Talk:Illyrians/Archive 3

"Albanians"

I don't know who has a problem with Albanians on here but in the interest of fairness the introduction should mention the high probability that Albanians are the modern descendants of Illyrians. The Illyrians were one of the first peoples in the Balkans, living at the time with Romans and Ancient Greeks, we cannot just plead ignorance and say they have no modern ancestors. http://www.illyrians.org/history2.html http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_albaniaancient.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12472/Albania http://www.geocities.com/protoillyrian/ Most websites and reference points suggest the high possibility that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians. Thus, why is my edit removed? Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an "Albanian conspiracy" and many have fallen victims of this propaganda:) so the deniers are always right and they don't want anything to be mentioned (not even the slightest possibility:). Anyway this article will be improved later there are serious historians, begining with Thunman, Mommsen, Shufflay and up to Cabanes, Hammond etc or archaeologist of the field like Evans, Stipcevic, Korkutaj, or linguist begining with Kopitar, Miklosich, Pedersen, Krestchmer up to Mayer, Cabej, Katicic, Huld, Demiraj, Starostin, Lubotsky or ethnologues like Nopca, Lambertz etc who claim this. Just living them apart as they don't exist is clearly POV (if you want to know the reasons of this denial just look at their IP or nicknames, talking of prejudice:) Aigest (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very peculiar and misleading to the Wikipedia audience that the article on Albania has a section dedicated to the claim that they are descendants of the Illyrians, yet in the this article they get no mention. I think Wikipedia officials should intervene. This is after all supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not mentioning the Albanians in an introduction to Illyrians is like neglecting to mention Turks when discussing the Ottomans.

What do other people on here think? Interestedinfairness (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now found a credible source to alude to the fact that Albanians are the only logical descendants of the Illyrians.

'Throughout the third and fourth centuries AD, the Illyrian regions suffered numerous invasions from Huns, the Visgoths and the Ostrogoth's...These invasions weakened the Byzantine Empire, and by the end of the sixth century AD, following further invasions by Slav tribes, the indigenous tribes began to move their settlements from the exposed lowlands to the comparative security of the higher ground. Following the collapse of the Roman Empire and the weakening of the Byzantine Empire, the Illyrian-speaking people expanded once again in the Mat valley and the Muzeqe plains. By then they were known to their Southern neighbors as Albani and their language was Albanian.'

Miranda Vickers is a political analyst for the International Crisis Group and wrote her book in 1995, reprinted in 2006, it can be found here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IzI0uOZ2j6gC&dq=albanians&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=b9CEw3ZOc5&sig=eiwt7NYM5elN_c3I7Nc5zUcJ6TI&hl=en&ei=PYEISqG5IOKOjAfBtN37BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15#PPA4-IA1,M1

In light of this, I have edited the article. Thanks in advance, and I welcome any suggestions on how to further incorporate this work into the article Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind giving the hypothesis a bit more room in this article, but it is definitely not established enough to go right in the lead sentence, and definitely nowhere close enough to consensus to warrant a wording like "generally considered to be" etc. As for Miranda Vickers, she is clearly not a reliable source on ancient history and linguistics. As far as I can see, the "Illyrians are the ancestors of the Albanians" hypothesis has a similar status for Albanians these days as the "ancient Macedonians were Greeks" hypothesis for Greek people: something that has become a national foundation myth and is commonly presented as an incontrovertible fact in national circles, but an arcane fringe matter everywhere else, with the huge majority of scholars agreeing that they just don't know, and probably will never know, because there is simply too little data out there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes a lack of evidence is evidence enough for something. In other words, the Albanians could not have appeared out of thin air, likewise, the Albanian language did not develop out of thin air, the only logical and rational answer for this is that they are descendants of the Illyrians. Miranda Vickers is a historian and a respected political analyst and she would not risk her career by positing something that is 'a national foundation myth.' Wikipedia is not a source it is an encyclopedia that any one can edit in accordance to what is generally agreed upon. I have not mentioned the Greek-Macadonian case, I don't see why it is being mentioned. I won't get into the ancient or linguistic debate, we are not researchers we simply compile evidence and place it in Wikipedia. A book on Modern Albania has no doubt been read by English-speaking students around the world, we cannot neglect this and we should include this in the introduction

What do people think?

Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting the Albanians appeared out of thin air. Everybody agrees they are descended from one or other of the ancient Balkanian tribes. The question just is whether it's the Illyrians, the Dacians or one or two other tribes.

As for what literature to cite: obviously the most competent specialist literature, the authors who have actually done the first-hand discussion of the ancient history issues involved. We do that on some other page, and of course we can introduce a slightly larger summary of it somewhere here. But that still doesn't make it intro-sentence material. It's just too tentative and too uncertain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently if serious scholars like NGL Hammond think that Illyrians are the ancestors of the Albanians [1] (just a simple link here but you have other works of him or others eg like Pierre Cabanes for the French language etc which unfortunatly are not online) I don't think it's up to you Fut to decide what is to be included and not. If Hammond puts this sentence in his book regarding macedonians moreover it should be included in the article regarding Illyrians proper Aigest (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

State of the art in specialised, competent sources is represented by Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Europe, p.8: "The modern Albanian language, it has been conjectured, is descended directly from ancient Illyrian. [...] Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture barring the discovery of additional Illyrian evidence." Note that this comes at the very end of his section on Illyrian, because for all serious students of the Illyrians (i.e. those who don't have a national axe to grind over it) it's just such a minor issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeap but he is talking about the Illyrian language which evidence is very very scanty. This is the problem of the Illyrian language that the evidence is so scanty that it can barrely be connected to any living language (but notice that the Albanian language is the only). As for the historians one example is (NGL Hammond The Relations of Illyrian Albania with the Greeks and the Romans. In Perspectives on Albania, edited by Tom Winnifrith, St. Martin’s Press, New York 1992) and the archaeologists (Stipčević, Alexander. Iliri (2nd edition). Zagreb, 1989 (also published in Italian as "Gli Illiri")) or a mixer Archaeologist-Historian like Pierre Cabanes (1987, 2004) so it is not only the linguists who claim that but also the serious historians and archaeologists specialised in the Balkans (and I am not including the Albanian authors here). So it is linguistically, historically and archaeologically. To me it seems more than a widely conjecture and in the article it shoud be mentioned the opinion of archaeologists and historians not only that of linguists (which evidence is far more scanty that the other fields). Aigest (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S and by the way in the same book Woodard does not link Albanian to Thracian or Dacian any more. Others have solved that problem before [2] Bests Aigest (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    I think the best way to solve this issue would be thus: 

Illyrians has come to refer to a broad, ill-defined[1] "Indo-European"[2] group of peoples who inhabited the western Balkans (Illyria, roughly from central Albania to southern Pannonia) and even possibly Messapia in Southern Italy (if the Messapian language is to be considered an Illlyrian dialect[3]). The cultural origins of Illyrians are varied from group to group. All evolved from partly autochthonous elements.

According to one widely held conjecture, Illyrians may have been the linguistic ancestors of modern Albanians.

In theory, Illyrians are defined as speakers of the Illyrian languages, but since the latter is practically unknown, this entails the danger of a circular definition. The existence of a broad "Illyrian" ethnic identity in the past is uncertain, and some argue that the ethnonym Illyrioi came to be applied to this large group of peoples by the ancient Greeks, Illyrioi having perhaps originally designated only a single people that came to be widely known to the Greeks due to proximity.[4][5]

Indeed, such a people known as the Illyrioi have occupied a small and well-defined part of the south Adriatic coast, around Skadar Lake astride the modern frontier between Albania and Montenegro. The name may then have expanded and come to be applied to ethnically different peoples such as the Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, or the Pannonii.

Placing the but about the Albanian link in the second paragraph is more valid then it is in its current form, where the 'Illyrian Language' is currently; there is already a separate article for that. I also think that the bit about conjecture should be removed, again, prominent historians would not put their name on a book which features (according to the present state of the article) so blatantly conjecture. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But still we are using only the linguistic evidence and this is not the place. The Illyrian languages have a separate article themselves. It is better to include in a sentence all the fields (linguistic, archaeology and history). Many scholars belive the Illyrians to be the direct ancestor of the Albanians (or smth like that) Aigest (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is claim of Albanian exclusivety on Illyrian ethnogenesis and culture, which comes from such presentation. If Albanians claim their Illyrian roots it's OK for the Albanians related articles, since it's about Albanians. However in Illyrians related articles such isolated claim would give wrong info about destiny of the Illyrian tribes, whose heritage is shared by much wider Western Balkan population, than only narrow one settled in a marginal part of ex-Illyricum province. If it goes for the "Illyrians proper" than problem is the same since Illyrians proper tribes are classified as such according to the material culture (archaeology), from central Bosnia to northern Albania. Notice that if name "Illyrians" comes from a small tribe of Illyroi settled in what is modern northern Albania, it's not automatically coming from the Illyrians proper! It's from Illyroi, 1 tribe, not a group of them with the same culture.

As for the Albanian language, it's obvious remain of some non-Hellenized, non-Romanized and non-Slavicized local idiom, but science is not sure which one, since it includes traces of more than just 1 hypotetical historical languages, Illyrian, Thracian,... So I can see no problem if Albanian-Illyrian linguistic relation is mentioned in Illyrian language article as possibility or hypothesis, but not as something clear or resolved. And maybe it's out of topic but, despite of language which is the most unstabile ethnogenetic component, there's no modern ethnic group in Europe with direct roots in only 1 ancestor-ethnos. But that's another story related to Albanians and not Illyrians. Zenanarh (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a misunderstanding I wasn't speaking about Illyri proprie dicti I was just underlining the fact that since he (Hammond) finds the place to talk about the Illyrian-Albanian connection in the book regarding Macedonians, I couldn't understand why we should not put it to the article regarding the Illyrians themselves (proper). As for the phrase, ok maybe direct is a strong word but still remain the ancestors of Albanians. None is denying the Illyrian heritage to the actual Balkan population but we are not talking about the heritage left by Illyrians but for the link with current Balkans nations. As for the ex Yugoslavian states (most of Illyricum province) I think we agree that the absolute majority of scholars claim that their ancestry is mostly derived by the Slav population which entered into Balkans after the Illyrians. Once more, none is denying the fact that the remaining Illyrians of that time contributed in the creation of these nations, but as I said if we are talking about the direct ancestor of the above nations, we (I mean scholars) could trace them to the Slavs entering the Balkans. Returning to the Albanian problem for sure that we can not denny the participation of other balkan population in the creation of the Albanian ethnos, during centuries they have mixed with slavs, greeks, turks etc (but to a lesser degree giving the nature of the Albanian population) just like any other balkan nations but if we had to speak for their ancestry the scholars agree their belonging to the old Paleobalkan peoples(Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks) and the majority links them with the Illyrians, just like the current greeks to the ancient greek (although a lot of the above mixing including albanians) or the ex Yugoslav states (except Kosovars and may be Macedonians) to the ancient slavs. Aigest (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Look I don't know what all this rambling is about, the fact remains that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: 'Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live...

Besides John Wilkes'S 'study', almost all the other sources in the world, as the kind gentleman before me has mentioned, including those on the web, have alluded to the belief that Albanians are the only remaining ancestors of the Illyrians. No one is denying that Bosnian's, Croats and so forth may have some Illyrian blood in them, but Albanians are the only ones who have not mixed with Slavs and have thus retained their unique language and culture. Again, this is an encyclopedia, it is not a base to conduct research with regards to different gene types. By refusing to mention the widely held belief that Albanians are the descendants of Illyrians in the introduction to the article, Wikipedia is failing in its purpose to spread the collected knowledge. I think a vote needs to take place with admin mediating. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking I don't like voting for the Wiki (unless as an extreme measure). I think that we can find that kind of consensus here. What do you think Zen and Fut? Bests Aigest (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't vote on Wikipedia. As for Interestedinfairness's proposed restructuring above, it is bad because the sentence about the Albanians would interrupt what is a single sequence of ideas about the early people itself, across the surrounding sentences. The Albanian sentence is much better at the place I put it, at the end of the intro. It is childish to try to move this piece of information further up in the intro just because you are fond of it for POV reasons, to make it appear as early as possible (see Wikipedia:Lead fixation). But incidentally, the final position may actually serve your purpose much better: in my opinion, the end of the lead is a much more prominent place, more likely to attract reader attention, than the middle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fut you look confusing:) which is best middle or end?:) if you think the end .. than Wikipedia:Lead fixation falls out and your comment on Interestedinfairness POV's also:) Anyway my proposal is to put widely held belief that Albanians are the descendants of Illyrians or smth like that as a sentence in the lead. In the middle or end it is not important the most important is to integrate with the text of the lead, not to look just like an added note:) Aigest (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The only word I can think of is LOL. Every person has a point of view, but I do not consider mine to be biased, I am merely looking at what the majority of sources say. Nevertheless, the article in its current form is ridiculous. We have: the Illyrians, the Illyrian language and Illyria, the problem seems to be that there is a pro-Greek movement operating on here who scrutinize anything related to ancient Europe and who do not want to see the three articles integrated with one another because then that might suggest an equation of Illyrians with Greeks and God forbid, we wouldn't want any ancient civilization to be equated with the Ancient Greeks. I have no doubt in my mind that since Albania has achieved political stability over the past 10 years and since its economy is going strong during this global recession, that archeological, ethnographic and any other form of research that involves a long word will prove, beyond any doubt, that Albanians are ancestors of Illyrians. But until then, Wikipedia and the Greek lobby (doesn't that sound humerus) can keep the article in its current form, it seems pointless to try and get a neutral point of view across on here with the current administrators not willing to compromise. Interestedinfairness (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion becomes something that I don't want to be a part of. Aigest it's obvious that your knowledge is poor when it comes to South Slavs. As for the ex Yugoslavian states (most of Illyricum province) I think we agree that the absolute majority of scholars claim that their ancestry is mostly derived by the Slav population which entered into Balkans after the Illyrians. Massive Slavic migration theory has been completely abandoned in last few decencies, thanks to multidisciplinary researches. Today it's considered that modern South Slavic nations developed from the ethnic bodies of the ancient Western Balkan settlers in the largest part. People who came during Migration Period were not simply "Slavs". In reality there is no one and same, unique Slavic culture. There are no any cultural relations between Russians and Croats, Checzs and Bosniaks or Ukrainians and Macedonians. To be a Slav means to be a speaker of the Slavic family language in the first place. What's Latin culture in life of a Mexican Indian who is Latin family language speaker now? Proto-Slavic language came to the Balkans as „lingua franca“ used by different peoples in the north. What happened was a few hundred years of linguistic assimilation. Proto-Slavic speakers were coming with Huns, Goths, Avars, mainly as warrior groups and mercenaries in their armies. By one evaluation, based on toponymry and archaeology, during Migration Period, there were 2-3 millions people in the Balkans, around 300.000 Goths broke in the 6th century, around 100.000 Sclaveni in the 7th. Example - reconstruction of Croatian ethnogenesis: Liburni, Dalmatae, Iapodi, western Ardiaei and other smaller related groups (like local Celts) as predominant element; Goths, Sclaveni as an element minor in number but politically dominant which started Slavization process.

BTW if you like to quote Stipčević, why do you do it selectively? Why do you quote only a part related to the Albanians and ignore parts related to the South Slavs? I don't want to write bible here, I'm simply out of time and tired of such discussions.

Interestedinfairness, if you are really interested in fairness, you will easily find out that what Albanian users are pushing in wikipedia is almost perfect reflection of what Greek users do. Equalizing Albanians = Illyrians, modern Greeks = ancient Greeks is what? Science? No, fairytales. If you people want to publish fairytales here, go for it. Bye bye then.

BTW 3 articles are logical choice, because 3 different terms are discussed in 3 separate articles. It has nothing to do with Greeks. This is encyclopedia. Not a blog.

Personally I don't have any problems with claims on Albanian ancestry, I have problem with distortions of term "Illyrians" and biased conclusions derived from it, as well as selective quotes or references used to present something not claimed by those authors in the same manner.

You want voting? Vote. You want nationalistic struggles? Struggle. I'm out. Zenanarh (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Zen but your POV looks like a OR as I see here [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] it looks different and they are in the same line with my opinion expressed above. Maybe my knowledge on South slavs is poor I don't pretend to be an expert, but as you see the articles above would you consider to rewrite them? Again there were the Croat tribes and Serb tribes both slavic tribes who enter in Balkan massively and it look like this is generally accepted and the actual populations of ex Yogoslavia are considered to have slavic origin. Anyway I am open minded for any kind discussion regarding this issue without prejudice. Why did I pick Stipcevic? 1. First one of the most known expert of Illyrians 2. Second no propaganda (if you kindly take the time to read this [8] and just one page of this [9] you can understand why) and I didn't include Albanian archaeologists, linguist and historians here.

Other issue. I didn't make the equation Illyrians=Albanians, there were so may different zones tribes and cultures within the Illyrians that it is stupid to think that all Illyrians are represented by Albanians. In my opinion (many scholars too) the Albanians represent the descendants of one of the Illyrian tribes (and there were a lot of tribes) thus not including all Illyrians, accordingly you may say Albanian=Illyrians but not Illyrians=Albanians hope you got my point. Bests Aigest (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately South Slavic history articles are all poor, outdated and miserable. In scientific circles it's all different. There were too many disputions in wikipedia and result is misery in these articles. I wouldn't touch it with 20 foot pole, honestly. Too many things were erased because somebody didn't like it. What I wrote above is not my POV, nor my OR. It's pure science. Massive migration theory was based on 0 (zero) evidences. This theory was not the only one back in time, it's been only the loudest, encouraged by the communist authorities (pan-communism/pan-Slavism, there were tendencies in all Slav settled communist countries to present Slavs as people who all came from one and the same superSlav family :p) Total crap that initially originated in the ages of nationalistic movements when there was no archaeology and when historiography was based on archaic methodology. Eh it seems that wikipedia is used by the local patriots whose only motivation is to present their own myths. I think I'm going to erase wiki link in my internet explorer favourites very soon.

And other issue, I got your point, but you're very wrong with Albanians = Illyrians. Such equations are simply not scientific for too many reasons. The only reasonable thing to say is that Albanians = Albanians and Illyrians = Illyrians, despite of possible relation between. Zenanarh (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha another misunderstanding, my damn English:) look Zen I wasn't making any equation, my point was If Albanians are the descendants of one of the Illyrian tribes then deliberately speaking we can say that all the Albanians belong to Illyrians (Albanians=Illyrians) but not all the Illyrians belong to Albanians (Illyrians (not =) Albanians) maybe some kind of set theory signs should have been used:) like $Albanians\subset Illyrians$? or smthing:)like that Aigest (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the question of the Slav population I don't think that you should quit. If there are evidencies of these kinds than you should insist on your opinion. Anyway I know it is very hard to go against an established idea (even not including nationalistic hot heads:)) and you need very strong proves for that. Hope you still contribute in Wiki. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I got your point, you don't have to repeat it. No complex mathematical formulas are needed. But I still think it's wrong. It would be the same as if you say: if modern Greeks developed from 1 ancient Greek tribe then modern Greeks = ancient Greeks. It's useless. Name "Croat" is not of Slavic root. It's Old Mittanian (modern Iran) by ethimology. Is it enough to say that Croats are Iranians, Persians or Mittanians? It's not! It's just ethimology of the name.

And I don't think that Albanians are the descendents of one of the Illyrian tribes. I think they are descendents of people from different ethnic bases/tribes, Illyrian, Thracian, some other,... I think Albanian language must have developed from proto-Albanian which was not "defined" language of some "defined" older group, in that form. I think there were people in the Albanian mountains in sort of isolation so they resisted different XY-izations, although coming from different tribes, they developed proto-Albanian from portions of their own languages/dialects and it's possible that 1 idiom served as basis.

As for the South Slavs, when all existing evidences are compiled, result is one mentioned above. It's not some brand new revolution, there's a lot of academic literacy about it. Zenanarh (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am just reading the latest work of Eric Hamp one of the major authorities between Indoeuropean linguists.(Studime krahasuese për shqipen (Analytical studies on Albanian)/ Eric P. Hamp ; përg. dhe red.: Rexhep Ismajli . -Prishtinë : Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës, 2007 ) In this last book Eric Hamp support the thesis that Illyrian language belong to the Northwestern group, Albanian language descend from Illyrian language, and Albanian and Messapic are related while Messapic is an earlier Illyrian dialect separated by maybe 500 years from other Illyrians when they moved across the Adriatic. Unfortunatly the book itself more than 400 pages long is alvaiable only in Albanian:(. The book itself is to scientific though:P too many PIE reconstructions it is mainly dedicated to scholars not an easy read for others. Anyway I agree that it is nonsense to say that Albanians=Illyrians too many centuries past not even XX century Albanians=XIX century Albanians:), but that Albanians derived by one or some (maybe Albani, Taulanti, Enchelei, Pirustai, Dardani etc) Illyrian tribes that is being proved more and more nowadays. The last (daco-mysian/thracian) theory of Georgiev 1960 is like 50 years old now and fully demolished (although as far as I can see here Georgiev is misinterpreted by its supporters here in wiki:), his exact view was that daco-mysian tribes moved to Illyrian territory from 1000-500BC and the Albanians have originated from them and also later in 1970 he was opened to the possibility of the Illyrian origin (in the end even his previous thought was connected with Illyrian soil:) while he also divided Daco-Mysian from Thracian as separate languages (contradicted by many) etc etc:)). But for them I will write an article in Wiki. I do agree with you that there are many poor articles here but in this case collaboration is more needed. BTW what happened to the Illyrian map:)? I forecast an after summer holidays period for their realisation:) Aigest (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Conjecture? Hypothesis? Theory? Assumption? Presumption? Thesis? Supposition? The sources above have the name of the scholars which dared:) to do that anyway I think that conjecture it is not the appropriate word. All the above authors have come to a conclusion having in mind the works of their predecesors. The Illyrian-Albanian theory or thesis existed before them, later there were conjectures regarding Thracian or Dacian (but bare in mind only linguistically, none dared:) to link it archaeologically or historically) while in the same time with that conjectures there were always linguists who supported the thesis that the Albanian language originated from Illyrians. Now Thracian is abandoned (only outdated not specialised sources maintain that conjecture:)look at Woodard and Mallory above). So You may speak about a conjecture for Thracian origin (only linguistic) but for a thesis of Illyrian (linguistic, arcaeologic, historic) Aigest (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Widespread assertion is the best word describing the situation,(the problem stands in the absence of Illyrian linguistic data) others are conjectures and hypothesis (note that even Fortson does not link Albanian to Thracian and Dacian anymore, just like Woodard and Mallory who reject it) Aigest (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like edit warring can you please express yourself here? assertion-conjecture are similiar but not the same. Assertion is different from conjecture and in this case it fits (linguistically, archaeologically, historically) against (linguistically) even your source Woodard says a little more than conjecture:)Aigest (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No Fut you are misquoting Woodard he doesn't say widespread conjection and he is giving a personal opinion exactly "little more than conjection" here [10] so conjections is not the right word and also you are forgeting others, especially Fortson who better describes the situation since he mentions the Thracian and Dacian hypothesis (which Woodard seems to forget:))Aigest (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Woodard says that it remains "little more than a conjecture", given the paucity of Illyrian finds. In general he seems very cautious and not particularly supportive of what you are trying to claim. He also only speaks about the language, not the people. As far as nations go, it is equally likely that the Croats and Montengrins/Serbs also descend from Illyrians. But you chose to ignore all that. --Athenean (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This citation is from Benjamin Fortson here [11], it seems that you didn't read it. Woodard is not used in those references as you can see for the above mentioned reasons (miscited). I don't know if Fortson is any POV pushing, I am not interpreting him, like you wrongly do. As for the Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrins or whatever population, if there is such an assertion it should be put there too, Albanians don't pretend the exclusivity of the Illyrians. Aigest (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The modern Albanians often claim descent from Illyrians?! haha what a misquoted, spinned, etc statement for the article. First of all as for the Albanians themselves not often claim but always claim so you better change it if you want that way (this is so funny:)but sad). Second and more serious Stipcevic, Hammond, Fortson, Mallory (yes they are in the references if you have the patience to read them and I am not mentioning others) don't look Albanians to me and it is their opinion there not mine. It seems to me that this is your POV and this is what you are doing with this article. Aigest (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

it is extremely sad that the most attention that the article on the Illyrians attracts should be the very marginal question of their relation to the Albanians.

The only people who ever cared if "the Albanians" are the desendants of "the Illyrians" are Albanian patriots. Are you, Aigest, by any chance an Albanian patriot?

The question whether the Albanian language is descended from the Illyrian language is an entirely different issue, to be debated on the Illyrian language article. The debate is very brief, amounting to "it's possible, we don't know". Thank you. Can we now go back to discussing the actual Illyrians, seeing that this happens to be the topic of this article? --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

'the very marginal question of their relation to the Albanians' - i have to disagree, the question, historically at least, is far from marginal. being cautious in such topics is necessary but this is excessive, especially since an Illyrian-Albanian connection** has been supported by many linguists, archaeologists and historians, even if such a connection isn't 'universally' accepted...well, what is, in ancient history and linguistics?

**as far as the aforementioned 'exclusivity' goes, it is mosttly a linguistic matter: sure, many Yugoslavs are probably descended from Illyrians, in part, and in turn a lot of Albanians aren't physical descendants of Illyrians (duh). also, archaeological culture isn't completely interrupted by the Slavic migrations into 'Illyria', that is the better part of Yugoslavia and north-to-central Albania. aigest has been really moderate and careful in his "claims".

so, i believe that this widely-supported connection deserves to be mentioned in a better manner in the intro. the fact that it has become part of national history in Albania doesn't matter at all since this doesn't change history. 87.202.5.40 (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"The only people who ever cared if "the Albanians" are the desendants of "the Illyrians" are Albanian patriots." - no, linguistis and historians of all kinds have cared about this for the last 200+ years!! it's too easy to dismiss this as Albanian patriotism isn't it but it's innaccurate!87.202.5.40 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

it is MARGINAL TO THIS ARTICLE. It is of central importance to the origins of the Albanians article. If you are interested in the question, edit the relevant article please. I have already stated that the linguistic question is separate. The derivation of the Albanian language from the unnown Illyrian language is also discussed elsewhere, and duly linked from this article. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is marginal to the article if Illyrians have left descendants?!?!?! What is this, some kind of a joke? And even if it is marginal in all the article it was just a short sentence not a paragraph or anything more. Now dab you didn't explain, do you have something against that sentence? It was not mine but of Fortson [12], first you spinned it without an explanation, (I don't know from where did you got that sentence that you created) then you removed it, and last you made some kind of allegations about me what was that patriot issue? what is this "The only people who ever cared if "the Albanians" are the desendants of "the Illyrians" are Albanian patriots"?!Apart the tone of the sentence, what if I say that the archeologists, linguists, historians (as those references that you possibly didn't read) from all over the world cared? Do I have to remind you that we are collectors here in wiki (just like I did here) and not inventors or researchers(just like you did here). If you have something against the sources bring it on we will discuss it in the talk page. Another thing, the references were not only for the language. There were worldwide wellknown, specified at the topic, historian (NGL Hammond), archeologist(Stipcevic), linguist(Mallory, Fortson). Once more you spinned the debate to just the language issue and this was and it is not the case here. And last If you want to make your own research in this topic just for testing the widespread issue you can do a google test yourself (with Illyrian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian as keywords) and bring the results here, see how many people do care. Aigest (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Forston only speaks about the language, not descenants. Forston also states that the Illyrian hyopthesis is a "linguistically untestable" hyopthesis, and that it is on the same footing as the hypotheses involving Thracian and Dacian. But of course, you're pretending like you didn't read that, and only cherry-pick that part of the source that backs your POV. Your lack of English is also not helping you: An assertion is the same as a hyopthesis. Yet you are trying to play up this hyopthesis as if it were an accepted fact. It always cracks me up how some people make an edit without discussing it, then when someone else reverts them, they edit war and insist that the other person discuss. This is not how we do things in wikipedia. If you want to make a change to an article, you have to discuss it first, then, if a consensus forms in the discussion page, you can go ahead and implement it. There is clearly no consensus for your edits thus far. 3 users (FP, myself, dab) have told you it is undue weight, yet you insist with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Athenean (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First Don't include fut here, Fut represented Woodard(a linguist) first and that brought the Fortson here, later You and dub twirled the citation giving your clear POV (you still didn't answer to my question if the references were Albanians who often claim that?!). You pretend to not understand and I am forced to repeat it again first Fortson said there is a widespread assertion as a fact and after he presents his opinion by saying that linguistically this is unstable since we don't know much of Illyrian language. Since here is not the place of discussing the Illyrian language the latter opinion of Fortson is relevant to Illyrian language article, but as Fortson admits himself the fact remain that there is a widespread assertion. that was the reason why fortson reference was positioned in the middle of the sentence and not in the end with the others who agree with it (Hammond, Stipcevic, Mallory) (making it a widespread assertion) as Fortson sees it.

Second if assertion=hypothesis I don't see any issue here why it shouldn't be accepted?!?! (I suggest a google test for you to this this widespread assertion-hypothesis) assertion was Fortson's word for Illyrian-Albanian, while for Thracian-Albanian he used hypothesis, I don't like to change others words (other do).

Third in every serious book regarding Illyrians the Albanian issue has been mentioned ( eg look at Wilkes which has been widely used in this article) (approving or dissaproving this is another issue) so this thing does matter here.

Fourth there has been a debate at the talk page before dab intervention (which didn't care to talk in the talk page before making changes twirling the citation(others including me did different, look at the page history), so propably you got mad at dub? Aigest (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, a hypothesis (assertion) is something that is unproven. Hence it is not a fact. Assertions are academically worthless, like Fut told you. You are just reading in the source what you want to see. You also appear to be falsifying sources. You first claim that Forston talks about "descendants" but it is clear he talks about language, as does Mallory in all likelihood (his is a book on linguistics). I agree however that the descent hyopthesis is somewhat important, but not so much that it warrants inclusion in the lead. Maybe in a seaprate "Legacy" section or something like that. And mind your tone, please, I don't like being shouted at. Anyway, I'm going to bed now so we can continue this later.

I personally agree that a brief mentioning of the Albanian connection may be appropriate for the lead. As for the wording, I still can't even understand why you are getting so hung up about "conjecture" versus "assertion". Man, if you want to present the proposition in a favourable light, then "conjecture" is better for your own purposes. An "assertion" is just a claim, potentially baseless, arbitrary and without backing, of the sort non-expert authors might make. No serious expert author would want to be caught dead just "asserting" such a thing. If Fortson is calling it an "assertion", that very wording choice means he is severely disparaging it. In contrast, a "conjecture" is something a true expert might offer as an exercise in responsible, rational academic discourse. Making conjectures is a weak form of offering hypotheses, but it's still something academically respectable, which "assertions" are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say any more about the other comment before that of Fut. For the last time (widespread assertion) were Fortson words and don't mess it with arguments proves or facts. The fact is that this assertion (hypothesis or whatever) is widespread (it has nothing to do if it is proven or not as you seem to not understand). Fullstop As for the Fortson (if you have the time to read it also mentions historical, and geographical reasons) and the question Albanian-Illyrian is a mix of them. It was put in the middle just for that widespread citation later were the authors who support it. I don't like to misuse or replace other's words, If Fortson used assertion for Albanian-Illyrian and competing hypothesis for Thracian-Albanian or Dacian-Albanian is up to him. It seems that he differentiateed them (propably giving more value to assertion than hypothesis since he says widespread assertion refering to Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis, I don't know any other reasonable interpretation, since he fails all of them linguistically, but accepts the historical and geographical bases for Illyrian-Albanian) and that was used for the article. As for the replacement offered modern Albanians often claims (couldn't be more scientific than that:)) may descend (may?Albanians say may?:)) it is .... use your own words. (And I am not mentioning the misuse of the sources attached to that sentence) I am trying to be as NPOV as I could here, not twirling or changing others words. I am getting bored at explaining simple things (it is not my intention to interprete the sources, we shouldn't do it here in Wiki) to those who don't want to listen or collaborate.

Fut you have the references, links and whatever it needs for that kind of sentence, It's a common sense to put a simple sentence there. You can put it there, I trust in your rationality. Bests Aigest (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are still misreading Fortson. I'm not going to debate this further, the thread is already far too long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If I am misreading Fortson than use the other sources for that kind of sentece. Something about that must be added anyway You can use the conjecture words (so many seems to like it) Aigest (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, the French people are the "descendants of the Gauls", ok? Now do you see this "assertion" or "conjecture" touted in the lead of Gauls? To you see French teenage patriots spamming Talk:Gauls for the prominent mention of their proud lineage? No. This is childish. Please discuss the Illyrians, or go edit Origin of the Albanians. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree entirely: unlike in the Gaul-French case, the Illyrian-Albanian case actually is an object of some serious research and discussion. Of course not as prominent as it is in the minds of the patriots, and by far not as close to any consensus as the patriots would like to think, but some research nevertheless, and prominent enough that indeed many serious authors, when giving a short one-page introduction about the Illyrians, will provide at least a passing reference to the issue. So I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a one-sentence remark about it in the lead here (and then, of course, have the main treatment in the "origins" article, as you rightly point out.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

as I have already stated, what serious debate there is concerns the languages, not populations. I am open to including a link to Albanian language in the lead, in the context of the existing They were speakers of the Illyrian language (or languages), of which only small fragments are attested enough to classify it as a branch of Indo-European. This could be augmented with something like "The Albanian language may be a remote descendant of Illyrian, although there isn't sufficient evidence to substantiate this hypothesis with any confidence." --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is very annoying. I don`t get, why Albanians should not be mentioned in here. The hypothesys that they are the direct descendants of Illyrians, is not just a hypothesys, but the point of view, of the vast majority of historians: Hammond, Borza, Cabanes, etc. The only one who refuts this chypothesys expet of yougoslav scholars of course, is John Wilkes. Since this is an encyclopedia based on the view of secondary reliable sources, of course the majority should have their say in the article, and the majority support the illyrian-albanian link, although there are still many disputes on this matter.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you pay close attention, you will find that the Albanians are mentioned. Try reading the article from the beginning until you come across the string "Albanian". If that is too tiresome, you can also use your browser's search function. The question is, should they be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Also, thank you for confirming my hypothesis that only people who like to display Albanian flags on their userpages will ever feel the urge to comment on this thread. Nobody claims the Albanians are not descended from the Illyrians. It's just that this is completely unremarkable. Everyone near the Adria will have significant Illyrian ancestry. The only reason to single out the Albanians here is linguistic. The linguistic ancestry of Albanian is absoutely imponderable. It is enough to just state the possibility of a remote relation. The article is already doing this, and nobody is trying to remove mention of that, so I frankly fail to see what you want. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your good words, but whatever. I was talking, and I am talking and I will be talking about the lead, thank you once more. Of course such a connection should be in the lead, as is supported by the majority of scholars. I don`t know why we do have such a debate. Should the most possible "cultural descendats" (nothing racist or nationalist in here) be written in the lead of an encyclopedical article about the most possible "cultural anescetors? This question to me seems to retoric, and I argued why: because the majority of scholars support such a conection!

And by the way, you are welcomed for confirming your hypothesis, you may add it to the lead of your user page. But, do not forget that I am a wikipedian, and I am bringig wikiarguments in here. Thank you for being nice, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well .. Fut, Zen, Athenean and dab itself don't have Albanian flags in their user page. Apparently dab has a thing about twirling the reality according to his POV (look above for further details). since Thunman and Latham [13] later Evans [14], Momsen [15] and so on [16] , [17], [18] and those authors above (Hammond etc) who speak about descendance not only language (don't twirl it as usual) do I have to bring all the internet here? Aigest (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, it is quite obvious, that we are speaking on air in here. Let me say it otherwise: Who wants not to add it LET BRING SOURCES, that is how wiki works.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Who wants not to add it LET BRING SOURCES"? That must be the most surreal thing I read today. Read and try to understand WP:DUE. It is already mentioned, ok? It isn't my fault if you refuse to read the article. Now, assuming that you understand that the article already says exactly what you wanted it to say, namely that "Albanian may perhaps be descended from Illyrian, nobody knows", is there anything else you want? --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why 'patriots' are the only ones who comment on this page is because it is very relevant to current issues in the Balkans. Allow me to elaborate. The Serbian government, in particular, does not want the Illyrians being linked to the Albanians because as we know for a fact the Illyrians were present in the Balkans for hundreds of years before the Slavs arrived and occupied most of the Balkans - in particular to this context - Kosovo. Therefore, if Albanians are indeed descendants of the Illyrians, that would mean that Kosovar Albanians have been in Kosovo for hundreds of years before the Serbs, thus eliminating the Serbian claim that Kosovars migrated to there from Albania. You see Dab, this is all about history. Now, this is an encyclopedia that has to maintain certain standards. We cannot keep editing articles to suit either Serb or Albanian needs, what we need is evidence to back up all claims and most authors seem to posit that Illyrians came to be known as Albanians sometimes after the 4th 5th century. Numerous sources and authors have alluded to this, while Wilkes is the only one who seems to have conducted research it still doesn't annul the research of all the tens of researchers work. Thus I propose linking the Albanians to the Illyrians in the first sentence of the article but with a link to Illyrian-Albanian origins debate where the other 'patriots' can discuss E3b 24%, G 5% and other scientific language that the general public won't understand - or care about - but will maintain a healthy debate surrounding the topic and also keep it all the articleevidence and source based relevent. I propose then placing this article under semi-protection.

The Illyrians were a group of ancient tribes who inhabited the western Balkans (Illyria, roughly from Albania to southern Pannonia) during classical antiquity, widely believed to be the ancestors of the modern Albanians] see: Illyrian-Albanian origins debate. They were speakers of the Illyrian language, of which only small fragments are attested enough to classify it as a branch of Indo-European. The name of Illyrians as applied by the ancient Greeks to their northern neighbors may have referred to a broad, ill-defined[1] group of peoples, and it is today unclear to what extent they were linguistically and culturally homogeneous. The term Illyrioi may originally have designated only a single people that came to be widely known to the Greeks due to proximity.[2][3] Indeed, such a people known as the Illyrioi have occupied a small and well-defined part of the south Adriatic coast, around Skadar Lake astride the modern frontier between Albania and Montenegro. The name may then have expanded and come to be applied to ethnically different peoples such as the Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, or the Pannonii. Illyrians were famous for their abilities in warefare, pirating of the Adriatic cost...and other interesting facts people on here have to add!. Interestedinfairness (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about ancient history. The Albanians are not the scope of this aricle. Anything postdating the Roman empire period is offtopic here. There may be a short section on "later usage", and lo and behold, there is. I ask you again that if you are interested in Albanians, go edit articles about Albanians. Interestedinfairness is completely correct: "The reason why 'patriots' are the only ones who comment on this page is because it is very relevant to current issues in the Balkans." Guess what, this is irrelevant to the Roman empire. If you want to discuss current affairs, you have plenty of articles to choose from. If you want to discuss Albanian patriotic sentiment, go edit Albanian nationalism, but please stop spamming articles about antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD then minority views should not receive as much attention than popular views. Wilkes is in the minority, the popular view is that Albanians are the descendants? Interestedinfairness (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought we were talking about the article of Illyrians, not Illyria. Thank you dab, for confirming me that this is irrelevant and for continuing being so nice. Let me put it once more straight as it is: Illyrians are most propably the anescators of Albanians. Illyrians are a group of people and as such cannot vanish. So, in the lead it is worthy to mention that Albanians are most propably the descendants of Illyrians, as at the end of the "roman times" this group seems to have "evolved" (culturaly I mean) to modern Albanians, who would be firstly mentioned after some centuries; so undue is offtopic in here. But, as you are so polite categorising wikipedians from their ethnicity, its quite clear that you have read no rule in this site. And of course Int... is totally right, cause this view is not (1) a minority view, (2) a fringe theory, (3) an offtopic claim (for the reasons I just stated), but it seems just that you don`t like that.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In the text the Albanians have been mentioned in the language section (which is a summary of the Illyrian language article). Again only linguistic while all the above authors I presented claim descendance meaning not only language (and also, shouldn't the lead represent a summary of the article? the fact of the possible surviving of the Illyrians language was not relevant enough to be put in the old lead?). Here are presented new facts and references which the old authors of this article didn't have at the time the article was created. The article should present them. Aigest (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new from the Western Front?:) guys come on [19] [20] don't tell me they are not serious enough and nobody reads them. Is it really such a difficult decision? Aigest (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering Britannica is the main rival of Wikipedia and amongst its most vociferous critics, I doubt that certain elements on here should be allowed to tarnish its image further. We should aim to get some approval to make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to Britannica's article on Albanians, not the one on Illyrians. The Britannica Albanians article has the following:

relationship to Illyrian people: The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians.

this is perfectly adequate for the Albanians article, and indeed we have an entire article on the question, origin of the Albanians. I fail to see how citing Encarta's or Britannica's Albania articles helps establishing what is relevant for inclusion in our Illyrians article. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• That Illyrians are Albanians that's no doubt in any intellectual mind. Therefore, (not wasting my time) I would not discuss this argument here because it’s pointless.

The links between languages, other arguments, any pros or any uncertainties should be revealed. Personally I don’t use Wikipedia as a source for any research. I do use the reference links and verify their source. --Taulant23 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to parse your "That Illyrians are Albanians that's no doubt in any intellectual mind". Nobody claimed they were and there is indeed no doubt that Illyrians and Albanians are two clearly distinct populations, one dating to antiquity, the other modern. The only thing under discussion here is whether the Illyrian languge may have left traces in the Albanian language. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reall tired of Talk:Illyrians being to 95% filled with discussions about the Albanians. Please respect WP:TALK and take this discussion to Talk:Origin of the Albanians. If you have anything to say about the Illyrians themselves, this would be a good time. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dab you are misreading the sources above they say descendats. Of course you are not your father, but that's not the point here. I think the majority agrees here that if this kind of descendance is represented in the majority of sources it should be mentioned here too. Again you are talking only about the language, misdirecting this discussion. The above mention sources speak of direct descendance read them. Don't pretend to not understand the relation here. In every article related to Illyrians this fact is mentioned (supportive or not). So this is the place for that discussion. I am (others also) not pretending to argue the connection here but just a short sentence with the simple fact that the majority of sources says the Albanians descend from Illyrians, is relevant to the article as the majority agrees. As for your clear POV on this matter you still have not answered the question why did you change the sentence first, from scholars claims to Albanians claims? Aigest (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope my recent edit sufficiently addresses this. Yes, the Albanians are mentioned in all articles on the Illyrians, including this one, this isn't even under debate. No, the majority of sources do not say "the Albanians descend from Illyrians", they say that it is plausible that there is some continuity. The point is continuity, not descent. Of course the Croats and Serbs also descend from the Illyrians, but they have been Slavicized. The Albanians are special not because they descend from the Illyrians (like everyone else in the western Balkans) but because they may have preserved some continuity. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I also resent the implication that I have any sort of "POV" on this. My only "POV" is that the Illyrians article should discuss Illyrians and the Albanians article should discuss Albanians and not vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking to discuss it in the article, just to put what sources say there. As I see the Albanians are mentioned throughout the article, shouldn't a lead represent a summary of all the article? And you still didn't answer my direct question? Aigest (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As for your claim that the majority of sources don't do this(Albanian-Illyrian), can you please bring the sources here to support your claim, we have had enough speculations up to now. Bring sources for your claim as wiki rules. Aigest (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

to answer your question directly: There are two separate issues here, both only of marginal relevance to this article.

• possible Illyrian-Albanian continuity: a scholarly question, the mainstream opinion is "plausible", mainly based on linguistics. Relevant to origin of the Albanians
• the role of the "Illyrian" meme in Albanian patriotism. This is a socio-political issue, the main article for this is Albanian nationalism. This is an instance of historiography and nationalism and its "truth value" isn't amenable to scholarly discussion. It can and should be discussed in terms of scholarly studies on nationalist movements.

Both points are duly addressed in the article, one under "Middle Ages", the other under "In Nationalism". I am not aware that any of this is disputed, and I fail to see what this section is supposed to be about at this point. If you think there is any dispute in this, please describe its nature. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No dab you are giving your POV here and moreover unsupported by the sources. The above sources talk about the direct descendance (most of them are historians) while for the language this issue is another matter (see Mallory). So is not a simple linguistic discussion. And for your claim of the Croatian and Serb possible descendance too, that's why from the scholars for the Albanians has been used the term of direct descendance meaning continuity (not Slavicized). You have still not answered to my direct question about changing the sentence and also you didn't brought any sources here, just your interpretation (your POV) Aigest (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• What nationalism has to do with Illyrian-Albanian talk section? It's the same argument as the ancient Greeks have some association with the modern Greeks.No harm at all,just plain "good" and "bad" arguments. And yes dab,(in my opinion) it's plain lack of knowledge not to see the connection.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology

The archaeology section here seems pretty poor, fragmentary info, no photo. Does anybody have some photos at least? Aigest (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian borders

You need a citation about those borders Fut:) Aigest (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages section

WP:DUE mention of possible Illyrian-Albanian continuity should be made in this section. Illyran-Albanian continuity is certainly plausible. But Thracian-Albanian continuity is just as plausible, especially in the light of Albanian being satem like Thracian. That we hear so much more about Illyrian-Albanian continuity than Thracian-Albanian continuity has no rational basis and is a product of the modern day Albanian national myth. It is also impossible to unravel the difference between Illyrians and Thracians, being two unknowns contributing to the larger unknown of the Prehistoric Balkans. It would perhaps be better to put this in terms of "possible Thraco-Illyrian-Albanian continuity".

I maintain that in any case it is sufficient to state "possible continuity" under "Middle Ages" and refer to Origin of the Albanians for detail. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to give the name of the source please. As has been stated on numerous occasions, the majority of sources say that Albanians are descendents of Illyrians. Please find me as many sources that say this for the Thracian-Illyrian-Albanian continuity. If you cannot, (which according to all the talk on here, you will not) then WP:DUE states that majority views should be mentioned above and more so than minority ones. Thanks. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dab here. Once in the Middle Ages section and once in the Nationalism section is more than enough (and also don't forget it's also mentioned in the Language section). That's 3 time already. To have the same sentence again repeated in the lead is overkill and bordering on POV-pushing. Moreover, I feel this point is too minor to warrant mention in the lead, especially since it is only a hypothesis. As for sources, all I see is Britannica, which is a tertiary source and is not acceptable. The Albanian nationalists claim to have sources and sources, yet all I see are secondary sources about the language or tertiary sources like Britannica. I have yet to see a secondary WP:RS that states unequivocally that "Albanians are direct descendents of the Illyrians", and I doubt such a source exists because it is just an unproven hypothesis. At best, the secondary sources say that Albanians may be descended or partially descended from Illyrians. I thus agree with Dab and propose removing the sentence from the lead but keep it in the Middle Ages section. --Athenean (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1st-If that's true, there is no argument that the ancient Greeks have no association with the modern Greeks (all those years under the rule of Persians and Turks),just another nationalism movement right?
• 2nd-At UCLA,USC etc they would source from Britannica and not from Wikipedia.Maybe you need to get your facts right,Athenean.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely off-topic and nonsensical, as usual. --Athenean (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the direct descendance of the Albanians from Illyrians apart from above (Hammond, Cabanes, Stipcevic (all of them not linguists)) you have others like Castellan, Georges. (Histoire des Balkans (XV – XX siècle), Éditions Fayard 1991: History of the Balkans. London 1997: Histoire de l'Albanie et des Albanais (History of Albania and the Albanians) Crozon, France: Editions Armeline, 2002) Ducellier, Alain. (L’Arbanon et les Albanais au XI siècle, Travaux et Mémoires, III, Paris 1968, La Façade maritime de l’Albanie au Moyen Age : Durazzo et Valona du XIe au XVe siècle, Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessalonique, 1981, L’Albanie entre Byzance et Venise X - XV siècle. London, Variorum reprints 1987) Jelavich, Barbara. (History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 1983: The establishment of the Balkan national states, 1804-1920 Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by University of Washington Press, 1986) L. S. Stavrianos, Traian Stoianovich (The Balkans since 1453 Edition: 2, illustrated Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000) and last Metais, Serge. (Histoire des Albanais des Illyriens à l'indépendance du Kosovo. Fayard 2006, ISBN : 2213628947) and I am not including the well known Noel Malcolm and Miranda Vickers. To make your life easier on that issue you have eve Eberhardt, Piotr. Owsinski, Jan (Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, analysis Edition: illustrated Published by M.E. Sharpe, 2003) which are more than specialised in data analysis. Sumarizing (Hammond, Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan, Jelavich, Stavrianos, Stoianovich(all of them historians and top references for the Balkans studies) etc) how do you consider them? Aigest (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest says it all, Athenean. Moreover, according to you, if Albanians are mentioned so many times in the article already, then a mention in the lead would thus be logical? But I'll let you dwell over the sources Aigest has provided first. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

if this is entirely about a summary of the "Albanians" related statements in the article in the WP:LEAD, please make it clear that this is what you want to discuss. Yes, we can duly mention the Albanians in the lead. I hope it has become clear by now that the relevant point is continuity, not "descent". Slavicized populations are still "descended" from their paleo-Balkans ancestors. The question is the possible paleo-Balkanic continuity in Albanian culture and language. This may or may not be predominantly Illyrian continuity, seeing that the Albanians first appear in the historical Thraco-Illyrian contact zone. That the Albanians derive some sort of continuity from the prehistoric Balkans is undisputed, simply as the null hypothesis, seeing that there are no plausible alternatives. Asking what exactly is being "continued" here is futile, since we have no knowledge of the various prehistoric cultures involved here. Look, your "descent" point is undisputed, but completely beside the point. It is also undisputed that the Albanians descend from Cro Magnon, but that is no reason to link to the Albanians article from the Cro Magnon article (or, for that matter, vice versa). --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

dab see tag above This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

you are clearly POV and doing vandalism here as your activity include removing sources, references, quotations, misreadings, etc. If you don't have sources for your claim stop vandalising here Aigest (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

my edits are purely within WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. You are the guy trying to abuse this article about classical antiquity for patriotic sentimentality. Please do that elsewhere. You want to be very careful calling my edits vandalism, since you obviously aren't even familiar with the applicable policies and guidelines. If you would bother to read, understand and respect WP:LEAD and WP:DUE you would realize that lead sections do not need any footnotes, since they should duly summarize article content. You want to discuss the Illyrians? Be my guest. You want to discuss Albanians? Fine, do it at some article relevant to the Albanians. You want to express your patriotic sentiment? Fine too, go write a blog. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were just MISCITING. Have you read WP:SOURCES?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

dab I am not discussing your internal sentiments just your edits from Britanica studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians to dab version while the Albanian language may preserve a degree of Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian continuity (maybe we shoud put yor name as a reference:). also you continuesly change the subject in language debate all above (Hammond, Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan, Jelavich, Stavrianos, Stoianovich(all of them historians and top references for the Balkans studies) etc) once more THEY ARE HISTORIANS not linguists. Read them before thinking to make changes to the article. You still haven't answer my above question literally, but that's not important now as I clearly see why. Aigest (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep dropping these names (Hammond, Cabanes,etc...), Aigest, but you do not provide in-line citations for them. You need to show exactly where these scholars state that "Albanians are the direct descendents of Illyrians". Book title, page number, and a verifiable link. This is how we do things in the scholarly world. Not just dropping names and making claims. Otherwise, how do you expect people to believe you. Personally, I doubt the sources you mention state unequivocally that Albanians are the direct, unbroken cultural descendants of the Illyrians, because true scholars are much more cautious than that. Since you claim all these scholars back you, show us where, and we will all come up with a mutually acceptable sentence for the lead. The current version is taken directly from Britannica, a tertiary source that is not acceptable when secondary sources exist, as you claim. And please be very careful not to call other editors' contributions vandalism or make dark hints about their motives. That it is very bad manenrs and is absolutely not true in this case (I don't think you understand what vandalism is). --Athenean (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

this entire discussion belongs on Talk:Origin of the Albanians. It is true that the EB article contains the statement that "studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians". Within NPOV, the best we can make of this on Wikipedia is stating that this is the way the EB author of the Albania article (not the Illyria one) decided to put it. As I've pointed out numerous times now, *a) "descent" is a red herring, the relevant question is continuity and (b) this isn't the topic of this article and should not get more than a brief sentence under "legacy". --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have difficulties finding them in google books (especially the French guys), but you can find Hammond opinion here [21] As for Jelavich opinion here [22] and here [23] also [24] for Stavrianos and Stoianovich opinion here [25] and Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski Specialized in analysing sources here [26] . As for the French guys I have difficulites for finding them on books.google I have to get back to my library to give those exact pages (for the Cabanes and also Metais, I have the Albanian version though), but meanwhile look here [27] to French wiki and I wasn't contributing there. Aigest (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think dab makes two very good points. The authors Aigest brings all mention "descent". So I think the most neutral option would be something like "A number of scholars conclude that the Albanian people are descended from Illyrians, although the question of cultural continuity is currently unresolved due to insufficient data." And I think the most appropriate place for that would be under a "Legacy" section, like dab mentions. --Athenean (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Silence usually only means one thing on Wikipedia... Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such a thing like cultural continuity. If we see that citation from wiki "the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:

• excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
• an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
• the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Culture changes by decades, just think of sex revolution in 60' for ex. how it did affect all the culture. or more the appearance of monotheism. Actual Greeks are orthodox from this point of wiev they don't have the cultural continuity of the Ancient Greeks or today Italians with Old Latins etc. Culture is a vey changing topic we don't share the same values with our parents, we don't have the same knowledge of our parents, we don't have the same tastes as our parents, let alone with the peoples living 2000 years ago. Aigest (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is why the statement although the question of cultural continuity is currently unresolved due to insufficient data is a necessary addition to the article? Granted, it is neutral, but neutral to whom? the minority of scholars who don't believe the Albanian-Illyrian link?. The lead, as is the case here should point to the most widley held belief, not give a platform to a minority view. This can be done later on in the article. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could leave the "cultural continuity" out for now. --Athenean (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Interestedinfairness: "the minority of scholars who don't believe the Albanian-Illyrian link?. The lead, as is the case here should point to the most widley held belief, not give a platform to a minority view."---I think I agree with Future Perfect & Dbachmann about the lead. How much of a majority do the Illyrian-Albanian proponents have, over say, Daco-Thracian-Albanian? How significant is this majority in this field? What is it based on? Very flimsy evidence? I bolded the words belief and believe in Interestedinfairness' statement to underline the fact that this is about facts, science, and if here we are dealing with "beliefs": "the evidence is so flimsy, but it appears that more paleolinguists believe that Albanian derives from Illyrian, rather than from Dacian or Thracian or Thraco-Illyrian, or something else". Yes at this website we emphasize majority views, but how much of a majority is it? What is the significant evidence, etc. A Britannica article is not enough at all, they are not the go-to reference for paleo-linguistics, or even the go-to reference to gauge majority views in this situation where most of the literature is specialized and hard to find, the evidence is flimsy throughout for all proponents, etc. Alex (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Britannica is a tertiary source and completely unacceptable. I keep saying that, but all I get is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It was put there by a well-known nationalist, but I plan to remove it soon and replace it with something better. As for the lead, you make a very good point. The evidence is indeed very flimsy, and for that reason it is no more than a "belief". And "beliefs" have no place in the lead. --Athenean (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest collected views from several scholars and/or linguists which is what has to be done, but more than that has to be done. I don't think anyone in Wikipedia has done a thorough study of the literature here in order to really flesh out the majority views here, how significant the majority is if it can be called a majority view, what is it based on, what are the counterarguments, etc. Alex (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, for that I am insisting on bringing more sources here and have citations directly from that not just our OR. For the majority issue I proposed a google test if it is reliable in this case. Just for the record the Illyrian-Albanian connection has been proposed since 1700 and has been the absolute wiev till 20 century, than linguists (not historians) tried to connect Albanian, first with Thracian (Gustav Weigand 1926) than with Dacian ( Vladimir I. Georgiev 1960), but that was contradicted by Cimochowski, Cabej, Katicic, Pellegrini, Banfi, Demiraj etc and last see Hamp 2007. For their main arguments you can see Mallory 1997 I have linked above. Now recently all them who have not participated in the debate (see above Fortson, and especially Woodard) don't link Albanian to Thracian or Dacian anymore, but remain sceptical of Illyrian-Albanian can be considered little more than conjecture were Woodard words since there are very few Illyrian data. In the absence of Illyrian words sufficent enough to clearly link a living language with them (although many have been linked to Albanian) the arguments of linguists supporting Albanian-Illyrian theory were concentrated in Albanian language investigating Ancient Greek loans, Latin loans, and Illyrian placenames Scodra-Shkodra etc, hydronyms Drinus-Drin, Scampinus-Shkumbin etc, which according to them have been developed according to Albanian phonetic rules (see Mallory). So linguistically speaking actually no serious publication (see Woodard) links Albanian to Thracian or Dacian anymore, while among serious historians they always have maintained Illyrian Albanian theory since XVIII to XXI century. Those listed above are the greatest specialist in Balkans (Hammond, Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan, Jelavich, Stavrianos, Stoianovich etc) and they maintain this connection. I would be more than happy to see which historians in which publications actually link Albanians to Thracians or Dacians, than we can discuss them here, since until now none has been put forward. Regards Aigest (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your above post is interesting, but it is far more relevant to Origin of Albanians than this article. Whether Albanians are related to Thracians or Dacians has nothing to do with this article, and everything to do with Origin of the Albanians. I'm really thinking we need to move the disucssion there. As for this article, I really have to agree with dab: A sentence that a number of scholars believe that the Albanians are descended form Illyrians in a "Legacy" section, and move on. --Athenean (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't check evrything Aigest posted now, but he is pretty well-researched; but he has some oversights sometimes too, like when Aigest was saying Thraco-Illyrian is only about admixture, not relation; actually Thraco-Illyrian was/is an argument about Thracian/Illyrian relation. Aigest says the support for the Thraco-Dacian/Albanian link decreased dramatically in the literature, and the Illyrian/Albanian link is a significant majority now, although the data is so sparse. Well I'll have to check that out. The status of the scientific debate still looks confused to me, but if what Aigest is saying is correct and if the evidence continues in favor of Illyrian/Albanian, obviously Wikipedia will reflect that. I don't know how the scientific debate actually is as of 2009 and until we can verify that this is better for Origin of Albanians and for the "Legacy" section in Illyrians, and not for the lead here, unless maybe it can be phrased accurately with current references. Alex (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not pretty sure right now, I had to see the sources. As far as I remember the terms Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian were used indiscriminatly during XIX century which have influenced many historians of that time. Linguistically speaking at the end of XIX century the debate on nature of Illyrian began. Some linguists linked Veneti with Illyrians => Illyrians=Centum => No Thraco-Illyrians (Thracian is satem), while for others this was not the case since Veneti were different form Illyrians Illyrian was a Satem language while Illyrian-Thracian connection became disputed. Apart differences in names, toponyms etc there were differences in A->O shift (which didn't happen in Thracian while in Illyrian and Messapic it happened) and the development of labiovelars (different treatments) but that belongs to another article that of Thraco-Illyrian (the majority now thinks that Thracian and Illyrian show more differences than affinities) which I hopefully will contribute, after making some researches first,(if I had more time) I don't like to make my own OR here (though a big temptation:)). Aigest (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to continue contributing to these topics also if I have time. I want to say something here on this talk page even though I know Wikipedia is "not a forum". When I began researching Thracian and Illyrian etc. in mid 2004 (before that only rarely) it was part of my quest for understanding myself and my origins more. I'm Romanian by birth (both parents were Romanian) and further back I have several other ethnicities: Greek, Austrian, Czech/Slovak, Bulgarian, Hungarian. I don't have any Albanian that I know of, however Albanians are part of the Romanian ancestry and since the Romanian language has substrate/adstratum words which are similar yet often divergent from Albanian, this means that in the Dark Ages a large number of Albanic people not only came into contact with Romanians but also became Romanians/Vlachs. So the question of whether those Albanic people (and Albanians proper) are Thraco-Dacic or Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian is important to me. However I don't mind if they were Thraco-Dacic instead of Illyrian or Illyrian intead of Thraco-Dacic! I would like to know the reality, whatever they were. I've been in Los Angeles since I was one years old and we have mediterranean weather here & palm trees, so if the Albanic ancestors were from further south, from Albania (rather than from Moesia or Dacia) I don't mind, I feel a connection to Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Greeks, ancient Macedonians etc. In ancient times, Illyric people (Pannoni) were inhabiting a lot of what is now Hungary and parts of Dacia, so whether Thraco-Dacic or Illyrian, the pre-Roman ancestors of Romanians were in Hungary before the Hungarians :) I know some Greeks and Serbs etc. have agendas and axes to grind, but I don't. Illyrian Albanians or Thraco-Dacian Albanians to me is a question of determining reality. Alex (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL:) Hope we will realise that Thraco-Illyrian article. Offtopic as for Romanians that is true there were a lot of Albanians in Romania (see Gicca family for eg) or another eg one of the main organizations of Albanians reinasance had the headquarter in Bukuresht. There are about 400 words of Romanian of unknown origin from which 140 have been related to Albanian. The main problem is the origin of this borrowings (Pre-IE old substratum?Pelasgian?Illyrian?Dacian?Thracian?Thraco-Illyrian?Albanian?) the time of this borrowings for ex Alb bukur and Rom bucur (beautiful and some have explained bucur-esti like Is-beautiful:)) has recent origins etc and the also place of language contacts (Danub region?Morava valley?Naisus?Scup?) But that should be in Romanian or Daco-Thracian article. However at least Vlachs have always been mentioned in Albanian territories and many of them contributed in Albanian history and still do. Aigest (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the Daco-Thracic/Albanian link decreased so much in the field. For example there was a Thracian epithet Diana Germetitha, which has been I think 100% identified as meaning "Diana of the warm bosom/breasts"; both Thracian germe (warm) and titha (breasts; compare Albanian thitha "nipples") have close Albanian cognates. There is also Thracian sica/Albanian thikё, Thracian dinupula, sinupyla, Albanian thënukël ("dogberry"), and so many more, like Thracian mezenai, Albanian mëz, "pony" etc.. Because there is so little Illyrian data, I think it is correct to say that there are more close cognates between Thraco-Dacian and Albanian than between Albanian and Illyrian. This isn't the talk page for it, but I will get back to this debate at other articles. I want to remind people that this is a very iffy field and we have to try to stay objective and sharp when evaluating our references, and be wary of a majority that is not sizable (Aigest says it is now) or supported by evidence that is really, not that solid and can be blown out by new discoveries the way the Venetic/Albanian theory or Venetic/Slavic theory went out the window. Alex (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, compare Thracian Germetitha (can we confirm that Albanian word thitha/thithia for "nipples" or a similar word?). Illyrian Scenobarbus (confirmed as Scenobarbus, Katicic apparently also mentions a Scenobardos form). Scenobarbus? This is just to remind people to look at the data again. In Wikipedia User:FlibJib8 added an etymology (Skenóbardos: IE *skeno-bhardhos; cf. Eng shine and beard) of the name that compares it to Latin names such as Ahenobarbus (meaning 'red-beard'); however Scenobardos/Scenobarbus is not attested in Latin ("Sceno-" is meaningless in Latin), but it is regarded as an Illyrian name. I don't know where FlibJib got that etymology from, but most of what he added to that article was accurate enough & sourced I think. The etymology, based on examples such as Latin Ahenobarbus, derives the -bardos in Scenobardos from PIE *bhardh-, meaning "beard"; nowadays the Albanian words for beard are mjekër and halë (see Talk:Illyrian languages where I'm gathering more information about Scenobardos). He also added the etymology of another Illyrian name Domator, which has a lot of cognates but no close Albanian cognate was listed and I would like an explanation of the -ator suffix which is found in other Illyrian names such as Plator: is the -ator suffix compatible with a proto-Albanic language? The toponym data I remember has issues to be worked out; for example, how many toponyms fit phonetic expectations, how many don't (I haven't done a survey, has someone done a survey); are they basing the toponym evolution from the Latin forms (Scodra, Scampinus, Drinus, etc.)? Could the Latin forms have passed on to peoples who were more Thracic than Illyrian, having moved onto Illyrian territories, since such Thracian incursions into Dardania and Illyria are known (is this ruled out by the references?). I'm going to read the references Aigest mentions eventually to get my sense of the conclusions by the experts---keeping in mind that one expert says one thing, another often disagrees in this field. Alex (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The -tor (used as in Latin and some other languages) suffix is well-attested in Illyrian, Messapic, and Liburnian/Venetic. Plator is an Illyrian name, but it is also found in Liburnian as Plaetor (and in the Venetic language as Plaetorius), and they also have Aetor etc. . Then we have Domator (Illyrian? added by FlibJib) and there are many more Illyrian names with -ator, -tor. Domator has an exact cognate in the Venetic language, Tomator. Alex (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my references at hand and it's been awhile and I have to go through the field again. My thoughts about Thraco-Illyrian are:"I don't know, I've read some statements about it and have seen some examples of similarities listed". However clearly there is no close (pretty much beyond PIE) relation between Venetic/Liburnian and Thraco-Dacian. Illyrian though is more mysterious, sometimes suggesting a Liburnian-Venetic link (which has not been disproven I think); there have also been Illyrian-Thraco-Dacian affinities noted (the basis for speculations about Thraco-Illyrian), then there is the Messapian language, where I remember there is a problem because some of the examples of the writing may be fakes; the several examples are baffling; similar Messapic, Illyrian and Venetic personal names. So Illyrian itself is an unknown language surrounded by Venetic/Liburnian (close to Illyrian?), Thracian/Dacian, Greek/Macedonian, Messapic (if not close to Illyrian), and maybe Paionian, in ancient sources sometimes considered separate from illyrians & Thracians, sometimes grouped with Thracians or Illyrians. The -ator/-tor suffix interests me, because 1) you do not find this among Thraco-Dacian, unless I'm mistaken; 2) it suggests a link between Illyrian and Venetic-Liburnian (Plator (Illyrian), Plaetor (Liburnian), Plaetorius (Venetic)). I'm interested in more information on this, so I'll be going to the libraries here & probably ordering books online. Alex (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very interested in the new/latest information about the time & place---as much as they think they can determine---of the earliest Greek loans in Albanian. What I notice about Albanian is that it was heavily Latinized, and this makes one think of the Jirecek Line. I'm not sure how Hellenized southern Albania became, but I think Paionia was heavily Hellenized a long time ago; unlike the Illyrians, who I remember are not mentioned in the Iliad (maybe the Illyrians were late-comers who hadn't arrived to the area yet, or barbarians without assets to join the war or something) the Paiones are mentioned, and are mentioned as fighting against the Trojans. Paionian coins show Hellenization hundreds of years before Christ. Whatever language the Paionians spoke, they appear to have been Hellenized from long contact & proximity with Greeks, plus I think the Dardani kept attacking their land, and places were left abandoned etc. I have to study all this again to have my information tight. I bring up the Paiones to show that some early Greek loans in Albanian don't make me think of such a continuity in the south near the Greeks, the few early loans suggest Albanian highlands, Dardania, Paionia etc. Those ancient Illyrians with names such as Cleitus lived in a very Hellenized world with a Hellenized language, not just a "few early Greek loans". A close look at the evidence brushes away extreme views: the wacky view of an Illyrian-Albanian continuity from the Illyrians of Gentius and Cleitus to the Chams of Epirus; or the other extreme of Dacians from Transylvania coming down to Albania and becoming Albanians in the early Dark Ages; I don't believe either extreme scenario. I suspect that the situation is in-between; Thracians or Illyrians or Thraco-Illyrians from Northern Albania/Dardania/Moesia etc. became Albanians; and I suspect the people were either more Thracian than some here may believe, or the Illyrian language was closer to Thracian than some here may believe. Illyrian components such as "bardos" (beard) and the -ator suffix bother me, and suggest a Venetic/Liburnian/Illyrian link that doesn't mesh with Illyrian being Proto-Albanian or close to Thracian. I'm not going to continue with this on this talk page, but I wanted to clarify my tentative views, to show that I'm not thinking of some extreme scenario. The evidence always has to tally with my views. This debate should always be about good sholarship (that enables us to determine reality and write good articles), and Dbachmann & Future perfect & Athenean are right about the lead. Alex (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just logged in. As far as I remember domator (to tame) is linked to dem (bull) in Albanian by Demiraj. Ill check. As for the Greek loans I am preparing an article, based on Cabej, Huld and Demiraj. In the meantime you can have a look at this, [28] from Norbert Jokl It is interesting about position of Albanians in Ancient times by some Latin and Greek loans. The position later confirmed by others. Aigest (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Mezenai (horse divinity) was widespread among Messapians. Apparently Mez, Maz or whaterver form (ponny in Albanian) was in wide use in Thracia, Illyrian, Messapia region. Aigest (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If I have more time I will put a more extended article in Illyrian toponyms based on the work of Cimochowsky, Cabej, Demiraj, confirmed later by Mallory (see Mallory 1997 link above) but that takes to much time it is very technical. Also I should make some Albanian historical phonetic changes for eg S-Sh (Piscis -Peshk Scodra-Shkodra etc) for this Demiraj "Gramatical History of Albanian Language" is very useful but it is 1200 pages long :) Aigest (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link for Albanian PIE [29] see dem Albanian form: ��0000">dem [m] (tg) {1}

Meaning: bull-calf; bullock

Proto-Albanian: dam-

Quasi-IE: d(o)mh2-(i)o-

See also: dash

Page in Demiraj AE: 128

IE reconstruction: ��0000">demh2-

Meaning of the IE root: to tame

Certainty: +

Page in Pokorny: 199

Other IE cognates: OIr. dam `ox, bullock'

Notes: {1} With umlaut of the root vowel from the plural stem *dam–¢.

Aigest (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I know of that cognate for Domator, it is listed in Illyrian languages. Demiraj I'm sure was aware of the name Domitor, and this maay have influenced his reconsctruction: I'm not saying his reconsctruction is wrong, I don't have enough linguistic expertise to rebuff him; however I notice some things about Demiraj which I will discuss with you, like he includes gjarpe (snake) as being an Albanian word from PIE: however its form is identical to the Romanian word şarpe (variant form şerpe), which is from Latin serpe. It looks likely that Albanian gjarpe is from Latin also; not from PIE. I do not have that much faith in all of Demiraj's etymologies, it doesn't seem likely that the Romanian word is from Latin, yet the Albanian word is from PIE. A gj--->ş change from Albanian to Romanian is impossible, so the Romanian word is not from Albanian; to say it entered Romanian from Albanian before s/ş changed to "gj" in Albanian is quite a claim, since such a basic part of Latin vocabulary almost certainly came into Romanian from Latin. I haven't seen a source that says it is not from Latin in Romanian. So in Romanian it is from Latin, and in Albanian it is from PIE? It looks to me as if Demiraj is wrong: it is in Romanian from Latin and in Albanian from Latin (to say that it is common PIE from PIE *serp- is no guarantee, I don't know if Germanic or Slavic for example have snake terms deriving from *serp? and if it is from PIE in Albanian, so curious that the form is identical to the Romanian word from Latin). Now Dom- is common in PIE (see Latin Domitius, the Slavic form is also "dom" etc.). Does anyone have information on the -ator suffix and whether it is expected to be so prevalent in the proto-Albanian of Illyrian times? Given the form of Albanian today (which I don't think has that suffix? Does it?), does the prevalence of that suffix in Illyrian fit? Alex (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The suffixes /tor/ and /tar/ are widely used in albanian in the process of forming names eg punë (work) punëtor (worker), mur (wall) murator (the one who construct walls) etc, arsim (education) arsimtar (educator) fshat (willage) fshatar (willager) shkencë (science) shkencëtar (scientist) or the famous shqip (alb, language) shqiptar(one who speaks alb) etc.

As far as I remember Shaban Demiraj reconstructs gjarpër/gjarpën from Latin serpon and also in the link ProtoAlbanian form is a borrowing from Latin s'erp. No Demiraj does not consider it pure Albanian but a loan from Latin, look at the book of Bardhyl Demiraj, I think it is in google.books but it is in german:( Aigest (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here a useful link for the treatment of the PIE phonetics in Albanian [30]. Regards Aigest (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also dem is confirmed here [31] by Mallory. Regards Aigest (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

As it seems that the discussion is becoming a forum, I propose to get in wiki again. So, lets bring sources, in order to conclude which statement should be written in this article.

Illyrian-Albanian continuity:

• NGL Hammond [32]
• Jelavich [33] and [34]
• Stavrianos [35]
• Stoyanovich [36]
• Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski [37]
• Fortson [38]
• Thunman and Latham [39]
• Evans [40]
• Momsen [41]

tertiary source for the Illyrian theory:

• Encyclopedia Britannica [42]
• Encarta [43]

Please bring in this section other sources, if only these sources exist, than the discussion should be over.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know I had to bring reliable and verifable sources but online is difficult for french guys :) here Ducellier has an article in this book here [44] mentioned even here [45] as a stand alone article, when he supports Albanian-Illyrian with this text [46] used by Albanian "propaganda":). This is for saying that I am not "joking":) with the above authors I have mentioned as sources. I will try to locate them on web during weekend and If I don't find them I will give the references and exact words on their publications translated and published in Albanian language (will try also to find the English or French variants, If I'll have time of course;)) Aigest (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, please wait, as far as I can see you have brought tens of sources. Let the others bring sources, if they cant than this is over.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest has indeed brought a lot of sources, but this argument is not a question of sources, it is a question of not belonging to this article. All this stuff belongs in Origin of Albanians, not here. This is an article on an ancient people who lived long ago, not the Albanians. You are trying to subvert an article on antiquity to push your own national creation myth. We can use Aigest's sources for a sentence in a "Legacy" section, but that's it. Everything else belongs in Origin of Albanians. --Athenean (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aa, not my friend. We are talking about Illyrians, sources say that Illyrians did not vanish but were "transformed" (dont get me wrong, I mean culturaly) to Albanians. So this defenetly is about Illyrians. If you think that this is not about Illyrians than bring sources. If you have any source that does not conclude to the above than you are welcome, if you do not, than this will be used in the lead.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring sources that this is not about Illyrians? What the hell are you talking about now? That doesn't make any sense. This has nothing to do with sources. This has everything to do with WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. By the way, the sources say nothing about "culturally transformed" only that they are "descended". There's a huge difference there. But anyway, there is something you are missing here: Sources about Albanians mention the Illyrians, and claim that Albanians descend from Illyrians. But sources about Illyrians barely mention the Albanians, because Albanians are peripheral to the subject. The perfect example is the Britannica article you cite. It's the article on Albania, and it mentions the Illyrians. But does the Britannica article on the Illyrians even mention the Albanians? I highly doubt it. That's precisely the reason why it is WP:UNDUE to mention them in the lead. That's the point me and dab are making and which you are pretending not to hear. It's one thing to mention Illyrians in the lead of Origins of the Albanians, and another to mention Albanians in the lead of Illyrians. --Athenean (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the sources say nothing about "culturally transformed" only that they are "descended". There's a huge difference there. Firstly, what is the deference? Secondly, did you read them (?), cause some of them speak about continuity. "But sources about Illyrians barely mention the Albanians" Who says that? Ok, than bring sources that this is a minor view, or a fringe theory and we are ok. If you cannot prove that this is peripherial theory than please do not bother this article. If Hammond would think that Illyrians have been transformed to Slavs, you would be the first to say "come on guys, Hammond said it". Unfortunately, for you, we have sources, you make noise.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at any other encyclopedia article on the Illyrians: Britannica, Encarta, etc... NONE of them even mention the Albanians. That is because Albanian nationalists are not allowed to edit in those encyclopedia, unlike here. I don't need to bring sources that the albanian people are peripheral to the subject of Illyrians. That is a ridiculous argument. The proof is that no other encyclopedia article on the Illyrians mentions the Albanians. Wikipedia should be no different. --Athenean (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Britannica does mention the Albanian-Illyrian link (you just need a subscription). Check out the Encarta page for your self, [Here]. No need for erroneous claims. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).

Let's have a closer look at the sources, shall we?

• Hammond: This is a book on ancient Macedonia that mentions the Albanians once in passing on p. 48 and never again.
• Jelavich: This book is about the 18th and 19th century history of the Balkans, not an expert source on the Illyrians. Illyrians are mentioned twice in the very beginning, briefly in passing.
• The link to Stavrianos is actually a link to Jelavich. Probably a mistake on Aigest's part.
• Stoyanovich: Another modern history book, not an expert source on the ancient Illyrians.
• Owsinski: Yet another modern history book, not an expert source on the ancient Illyrians.
• Forston: A book on Indo-European languages. The section on Albanian briefly mentions that there is a widespread assertion that the Albanian language descends from Illyrian, but that it is linguistically untestable, and gives it equal footing with competing hypotheses. The section on the Illyrians again mentions the Albanians only briefly and not in the beginning, and says that the connection to Albanian has "very little, if any, linguistic support although it makes geographic sense".
• Latham:Another modern history book, not an expert source on the Illyrians. Focuses on albanians, not Illyrians.
• Evans:Finally, an expert source on the ancient Illyrians. This is the only one I'm willing to consider seriously. Let's see: Only mentions the Albanians in connection with the Illyrians once, on page 138 (not including the blurb). Even though this is a book on the ancient Illyrians, it has no chapter on the Albanian-Illyrian connection and mentions the Albanians only once in passing, deep in the middle of the book.
• Momsen: A book on ancient Rome, not an expert on Illyrians, Albanians mentioned only twice, very briefly.

In conclusion: Most of the sources brought by Aigest are books about modern Balkan history, not the Illyrians, and hemce should be disregarded. Only one, Evans, is an actual expert source on the Illyrians (the subject of this article, by the way). Does Evans devote much space discussing the Albanians and their connection to the Illyrians? No. Does he mention the Albanians as descendents of the Illyrians throughout the book? No. He only mentions the Albanians once, on page 138. I also note that another major expert on the Illyrians, Wilkes, barely mentions the Albanians and certainly does not support their descent from the Illyrians (and I also note that Aigest conveniently ignoresWilkes, as if he didn't exist). In short, both of the two sources that are experts on the Illyrians barely even mention the Albanians. The Albanian National Team is trying to change the focus of this article from the Illyrians to the Origin of the Albanians and brings in irrelevant modern history books to prove their point (while ignoring any source that does not back their POV). The focus of this article however, are the Illyrians, and not the Albanians. Illyrians may not be peripheral to Albanians, but based on my analysis of sources, Albanians certainly appear to be peripheral to Illyrologists. Now, because it is useless to argue with vexatious nationalist wikilawyers ("bring sources to prove that the Albanians are peripheral to the Illyrians"), i will post on the relevant wikiprojects in the hope of getting a meaningful debate started, and hopefully a solid consensus. --Athenean (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look Athenean that I was only mentioning the later Historians which are expert on the Balkans and they maintain that wiev (if you wish I could bring to you many olsd historians) I am not ignoring Wilkes but he says nothing (not proving, nor disproving). Returning to Illyrians do you consider Cabanes, Stipcevic and Hammond experts of that matter? Also don't you think that after them the other experts of medieval era, Ducellier, Castellan etc continue that line? Aigest (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can not disregard Hammond, I have mentioned the book above, (Illyrians Albania) but that is not online, but you can see clearly his opinion in the link I provided, do you think that doesn't count as opinion? And also for the thousand time said CAN YOU PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS WHO MAINTAIN THE OTHER WIEV ?Aigest (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A few points: (1) Britannica is not a WP:Reliable Source, as it is hardly more credible than Wikipedia. We should not have any refs to the EB at all, unless we simply cannot find anything better. (2) An Albanian connection is worthy of mention, as it is a tie-in to the modern era. (3) However, it is a minority view among linguists, and is generally proposed by those who dislike unclassified languages and want everything wrapped up in neat conclusions. Linguist List, for example, has this to say:

Based upon geographical proximity, [Illyrian] is traditionally seen as the ancestor of Modern Albanian. It is more likely, however, that Thracian is Modern Albanian's ancestor, since both Albanian and Thracian belong to the Satem group of Indo-European, while Illyrian belonged to the Centum group.

Of course, the satem-centum dichotomy is widely seen to be spurious, but there you are. We really don't have enough data to say for sure, and we certainly cannot simply posit that Albanian is a continuation of the Illyrian language, as the article did before I reverted it just now to Dbachmann's last version. kwami (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Aigest, I meant that the maintenance of this POV might be motivated by nationalism. The EB is simply obsolete. kwami (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then can you please just like I said to Athenean BRING THE HISTORIANS WHO MAINTAIN THE OTHER WIEV? I don't think the readers are interested in my OR, your OR, dab OR, int OR or anybodys OR. If you could follow this debate form the beginign the language situation belong to Illyrian language section or Albanian section (and also you have linguists above) that's why we used historians here (don't turn it ones more in linguistic issue) and returning for 1002 time:) CAN YOU PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS WHO MAINTAIN THE OTHER WIEV? Aigest (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Granted, the historical question is distinct from the linguistic one. But I wonder why you only insist on Albanian being a "direct" continuation of Illyrian, if not for language. The southern Slavs are also Illyrian by ancestry, and without linguistic evidence, they could be said to be just as "direct" as the Albanian, just as both Greeks and Macedonian Slavs are likely to be descendants of Macedon. If the Albanian language is not a descendant of the Illyrian language, then how are the Albanians "direct" descendants of the Illyrians, if the Slavs are not? You have no genetic evidence of bloodlines. Also, if you're going to refer to "studies" (plural), you need sources for those studies, and the EB simply is not adequate. As for modern, balanced historical sources, I'll leave that to someone who knows the lit better than me. kwami (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to ask those questions to the above authors not me:). If you are interested in my OR I can give you that:) Aigest (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What I can see here in this article people have their POV and don't care about the scholars. As soon as sources for their claims are mentioned they remain silent. Now how about that? Aigest (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, Athenean, et al. Have you read this sections tittle? it is called SOURCES, or better WP:Sources, I do not care about what you say, if what you say is based on your POV. Please bring sources that could at least allienate the above mentioned. If you cannot, please do not bother this article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

the article has always mentioned the possibility of Illyrian-Albanian continuity, and nobody has ever suggested removing mention of this from the article text. I really don't see why you still keep discussing this. Yes, the artile should contain mention of the possibility of Illyrian-Albanian continuity. It does. Nobody is trying to take it away. What is the problem?

You need to understand that "Illyrian" is just a fancy term for "prehistoric peoples of the western Bakans about whom we know practically nothing". The phrase "the Albanians are directly descended from the Illyrians" translates to "The Albanians are directly descended from prehistoric peoples of the western Bakans about whom we know practically nothing". That's a null statement, it is perfectly uncontroversial, but it is also devoid of any useful information. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets kill Hammond, cause his gone nuts and says The Albanians are directly descended from prehistoric peoples of the western Bakans about whom we know practically nothing". But, I prefer citing Hammond correctly! If you publish a book about this metter, than I will cite you.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "nuts"? Everybody is descended from prehistoric people. Look, we have a dedicated article for this stuff. Arguments go here:

• Origins_of_the_Albanians#Illyrian_origin

Couterarguments go here:

• Origins_of_the_Albanians#Disagreement_on_the_Illyrian_theory

This is Talk:Illyrians, not Talk:Illyrian theory. This section, and most of the content of this talkpage, is off topic. What "claim" do you say is "OR"? The claim that this is the Wikipedia article on Illyrians? I must say you have some nerve. Why don't you drag me to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for making an unsourced claim on a talkpage's scope merely based on its name. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab please bring sources for your edits, otherwise is your POV or OR. Aigest (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Get it right, I, as a wikipedian, will cite Hammond not dbachmann. If Hammond says something, than WP:SOURCES tells me to "cite him correctly"!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can cite whoever you like, within WP:DUE. A citation on Star Trek goes to Star Trek. A citation on Baseball goes to Baseball, and a citation on the origin of Albanians goes to Origins of the Albanians. Nobody asked you to "cite dbachmann", you are simply indulging in WP:POINT and WP:IDHT by now. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I understand your contention but if the Slavic migration and their subsequent assimilation of the Illyrians is mentioned, then according to that rationale, it should also be noted that the some Illyrians were not assimilated, namely the people who came to be known as the Albanians. Seems fair to me. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)).

We don't know that Albanians are unassimilated Illyrians. That's precisely the point. LinguistList says they're more likely to be unassimilated Thracians. And "direct descendant" is not supported even by the cherry-picked references Aigest et al. are using. Dab is right: whatever the balance of the evidence, this belongs in the Origins of the Albanians article. Knock off the edit war (I don't mean you, Interestedinfairness), or I'll protect the article.

BTW, if I do protect it, Dab will still be able to edit, since I'm unable to block him, but the rest of you will be shut out. So can we behave reasonably and work this out through civil discussion, without all the histrionics and name-calling? A mention of a possible Albanian connection has always been considered acceptable; we can work out the best wording of that mention and direct readers to the appropriate article. kwami (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with kwami. I've also reported Balkanian for a 3RR violation, as he performed 4 reverts within the space of only a few hours. This is getting ridiculous. The Albanian editors are clutching at straws. Of the two sources that specialize on the Illyrians, Evans mentions the Albanians and their possible Illyrian descent only once in the middle of the book, and Wilkes only in the context of modern Balkan nationalism. As for Hammond, it's the same as in Evans: A passing mention in the middle of the book. None of the three discusses the Albanian-Illyrian connection to any substantial extent, indicating that experts on the subject consider it peripheral to the subject (doubtless because of the paucity of evidence). I've also looked at other articles on ancient Balkan peoples. Does the article on the Thracians mention in the lead that Bulgarians are the "direct descendents" of the Thracians? No, even though that connection is on much more solid footing than the Illyrian-Albanian connection. Does the article on Dacians mention in the lead that the Romanians are the "direct descendents" of the Dacians? Again, no, and again this is on more solid footing. Does the article on ancient Macedonians mention in the lead that the Greek Macedonians or ethnic Macedonians are the "direct descendents" of the ancient Macedonians? No. So then why should Illyrians be any different? It's common sense. Hiding behind WP:RS ("bring sources to prove that the sources consider the Albanian-Illyrian connection peripheral") to push a national POV is a disingenuous attempt at gaming the system and totally unacceptable. --Athenean (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We could, of course, more fully paraphrase Wilkes, to the effect that Albanian archeology has been distorted to conform to a nationalistic, pseudo-scientific attempt to validate Albanian identity as the continuation of Illyria, at the cost of making Albanian scholarship almost worthless. That would "follow the sources", as our POV warriors insist that we do. But as Dab says, it belongs in the Origins of the Albanians article, not here. kwami (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, although a brief mention in the "In Nationalism" section at the bottom of the article wouldn't hurt. But whatever. --Athenean (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me think hmmm, apparently Evans was an Albanian nationalist and so on all the others. For an opinion on archaeology why don't we cite Stipcevic who is more qualified as an archaeologist (has conducted his own researches for Illyrian and has published a book also) than Wilkes? Anything against Stipcevic and Evans regarding archaeology? Aigest (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read Stipcevic, obvious from your comment. He's an archaeologist but he never pointed to archaeology as a proof that there's some direct relation between Illyrians and Albanians, for one simple reason: Albanian archaeology was not well developed (almost completely inexistant) in 70's and 80's when his 'Iliri' book editions were published. In the same time he did accentuate South Slavic archaeology (he was a contributor of it) to claim continuation in layers in the Western Balkans. His idea of Illyrian - Albanian relation was nothing revolutionary in that moment, he pointed to already known language issue as possible evidence for such relation, nothing more. It's comedy how Albanians misquote him, they simply use one his sentence isolated from the rest of a book, since he's an eminent author on this matter and his sentence had some weight. But 1 sentence is useless even if God says it, when there's all bible. 83.131.93.209 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Look Kwami, readers are not interested in your POV here, neither mine, nor Athenean. I told you to bring historians here for your claim, this section is dedicated to them. If you have something to say about the Albanian language you can contribute to Albanian language article. Please stay on this topic (References, Historians). Aigest (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, I am not here to write the article. I am here to stop your edit war. Given the choice between blocking you and protecting the article, I have chosen to protect the article. If this overly inconveniences people, I can block you instead. kwami (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not making an edit war see my comment at your talk page. Aigest (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I am coping here for others to see my opinion for your block of the article "Could you explain why did you reverted my edit at Illyrians. There was no mention of Albanians or any other non-illyrians population in the lead in the lead (wasn't this the dispute?!) the wrong expression "Illyrians proper" including all Illyrian tribes (not true read Wilkes and others) was corrected, the reference for a single Illyrian language (Cambridge) was added and the section of Greek mythology was created.(Wilkes, Appian). Then where specifically do you see a problem or any POV in my last edit?" Aigest (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is in shambles at the moment. I can't believe this is the only encyclopedia that does not mention the Albanians in when discussing the Illyrians, have a look at all other encyclopedias, reference points and all of them will mention some sort of Albanian-Illyrian linkage. The protection definitely needs to be taken off. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

There was long a mention of a possible Albanian connection in the article, but it got lost in the edit warring. I'm not editing this article, but I'm sure someone else will restore that info. Meanwhile, the fact that you would call the article a shambles because that one line got deleted suggests that you actually aren't "interested in fairness". (Why is it that people who choose names like that rarely are?) kwami (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that some news channels claim to be fair and balanced. --Athenean (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, thanks for your input. The reason I have referred to it as a shambles are clear; this is the only encyclopedia that does not mention the Albanian-Illyrian link. That is definitely a shambles. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

It does mention it, just not the way you want it to (as an absolute, incontrovertible fact in the lead). --Athenean (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to have an answer for my question "where specifically do you see a problem or any POV in my last edit (before it was blocked by kwami)?" then we can move on improving the article. Aigest (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the problems with this edit are numerous, ranging from bad editorial decisions and unexplained fiddling with Greek accents to the restoration of the verbatim EB quote in Wikipedia's voice. I am sorry, but if you don't see a problem with that edit, you probably do not have the qualification to contribute to any further improvement of this article. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The greek mythology was there before my edit, that mythology show what Greeks thought of the coonection of Illyrian tribes with each other, it is famous as mythology and in all the books regarding Illyrians it is mentioned, I only expanded it including Illyrian tribes and their supposed connection daughters sons, nephew etc (since we are talking about Illyrians) with Wilkes as reference. I don't see you point here do you think it is not relevant to the article or do you have something against the sources? Second I prefer to cite EB correctly in my opinion the previous (and actual) edit certain amount is misleading and erroneus. Either cite the source correctly or don't cite it at all. Now your point was why I used verbatim EB words, right? Do you think that certain amount are the right words refering to EB article? Aigest (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

weird bits

Great, now we have an article on a topic of strictly antiquarian interest locked down because some patriotic Albanian kids decided to play silly buggers with it. Way to go, Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. We should remember WP:DENY and focus on fixing actual issues.

• what on earth is an "Illyrian minaret"? File:Illyrianssss.jpg has that image description. The image was pulled off some extremely reliable website back in 2001 with that cryptic caption. Some trusting soul has transferred that description into article space. In reality, we have no way of knowing whether the relief even depicts anything related to Illyria. We need to identify the object depicted or we need to remove the image.
• under ethnogenesis, "this theory was also proposed and supported by Albanian archaeologists for the southern Illyrians and for Illyrians in general from Alexander Stipčević which says that the most convincing model of Illyrian ethnogenesis was that of autochthony, but pointing to Liburnians and their pre-Indo-European and Mediterranean phases in developement Stipčević claims that there was no comparable "processing of Illyrian origin" in the different areas of the Western Balkans"

  this is just gibberish. The scare quotes are mine, I have no idea what a "processing of Illyrian origin" is supposed to be. The whole paragraph probably needs to be cut down to something more readable. The invasion vs. ethnogenesis dichotomy is a false one. What we need instead is an informed presentation of the relevant archaeological cultures.

these are some of the actual issues with the article. Locking it down over puerile patriotic trolling is harmful to article improvement on the part of grown-ups. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You better watch you vocabolary dab, stop using words like those above for wiki contributors, you don't have the right to insult or judge the others. Aigest (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Some patriotic Albanian kids?? The irony is that we Albanians don't go and complain to the Admin about Greek users insults or vandalism.

• What on earth, Illyrians are defined as Greeks?? when Greeks can not even give a meaning about the word Illyrian?
• What on earth we editors are stopped by some vandals, who erase our sources, our work??
• Why the only paragraph about Albanians is about nationalism? When there are hundred of books,sources,language links about Albanians and Illyrians.
• Why?? What is the dilemma? And as far as I know,I and other Albanians do not need Illyrians to be proud of our people.Scanderbeg & Mother Theresa it's enough for me.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s.

• The source says ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. "Albania".: The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians.

• but in Wikipedia the source it is transfer to just plausible..it's The origins of the Albanians are not definitely known, but a certain amount of Illyrian-Albanian continuity is generally assumed to be "plausible". Plausible is this a joke??--Taulant23 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell if you're being serious. The article doesn't say half the things you claim. For example, nowhere does it define the Illyrians as being Greek. And when you accuse good editors of being vandals, I suspect that you are not worth the trouble of answering. But I will repeat that per Wikipedia policy, the Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a reliable source. You need something reliable to support your claims. A lot of the article is poorly written and needs work; if you present rational, well supported opinions, we will likely incorporate them into the article. Otherwise you will be dismissed as a hack. kwami (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to WP:DNFTT at this point. Regarding what dab is saying, the "minaret" figure is highly dubious for the reasons stated. It was uploaded by someone who is interested in something other than fairness, so that says it all as far as I'm concernced. Same goes for the ethnogenesis bit, that was "written" by Aigest. As if the atrocious English isn't bad enough, it's utter gibberish to me as well. I'm starting to think that editors to the English wikipedia should pass a fluency test before being allowed to edit. That would automatically exclude a good number of people. And if you think this article is bad, have a look at Illyrian languages. It's an even worse mess. I tried cleaning it up a while ago, but gave up in disgust. --Athenean (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tens of sources have been put forward regarding the Illyrian-Albanian theory, as most scholars point to the connection. You and athenean will do well to remember that majority views should be put froward not fringe or minority views.

• Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000 for Albanian Illyrian - minus the words Slavic -Thracian - Greek - Greece. (0.27 seconds)

• Results 1 - 10 of about 3,190 for Illyria Illyrian Slavic Greek Thracian - minus the words Albanian

Only you know what sort of agenda you are pushing. Athenean, please enlighten us as to what qualifications you have, since you're criticizing every one else?

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

This is silly. 87.25% of statistics are made up. (227,000 for +Illyrian +Albanian; 761,000 for +Illyrian -Albanian.) Most scholars will note that it was once widely believed that the Albanians were the descendants of the Illyrians, but that this is no longer the case; there may well be a connection, but we simply don't have the evidence to know for sure. We should mention the possibility here, which we do, with the details to be found in the appropriate article. Saying that the Albanians "are the direct descendants of the Illyrians" is nonsense. kwami (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A google search now? Google searches are completely worthless as sources. I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that. As far as I'm concerned, this debate is now closed and the issue is resolved. --Athenean (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate isn't over until you bring the sources (historians) for your claims Athenean. Until then the existing ones (Historians above) remain the only ones to be used in the article. Aigest (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kwami, first thank you for getting involved in here and trying to help. Trust me,I won’t loose my time if I was not serious.Bear in mind,I have 666 edits in Albania article plus a busy life.So please don't think I am not serious,I am trying to help even in this article as much as I can.

• Athenian, why would you judge that the picture was uploaded by someone who is interested in something other than fairness? Can you verify your claims? Give us a fact before you accuse editors of wrong doing.Again stop harassing other users when they bring something productive in here.--Taulant23 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about any biases of the originating website, but we have no identification of what the piece is, or where it came from. Calling it a "minaret", of course, is just silly, unless that word has a meaning in archeology that is not covered by the OED and other dictionaries. kwami (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I'm addressing you personally because you seem to be quite interested in this article, yet you don't seem to be contributing anything constructive. Why don't you simply remove the image, or change the word "minaret".

• The article still looks hopeless by the way. The oft quoted Albanian-Illyrian link is no where to be seen in the lead. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)).

Actually, I'm not particularly interested in the article. And I don't want to contribute anything, because I don't want to end up defending my own work. This way I can step in and try to put an end to an edit war, without being part of the edit war. kwami (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ancient tribes in the Balkans

{{edit protected}} Replace Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe with new subcategory Category:Ancient tribes in the Balkans per CFD 2009 May 28.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

How about this for the opening paragraph:

• The Illyrians, (Greek Ἰλλυριοί; Latin Illyrii or Illyri), were a group of tribes who inhabited the Balkans during antiquity. The region which they inhabited was known as Illyria to Greek and Roman authors. Although it is disputed, Albanians are believed to be the only surviving descendants of the Illyrian tribes, with others being assimilated into Slavic culture.

There are numerous sources which can be used for the proposed lead, which other users will hopefully add!

Hopefully we can gain some consensus for this. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

Two problems immeditately come to mind: WP:WEASEL is the first ("Although it is disputed, Albanians are..."). Please see WP:WEASEL for a list of weasel words to avoid. The second is the "only surviving" part. Those who assimilated also "survived", they didn't perish. I'm a bit preoccupied with other thing now, but I'll try to think of an alternative wording in the meantime.--Athenean (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[[47]] answer your first contention. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

Athenean is right: "although it is disputed" contradicts "are believed to be". Believed by who? No longer by linguists, and AFAIK the only data supporting the connection was linguistic. (That's what "unassimilated" meant: kept their original language.) Unless somehow someone has reconstructed genetic markers for the Illyrians which were not shared by the Thracians, etc., and these are found in high concentration in modern Albanians, but not in neighboring Greeks or Slavs? As for assimilation, while that certainly happened, for all we know the Albanians are Illyrians who were assimilated to Thracian or something. We need something more than just that this was a popular idea in 1950 and continues to be echoed today because, since the evidence is so tenuous, no-one has a better supported idea. kwami (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I believe we are getting off-topic. My proposal was to stop the argument and non-agreement in here, by proposing something that appeases one side of the camp.

As regards your argument, the problem is that the majority of sources say there is an Illyrian-Albanian continuity, (if you look up ^ you will see "Aigest" has provided countless sources that claim this).

On the other side of the camp is the Pro-Greek lobby. Their evidence is more flimsy which is why, and as a compromise, I have proposed the sentence begins although it is disputed.

Why can't we reach a consensus based on the reliable sources? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

I have extensively discussed Aigest's "sources" and the various problems with them here Talk:Illyrians#Sources ("Let's have a closer look at the sources, shall we?"). They are inappropriate for a number of reasons, mostly because they are modern history books who do not specialize on the subject of the Illyrians and mention them only in passing. Of those sources that do specialize on the Illyrians, namely Evans and Wilkes, neither supports or devotes much space to the question of continuity with the Albanians, for the reasons kwami mentions. I am tired of repeating myself. This is the same circular debate over and over, with people who just pretend they don't hear.

• • LOL "someone has reconstructed genetic markers for the Illyrians which ..." You made me laugh today man. Just curious than If I don't use the books,the linguistic and culture facts for the Illyrian-Albanian continuity,than the modern Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people not to ancient Greeks. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbor joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

Lao O. et al. (2008) Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe, Current Biology doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.049 1Biomedical and Genetic Engineering Division, Dr. AQ Khan Research Laboratories, Islamabad, Pakistan 2Unit of Prenatal Diagnosis, Center for Thalassemia, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Greece 3The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK 4Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Doesn't all of mankind originate from Africa? Kwami Love you man lol--Taulant23 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since kwami is returning to linguistic issue I am forced to bring them here (although I think they pertain to another place since here we are talking about Illyrians)

The most detailed analyse is from Mallory-Adams

• Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985

Detailed explanation "By far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian........." link [48]

• Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169

Favors Albanian-Illyrian (BTW he says widespread assertion for Illyrian-Albanian, and as I have pointed out this was the mainstream since XVIII (Thunman 1774) to XXI century) since "make sense historically and geographically" while as for the data remained from the old languages Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian "likewise unstable" link [49]

• The Ancient Languages of Europe By Roger D. Woodard Edition: illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958 again Illyrian-Albanian "can be considered little more than conjuction" (and he does not even mention Thracian or Dacian connection to Albanian) you can have his opinion here [50]

What do you think kwami, as I see they are mainstream and lately published. Aigest (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Aigest. I missed your comment. We can certainly discuss possible linguistic connections, though the proper place to go into depth is in the language articles. kwami (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets stick to the sources.

• It has been claimed that due to the fact that the sources alluding to the Illyrian-Albanian linkage are "modern" and that the authors do not specialize in Illyrian studies, therefore they cannot be used in the article. However, even though these authors are not specialists per se, they are well renowned and trained historians, who have conducted their own research and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed suitable to post the strong likelihood that there is an Albanian-Illyrian link. We should consider why it is necessary to take the views of one or two archeologists (namely Wilkes and Evans) above countless other historians?

Furthermore, this is not a place to conduct research. Sources have been provided, they have been defended on numerous occasions and yet the Albanian Illyrian link is still not put into the lead. I think its time to go to arbitration and see what non-biased editors and admins think. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)).

Can't you people just put .. is claimed by ... contrary ... is claimed by ... and get dispute over. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)).

• So no counter arguments as per WIKIPEDIA RULES, no counter claims to the Albanian-Illyrian linkage -- typical. Every time the pro-Greek users have no sound contributions to make in order to gain a consensus (in this case the amendment of the lead), they resort to silence. If this article was left to avid users who actually care about expanding and contributing to Wikipedia, this article has the potential to be great. Its a shame that bunch of users who misconstrue Wikipedia rules to keep this article in a constant state of fiasco are not clipped round the ears by Wikipedia:Administrators. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

You're the one who wants it in the lead, IIF. If you're not willing to do the work, don't whine that others aren't doing it for you. Do you have an actual proposal? Present it here, and we can discuss it. kwami (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the first post on this section...?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

That is highly POV, and you haven't addressed the objections. "Assimilated into Slavic culture"? The Albanians have been "assimilated into Islamic culture". So what? The connection here is linguistic. That's what "direct descent" really means: continuity of language, not blood lines. Historians are using language as the base of their suppositions. (Historians, even good historians, are notoriously bad at taking linguistic connections and positing peoples based on them, much to the annoyance of linguists. And when the linguistic evidence shifts, these alleged historical peoples somehow just evaporate.) If the Albanian language is descended from an Illyrian language, then it's reasonable to assume (though far from certain) that the Albanians are descended from the Illyrians. The Serbs may also be descended from the Illyians, just as the Azeris are descended from the Armenians, but we don't have direct evidence. So it turns on the linguistic evidence, and that is very weak. It is a very popular idea that Albanian may be descended from Illyrian, but very far from certain (it may, for instance, be descended from Thracian); regardless, the connection between descent and language can be tenuis. We could say that Albanian is commonly thought to continue an Illyrian language, though this is disputed. Detailed discussion belongs in the language articles and origin of the Albanians. Anything more seems like fluff and speculation, without any substance. kwami (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mallory & Adams volume is interesting in this connection. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics says the Albanian language "is often held to be related to Illyrian, a poorly attested language ..., but this has not yet been proved conclusively." However, they say Albanian is attested since the 2nd century, which might through a bit of a monkey wrench into Mallory & Adams' deduction that Latin and Greek loans in Albanian must've come through Illyrian because they're pre-Christian. Regardless, the evidence is still linguistic, and Illyrian is essentially unknown, with the only attestations being onomastic. kwami (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, another way to look at descent is through genetics, but here, genetics tells us absolutely nothing. The linguistic evidence, is, as Kwami says very thin. So the whole connection rests on very thin ice, and this is why I deem it is more appropriate to keep it out of the lead. But most importantly, of all the sources that specialize on the ancient Illyrians, none seems to treat the possible connections to Albanians at any length. Of those that even do mention it at all, such as Evans, they only do so in passing and hedge it a million different ways. This is doubtless because the evidence is so thin, and scholars are understandably cautious about such things. So it seems that to Illyrologists, the whole issue of a connection to Albanians is peripheral to their discipline. To me that is the main argument for not mentioning it in the lead. That is what dab has also said, and I keep endlessly repeating (to no avail it seems). --Athenean (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

to Kwami: It is my understanding tha the Albanian isn't attested until the 15th century. That is a huge gap between the last mention of the Illyrians and the first attestation of the Albanian language. --Athenean (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I only said that the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics said that Albanians are attested from the 2nd century. kwami (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

to ath: Actually its the 11th century, but your clearly not learned enough on the topic, so I'll forgive that suggestion.

• Kwami, your 100% pushing some sort of POV; same old arguments, same old nonsense; first you tell us your not an expert and now your analyzing Languages; discussions of that sort are reserved for the Illyrian languages article, so lets not get off topic; Serbs cannot be Illyrians as they came in the 6th century by which time the Illyrians had been in the Balkans for at least 1500 years

How do you reconcile with the britanica quote;

"The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians, the transition from Illyrian to Albanian apparently occurring between the 4th and 6th centuries ce. Some scholars, however, dispute such theses, arguing that Illyrians were not autochthonous to Albania and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language.

That is what you call NEUTRAL. Not that crap that has been fed to you by these people. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

Albanian-Illyrian language link:

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Albaner - Brife, Hanover, 1705 (E.P.Hamp, On Leibniz's Third Albanian Letter - Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie, Je XVI/1, 1981, M.Reiter, Leibnizen's Albanel - Briefe - Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie Jg. XVI, 1980,) Thunmann, Johann. Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der östlichen europäischen Völker. Laipzig (1774). Kopitar, B.J. Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache. Wien (1829) Hahn, Georg von. Albanesische Studien. Wien (1853). Bopp, Franz. Über das Albanesische in seinen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen. Berlin (1855). Camarda, Demetrio. Saggio di grammatologia comparata sulla lingua albanese. Livorno (1864. Camarda, Demetrio. Appendice al Saggio di grammatologia sulla lingua albanese. Prato (1866). Miklosich, Franz: Albanische Forschungen. I: Die slavischen Elemente im Albanischen. Wien (1870). Miklosich, Franz. Albanische Forschugen, II: Die romanischen Elemente im Albanischen. Wien (1870). Meyer, Gustav. Albanesische Studien. I - Wien 1882; III - 1892; V - 1896. Pedersen, Holger. Bidrag til den albanesiske sproghistorie. (Festskrift til Vilhelm Thomsen). Kobenhavn (1894). Pedersen, Holger. Albanesisch 1905. Rom. Jb. IX (1905). Erlangen (1909). Kretschmer, Paul. Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, (Hyrje në historinë e gjuhës greke), Göttingen, (1896) Kretschmer, Paul. Sprachliche Vorgeschichte des Balkans, (Parahistoria gjuhësore e Ballkanit), Revue Internationale des e'tudes balkaniquee, vol. II (1935) Thumb, A. Altgriechische Elemente des Albanesischen. IF 26 (1926). Sandfeld, Kristian. Linguistique balkanique, problemes et resultats. Paris 1930. Cimochowski, Waclaw. Recherches sur l'histoire du sandhi dans la langue albanaise. LP II, 1950. Cimochowski, Waclaw. Des recherches sur la toponomastique de l'Albanie. LP VIII, 1960. Cimochowski, Waclaw. Pozicioni gjuhësor i ilirishtes ballkanike në rrethin e gjuhëve indoevropiane. SF 1973/2. Lambertz, Maximilian. Lehrgang des Albanischen. Teil I: Albanisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Teil II: Albanische Chrestomathie. Teil III: Grammatik der albanischen Sprache (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften 1954, Berlin 1955, Halle/Saale 1959). Gjinari, Jorgji. Për historinë e dialekteve të gjuhës shqipe. SF 1968/4. Gjinari, Jorgji. Mbi vazhdimësinë e ilirishtes në gjuhën shqipe. SF 1969/3. Gjinari, Jorgji. Struktura dialektore e shqipes e parë në lidhje me historinë e popullit. SF 1976/3. Gjinari, Jorgji. Dëshmi të historisë së gjuhës shqipe për kohën dhe vendin e formimit të popullit shqiptar. SF 1982/3. Mayer, Antun. Die Sprache der alten Illyrier. B. II. Wien 1959. Tagliavini, Carlo. La stratificazione del lessico albanese. Elementi indoeuropei. Bologna 1965. Mihaescu, Haralambie. Les elements latins de la langue albanaise. RESEE 1966/1-2. Mihaescu, Haralambie La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe. Bucuresti-Paris: Editura Academiei-Les Belles Lettres (1978). Mann, Stuart E.: An Albanian Historical Grammar ; Hamburg  : Helmut Buske Verlag, 1977 Çabej, Eqrem. Disa probleme themelore të historisë së vjetër të gjuhës shqipe. BUSHT,SSHSH 1962/4 (In German SA 1964/1). Çabej, Eqrem. Rreth disa Çështjeve të historisë së gjuhës shqipe. BUSHT,SSHSH1963/3 (In Romanian SCL 1954/4). Çabej, Eqrem. Mbi disa rregulla të fonetikës historike të shqipes. SF 1970/2 (In German “Die Sprache”, Wien 1972). Çabej, Eqrem. L'ancien nom national des albanais. SA 1972/1. Çabej, Eqrem. Problemi i vendit të formimit të gjuhës shqipe. SF 1972/4. Çabej, Eqrem. Karakteristikat e huazimeve latine të gjuhës shqipe. SF 1974/2 (In German RL 1962/1). Çabej, Eqrem. Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes.; vëll. II, Tiranë 1976. Çabej, Eqrem. Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes; vëll. I. Tiranë 1982. Desnickaja, A.V. Albanskij jazyk i ego dialekty. Leningrad 1968. Desnickaja, A.V. Language Interferences and Historical Dialectology Linguistics, EJ088069 (1973) Desnickaja, A.V. Osnovy balkanskogo jazykoznanija, Cast 1. Leningrad: Nauka Press. 1990. Pisani, Vittore L'albanais et les autres langues indoeuropéennes, "Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales etslaves", t. X, Bruxelles, 1950 Pisani, Vittore. Les origines de la langue albanaise. SA 1964/1. Pisani, Vittore. Sulla genesi dell'albanese. Akten Innsbruck (1972). Ajeti, Idriz. La presence de l'albanais dans les parlers des populations slaves de la Peninsule Balkanique а la lumiere de la langue et de la toponymie. SA 1968/2. Ajeti, Idriz. Për historinë e marrëdhënieve të hershme gjuhësore shqiptare-sllave. SF 1972/4. Ölberg, Hermann. Einige Uberlegungen zur Autochtonie der Albaner auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Akten Innsbruck (1972). Ölberg, Hermann. Kontributi i gjuhësisë për çështjen e atdheut ballkanik të shqiptarëve. SF 1982/3. Domi, Mahir. Prapashtesa ilire dhe shqipe, përkime dhe paralelizma. SF 1974/4. Domi, Mahir. Considerations sur les traits communs ou paralleles de l'albanais avec les autres langues balkaniques et sur leur etude. SA 1975/1. Katicic, Radoslav. Ancient languages of the Balkans (Trends in linguistics). The Hague and Paris: Mouton. (1976). Riza, Selman. Studime albanistike. Pristina 1979. De Simone, Carlo. Gli illiri del Sud. Tentativo di una definizione. “Iliria” (Tiranë) 1986/1. Banfi, Emanuele. Linguistica balcanica. Bologna 1985. Banfi, Emanuele. Storia linguistica del sud-est europeo. Milano 1991. Huld, Martin E. Basic Albanian etymologies. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. (1984). Buchholz, Oda / Fiedler, Wilfried: Albanische Grammatik ; Leipzig  : VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, (1987) Pellegrini, Giovan Battista : I rapporti linguistici interadriatici e l’elemento latino dell’albanese në: Abruzzo. Rivista dell'Istituto di Studi Abruzzesi XIX, 1980 Pellegrini, Giovan Battista : Disa vëzhgime mbi elementin latin të shqipes (Some observations over the latin element of the Albanian language), in: SF 1982/3 Pellegrini, Giovan Battista : Avviamento alla linguistica albanese (Edizione rinnovata) (1997) Demiraj, Shaban. Gjuha shqipe dhe historia e saj. Shtëpia botuese e librit universitar (Tirane) 1988. Demiraj, Shaban. Fonologjia historike e gjuhës shqipe. (Akademia e Shkencave e Shqiperise. Instituti i Gjuhesise dhe i Letersise) TOENA (Tirane), 1996 Demiraj, Shaban. Prejardhja e shqiptarëve në dritën e dëshmive të gjuhës shqipe. Shkenca (Tirane) 1999 Demiraj, Shaban. Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe. (Akademia e Shkencave e Shqiperise. Instituti i Gjuhesise dhe i Letersise) 2002 Demiraj, Shaban. Gjuhësi Ballkanike. (Akademia e Shkencave e Shqiperise. Instituti i Gjuhesise dhe i Letersise) 2004 (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

And your point in bombarding this talk page with sources? Most of them can anyway be dismissed as being a)outdated (e.g. Leibniz 1705), or b)Albanian. And as we've already said countless times, Britannica is a tertiary source and not really appropriate. But the point here is not the merits of the Albanian-Illyrian connection, which is better discussed in Origin of the Albanians, but whether this is sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lead. Based on the thin coverage it receives from the experts and the lack of evidence, I would say it doesn't. Lastly, concerning "being learned enough on the topic", the first mention of the Albanians is indeed from the 11th century, but the Albanian language isn't attested until much later. Maybe you need to read up on it a bit. As for these people, are you talking about yourself here? --Athenean (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IIF, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You say the Serbs arrived at a certain date, but we all know that the people who call themselves Serbs today descend not only from the immigrants, but from the people who already lived there and switched to the Serbian tongue—just as the English are largely Welsh by ancestry, and the Azeris are largely Armenian. The Greeks and Albanians are likewise ethnically mixed. We all are. You want to dismiss linguistics, but linguistics is the only evidence available, apart from a few suggestive tidbits such as the Albanians being farmers and there being no record of disruptive immigration.

Yes, I must 100% be pushing some nationalistic POV. The proof is that I don't agree with you. I have no connection—ethnic, cultural, or in affection—with anyone in the Balkans, so I am likely being possessed by the spirit of a vengeful nationalist. Please tell me the nationality of my ghost, because I have no idea which POV I'm pushing.

Anyway, if you have nothing serious or intelligent to add, I suggest we simply follow what dab suggested from the beginning. kwami (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, since none here has put forward any historian who claim that the Albanians derive from Thracians. You can see sources in detail in here at this debate [51]

Apart the above historians

• Ducellier
• Jelavich
• Stavrianos and Stoyanovich
• Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski
• Thunman and Latham
• Evans
• Momsen

We have also

• The history of the Balkan Peninsula By Ferdinand Schevill Edition: reprint Published by Ayer Publishing, 1971 ISBN 0405027745, 9780405027741
• History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 By Alexander A. Vasiliev Edition: 2, illustrated Published by Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1958 ISBN 0299809269, 9780299809263
• East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 By Jean W. Sedlar Edition: illustrated Published by University of Washington Press, 1994 ISBN 0295972904, 9780295972909
• The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493
• A history of the Byzantine state and society By Warren T. Treadgold Edition: illustrated Published by Stanford University Press, 1997 ISBN 0804726302, 9780804726306

For a full Albanian etnogenesis please read Hammond

• Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond

Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471

So my question is simple to all the participants.

WHO THE HELL IS ACTUALLY ANY WELL-KNOWN HISTORIAN WHO MAINTAIN THE VIEW THAT ALBANIANS DERIVE FROM THRACIANS?

I would be very grateful if this scholar is brought here and to finally discuss sticking to the sources, otherwise it is X claim against Y claim. I don't think wiki readers are interested in our OR, we have to stick to the sources see what they say and bring them here. Up to now none historian has been put forward, which makes me think that maybe there is none. If this is the case than we can say that historians (traditionally, normally, classically, etc. whatever expression better describing this situation among historians) see Albanians as the descendants of Illyrians and this is all about the Illyrians article (only historians) while for the linguistic debate is another issue but for that we have Illyrians language article and Albanian language article which we can deal in detail with this matter. Hope I was clear Aigest (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about historians. This is primarily a linguistic issue, and a Thracian connection has been suggested (that is all I'm aware of), as I said above, by linguists. On practically no data, since we have almost nothing recorded of Thracian either. But if you don't want to include linguistic data, then we should exclude any historian who bases his account on linguistic data. kwami (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Thracian connection has been suggested by Weigand 1927 and Georgiev 1960, while may linguist contradict them since the time of their claim and even nowadays the support for this connection is almost nothing (see above)

As I said I don't want to enter in a linguistic debate but I feel I have to clarify the linguistic issue:

As for Mallory, Adams 1997 we have

The origin of Albanians The origins of the Albanians cannot be separated from the problem of assigning their linguistic ancestors to one of the three main groups of the Balkans:Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Although there are some lexical items that appear to be shared between Romanian (and by extension Dacian) and Albanian, by far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian. The latter was attested in what is historically regarded as Albanian territory since our records of Illyrian occupation. The loanwords from Greek and Latin date back to before the Christian era and suggest that the ancestors of Albanian must have occupied Albania by then to have absorbed such loans from their historical neighbours. As the Illyrians occupied Albanian territory at this time, they are the most likely recipients of such loans. Finally as Shaban Demiraj argues the ancient Illyrian placenames of teh region have achieved their current form through the natural application of the phonetic rules governing Albanian eg Durrachion>Alb Durrës(with Albanian initial accent) or Illyrian Aulona> Alb Vlonë`Vlorë (with Albanian rhotacism in Tosk) (page 11) Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985

There are other arguments such as dialect split (phonetic rules of the dialect such as rhotacism etc are not seen in Slavic loans), phonetic rules separating Albanian from Thracian(o-a change, different treatment of labiovelars in Thracian and Albanian) etc. For more details Origin of Albanians (illyrian arguments)

But I have to say that all the linguists agree that we have not enough Illyrian data, they are so scarse just to put Illyrian in IE language not allowing any direct link (some words are not enough to declare a link) with other languages. That is the reason that the link is created by deduction from arguments such as Greek loans, Latin loans, Illyrian place names, which are interpreted in a more historical and geographical matter (pre-christian Doric Greek loans=>Illyrians laying NW of Greece, pre-christian Latin loans=> Illyrians first occupied by Romans in the Balkans 229 BC, Illyrian placenames following Alb language rules=> Albanians always lived there, dialect split before Slavs entered that area=>Albanians in that area before Slavs) so these linguistic arguments at the end make sense historically and geographically, but not considered as classical linguistic arguments linking Albanian directly to Illyrian language, (phonetic rules, gramatical structures etc) since we have practically nothing left from Illyrian and possibly we will never discover any single Illyrian sentence just to see how they used the verb, names, adjectives etc. That's why Woodard 2008 says that:

The modern Albanian language it has been conjectured, is descended directly from ancient Illyrian. Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture barring the discovery of additional Illyrian evidence. (page 8) The Ancient Languages of Europe By Roger D. Woodard Edition: illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958

This is the actual situation for the language topic while for the historians you have all the links above. I still maintain the idea that we should use historians here and not linguists, since they are pertinent to the relevant linguistic articles (Illyrian language, Albanian language, Thracian language, XYZ language etc).

So concluding the situation is clear, practically all well-known historians maintain Illyrian-Albanian, while linguist although favor Illyrian-Albanian (see above) still are more cautious and request more Illyrian data (since they are so scarse not allowing a direct comparison with any living language) ( Data, which in my opinion propably will never be found). Regards Aigest (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't figure out why sometimes you wanted the discussion to focus on linguistics, and then sometimes objected to the same. What you're calling "historical" is also linguistic, and so wasn't a distinction that occurred to me: this isn't about historical records of the Albanian people originating from the Illyrians, but of indirect linguistic evidence that Albanian language was in the right place and time. That's just as much linguistics as are sound reconstructions. So, if we do not consider linguistics, or languages, we have essentially no case to make. I have no problem with including this very plausible scenario in the lede. My only objection is in confounding people and languages: The people who speak English today are scarcely descendants of the Angles and Saxons who colonized England, except linguistically and to some extent culturally, and although it's very possible that the Illyrian-Albanian transition was more tranquil than that, we can't really know, since nearly all of our evidence comes from the language. When we say that the Albanians are the "direct" descendants of the Illyrians because we think their language may descend from Illyrian, we are confounding genealogical descent with the languages people speak. For all we know, both the Albanians and Serbs could be 80% Illyrian by ancestry, the main difference being language retention and a subsequent cultural divide. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but how can we claim that one connection is "direct" and the other not, while refusing to admit that language is the deciding factor? kwami (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe from the long discussion in the page my position looks like changing from linguist to historians:) but I want to clarify this.

• My position is that:

1. We should use historians in this article in general (Illyrians and their fate belong to IE history) just like we use Appian, Plinny for every old population etc 2. We should use linguists in the language section (Illyrian language belongs to IE linguistics) of this article (and of course in Illyrian language article itself)

Since these are the sources which can be used for the article (I think fair enough) than we should put in the article what sources say.

I don't think that this article is about origin of Albanians (a detailed debate can take place there) but since as we see from the sources above that practically all historians link them with Illyrians I think that some kind of sentence would be appropriate here in the lead while in Legacy section can be a more like following this example:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. Perhaps (keeping in mind the frequent ethnic mixing as well as cultural and linguistic evolution) we should retain this view. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons (page 10) The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493

to this proposal:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons.

Which I think that is fair enough to be put in the lead.

What I don't actually like about the lead now is that we have that Slavs assimilated Illyrians when they came in the Balkans, which is not trues since:

1. Illyrian Dalmatians were Romanized before Slavs came and retained their "Roman" identity since the late Medieval era.

2. According to the scholars (above sources), this was not the case of Albanians.

That's why I propose the change of the lead (and I am waiting proposals for the Slavic migration mention on the lead) while later on the legacy section of the article we can use some kind of phrase from the above scholars for the Illyrian legacy, but I insist that we should use the exact words of the author or a phrase that has the same meaning, not just like it happened with the EB reference. Regards Aigest (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it the other way around, that Albanians may have their origins in the Illyrians, since we have no reason to think that the Illyrians as a whole are now Albanians. And I'd nix "proto-Albanians".

I still think you're inventing an artificial distinction. IE is a linguistic concept. It may have been borrowed by historians, but there is absolutely no historical evidence for an IE people. We wouldn't use genetic evidence, and then say that we'll only use historians as sources, since this isn't a genetics article. It's spurious to say we're leaving aside linguistics, when the nature of the evidence is linguistic. By doing so, you create the false impression that the conclusion is based on historical evidence. (Unless there is substantial evidence that is independent of the Albanian language which I'm unaware of?) kwami (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Even I don't think that whole Illyrians participated in Albanian ethnogenesis (that was Fine's words) but we can put it like this:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanians as descended from Illyrians. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons.

For historical arguments see Hammond for example

• Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond

Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471 (page 57)

'Albanoi' as a people appeared first in Ptolemy 3.12.20. In his description of the Roman world, the southernmost part of the province Illyricum included Scodra, Lissus and Mt Scardus (Sar Planina); and, adjoining it the northernmost part of 'Macedonia' included the Taulantii (in the region of Tirana) and the Albani, in whose territory Ptolemy recorded one city only, Albanopolis or Albanos polis. Thus the Albani were a tribe in what we now call Central Albania, and they were an Illyrian-speaking tribe, like the more famous Taulantii, in the second century A.D. Men of this tribe appeared next in 1040, alongside some Epirotes (their neighbours on land) and some Italiotes (their neighbours across the sea), in the army of a rebellious general, George Maniakis. Two chieftains of this tribe, Demetrios and Ghin, pursued an independent policy in the early years of the thirteenth century

"The gap between Ptolemy and Acropolites is bridged by the mention of "Ducagini d'Arbania" in a seventh-century document at Ragusa (Dubrovnik). These Ducagini instigated a revolt against Byzantine rule in Bosnia and in particular at Ragusa, but they had to submit after the second unsuccessful intervention at Ragusa, to which they were said to have come "de terra ferma," i.e overland (15). The name 'Ducagini' is evidently derived from the Latin 'dux' and the common Albanian name 'Ghin'; indeed an Albanian chieftain in 1281 was referred to as "dux Ginius Tanuschus"(16). Moreover, the leading family of northern Albania from the thirteenth century to the Turkish invasion in the fifteenth century was called 'Dukagjin' (Lek Dukagjini the codifier was one of them), and their properties lay between Lesh (Lissus) and the bend of the Drin. It is here then that we should put the ‘Arbania' of the seventh century. The conclusion that 'Albanians' lived there continuously from the second century to the thirteenth century becomes, I think, unavoidable (17)

This was NGL Hammond position (he includes other arguments just the Mati-Mirdita culture 600-800 AD etc), but he never uses linguistic arguments. Pretty much the same is the opinion of other historians.

Now who are we to discuss Hammond and all historians above? I thought we should bring here what historians say not our OR. As for the Illyrian language all linguists agree "SCARCITY OF DATA" which make impossible to make any direct link with any living language, that's why other arguments are used (Greek loans, Latin loans, Illyrian placenames etc) and also remember that even the Thracian theory is base on similar words between Albanian and Romanian, not Albanian and Thracian (no data). For the above reasons you have the position of IE scholars such as Woodard above.

The modern Albanian language it has been conjectured, is descended directly from ancient Illyrian. Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture barring the discovery of additional Illyrian evidence. (page 8) The Ancient Languages of Europe By Roger D. Woodard Edition: illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958

But still they favor Illyrian-Albanian (Woodard does not even mention Albanian-Thracian).

So in the end while we have a scarcity of Illyrian language data (which belong more to Illyrian language article), but linguists still favor Illyrian-Albanian, and in the same time pretty much all the well-known historians claim Illyrian-Albanian, which will be the position here? My proposal is that above (also it is true that traditionally linguists have seen Albanian as descended from Illyrian since XIX to XXI century, while Thracian theory was proposed by Weigand in 1927 (contradicted by many linguists then and after) and Dacian in 1960 by Georgiev (also contradicted by many linguists then and after) the mainstream was Illyrian-Albanian) as we see here:

Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian, page 1874 Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society By Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill Edition: 2 Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2006 ISBN 3110184184, 9783110184181

so in the end we are not inventing anything "Traditionally" (historians and linguists) have maintained Illyrian-Albanian theory. Aigest (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Now who are we to discuss Hammond and all historians above? I thought we should bring here what historians say not our OR."---By the same argument, who are we to question Wilkes and the LinguistList, that says [52]: "An ancient language of the Balkans. Based upon geographical proximity, this is traditionally seen as the ancestor of Modern Albanian. It is more likely, however, that Thracian is Modern Albanian's ancestor, since both Albanian and Thracian belong to the Satem group of Indo-European, while Illyrian belonged to the Centum group. 2nd half of 1st Millennium BC - 1st half of 1st Millennium AD." And it is not true that there "no data" for Thracic-Albanian. Alex (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm let me see Linguistlist point to http://linguistlist.org/ an University website?! why don't we point to http://illyrians.org/ for example:) and even if we accept it it is tertiary source where by way more reliable is EB or Encarta (which some don't accept here)

Secondly which are the exact words of Wilkes for the origin of the Albanians? He derives them from?

After we see his exact words then we are going to include him among historians (he is not linguist) and see what is his difference (if there is any) with the others historians, and see if his claim are a minority or majority view (if he differs) Aigest (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will if you editors can wait a few days quote Wilkes (who unlike Hammond, specialized more with Illyrian matters; Hammond specialized in Macedonia & Greek Epirus & Greece) in detail and give you page numbers. I've read his book and I have it beside me at the moment, and he doesn't rule out the Albanian-Illyrian theory, but he doesn't see much strong evidence for it, and he concludes the book cautiously by saying that Illyrians are among the cultural ancestors of the Albanians (see pg. 280, that's a very cautious statement that few will argue against). I'm not going to quote him this morning. LinguistList is not a source that I rely on, but it is another look at the state of the field. Alex (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you see my above sources there is not only Hammond (who knew Albanian also and has been in Albania looking himself on archaeological data, not just like Wilkes) but also others (Cabanes) or Medieval historians who are well known historians and they maintain the same view. The argument is vice-versa Wilkes (which BTW does not rules out Illyrian-Albanian) is not an expert in Medieval history and Albanians as we know them today appear in Medieval era (The Albanian ethnogenesis happened during Byzantine period and Wilkes is not an expert in the field).

Returning to sources here I never said that the Thracian or Dacian hypotheses never existed,(of course they existed I even mentioned dates and names Weigand 1927, Georgiev 1960) I just said that:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanians as descended from Illyrians. However, from time to time this view has been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons.

and what I claimed in that sentence is supported by historians and linguist sources which are listed above. Aigest (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You said earlier there is no data for Thracic-Albanian. And what you claim above in that other sentence is slanting the situation, leading the reader to think that those others (Wilkes etc.) are among the scholars with nationalist agendas. Unacceptable. Hammond's bibliography shows his field of expertise. Wilkes is/was an archaeologist, specializing in the archaeology of the Roman Provinces, he participated in excavations at Split, Croatia, etc he also published Dalmatia (History of the Roman Provinces), 1969 and has published other works on Illyric studies. Alex (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First, as for Thracian (Linguistically unstable, no data etc) see Fortson 2004 and Woodard 2008, (somewhere above should be the links) more specialised than both of us in the topic.

Second the opinion was from Fine's and yes that is the case not always but very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons this is the case (just look yourself at the debates in Wiki, go to Kosovo article for eg) and there is a difference between always and very frequently (according to Fine's view which has wrote the book after Wilkes and all others by the way and I don't see him attacking Wilkes for POV). And please stop misquoting Wilkes he says nothing about Albanian origin (please bring his exact words here).

Third and more important I thought that here in Wiki we should collect the info and put it here. My opinion is as much relevant as that of Alex, Kwami, Int or any other (I am serious and I mean no offense or lack of respect to anybody). For the articles in Wiki there are the rules on the sourcing and references primary sources, secondary, tertiary, published, notable scholars etc. I can not see here why it is so difficult for you guys to accept what I am claiming which is supported by (let's say 20?:) notable scholars or should we bring here all the publications ever existed with all the authors ever published. For the moment I brought these authors and proposed what should we put in the article following their work. If you want to discuss them fine, but you should bring arguments and even authors supporting your claim guys. Otherwise it looks like I am the only one caring for references and sources and the others have made up their mind, they know things, regardless of scholars and we should put here what they know, not what scholars say. Look that is even easy for me to claim my OR, even I know things, but I wanted to follow Wiki rules and I have spent so much time finding them and bringing them here. Please respect my work and do the same for the article. Regards Aigest (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for Wilkes please see also Evans, Momsen, Stipcevic linked above. Regards Aigest (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not misquoting Wilkes, read his last chapter in his book, The Illyrians. He was an archaeologist specializing in the Roman provinces, and he was well-read in the field too, his bibliography of his sources at the end of his book is long and detailed. As far as your statements versus my statements, I came editing today on this talk page to address some points in your posts that I needed to address, not so much to argue against what you basically want in the lead; rather statements that you are making in order to convince the crowd here, that's what I am addressing. The Thracic-Albanic theory has data that I will collect from the actual Thracic material (no OR): from the linguistic sources etc. Now there are problems with the Thracic-Albanian theory too (which however may be exaggerated by certain scholars), but Illyric-Albanian is not free of problems by any means. And since I perceive that your assessment of the field is not correct (your assesment is incorrect even if we just consider your statement:"there is no data for the Thracic-Albanian theory"), I will have to indeed assess the field. Alex (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy with that, in the mean time for all Wilkes "supporters" please give the exact citation from Wilkes "Albanians descend from ...." including page number. His book is almost freely at books.google.com so we can verify them directly. Aigest (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the last chapter of that book of his, you can see that Wilkes does not subscribe to or rule out the Illyric-Albanic theory. He does not make any claims in that book that he knows who Albanians descend from, nor does he make statements such as "Albanians descend from" in that book. His attitude in that book in fact is an attitude that goes very well with the Wikipedia-article-attitude. Your statement that there is "no data" for the Thracic-Albanian theory signals that your familiarity with the field is still not ripe. I'm not very advanced in the field myself, but I know that statement of yours is quite wrong, as we shall see. Alex (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not the right article for this discussion. The stuff about the Thracians really belongs in Origin of the Albanians, not here. --Athenean (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Same old line Athenean, same old line. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean Wilkes it's encyclopedia style and all the others let's say 20 authors are not?! I didn't know this was Wilkepedia:) Among all the authors you picked just the one which was the ambiguous one and that makes him encyclopedian?! The fact that all the others say one thing which even Wilkes himself does not rule out has any meaning for you? Aigest (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% decided whether the lead should or should not discuss (in a manner that would be phrased right) what you want discussed in the lead, and obviously my vote would not be a deciding vote either way. Alex (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly again I don't care about the lead per se but if the fact that may be Illyrians left (or not) descendants is relevant to the article, than accordingly smth must be mentioned (I didn't mean to explain in detail everything just a short sentence as even I have stated before that the lead must include all the topics of the article and right now it is not). The way it is now it is not correct for the reasons I have expressed above. Aigest (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No responses? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)).

Since there seems to be no response from the other editors against the Albanian-Illyrian subject, I'm assuming that they have finally given up and accepted the scholarly consensus on the issue and decided to change the lead. Hope you all like it, cheers, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

If your changes are retained, "somewhat disputed" should be changed to "disputed". Another issue here (which is a real issue that has been brought up already) is, even if we accept a scholarly majority (which however is pretty tentative and disputed by non-fringe contenders, the Moesian/Thracic theory is in no way fringe), is it aesthetic/proper to have that in the lead, as has been pointed out? Or is that rather a contentious/tentative view that even if it is supported by a majority (admittedly on little definite evidence), should not be in the lead? Alex (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IIF, no, we're just tired of the waste of time. You don't appear to perceive the difference between "somewhat disputed" and "complete speculation". kwami (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you provide sources for your edits?; What of the sources I provided?; Seems strange to me that your only contribution is to revert?; Do we really have to go to arbitration? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

There is no source that you can provide which demands us to mention the Illyric-Albanic view in the lead. It is not a consensus (it is disputed) and there is little definite evidence for it. Why are we obligated to have that in the lead? Will Woodard (who calls it, "little more than a conjecture") come and edit the Wiki article for us and tell us that we must have that in the lead? That is something we decide here, with our considerations at this website, about what we are presenting, where we present it (in the lead, or in the body), etc. Alex (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should we limit the lead to geographical references about the Illyrians, i.e. the sentence; "central Albania too...", Language, or what a Greek myth says about them? There is always room in Wikipedia for an article to be enriched and expanded, and as the sources point to, there has been a popular link made between the Albanians and the Illyrians for hundreds of years, which in its self is a worthy enough reason to mention it in the lead Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I said before that I don't care about the lead per se but what is becoming boring here is that you guys don't care about the references. Kwami and Alex, could you please bring your references to this article this means the historians who maintain that Albanian comes from Thracians. If this is not the case since is like quite some time (two months?) I am asking you to bring them and you still didn't. DO THEY EXIST? And if these don't exist, WHERE DO YOU BASE YOUR POSITION?

As I see the references in the talk page I don't see any historian rejecting Illyrian-Albanian so I MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT THIS IS NOT EVEN DISPUTED NOW and be quite all right with all the references above. I am asking again for sources about your claims otherwise please refrain from doing OR here. Aigest (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read my above posts? I was underlining the issue here, that even given the "scholarly majority" that does not automatically mean that it has to be mentioned in the lead (can you UNDERSTAND THAT POINT?), as was pointed out by other editors earlier, and this was also pointed out by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in his last reverts on this issue at Illyrians. I notice the editors who are of the opinion that it should be in the lead so far are all Albanians? Also why do you say that you don't care about the lead when you obviously do. I didn't say I didn't care about the lead, at first I was undecided; then I decided it is not something for the lead, but I wasn't that firmly against; and still I prefer a version of the article without that in the lead. It is not a matter of "OR", it is a matter of presentation. Your opinion that it should be in the lead---no, your opinion is that it is mandatory that it has to be in the lead---this is your conclusion, Original Research if we want to call it that. Alex (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex you can see by my last edits that I don't really care about the lead per se. You can see edit history before arriving at conclusions. My point is: If we need to mention the Slav migration and Illyrians assimilation in the lead (that was not my idea and my edit but that of dab) than we should also mention Dalmatians (Romanized Illyrians) and Albanians (possible descendants) so both these ex-Illyrian populations were not slavicized. In order of being as NPOV I removed all these populations from the lead (see my edit here [53] but apparently Athenean reverted it here [54] bringing again the topic on the lead and that brought up again the issue of Albanians and other edits by others (but not by me) So I think my position is clear and as NPOV as I could (I am not judging the others you can see by yourself their position here). Also I would remind you that I am the only one (up to now) who have brought references for my edits (see above), while others seem to neglect or forget them. So again I am trying to be as NPOV here as I could. Saying all that I am asking you to keep all these in mind before making any rush conclusion. Regards Aigest (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dalmatians were mentioned in the early Medieval historical sources as ethnic group only for period from 7th to 8th century as the settlers of Dalmatia out of the cities, period characteristical of rapid Slavization in Illyricum, after that Dalmatians were equated to the Slavic population, they were Slavized. In these sources the Romans (Romance-Dalmatian language speakers) were noted as the inhabitants of the cities in Dalmatia, they survived in the cities a few centuries longer, mixed with the Slavs. In all sources after the 9th century, Dalmatians were only the settlers of Byzantine province of Dalmatia or region of ex-province Roman Dalmatia, therefore geographical ethnonym, not ethnical, related to the Croatian ethnic body.

Right, you don't care about the lead at all. You just really really want it to say that Albanians are 100% descended from the Illyrians. Which is what you've been trying to do for the past two months now, even though every non-Albanian editor has disagreed with you. --Athenean (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Look who appear again in the debate:) Athenean I assume you have brought the sources I am asking from you for about let's say..."past two months". Don't tell me, you didn't find them(!) because I will be very disappointed that I have wasted my time in debate with you over your own research on the topic (I have my owns also but I don't bring them here). My position is clear as I have explained above and supported by let's say 20(?!) well known scholars, while up to now you have brought none Athenean. Giving the status of your endless unreferenced OR contribution here (as I have explained above) it is very dubious if your opinion is valuable for the improvement of the article. Aigest (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "Sources" are inappropriate and irrelevant, and I've already explained this to you several times now. But you just pretend not to hear and endlessly clutter this page by repeaeting the same inarticulate, ungrammatical rants about your "sources". There is a clear consensus among non-Albanian editors concerning the lead (dab, kwami, Alex, Future, myself). All you do is endlessly repeat that you have brought "sources", but no on is listening any more. --Athenean (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

the former lead was misleading. Added reference to Illyrian single language, and more specifications for Illyrians proper. The first sentence included all Illyrians in Illyrians proper which is not true. Aigest (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes sure hammond and others are not reliable because YOU Athenean think so. Yeah ...why don't you publish smth on the topic so we can use you as a reference?:), and please until you bring your sources here I am asking you from two months now...stop OR-ing here. Aigest (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Another question, WHY DON'T YOU BRING THOSE SOURCES ATHENEAN? Aigest (talk)

• Why don't you just bring your sources Athenean? It's a very simple and valid request. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)).

Changed the lead

I'm sure no one can deny that the Albanian-Illyrian theory is widely researched, therefore it is worthy of a mention in the lead, all be it at the bottom of the lead. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. First of all, who, besides you, says that it is "widely researched"? Second, it seems like weasel-wording to me. Who is researching it? What are the merits of this research? To me is just seems to like a backhanded attempt to sneak in the Albanian connection in the lead through the back door. Look, be reasonable. The language section already mentions that Albanian may be a remote descendant (even though the evidence is too thin), and the possibility of a connection is mentioned later on in the Middle Ages section. This "widely researched" thing makes no sense at all. --Athenean (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Off course it makes sense, or are you retarded?

There are countless sources (even the ones who do not agree with the Alb-Illyrian theory) to suggest that it is a widley researched area without going into too much detail about the "disputes" which are claimed by editors here. The sources agree with this 100%. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

It is nothing but the latest weasel-worded attempt by you to push the Albanian national POV into the lead, which you've been trying to do since May 10th. From this, and your above post, it is also quite clear that arguing with you is a complete waste of time. --Athenean (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it POV to suggest that it is a widely researched area when hundreds of sources confirm this? This is just your latest attempt to not provide any sources in order to keep this page free of an Albanian mention.

Read Wikipedia's rules; no personal attacks - accusing me of pushing "Albanian national POV" is ridiculous, all the sources I have brought are non-Albanian.

Good day, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Athenean reported by Balkanian.60s word .28talk.29 .28Result: .29

As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Athenean_reported_by_Balkanian.60s_word_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 no more edit warring over the Illyrians are Albanians paragraph. Leave it out of the article for now and either get a definitive compromise here, or open an RfC. There are grounds for a number of blocks to be issued, which I do not necessarily regard as a constructive alternative to simply having the interested parties take the established steps to settle the dispute, rather than reporting each other for behavior in an effort to get one's opponent blocked. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanian language sources

These two sources [55] are not appropriate, particularly the one from 1969. At the time, Albania was under a totalitarian dictatorship withouth any freedom of academic expression. Archeologists were under pressure to prove Illyrian-Albanian continuity and Illyrian autochthony. They are also in an obscure language that very few of our users know, and as such are impossible to verify. Per WP:RS and WP:V, they should be removed. --Athenean (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Those authors are archeologists, whose works are cited by others. So they fulfill WP:RS. You are just doing the same I said for you: you are assumptioning that Albanian authors should not be used, while serbian, croatian, bosnian, et.al. have no problem.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrelvant and proves nothing. If he has any articles about this matter in an international, English-language research journal, then we should cite those. Otherwise he needs to go. There is simply no way I can accept unverifiable Albanian language sources on this matter. --Athenean (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Before this spirals any further... Are there alternative sources available? The key element to this article is that any hypothesis, or even theory, on the ancestry of Albanians is relevant to this article. This article is about Illyrians, and while it seems obvious that the Albanians would have within their modern population the descendants of Illyrians, the break in historical documentation connecting people identified as Illyrians with any modern people means that this article does not require any material that seeks to explain who the Illyrians are today. To include any such material in this specific article, the sources would need to be definitive, and numbering greater than two. That doesn't mean that the material in question doesn't belong on Wikipedia, just that it does not necessarily belong in this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of Illyrian ancestry of the modern Albanians is amply discussed, in the Middle Ages section. Most Illyrologists, when they fo mention such a connection, treat it very carefully and mention it only in passing. From what I've seen the prevailing academic consensus by specialists is: "Such a connection is plausible, but we know too little at this point to say anything certain about it". I have yet to see an expert on the Illyrians devote significant part of his work on this subject. While it may be important in the Origin of the Albanians article, it merits only a brief mention here. But that's not the issue here. The issue is on the question of autochthony and reliable sourcing for such. I believe that Albanian language sources, particularly from the days of the dictatorship, when a policy of "Illyrianization" was in place, need to be treated with extreme caution. They are highly susceptible to protochronism and antiquity frenzy on this matter. But in any case, the two sources in question are in a language virtually no one understands, and are moreover inaccessible. It is thus impossible to verify what they say. For all we know they might say something completely different than waht is claimed, but we have no way of knowing that. --Athenean (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Albanian sources are also used and explained in detail by Wilkes here [56] in page 11. They are also published in French in different occasions. Aigest (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He just mentions Korkuti in passing and says nothing about his work. I don't see how the Albanian sources "are also used and explained in detail". Wilkes does nothing of the sort. --Athenean (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He is explaining their publication, names, dates and their position also. That the Albanian archaeologists support the view of the autocthony of Illyrians, just like Benac and Stipcevic

Illyrian ethnogenesis Wilkes

Archaeologists currently believe that a gradual formation of local cultures and the ethnic groups they are judged to represent took place during the latest phase of the stone age (eneolithic) and these were consolidated rather than curtailed by the arrival of newcomers from the east. It is also suggested, though not uncontested that these newcomers were Indo-European speakers. A symbiosis between these and the existing communities resulted in the formation of the principal tribal groups of what are now called Palaeo-Balkan peoples. On this, it is suggested there is warrant to base the hypothesis of an unbroken continuity in population from the early Bronze Age down to the first historical records of Balkan peoples. p. 33-34

Speaking of Maliq basin in Korça (Albania) and Albanian archaeologist

Albanian archaeologists stress the essentially local character of this culture, where the earlier traditions have been detected as persisting even in newer phases that have been associated with the new emigrant ruling class. p. 35

then in pages 36-37-38 it continues in detail for Maliq culture with photos also (it is too long to cite 3 pages here) based on the work of Albanian archaeologists such as Kurti, Bodinaku, Andrea, Prendi, Korkuti (Illyrian ethnogenesis) and their findings. So above is the link of their published and illustrated works in French (Wilkes page 11) and then Albanian archaeologists findings in pages 35-36-37-38. Did you read Wilkes Athenean? Aigest (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic studies over Illyrian population

This is the section for the genetic studies over Illyrian population. If you have any published material please bring it here so we can put it in the article. Thanks Aigest (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No use of it - no data. [anon.]

John Wilkes puts Illyrian descendants among contemporary ex-Yugoslavs, centered around Montenegro and Bosnia and branching out into Dalmatia and south-western Serbia. Wilkes hints that ex-Yugoslavs are slavicized Illyrians and he leans on C.S Coon who insists that Albanians are of mixed Slavic, Thracian, Turkish, Armenoid and Illyrian origin.

This work was published in 1991 and based on the newest excavations undertaken in ex-Illyria. Wilkes brings out plenty of the most recent archaeological and anthropological evidence which other's in his field did not have access to.

Ten years after he published this work, the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study proved him correct. Modern science has dealt a huge blow to Albanian attempts to usurpe the Illyrian legacy. He was a decade ahead of his time. Because of his work, many academics within Albania have also come out in favour of accepting the new findings; namely: Kaplan Resuli, Fatos Lubonja, Ardian Qosi and Ardian Vebiu. They are joined by many international critics of the now debunked Albanian-Illyrian theory: Paul, Hirt, Weigand, Tomashek, Georgiev, Pushcariu and many others. 78.0.140.84 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a fallacy, however, to assume that language is connected to genes. The Albanian-Illyrian argument, such as it is, has mostly centered on language. I don't doubt that most southern Slavs have a significant, perhaps even dominant, Illyrian ancestry, and that the Albanians do as well. But that tells us almost nothing about whether Albanian is an Illyrian language. (And I'd take out "remote" descendant from the text. If Albanian is a descendant of Illyrian, it's no more remote than Modern Greek is from Classical Greek, or French is from Latin.) As someone said above, the Serbs could be Slavicized Illyrians, while the Albanians are unassimilated Illyrians. That's speculation, but it would accord with the genetic data. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the connection, as long as we're clear that it's speculative. kwami (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this section was for Albanian language sources?! If you have any comment on this topic you're welcome in this section otherwise it becomes a mess. If you want to discuss about Illyrian genetics let's make a section. Aigest (talk) [moved comments to appropriate section]

Few lines above posted by me are just copy/paste of one of recensions of Wilkes book, because some people here misuse his conclusions. He places focus on Montenegro as cultural center of Illyrians, not Albania, Albania would appear to be marginal area of Illyrian ethnic space, zone of Thracian-Illyrian-Greek mixing.

Could we maintan this section for Albanian sources please? Aigest (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We can;t speak about Illyrian Genetics, because there are no Illyrians today, nor (as far as I am aware) are there any studies which have extracted ancient DNA from supposed Illyrian tumuli, or what have you. One may assume that modern South Slavs and Albanians are proxy-representatives, but this would need to go on their respective articles, not Illyrians. Hxseek (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalmatians

This is the section for Dalmatians, the Illyrians of Dalmatia that were Latinized. Please post here any material and reference you have on them. Aigest (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Romance Dalmatian language speakers when you say Dalmatians, they were a part of Croatian ethnogenesis, Romance language spoken in Dalmatian cities was saved only within Croatian language, Cakavian dialect. 1st Croatian state was "Dalmatian dutchy". Story about Illyrians had ended a several hundreds yrs earlier. No use of this section.

Of course but they were Romanized Illyrians (Ilyrians speaking dialect of Latin) when Slavs entered that area, am I right? Aigest (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Romanized Illyrians, Dalmatae and Liburnians in an area from Istria to Montenegro developed their own Vulgar Latin up to the 4th century, it became Romance language in the early Medieval known by name "Dalmatian language", their Slavization started in the 6th century in Gothic province of Dalmatia. It ended centuries later with Slavization of the last Dalmatian speakers in Dalmatian cities. They have become Croats by time, Cakavian Croatian has around 4.000 words from that Dalmatian language. I've only reacted on your claim that Dalmatians were not Slavized. Quite opposite, if there had been any Antique ethnic group in the Balkans that was later Slavized for surely and whose assimilation to Slavs is easy to trace, they were: Dalmatians = descendents of Paleo-Balkan tribes in Dalmatia region.

Maybe you didn't get my point. I said that if we are to mention the Slav migration to the Balkans and the Illyrian tribes assimilation, than we should also put Dalmatians which were Romanized before and Albanians which (supposedly) were not Slavicized. I wasn't discussing the fact that Dalmatians eventually were entirely slavicized many centuries later, duh that is prima facie evidence, I was pointing to the fact that they should be mentioned in the lead accordingly just like Slav migration and Albanians too. Don't you think Dalmatian as a population before their Slav assimilation is relevant for the article? In the end they were Illyrians who first were Romanized and later Slavicized and I find this interesting and valuable for the article. Aigest (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure.

Wilkes position

As per Wilkes position and his book Illyrians please debate here. Thanks Aigest (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Stipcevic position

As per Stipcevic position and his book Iliri please debate here. Thanks Aigest (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)