history -- where fringe theories are common, often influenced by nationalistic ideology. This is not limited to Albanians! After all, the word "chauvinism" is named after a French person. There are Greeks who bizarrely believe that "Greek coffee" is different from "Turkish coffee", and have deleted information about how the name was changed for political reasons. There are people speaking various languages who believe that their language was the original language spoken in Paradise, including Turkish (Sun Language Theory).

Theories like that have no academic credibility.

There are lots of simple checks you can apply: has the author published in reputable international academic journals? Are the author's articles cited by other articles in reputable journals (you can use Google Scholar for this sort of thing).

Best, --Macrakis (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, now we are talking, thanks. If you new Albanian words you would understand me right away. But I agree with you (now that I am reading the policies in WP) that I should not publish my own research. Although, it is easy in some case (what I call Gray area) to state the obvious. Again, for the a couple words that I state their etymology I continue to discuss so we have a common understanding and I will accept the rules.

'Bukur' + 'Eshte' are words that you could find in Albanian dictionary. But I will get the Wiki liners:

English WP: Bucharest (/ˈbjuːkərɛst/; Romanian: București, pronounced [bukuˈreʃtʲ] Albanian WP: Bukureshti është kryeqyteti i Rumunisë. (Bukur Eshti)

As you see the Romenian "ș" is the same with "sh" in Albanian. AS you 'c' is the same as 'k'.

Albanian is a new Country Name... in the old time were called Epirus, Illyria, and further Pelasgia with neighbor Thracian, Dacia, etc. So, the new countries in Balkan are produced based on Religion and Political agendas and their new modern languages. The conclusion is that Albanian language has saved most of the old languages and it can help make the connection to the ancient ones. So, that is great anthropological for all of us to understand how connected we are and how are languages have been developed.

Some old naming that could not be explained in Greek, Latin, etc. will be able to explain using Albanian language.

You are being defensive saying "It's not that the Romanian came from the Albanian". The thing is that Romanian (based on my conclusions) is a mixed of Latin and Albanian and more. But there are many Latin words which could be tracked from Albanian or Proto-Albanian. Etruscan also is like saying Proto-Proto-Albanian. The Homer's Iliad word 'Mëni' is in Geg dialect of Albanian. All Albanian linguistic or even regular intellectuals know the rotation to Tosk Albanian dialect "Mëni". So, "n" to "r" ... Please check out the example: Arberia = Arbenia. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Arb%C3%ABria.

Petro Zheji has gone deeper in his study by using etymology, logic (algorithm symbolic), philosophy, and Albanian language in order to provide his conclusions. No other Academic today could review him! Because his is to good to be true for most people. But there are followers already in Albania giving the etymology of many words in practice. That is because Albanian know the language. So for this Author who has his profile on Wiki and is recognized and appreciated by many articles on the internet and other recognized authors like Robert Elsie. Why would you rule me out as "Fringe"?

Please, if you know of an Albanian Admin that is willing to contribute to the discussion ping him in. Thank you. --BenWeb13 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Macrakis, I appreciate the last comment as it guides somewhere closer. Yes, we agree to many articles or books that could be pending peer review.

As I explain the situation in Albania is that we are now restructuring the State Academia of Science. In the past alternate research was discourage to life or death scenarios. So, the acknowledge Academics which are often refer into these page also are now loosing any value by the wide Albanian public. That is one of the reason why half Albanian already migrated. The do not trust the half freedom country. They are asking for reform (which you already have that info published). But Petro Zheji is admired from anyone who read any small portion of his work. Please understand that Albanian language is not only important to Albanian but to all humanity as it is the best linguistic archeology place to study! I am formally educated in Engineering and IT. I am analytical person and I like logic. If someone would do such a work and say Greek or Romanian is the Mother of all languages ... I would be critical like always but I will check it out before deny it. But in Balkan and in Europe... the Academia was forced to comply with the Politics and now are exposed to have faked the information and be part of the greatest scam. You will witness and see how write I am over time. So, you should be able to understand that the old timers (for the last 100+ years) have mislead us.

Can you tell me how much is enough to be allow to post a different opinion like you already have in the page: Pelasgian theori, Etruscian theori, Illyrian theory... so since you already represent the different theories why not the new research respectively? Or even a new theory? Provided that there is a serious research that is new and not called a 'Fringe' by any other academic. Especially Petro Zheji has a life long research and there are further authors that would like to be reviews by anyone. Why not let people know their view as an alternate? (unsigned post by User:BenWeb13)

BenWeb13, PLEASE try to indent your talk contributions consistently, and to sign them.

You might find the page Pseudoscientific language comparison useful as a point of comparison to other fringe linguistic theories.

As for the politics of the Academy of Sciences, the former dictatorship, etc., that's interesting history, it is outside of our scope here. And anyway, just because a theory has been suppressed by politicians, doesn't mean it's true. Until the theories become accepted by the international scientific community, not just by advocates (cf. WP:Identifying and using independent sources), they won't be ready to be incorporated into Wikipedia. And if it is true that Zheji is so far advanced that "No other Academic today could review him", then we will just have to wait for them to catch up. --Macrakis (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Macrakis, I am learning as I go about indentation as well, let me know if this is OK or not. The reason I am explaining what is happening Politically and how it related to the Academical changes is to level with you and see if you could find a common understanding. As I am trying to explain to Calthinus for instance, the Pelasgian or Etruscan theories are long standing and will be object of discussion for long time. Now related to mention or not in WP, it sounds fare to say that they are mention and therefore is not fare to mention only partial authors and not the new authors. That it mean purposely disinformation. My suggestion would be to mention different authors in groups and mention also which academia has approved or disproved it. For instance, about Mathiu Aref https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathieu_Aref, he defended his Pelasgian related theory in Sorbonne University and published 2 books. Do you think he is not a a reliable source?

About P. Zheji, the problem is circumstantial cause the Albanian academics varies from those who read him they love him. Some new authors have further his study. The State Academia is going restructuring as I told you earlier. Not as an excuse but to further understanding among us. As I am not as you may wrongly understood me initially. I would not invest time on something that is not really important. I understand your position, he makes a great claim, but he also introducing something new that merit to be introduced and let the word review it. My attempt was to make it easy on explaining why and what he is saying. I cite articles about him with superlatives and he has a clear English profile, his books are online. After all, in the Albanian language profile you accept that all the past theories do not define its origin and do not define its classification for certain. Why not make know an Author who could enlighten us? and nobody could argue with. That work is the open doors for all of us. --BenWeb13 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ej, Ben. Po, une e di shume fjale ne gjuhen shqipe. Une fliskam gjuhen pak (me fal per gabime). Por une edhe kuptoj se ne Wikipedi, ne kemi rreguj shume te forte. Eshte e vertete se, ne kohat e kaluara dhe tani (turp), ka shume pikepamje per histori/gjuhesi/etj ne Ballkan qe nuk jane te paraqitura ne Wikipedi. Eshte problem shume te madh per faqet ballkanike ne Wikipedi, dhe eshte nje problem shume te veshtire per te riparuar. Nese ti do ndihmoje, fantastik, por veprimet aktuale te tua nuk jane konstruktive tani. Ate citim qe ti perdore, me titull qe thote "roli i shqipes" do ishte "mesianik", nuk eshte nje citim per te perdorur ne Wikipedi. Teoria ilire nuk eshte WP:FRINGE , por teorite "etruske" dhe "pellazge" jane shume, shume "frinxh" (me fal, nuk e di fjalen per kete koncept uikipedian ne shqip). Eshte te njejte per teorine "kaukaze". Eshte nje lufte cdo dite per te mbrojtur wikipedine, sepse ka "POV-pushing" shume te forte qe do preferoje ate teori qesharake (dhe raciste :(). Kete jave, nje redaktor ishte "BAN-uar", ai mendoi se shqiptaret erdhen ne Shqiperi gjate kohes osmane, nga Antalia ne Turqi, dhe ai argumentonte se kultura shqiptare eshte "e varfer". Te lutem, lexo Origin of the Albanians. Ajo faqe nuk eshte perfekte, por ka shume citime te mira. Nese ti je i interesuar, ka shume veprat interesante dhe jo-frinxh ti mund te marresh -- veprat nga Vladimir Orel, Hamp, Cabej, Demiraj, e tjera. Te lutem, mos perdoresh ato libra qe thone se ka lidhje me etruske dhe pellazge. --Calthinus (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, Kur ti di pak shqip athere perse eshte e veshtir te pranohet qe fjala "BukurEshte" eshte Shqip? Une nuk perpiqen te ofendoj dike. Ndaj dhe nuk bera asnje veprim tjeter por e lejova ta fshinin. Po fjalen 'Lule' a nuk e kupton? Keto nuk jane shkence etimologjike por nje konstantim shume i thjesht per ata qe dine gjuhen. Pra KONSTANTIM apo VESHGIM nuk quhet shkence. Por kuptohet shkencetari mer ne parasysh te gjitha konstatimet. Eshte tjeter gje te deklaroj se nje gjuhe rrjedh nga tjetra, por tjeter gje te them se nje fjale te ciles ne gjuhe te tjera nuk i gjejne prejardhjen, te konstatoj se eshte shqip. Ap me teper perse duhet te shqetesohet dikush perse disa fjale afrohen me shqipen kur eshte pranuar se shqipja eshte gjuhe e vjeter e rajonit dhe me ADN (DNA) shqiptaret jane populli me i vjeter si shume Ballkanas qe kane mesuar gjuhe te tjera? Une nuk e dija se teoria Pelasgjike apo Etruske jane 'Fringe' sidomos per nje popull qe eshte vertetuar se i takon ketij rajoni. Pra kur pranohet se Shqiptaret jane nje popull i vjeter i rajonit athere studimet gjuhesore krahasimtare mes gjuhes moderne dhe asaj te gjetur ne arkeologji perse te jene 'fring'? Une i kuptoj rregullat dhe nuk jame kundra rregullave. Por cdo rregull ka vendin dhe menyren kur duhet te zbatohet. Kur une shpjegoj nje fjale te thjesht qe e konstatoj si fjale shqipe, e bej jo per te ofenduar por si shembull qe te shpjegoj apo lidh mendimin tek nje studim te cilit i referohem. Pra kur teorite Pelasge apo Etruske permenden ne WP athere duhet qe te permenden edhe autoret e rinj per te qene te sakte. Patjeter qe komenti duhet te perfshije edhe faktin qe eshte e pranuar apo jo nga akademia. Po qe se permenden vetem disa informata te pasakta athere WP nuk ka asnje vlere sepse pergenjeshtron veten e vet. Nje sugjerim do te ishte qe te behej nje list me teorite qe quhen 'fringe' apo me autore qe quhen te tille, ne menyre qe te lehtesohen kontradiktat. Me kalimin e kohes autoret si Demiraj, Cabej, etj... do behen 'Fringe'... Por autore si Petro Zheji do jene te pavdekshem, ai sapo ka lindur. Nuk egziston askush qe te flasi keq per te. Por kuptohet qe kur te ribehet Akademia e Shkencave ne Shqiperi, sepse jemi te pushtuar dhe pushtimi fillon me censuren, atehere do pranohen edhe pse teoria Pelasge eshte paraqitur ne Sorborn te Francen nga Mathiu Aref. A di kete? Edhe Mathiu Aref eshte 'Fringe'? Kush mund te vendos per ate? Ai e ka mbrojt Doktoraturen perse nuk del dikush te thote dicka? Nuk e kuptoj juve ju paguan njeri qe harxhoni kohen? Une do ndihmoja per te gjetur zgjidhje problemit por jo per ti sherbyer censures thjesht per ti sherbyer nje 'bosi' te padukshem. Zgjidhje ke nese ata qe marin pjese deshirojne te gjejme zgjidhje. Sic permende edhe ti dikush nxjer teori qe shqiptaret erdhen nga Turqia ne Balkan. Une do thoja qe bashkepunimi duhet lejuar per autoret qe kane shpenzuar vite pune te publikojne nje liber apo me tej. Pastaj nese njihet nga akademi te caktuara duhet shtuar. Pse jo te krijohen lista me autore dhe librat e tyre qe pranohen apo jo nga akademi te caktuara. --BenWeb13 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Me fal por une nuk mund te replikoj per te gjithe-- s'kam kohe. Ka probleme, ai argument per ngjashmerine e fjaleve ne gjuhe te tjera me fjalet ne shqip modern. Per shembull, nje shovinist anglez do mendonte se spanjishtja ka fjalen "mucho" si kopje te fjales "much" ne anglisht. Por eshte nga "multus" (shiko Wiktionary: [[1]]), ne latinisht. Ne shqip, fjala "bukur" ka rrenje vetem ne shqip, gjuhesoret mendojne, por s'eshte te njejte per "eshte". Pyes ti veten, pse themi ne "une jam, ti je, ne jemi, ju jeni, ata jane" por "ai eshte"? Sepse "eshte" ka rrenje te ndryshme -- est ne latinisht. Nese nje dite autoret si Demiraj dhe Hamp-i dhe Orel-i do jene "fringe" dhe Zheji "jo-fringe" atehere Wikipedia do ndryshoje per te treguar fjalet e Zhejit. Atehere, jo me pare. I don't mean to say he's all bad, he has done good work in translations which he should be commended for; however his ideas simply aren't mainstream, and Wikipedia reflects the mainstream views in the field. Nuk njoh veprat e Arefit. Te fala, --Calthinus (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Anybody, can you tell if this is a 'fringe' or not? Les Pélasges, Précurseurs de la civilisation greco-romaine Histoire/Politique - 446 pages - 170x240 ISBN : 9782753903005 Mathieu Aref https://www.connaissances-savoirs.com/les-pelasges.html/

"Mathieu Aref is a French researcher of Albanian origin born in 1938 in Cairo (Egypt) where he attended secondary and university studies (Arts and Fine Arts) in French and Italian institutions. He has published two books on Prehellenic Greece and Albania (2003/2004) which have been translated into Albanian (2007/2008). He submitted a doctoral thesis at the Sorbonne Paris IV on 3/01/2012 under the title "Research on the Pelasgians at the origin of the Greek civilization". The present work is the result and the outcome of nearly fifty years of studies and research (historical, archaeological, mythological, ethnolinguistic) on the origins of the Greco-Roman civilization and especially the Pelasgians (history, culture and language) predecessors of the Greeks and not their ancestors. The Thracians, Illyrians and current Albanians are their last direct descendants. Finally, his knowledge of the Albanian language allowed him to decipher and decipher most of the anthroponyms, theonyms, toponyms and oronyms of the Iliad, the Odyssey and Greek Mythology." --BenWeb13 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Aref publication is clearly not a WP:RS, so we don't even need to determine whether it is WP:FRINGE. Connaissances et Savoir is a vanity press that will publish pretty much any thesis from a French university, as they say on their site. So this should be treated as an unpublished doctoral thesis, generally not considered an WP:RS. That said, from time to time, an unpublished work becomes well-known in its field. So let's check Google Scholar.

This publication doesn't appear in Google Scholar, but three other publications of Aref do. They have very low citation counts (4-6), and you'll find that many of them are from an author named de Rapper, who is reporting on the political and economic environment which makes Albanians susceptible to the Pelasgic theory: "Imagining the Pelasgians as prestigious ancestors appear as an answer to feelings of inequality and marginality related to new practices of the border." [2] Other citations are from blogs.

Now let's look at the content. The book is available at Google Books, so we can see what he says.

An important claim he makes is that Linear B is not in fact Greek. That in itself is a major claim, contradicting all modern scholarship. So you'd think that this would make a big splash if he had good evidence. But I see no evidence that any other scholar has taken up this claim.

A bit of web searching finds a comment by a professor at the University of Geneva about Aref's book, where he says clearly that it is "not based on a solid and accepted scientific foundation".

Enough. It is very clear that the Aref book is not a reliable source and is fringe theorizing not accepted by the scholarly community.

Let's please not waste any more time on this. --Macrakis (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Macrakis, thanks for the informed response. As we see from the comment of professor below all the establishments is afraid of the Nationalism currently: Réponse de Paul Schubert "In some cases, these could be remnants of populations with pre-Hellenic features; but from there to want to identify a definite and homogeneous group (the Pelasgians), there is a step that we can not take in the current state of our knowledge. It is important to clarify this point because the notion of a Pre-Hellenic Pelasge people could be exploited by currents with nationalist tendencies". To say that some authors have the wright to be accepted in making theoretical claims because they have been properly invested by Nationalism of certain countries and therefore to avoid accepting of new research for fear of facing the established theories backed by Nationalism. It clearly proves my point the Reliable Sources were and still are under the oppression not ready to fully accept major contribution. However, WP could allow mentioning of the research adding that is pending review and or acceptance by Academic community. While all Academics leave open the possibility of ancient Pelasgian remain they could link to modern regional languages. So, the Pelasgian theory itself is not a Fringe because Academics are not denying it, some big claims related to it are not yet ready to be accepted by established Academia on fear of facing Nationalism. Because, the work of one Academic has many theses and one may look fringe (meaning is not ready to be accepted) that means we could mention the work as alternate source that is not accepted for now. One thing I am sure is that if this theory is cleared and well accepted by all Academia in the World, than will never be a risk of War in Balkan! We know that the Serbia Propaganda to 'justify' ethnic cleansing of Albanian in Kosovo was saying that "Albanian are Turkish or Arabs extremist that come their during Ottoman Empire times forcing and killing Serbs in Kosovo"! Also, before any Politician 'justify' their Ethnic Cleansing they do spread some Propaganda the same about Cham Genocide. Greek Politicians do not want to accept that the Albanian in Epirus are ancient indigenous ethnic group and also said that "they were Nazi collaborationist at some point in time or their were Turkish to be exchanged as other point in time". So all the war in Balkan relate to ambitious Religion Based Nationalism that greatly invest on Propaganda and suppression of the historical fact that relate to any ancient facts connecting Albanian or any indigenous in the land where contradicts the established Propaganda! The focus of Religious Based Nationalism is to target any ancient research of Albanian that contradict their invested theories as Nationalism in order to 'justify' their continues war in the region! I beg the intellectuals to step out as much as they can from that viscous circle of evil in order to avoid being part of that conflict and provide hope for the victimized community. I think we could continue to inform both side of the story on topics that are not clearly define by any until all is cleared. Again, mentioning the research of varies authors the way is done in some pages it does not prove anything, but it keeps the question on the Academics 'table'. Each of them could step on each side and have any view without being censored. Thanks again for the discussions. --BenWeb13 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The solution to Serbian or Greek nationalist nonsense is not Albanian nationalist nonsense. Enough! --Macrakis (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that, but that is not what I am suggesting in anyway. For my opinion Albanian are under discrimination and part of being victim of others Nationalism. Protecting human rights of victims from the genocide and suppression of established Nationalism it is NOT a Nationalism! This is not only about suppression of human rights under a Dictatorship but also conspiracy by the Dictator and his chosen Academics to accept the Approved Framework by foreign agencies! When we talk about 100+ years of Genocide which comes of varies ways apply, for sure many Albanian themselves have been and still work against their own National interest. Accepting the Framework of an Academia who continue to tolerate suppression of knowledge as legitimizing genocidal propaganda of some Religion Based Nations, it means they are legalizing and fueling Nationalism to keep it going. --BenWeb13 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Also to understand what Nationalism is let's take an example Kristo Negovani. Do you think he was involved in Nationalism? Or those who have him killed were a Religion Based Nationalist? --BenWeb13 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly what you are suggesting. How on earth is insisting on totally outdated theories "protecting human rights"?! No, excuse me, you are not protecting human rights, you are being embarrassing yourself and others. Furthermore, the best defense that exists against Serbian/Greek nationalist bs is not the Albanian counterpart, but the rules of Wikipedia which prohibit such crap. If you flout them, the crazies on the other side will do the same -- so don't. --Calthinus (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)