Talk:Atintanians - Knowledge

1588:. How can a single source decide that what other sources say does not have consensus? Filos claims that there is "overall consensus" that the tribe was in Epirus, but the other side of the dispute rejects that claim of Filos by supporting Option A. Option A rejects Filos' claim because it gives "Illyrian" as another currently accepted theory. Version A even starts by stating that the tribe was located in the borderland between Epirus and Illyria. Rightly so because the article gives several sources that place the tribe in Illyria, including reliable sources published after Filos (for instance, Jaupaj 2019). So Filos obviously does not decide what is the "overall consensus" in such a contested topic. On language itself, Filos who can not decide what is "overall consensus" is opposed by two scholars, who think that the tribe's language was similar with that/those of other Illyrian tribes. They are not outdated sources, as they are 21th century sources. Since those two "outdated" sources were published in 2002 and 2005, I asked the other side of the dispute to list those post-2005 works that established that new "overall consensus" mentioned by Filos. They did not give a response. 2045:. Two of the editors who support OPTION A asked for Macedonia to be included as part of the possible transboundary region of their location, but you can't both ask for Macedonia to be included and support OPTION A/Filios (2017) and his claim to an "overall consensus" which places them in Epirus. It shows how selectively Filios (2017) and his consensus claim are being used. If the same methodology was used and sources were called "older research" solely based on whether a book was published a few years ago in the 21st century, then Filios (2017) can also be called "older research" because Jaupaj (2019) was published 2 years later. (Side comment: The involved editors who support OPTION A all have had their say more than once, now let others speak and if you absolutely must comment, use the discussion section. As many others have said there is no WP:STABLE to return to in the case of "no consensus" because pre-expansion article is radically different from the current 4X expanded version. A "no consensus" lede will have to be worked out in the RfC discussion.)-- 1491:

ethnogenesis for Albanians, Hoxha insisted on Albanian linguists and archaeologists to connect the Albanian language with the extinct Illyrian language. The emerging archeological scene funded and enforced by the communist government stressed that the ancestors of the Albanians ruled over a unified and large territory possessing a unique culture. Toward that endeavour Albanian archaeologists also claimed that ancient Greek poleis, ideas, culture were wholly Illyrian and that a majority of names belonging to the Greek deities stemmed from Illyrian words. Albanian publications and television programs (1960s onward) have taught Albanians to understand themselves as descendants of "Indo-European" Illyrian tribes inhabiting the western Balkans from the second to third millennium while claiming them as the oldest indigenous people in that area and on par with the Greeks. Physical anthropologists also tried to demonstrate that Albanians were biologically different from other Indo-European populations, a hypothesis now refuted by genetic analysis.

1493:. I made it clear to the opposite editorial side that due to NPOV concerns, I oppose to the use of such communist-directed nationalist archeological fieldwork in POV disputes across Knowledge. And I have reminded everyone that we as editors ought to rely on independent and reliable sources instead of sources influenced by governments -let alone oppressive communist regimes-, or else our POV disputes may only become harder to resolve. The opposite side had argued to me that independent scholars already have used such communist-era sources in their fieldwork, only for me to remind them that there is no whatsoever problem with citing independent scholars referring back to these communist-era archeological fieldwork, since they scrutinized and evaluated them. Thankfully these sources have now been removed from the article. 2887:(..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens (..) Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire (..) Il est probable qu’ils formaient un Koinon regroupant plusieurs tribus différentes, aussi bien illyriennes qu’épirotes, et que ce Koinon a pu se réduire selon les époques et la défection d’une partie de ses membres. 2176:(..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens (..) Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire (..) Il est probable qu’ils formaient un Koinon regroupant plusieurs tribus différentes, aussi bien illyriennes qu’épirotes, et que ce Koinon a pu se réduire selon les époques et la défection d’une partie de ses membres. 2003:(..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens (..) Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire (..) Il est probable qu’ils formaient un Koinon regroupant plusieurs tribus différentes, aussi bien illyriennes qu’épirotes, et que ce Koinon a pu se réduire selon les époques et la défection d’une partie de ses membres. 993:

language of this small group about which there is almost no archaeological evidence. All other sources are in the article. The RfC should be closed as invalid. The RfC is part of dispute resolution but Khirurg started the RfC without waiting for other involved editors to respond so that the questions are framed by his narrative and in the case of a no consensus, the article also reverts back to his narrative which he claims to be the WP:STABLE of the article. But the WP:STABLE of the pre-expansion article (12k) objectively isn't a WP:STABLE because it has been disputed throughout the expansion towards the 50k size of the article today. Whatever anyone believes about the

1329:

accepting Cabanes' view, hence she considers them Illyrian-speakers then Hellenized. About their identity, among current scholars we have Sasel Kos, Shpuza and Ceka who states they were Illyrian (we have also Cabanes, who has not changed his views as reported by Hatzopoulos 2020), while Hatzopoulos who states they were Epirote. Btw, Hatzopoulos places them on the upper and middle valley of the Aoos, and you can see that the location is strictly related to the identity that scholars propose. The most recent and convincing case is not Hatzopoulos, but Cabanes, since they both have been recently analysed by another expert on the subject, who accepted Cabanes.

1414:

views against the modern consensus, and thus reducing the possibility that the article readers perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. RfC Option B does exactly that: doesn't summarize on the article's "Language" section accurately and makes language appear as being nowadays more controversial than it really is according to the newer academic sources. The only way for the readers of RfC Option B to realize this isn't the case, is by looking inside the citations for quotes (assuming that citations are ever placed on Lede), or by reading the "Language" section in the main body of article. Therefore, the RfC Option B is violating

382: 3492:, both options A and B include "either-or" regarding Identity. Both of them. Thing is, this "either-or" context has nothing to do with consensus on language. The Scholar may have his own views on identity or geography but reported there about a consensus on languages, something which the other linguistic scholars haven't yet challenged in the past 4 years. I strongly believe that if modern scholarly hasn't reached a consensus about the tribe's identity, this does not merit exclusion of scholarly consensus on language. You may argued against this, and for me this means you just opposed Knowledge's 358: 3112:

source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

2436:

Hatzopoulos (2020) is "mentioning Filos (2017) had no new evidence", 4) Anonymous Editor pointing to Hatzopoulos (2020) whose fieldwork is focused on the identity of Atintanians, just to make a wp:or point about Filos (2017) whose fieldwork is focused on language. 5) Anonymous Editor pointing to a 2005 source to challence a 2017 source about the academic consensus "nowadays". 6) Anonymous Editor arguing that a linguist who doesn't explicitly mention names in the "overall" consensus on linguistics matters, is a dubious linguist. 7) Anonymous Editor providing no sources that

2953:" but RfC Option A isn't a summary of Filos's source about Epirus. (That would otherwise violate Knowledge's rules and be contradicted by many other sources regarding geography or idenity). Option A Is a summary of the article Atintanians, not Filos. The article Atintanians has among others, 2 separate sections: one called "Language", and one called "Identity and location". Option A respects that and reflects on that by having 2 separate lede sentences as well: a sentence on identity, and another sentence on language, summarizing their respective article sections. 1808:: Filos' work was published in 2017 claiming a consensus on the variety of Greek spoken by a number of tribes in Epirus, among whom the scholar included the Atintanes. We have Cambi et al. (2002) and Šašel Kos (2005) who locate the Atintanians in Illyria, and consider them an Illyrian tribe and their language similar to other Illyrian tribes. But even more recently than Filos (2017), we have Jaupaj (2019) who classifies them as an Illyrian tribe. Hatzopoulos (2020), one of the major experts on this tribe reports three of the main theories on the specific subject ( 3844:. That's how long the discussion lasted. No RfC which involves many editors and a long dispute can be expected to have even minimal acceptance when it is filed in a way that excludes involved editors and is skewed towards one of the two answers. The RfC has to be withdrawn or declared invalid. The dispute has lasted for two weeks, the article saw full protection and in 89 minutes editors which support a particular narrative decided that they will file the RfC in a manner which is heavily partial to one narrative.-- 2920:

entirety because sources published within the same time period of the 21st century aren't "newer" or "older" sources. Filos (2017) is not older than Jaupaj (2019) or newer than Sasel Kos (2005) who treats Atintanes as Illyrian-speakers because there has been no new information for the last 45 years. In fact, there's no consensus about identity, language, location in bibliography and these three components are tied in to each other. So, OPTION A is inconsistent even in comparison to the one source it is based on. --

1522:

only what the academic consensus says regarding that subject, while different views (especially from older sources), are usually covered in the main body of the articles in a historical context. But given the high editorial disruption the article of the Atintanians has seen lately, I wouldn't mind if the lede covers even those older views from decades ago which supported different views, prior to the recent academic consensus having emerged, as long as this wasn't done at the expense of that academic consensus.

2834:

by the most in depth resent work, Hatzopoulos (2020) who specifically described the nowdays research situation on this tribe in an entire paragraph, no new data emerged in the last years. The single sentence without citations provided by Filos contrasts with what bibliography put forward. If there emerged a consensus among scholars, the reliable source Hatzopoulos would include it in his 2020 publication, and you would be able to provide us another scholar who mentions your acclaimed consenus. –

2545:" It seems very arbitrary to choose one source from this exhaustive list and proclaim that its claim is an undisputed fact and other publications are older research like OPTION A does. It's even more arbitrary if the fact that the last piece of new information about the Atintanes was published in 1976 is taken into consideration. It's apparent that there's no consensus so OPTION B is the lede which best represents the academic discussion with a neutral presentation of all theories. 3920:: one side of the dispute started it without consulting the other side, including only the source they prefer, and considering stable a version that can't be labeled as such because the article was rewritten with content that was expanded from 11,500 bytes to 50,000 bytes, and with bibliography that was expanded from 14 sources to 44 sources, which clearly contrast with the "sable version" claimed by one side of the dispute. The previous version obviously has to be changed. – 1331:" This is a problematic argument, IMO, as scientifically, the identities of people and their geographical locations have nothing to do with the languages they spoke. I reminded our fellow users that in Knowledge we ought to be careful as to not confuse and mix things up (i.e. apples and oranges) to make a point that doesn't exist and wouldn't be verified. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, just to make an argument of "therefore C", is 489: 468: 1163:. Thus "Illyrian" and "Greek-speaking" are not mutually exclusive categories. Version A is thus in line with the most up-to-date and in-depth scholarship on the subject. Option B gives undue weight to older, non-linguistic scholarship, and ignores the most up to date and specialized scholarship. Option A is also better structurally, separating identity/location and lnaguage into two clearer sentences, compared to a single, run-on sentence for Option B. 1221:, persistent edit warring to brute-force RfC Option B to the article lede, left us no other solution but to open a RfC and seek a solution to the impasse by presenting both options. It is unfortunate and unacceptable that we had to open a RfC about something obviously too simple such as Filos. I believe an article should reflect on what scholars report on the matter, not what we editors believe on the matter. I support RfC Option A for seven reasons: 3265:. It is that the number of 20+ different articles being the subjects of edits that appear to be promoting Illyrian and Albanian narrative is abit too big to be merely coincidental and unintented. In my case I am avoiding talking about this here for obvious reasons as I want only to focuse on the present article, but since you have mentioned it, I felt compelled to point out this. (The issue has already been brought to an Admin's attention at: 1388:

supposed to, per WP:LEAD. It has messed up everything by uniting the summaries from both the "Language" section and "Identity and location" sections of the article, and omits completely the academic consensus on language. This way, RfC Option B is making language appear as having no consensus and being as divisive subject among the scholars as identity and location are. And mixes these 2 separate article sections into one big lede sentence: "

2024:

Filios (2017) supports it - in passing - and despite the fact that it deserves mention, it can't be used to characterize as "older research" everything that was published before 2017. If something is "older research" isn't determined by the date of publication, but whether new information exists. If I write a book based on 19th century sources and I somehow convince an academic publishing house to release it in 2022 - it's actually

3448:

scholarly hasn't reached a consensus about the tribe's identity and the geographical boundaries, this does not merit exclusion of scholarly consensus having settled on other conclusions such as the language. It is beyond me why the obvious here isn't obvious. If the Option B supporters never objected to the modern academic consensus on language being mentioned on the main body of the article, then why they object mentioning it on

3552:(..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens 2809:. 2) Anonymous Editor Βατο supporting Anonymous Editor Ktrimi who is pointing to geography and identity to make a point on... language. 3) Anonymous Editor Βατο is genuinely baptising the decades-old sources 2002 and 2005 sources as "21th century sources" to make them weight and be as prominent as the most updated and comprehesive one from 2017 by Filos. 4) Anonymous Editors Βατο and Ktrimi991 providing no sources that 685: 1405:. RfC Option 2, by omitting the academic consensus on languages, and placing it next to the older views from decades years ago, that the language was Illyrian, feels like an editorial attempt to equalize old views with the new ones, by giving the old sources undue weight against the newer ones. I am fine with having the article lede covering the old sources (from 2002 and 2005) in a historical context per 4293:: they know very well that there is no "stable version" as they clam. Hence they are supporting Option A that counters with that "stable version" they were so keen to keep till yesterday. It is a good thing they are moving on and have already left their former baseless stance behind. I do not think that calling it "stable" at the RfC wording changes anything. It is merely a naive act that brings no harm. 597: 2076:

clearly only meant in the sense that the Macedonians ruled over the Atintanians, not that they were "Macedonian". And regarding the language question, a specialized linguistic source clearly supersedes non-linguist sources (Cambi et al., Sasel Kos). These are not linguistic sources. They cannot be given the same weight regarding the language question, especially considering they are over a decade older.

927:

has every other source - except for the Filios (2017) which supports your narrative - been removed? You can't ask for OPTION A or OPTION B with a "WP:STABLE" version which supports your narrative in the case of no consensus, after a full protection of the article and then saying that editors who disagree with you don't have to participate. You can't exclude other editors from participating in the RfC.--

576: 238: 2848:@SilentResident, I am not recycling arguments. The one wasting entire days writing comment after every comment here is you and Khirurg. Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus. Option A says that the tribe was located in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria (because the sources on the article give both southern Illyria and northern Epirus as possible locations). 1838:" Hatzopoulos does not mention a "consensus" among scholars established in the years prior to his 2020 publication. Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence, and in his work he did not cite any new discovery to make such decisive comment, which completely overrides all the academic research and invalidates all the claims of other scholars published in the last 20 years. – 1262:: The editorial side which favors Option B, is insisting on using outdated scholarship which supports a different view than Filos's recent fieldwork and is trying to give it as much weight as him even though Filos reports on academic consensus today which is different from what scholars used to believe 20 or 50 years ago. A source's age matters, especially in scientific and academic fields: 607: 290: 269: 207: 1159:

cites recent work in what is a rapidly developing field. The side arguing for option B will argue that there are sources that consider the Atintanians Illyrians (e.g. Jaupaj 2019), but none of them address the language question. Even if they are considered Illyrians, there are well-known examples for Greek-speaking Illyrian tribes, for example, the closely-related tribe of the

2417:@SilentResident, no new data emerged in the last 20 years, Hatzopoulos (2020) is the more in depth recent publication of all the information about the Atintanes, and he does not mention new discoveries about this tribe. We asked you to report here the sources Filos used to make such unreliable statement that contrasts with all the bibliography, but you did not answer. As per 2445:

brute-force your Option B to the article by edit-warring instead of consulting with us the rest for a wp:consensus. You know what? I am off. Its time that we listen to what the Knowledge community has to say on the matter. If you don't want to listen to us, then, let the others speak. As for me, you will see no further replies here. Unlike you I know when to

3569:

I think that the overintepretation stems from the fact that OPTION A really is based on the interpretation of just one source. Even if we restrict use of bibliography in papers and works published in the last 10 years, there is nothing near to a consensus about anything, which is another way of saying that almost nothing is known about the Atintanes.--

2746:"There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece." 1187:". It is not up to anonymous Knowledge users to disregard and belittle the words of such an up-to-date and respected scholar. I also agree with Alexikoua's proposition for the addition of Macedonia, in terms of the borderland the Atintanes occupied; as backed by the sources of Mallios (2011; p.134), Lane Fox (2011; p.95) and Dausse (2015; p. 27). 4587:

local language variety in the school environment" should be removed. It discusses an unrelated subject. It's the same as citing a book about public health policy at an article about structural engineering because it mentions some basic concepts about earthquakes in a chapter about the response of public health insitutions during an earthquake.--

4330: 2540:

central Epirus/Dodona) etc. Hammond (1989), Hatzopoulos (1993- ), Thiry (2001), Mallios (2011), Filos (2017) support a connection to an Epirote identity, a location primarily in Epirus and some include them as Greek-speakers etc. Habicht (1995) places Atintania in Illyria, Dausse (2015) places them in an "intermediate area" and argues that "

2342:

proofreading and moved to publishing. The argument of Filos (2017) is the only source on which the narrative of OPTION A relies, but a)it is the opinion of one author (WP:UNDUE) and b)it presupposes as an undisputed fact that the Atintanes were indeed located in Epirus - although there's no consensus about their location in bibliography.

1292:: The editorial side which favors RfC Option B, also insists on challenging Filos's report of academic consensus but for that, they haven't provided any evidence supporting their claims against him. I explained to them that they are just anonymous editors challenging an expert's analysis, and thus, is their 1382:"According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek." summarizes the "Language" section in the article which refers to past views and the academic consensus nowadays. 5034:

is referring to to our proposals here for working successfully past the RfC. I can't see what else the admin could mean. After all, even the current version of the lede on the article, is just my revision, not a middle ground between Option A and Option B, whose supporters agreed, from both sides, to

4757:

Keeping the current new version would be good. The language section can be in the current format that says that "Author A (year) says that ....". The readers (if anyone wants to read this obscure article) can jugde by themselves the scholars' opinions and decide what language the obscure tribe spoke.

4738:

Had I opened a discussion earlier, while the RfC was one month old, some editors could probably think it has been too early to open a discussion on how to overcome the impasse and update the lead to reflect on the article's content. I waited one more month and there is still no consensus about it. So

4730:

and a solid majority support. Not even Option B which remained on the article for the past 2 months. Now it has been removed from the article and I would like that in the future, any editors avoid brute-forcing their edits to the article when they see that there are clearly objections to their edits,

3496:

rules, and thus, setting a negative precedence elsewhere in the Balkans topic area. Future editors who may dispute/remove academic consensuses from Ledes can use Option B side's arguments in the present RfC here as a precedent. This responsibility is solely falling on you. Expect no more replies from

3447:

There is no consensus among the scholars on the identity of the tribe, or the exact geographical boundaries of Epirus and Illyria. Scholarly views on ancient tribal identities, locations and even ancient geographical boundaries are interchangeable depending the scholars cited on the matter. If modern

2782:

There is an obvious tendency to misuse statements in several available papers. To sum up 1. Jaupaj's conclusion does not mention an Illyrian tribe, but an Illyrian-Epirote koinon, 2. Jaupaj confirms that N. Ceka envisioned an Illyrian Atintania stretching down to Dodona, 3. Filos is an up do date and

2665:

The Atintanes or Atintanians (Ancient Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria. They inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek

2075:

and easily debunked. There has been a wealth of new scholarship since the 1970s, as can be seen just by looking at the article. Filos (not "Filios" as Maleschreiber repeatedly misspells the name) clearly states epigraphic evidence has come to light since the 1970s. Regarding the "Macedonia", this was

1835:

and formed separate states. 3) P. Cabanes espoused the view of his Albanian colleagues, but left the Drynos valley to the Chaones, reducing thus Atintania to a small area between the city of Byllis and Dassaetis. In a variant of this theory, Fanoula Papazoglou, would somewhat enlarge the territory of

1760:

There is no consensus among the scholars on the geographical boundaries of Epirus and Illyria. Scholarly views on ancient geographical boundaries are interchangeable depending the scholars. If modern scholarly hasn't reached a consensus about the geographical boundaries, this does not merit exclusion

1527:

To conclude, I am perfectly fine with any information to the lede, as long as it is something that is well-balanced, important, prominent and worthy of inclusion, while meeting Knowledge's criteria and rules. Unfortunately, the RfC Option B doesn't do that; it omits the academic consensus reported by

1208:

Filos 2017, p. 224"There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that

1018:

without consulting anyone. Now are you are crying "muh invalid RfC" because it was filed without your approval. That is not required for RfCs. You didn't ask for anyone's approval before unilaterally changing the lede to your preferred version. I have filed dozens of RfCs. There is no requirement for

926:

It's invalid because it asks a biased question and you can't force your version of the article by simply asking a question in a mode which favors your narrative. When editors have a dispute, they are supposed to agree on the questions of the RfC. Why has only one source been added in the reftalk? Why

859:

The question implies that there is a WP:STABLE to which the article should revert to if there is "no consensus". There is no WP:STABLE lede, because the article was expanded from 12k to 50k, so a new lede is necessary. It's the reason why there is a dispute. Either retract the RfC or remove the intro

4506:

Any further messing with other editors' comments by Khirurg or SilentResident will be reported. Selectively moving comments which reply to the repetition of the same arguments by you is unacceptable. If you're interested in de-cluttering the survey we can place a collapse template under every "first

4398:

You don't get to dictate terms around here. Gross factual inaccuracies and baselesss accusations in user's comments have to be addressed. And let me remind you (and the community) that yesterday you tried your utmost to derail this RfC by shouting "invalid RfC" over and over again. Whatever happened

3871:

the way your side wants (it's basically the version of the lede you rammed through without consulting anyone. So your claims about the RfC being "heavily partial" are total nonsense. Should I withdraw Option A and leave only Option B? Would it be less "heavily partial" then? Is that what you demand?

3568:

Filos (2017) is being overinterpreted as one sentence which mentions the Atintanes in passing has been used in OPTION A to put forward some very heavy claims which are contradicted by other sources and a nuanced reading of his entire argument in the chapter, not just the cropped one-sentence quote.

3309:

reference to the Atintanes he makes in that paper at least as far as Ctrl+F goes (I do, of course, possess the computer version). "Identity" is closely tied to language, but is not equivalent to it (modern day Arvanites -- speak Albanian, but have a Greek identity, as many here like to note). So no,

2270:

There is no doubt that you agree with your preferred party. But it is irrelevant because Alexikoua's statement misrepresents the source (Jaupaj 2019). The more in depth recent publication on the Atintanes is Hatzopoulos (2020) who dedicates an entire paragraph to them, and states that the problem of

2118:

was published in Pierre Cabanes (1976), L'Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (272-167 av. J.-C.) and there's also a fragment of an inscription which only mentions their name. What is "debunked" is the wildly false idea which nobody puts forward about "epigraphic evidence that has come

1158:

This source is a) a literature review, b) focuses on the subject of language, and c) is up-to-date. As can be seen by clicking on the link provided, this source delves into the language question into an incredible level of detail, being by far the most in-depth treatment of the language question. It

1078:

To exclude from the RfC question every source which doesn't support your narrative is skewing. The supposed discussion about the RfC question lasted for a couple of hours. Editors didn't have the time to even process the discussion. This RfC is invalid from start to finish and it's pointless to even

3951:

The previous version completely contrasts with what sources put forward, all editors here know it can't stay as a "stable version". In the RfC it should be clarified that the previous version preceded the update and expansion of the article's content. And sources should not be selectively included.

3099:

Option A Is a summary of the article Atintanians, not Filos. The article Atintanians has among others, 2 separate sections: one called "Language", and one called "Identity and location". Option A respects that and reflects on that by having 2 separate lede sentences as well: a sentence on identity,

2892:

Alexikoua must stop connecting Jaupaj to his own blatant misreading about the Atintanes as an "Illyrian-Epirote koinon". If an editor can't restrain themselves from putting forward false claims, admin oversight will be specifically asked to stop false claims. There's a difference between having the

2889:

with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..) To conclude, there is no doubt that the Atintanes covered a large territory (..) It is probable that they formed a Koinon which grouped together several different tribes, both Illyrian and Epirote, and that this Koinon was reduced over

2833:

The user who is endlessly recycling arguments below other editors comments in the RfC survey is SilentResident. Filos mentions the specific tibe in brackets in a single sentence, he does not provide a full analysis about the language the Atintanes spoke. A 2005 source is not older because as stated

2539:

From the sources mentioned in the article, published in the last ~30 years: Cabanes (1988- ), Cambi, Čače & Kirigin (2002), Šašel Kos( 2005), Kirigin (2006), Shehi (2015), Jaupaj (2019) consider them Illyrians, primarily locate Atintania within Illyria (some support an expansion southwards into

2485:

was published in Pierre Cabanes (1976), L'Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (272-167 av. J.-C.) If some editors want to insist on using one sentence from one source and claim that it explains everything about the Atintanes, they have the right to have that opinion. And everyone else

2156:

Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire qui arrive jusqu’à Dodone et qui confine à celui d’Apollonia, de Byllis et d’Orikos. Il est probable qu’ils formaient un Koinon regroupant plusieurs tribus différentes, aussi bien illyriennes qu’épirotes, et que ce

2028:

despite the year of publication. The opinion of Filios (2017) can't characterize authors whom he never mentions. Authors who write in the same period with the same access to an archaeological and historical record which hasn't changed since the 1970s aren't "older" or "newer" research based on when

2005:

1582:

The other side of the dispute that is now supporting Option A till today was strongly opposing the version of Option A. They claimed that there is academic consensus that the tribe was Epirote and spoke Greek. After the page got protected, they resorted to Option A as kind of the "least bad" option

1413:

which is supposed to be a concise overview of the "Languages" section of the article. Different views in the past, do not mean modern scholarship's consensus should not be covered on lede. The article's Lead section should avoid such cases of "undue weight" that can lead to a "false balance" of old

754:

Atintanes or Atintanians (Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) was an ancient tribe in Epirus. They inhabited a region inland of the Epirote coast which was called Atintania. They were one of the Epirote tribes that belonged to the northwestern Greek group. and spoke a northwestern Greek

4626:

It's titled "Attitudes of the philologists of the prefecture of Arta regarding the use of the local language variety in the school environment" - it's not about "local linguistics". We cite authors and their sources if they directly support a theory - Jaupaj (2019) doesn't support a single theory.

3519:

Over one sentence in a single source that mentioned the tribe only once and as a member of a list, we've collectively (with you being the most devoted in terms of time expenditure) produced a short novel's worth of text on this page. If you don't want to "be part of this" you can always, you know,

3143:

OPTION B doesn't put forward anything about "Illyrian domination". OPTION A on other hand tries to put forward a narrative about a "consensus" about a Greek-speaking population based only on one selectively and inconsistently used source. Now, don't project your personal politics onto bibliography

3081:

But, Khirurg, you have to admit that our fellow editor deserves a barnstar of humor.❤ His argument of a solo source doing wp:SYNTH to itself is the best thing I have heard in decades!❤ But, If you want my advice, do not bother with this question discussion anymore, really it is just not worth your

2623:

to Option A supporters. Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus. By supporting Option A, you agree that Filos' claim about that supposed consensus is false, because mainstream scholarship is roughly equally divided between Epirus and Illyria (more exactly, Option A places

2378:

The history of Illyricum is divided into several sharply differing phases , of which the first , lasting to the collapse of the Illyrian kingdom , may be explained in terms of ( varying ) alliances of tribes and peoples of common or similar ethnic background , speaking similar languages . No doubt

2122:

The "language question" of any community is never treated in isolation by any linguistic source which can "supersede" non-linguistic sources. Thus, Filos puts forward a wider claim about their location. His argument isn't confined to the linguistic situation. Linguistic research about antiquity is

1986:

1830:

whose territory extended originally between the territories of Orikos, Amantia and Byllis to the North, of Chaonia to the west and of Molossia to the south, corresponding thus to the middle valley of the Aoos, but comprising also the valley of the Drynos as far as Dodona. The cities of Amantia and

1737:

1521:

Needless to say, the common practice in Knowledge, especially on articles where where multiple scholarly views do exist about a subject, is to cover not only these different views, but also what the recent scholarly consensus is reportedly on that matter (if there is any). Usually, a lede mentions

1479:

A preference for communist-era Ideological manifestos as reliable sources: The opposite editorial side unfortunately had attempted to insert to the article of Atintanians some very old, communist-era, sources from 50 years ago to promote a certain pro-Illyrian POV. Even though these fieldwork were

4491:

Yes, there absolutely is a disagreement. Any messing with user comments will be swiftly reverted. You will NOT manipulate this RfC to your liking. As for cluttering it, the main guilty party is you. So if you don't want it to be cluttered, stop commenting and insisting on having the last word for

3111:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable

2996:

counter/challenge Filos on language. Sources which must include at least the following key words in them: "Atintanians" and "Language". To argue with you is pointless. You have provided me no sources to challenge Filos. All what you do here is to recycle arguments or find new arguments instead of

2341:

The opinion of Filos (2017) can't characterize authors whom he never mentions. Authors who write in the same period with the same access to an archaeological and historical record which hasn't changed since the 1970s aren't "older" or "newer" research based on when their publishing house finished

2242:

because the 2019 Jaupaj source doesn't tackle the issue of language, nor the recent academic consensus about it. Like I have repeatedly stated in the past: in Knowledge the best way to dismiss Filos's 2017 linguistic fieldwork is to provide sources about the language or the academic consensus. We

2023:

based on one sentence by Filios (2017) who claims that there is an "there is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation (..) minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety".

1387:

Simple as that. Each of these two aforementioned lede sentences in RfC Option A are separated from the other one using a fullstop for obvious reasons. RfC Option B on the other hand, which was rammed into the article without consulting with other editors, hasn't respected that structure which was

1312:

Filos does not decide what academic consensus is. I have seen many weird things on Knowledge throughout the years, but, frankly, this kind of pointless judgement of sources was unseen before. Btw since you mentioned consensus, Filos is a recent addition that seems to not have consensus. We better

1279:. A scholarly consensus is established as new information and new discussions emerge. In this context, Filos is reporting that the overall scholarly consensus nowadays is in favor of the view that the ancient tribe spoke the Greek language, and not the Illyrian one which the old sources supported. 4586:

Stocker (2009) discusses Neritan Ceka's theory - but Ceka's theory has been excluded from the article. The article can't discuss Stocker (2009) about Ceka without Ceka's inclusion. Side comment: Papamichail (2020), "Attitudes of the philologists of the prefecture of Arta regarding the use of the

2983:

which should reflect on both article sections, accurately. Option A achieves that by summarizing them separately and independently from each other. Do you realize how your whole arguments are flawed and are basically showing how Option B failed? Like I said: there is one way to challenge Filos's

2435:

1) Anonymous Editor falsely claiming "no new data emerged in the last 20 years". 2) Anonymous Editor claiming Filos, an expert in linguistics, "makes such unreliable statements". 3) Anonymous Editor mispresenting the argument that Hatzopoulos (2020) is "not mentioning new discoveries" as meaning

901:

says. Your bold action to insert RfC Option B without discussing it with us, triggered an edit war and the Admins stepped in and locked the article. Now the RfC opened to provide a solution based on the problem which you caused (and mind you, your favored Option B still remains on the now-locked

3548:

OPTION A selectively chooses the language part and skips the claim about the location. There is no consensus about either and the one source on which OPTION A is based is no more "modern research" than every other source published in the last 30 years because the last piece of archaeological or

3415:

and merely as members of a list is being used as the conclusion of modern consensus although a source from 2019 challenging this has been presented. NPOV dictates option B is the least shitty of the two shitty options. Ideally, this whole matter of identity would be effing purged from the lede.

3355:

It's relevance here will be, at best, speculative. One may -- and many do -- speak of contact effects on Arvanitika from "Greek populations" without implying the Arvanites are non-Greek, just as one can speak of effects of language contact upon the Greek speech of peoples near the border of the

2233:

I agree with Alexikoua here. And I shall remind Maleschreiber and Βατο here that Jaupaj (2019)'s fieldwork isn't stating anything about languages, is talking about identities/ethnicities. In the academic studies, languages and identities can be two separate things and they shouldn't be mixed by

1952:

Most sources which discuss this tribe have been added in the article. They highlight that there is no consensus about anything because there's very little information about the Atintanes. OPTION B both fairly represents the different theories which exist and is a concise overview of the article

5068:

How is that a middle ground, when the dispute here is *not* about the language's inclusion to the lede, but about the lede wording? Your comment inspires little confidence that you are here to help us clean the mess you started. It was a mistake of me to assume that you are remorseful for your

3808:

after this to do source assessment with uninvolved editors, which might end up favoring Option A, or something else. Regardless, the original text is ungrammatical, so needs to be replaced. If consensus is for option A, I can live with that, but would suggest some careful source review anyway,

1585:

There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that of numerous

1490:

Albanian archaeologists were directed by Hoxha (1960s onward) to follow a nationalist agenda that focused on Illyrians and Illyrian-Albanian continuity with studies published on those topics used as communist political propaganda that omitted mention of Pelasgians. Emphasising an autochthonous

1369:

RfC Option A is better than RfC Option B not only on content but on structure as well. As a summary of the article Atintanians, which among others, has 2 sections: one called "Language", and one called "Identity and location". Option A respects this and reflects on it by having 2 separate lede

1274:

The other sources, from 2002 and 2005 (which the opposite editorial side backing Option B bases their arguments on), are old, from over two decades years ago, and their information may be inaccurate unlike Filos, who is making use of all the available evidence we have today; I support Option A

4460:

Dear Maleschreiber, I appreciate your advises and I will consider them. However, considering that there were lots of changes of positions from your part lately, (as well as false statements about my opposition to RfC Option A), I had to update my statement to help newcomers avoid any possible

3392:

state that "they were Greek" or "they weren't Illyrian". Saying that it does is totally incorrect. On the subject of ethnicity/identity, they two options are the same. The only difference between the two options is with regards to language, and Option A faithfully quotes the most in-depth and

2919:

because sources published after 2017 explain that their location/identity remains unknown and a subject of dispute. It means that OPTION A can't put forward a narrative about "older sources" (based on year of publication) about their location. But the "older sources" narrative is false in its

2767:

The so-called "21st century sources" are actually over a decade older than Filos, are not literature reviews, and do not specialize on language. No other source goes into the level of depth that Filos does on the language issue. It is not hard to imagine what your side would be arguing if the

1354:

The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it,

1149:

as being in line with bibliography. The main difference between the two versions is regarding what language the Atintanians spoke. On this issue, there are two older sources (Cambi et al. 2002 and Sasel Kos 2005) that state somewhat vaguely that they spoke something similar to "other Illyrian

992:

The editor who filed this invalid RfC has used in the RfC question only the source which supports his narrative and has excluded all other sources that have been used in the article. The many different opinions in bibliography highlight that there is no consensus about the location, identity,

3430:

The source from 2018 does not challenge the one form 2017. The source form 2019 is silent on the subject of language. And as we all know, identity and language are separate. The fact that the source from 2019 refers to them as "Illyrian" does not mean they were not Greek-speaking, especially

1328:

Filos talks about the current consensus on the language variety of the tribes of Epirus. And he includes in brackets the Atintanes among them. But we don't know if they were a tribe of Epirus, as scholars suggest. Sasel Kos, for instance, locates them in southern Illyria (north of the Aoos),

3256:

thank you, but since you have mentioned about any Illyrian domination (not) being pushed intentionally or unintentionally as a narrative, I would like to note that their contribution logs have confirmed my worst fears. The "Illyrian" or "Albanian" narrative is a key narrative in the edits

2444:

counter/challenge Filos, despite my repeated calls for any factual and verifiable proof. I'm impressed. Do you realize how embarassing it is for you the fact that all these seven (7) arguments break several of Knowledge's rules. Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't try to ignore us and

4413:

The sources were removed from the RfC question - as I asked for. And many editors accepted that a "no consensus" result can't be a return to the pre-expansion WP:LEDE. You've placed three large comments about what you consider inaccurate and now you're repeating yourself. Let other speak.

4999:. This can be a fair compromise for overcoming the language disagreements once and for all. Who else besides us is supporting the compromise? I am expecting a clear "yes" or "no" here. No recycling of old arguments and stirring up more debates please. We had the RfC for that already. --- 4446:, your lengthy objections were that the RfC was filed without your approval (i.e. veto), that it was filed "within 89 minutes", and about the stable version. You repeatedly called the RfC invalid and called for it to be withdrawn on those grounds. That's quite a change since yesterday. 2970:

Simple as that. Each lede sentence in Option A is separated from the other one using a fullstop for obvious reasons. Do you realize now how your Option B which you rammed into the article without consulting with other editors, hasn't respected that structure which was supposed to, per

2817:

counter/challenge Filos on language, despite my repeated calls for any factual and verifiable proof (again). Im shacking my head here. I will not respond to this any further. Its just pointless. I am sure Βατο and Ktrimi991 will recycle the same tendentious arguments indefinitely. ---

1156:"There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking populations of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes, Atintanes...), spoke a North West Doric variety akin to numerous populations of Central and Western Greece." 4609:

which needs to be restored. Side comment Papamichail (2020) is a work on local linguistics in Epirus and should stay, in fact he discusses the local dialectal variations which is the same exact topic discussed here. What needs to be removed is S.Kos based on Maleschreiber's 'one word

2729:. The editors who visit the RfC should take note how there is a dishonest and unhelpful attempt by Ktrimi991 to twist facts about Option A so that voters go for his preferred Option B instead, which his editorial side has brute-forced to the article without wp:consensus. Good day.--- 1472:

instead of covering what Filos actually reported, because it does not suit their editorial POV. I am not against updating an article to cover all the different viewpoints, but when this is done in such a disruptive way by edit warring and ignoring other's NPOV concerns, then it isn't

4830:

The previous version in which the article was locked was in great need of corrections, especially in terms of wp:LEDE there is just (one) author that supports the Illyrian-speech view. S. Kos has been already rejected as a "one word argument" by Maleschreiber in a similar case about

906:

though it offers your favored option to it? Sorry but the people are going to decide between your Option B and a better-balanced Option A. In the event of no consensus, we return back to last stable version prior to your disruptive edits and then a new discussion may open again for

2127:

dependent on the archaeological record from which it draws data about particular communities. If there's no data, there's no "new research" in any field. Consensus is formed as part of an interdisciplinary approach, no field "supersedes" another. Now let others speak. The RfC

977:

And it's pretty rich of you to demand that your demands regarding the RfC be met when you changed the lede without consulting anyone. Btw, you do realize that at Parga, in the event of no consensus, the material you are trying to add will not be added. That's how it works.

1325:

The same editors, also attempted to use the tribe's identity and geographical location in their arguments against Filos' source on language, just to make a wp:or point about what the recent consensus is on the tribe's language. For example, user Βατο specifically stated:

3545:"there is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety 2912:"there is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety 3304:

population of Epirus". He does not explicitly say they "were Greek" or "did not speak Illyrian" or "were not Illyrian"; modern views whereby Greekness is mutually exclusive with other identities are thus being projected backward in time. That line appears to be the

3352:

In fact, the contact with non-Greek populations (Illyrians) in the northern part of Epirus may have further boosted sub-dialectal variation in this part of the region at least (e. g. lexicon), although we lack any concrete evidence, especially outside the field of

4603:(Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. Leur position parmi les Parauaioi et les Chaones soulève l’hypothèse de leur présence dans les vallées de la Zagoria et du Drinos traditionnellement rattachées aux Chaones 3610:

because it considers that the language of the tribe was Greek even in the case of a location in Illyria, which contrasts with the source that is supposed to support it: Filos (2017) reports the consensus about the language variety spoken by the peoples of Epirus

4476:

The RfC has become extremely inaccessible already. If there are no disagreements, I will place all comments under every first comment within a collapse template. It will improve accessibility and the comments will still be there for anyone who wants to reads

963:. The stable version was stable for years until you started edit-warring today. And it's usually standard procedure to revert to the original version in event of no consensus. And I am not "excluding" anyone. If you don't want to participate, that's on you. 2359:

Sorry but again I will ask for sources where the keywords "Atintanians" and "Language" are together. Or sources mentioning about "Academic consensus" or/and Filos's work. Can you provide them? If not, then spare us. We got better things to do. Good day.---

3128:

Excelent SilentResident! Crystal clear arguments against a persistent misuse of wp:synth definition. Definitely this kind of misuse is part of an unsucessful national agenda (nationalist archaeology that envisions Illyrian domination strecthing to Dodona

2379:

various southern Illyrian peoples such as the Atintanes , Bylliones , Taulantii , Parthini , Bryges , and others acquired a certain degree of Hellenization, both on account of the common borde with Epirus and the nearness of Greek colonies along the coast

1987:

1151: 1826:: the Illyrian Atintanoi in Atintania to the north-west of Lake Lychnitis amd the Epirotic Atintanes in the upper valley of the Drynos in Central Epirus. 2) Hasan and Neritan Ceka have proposed in a series of articles that the Atintanes were an Illyrian 1437:

problems that led us here to the impasse and the RfC. To understand the RfC, one must understand the background of the dispute leading to it. The long history shortened goes like that: the article of Atintanians has recently been the battleground of an

4918:

Thank you. It is a positive thing to hear this from you. Yes, I agree and I will let more editors comment here their thoughts about the above proposals in case the RfC leads nowhere. At least, this way we can have a useful head-start and avoid having

2104:

Jaupaj (2019) calls them an Illyrian tribe (tribu Illyrienne) who at one point formed a koinon with other Illyrian and Epirote tribes - as the full quotes highlight. There's a single inscription about the Atintanes, no "wealth of new scholarship".

2948:

Ktrimi, Maleschreiber, mow I understand why you are so confused and are mixing things up. I feel so sorry. Now this explains why your Option B which you favored and rammed to the article appears so mixed up as well. Maleschreiber, you stated:

1079:

continue at this point. If the procedure is not accepted by a majority of involved editors but there is exclusion and skewing of narratives, then its results are a priori illegitimate. There's no consensus building in exclusionary procedures.

4731:

and rather try discuss in the talk page and work on reaching a consensus first. Any repeats of past mistakes won't result in the opening of more RfCs, but into reports against the editors. Needless to say, the present article is subject to

2271:

this tribe remains unsolved. Filos (2017) only mentions them in brackets when he talks about the population of Epirus and their language variety. Replies can continue endlessly, but you have to respect other editors' comments and go on. –

1864:

All the above claims are easily clarified or debunked. The only sources that address the question of language are Cambi et al. 2002, Sasel Kos 2005, and Filos 2017. Filos is the only source that focuses on language, as it is a linguistic

1242:

Filos is an expert on the linguistics of the region. His work in language studies is acclaimed and is a highly respected scholar and his linguistic fieldwork is the fruit of thorough analysis of all available evidence and info on ancient

4080: 3872:

It's also extremely hypocritical of you to demand that your unspecified demands are accepted before the RfC can proceed when you unilaterally made changes to the lede without consulting anyone. "89 minutes" is a whole lot more than the

1652:

That is the classic trick of second guessing sources and setting an unreasonable burden of proof. Filos actually lists all the sources he use din his publication. Anyone who can be bothered to read the study will see the sources used.

1392:" even though this is not the case and therefore Option B violates Knowledge's WP:LEAD which should reflect on both article sections, accurately. Option A achieves that by summarizing them separately and independently from each other. 3633:

There is no original research on this issue while this is quite typical in border areas. There is nothing to suggest that Illyria & its surroundings was a region of linguistic purity IF we believe that there was a common Illyrian

2234:

editors to prove a point. To use Jaupaj's 2019 fieldwork about identities, against Filos's 2017 linguistic fieldwork about languages, just to prove that there is no Academic consensus on languages, constitutes a blatant case of both

3299:

if they should be considered Illyrians, or Epirote Greeks, or something else. The quote from Filos is, in fact, being overinterpreted. Filos explicitly includes (page 224) the Atintanes as a "minor tribe" that was included in "the

1469:" the report on academic consensus isn't covered even thought it is an important point in academic scholarship. The editorial side which initially opposed the RfC as "invalid", had the RfC Option B brute-forced into the article: 2542:

the border between Illyrians and Epirotes depends on the location of the Atintanes, however it seems very difficult to set clear limits in those regions, especially because little is known about some peoples to precisely locate

2159:

It's obvious that in his final statement he avoids the label 'Illyrian tribe' especially after saying that Hatzopoulos view should be taken under consideration. He states that they were a confederation of Epirote and Illyrian

3046:

are nonsense. SYNTH only applies when two or more sources are used. The other thing I would like to point out is the sheer amount of mind reading and second-guessing of reliable sources by the option B side. Examples include

775:. They inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe. According to older sources, the tribe spoke an 1398:

In addition to what I explained about the RfC Option B being problematic for omitting from the Lead section the recent academic consensus covered in the "Language" section of the article, is problematic for one more reason:

1182:

per the contemporary and reliable source of Filos, who is undeniably an expert on the historical linguistics of the region, and takes into account both the earlier and modern research on the subject; hence his reference to

1376:"They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe." summarizes the "Identity and Location" section in the article which is still debated by scholars today. 2748:

The information in that sentence cannot be separated because it is part of a very specific context. Filos' sentence contrasts with what the 21st century sources put forward, hence it should not be added as a fact as per

807:. They inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe that spoke a language similar to other southern Illyrian tribes or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the 4309:

I'm currently neutral as to which version is better in reference to the content, but both the "stable" version and option b have an "it" ("It inhabited...") that doesn't make sense grammatically and should be "they". —

4379:

Involved editors who supported OPTION A shouldn't reply to every comment they disagree with. You've had your say, now let other speak. It turns the discussion into TL;DR and discourages participation from new editors.

4903:

The RfC is about the language - no edits about the language should be included on the lede before a consensus emerges about it. If it ends as "no consensus", we will have to find a new way to discuss language on the

2722:) on the different views on identity/geography as covered on the main body of the article. Like other editors have told you before me: Geography and Identity are not closed, its the Language that nowadays is closed. 2486:

has the right to criticize it. But these editors have had their say and now should allow new editors to participate. They can do that by not repeating the same argument about Filos (2017) for n-th time. Thank you.--

4725:

RfCs usually stay open for a month. In rarer circumstances, 2 months. Recently a request for the RfC's closure was submitted, and if one thing is clear to everyone lately is that, none of the two options gained a

1503:, the opposite editorial side attempted, in the main body of the article, to "bury" Filos's report on languages by moving it from the "Language" section (where it belongs) to the "Identity and location" section: 3750:

This is about area of Epirus which is the border area and I think option B would be a better option in this case. Also some sources are exposed by editor Maleschreiber which are a quality base for this option.

4815:" the benefit isn't for me I am afraid. Is for the article. The warning is more than necessary now, and if it helps making people think twice before acting again like back then in December, then the better.--- 1452:

A heavy emphasis on promoting the pro-Illyrian POV on the tribe's identity and geography while at same time attempting to downplay the report on academic consensus over language through baseless arguments (see

153: 4556:]. I assume under the same "one word reference" argument a removal is warranted regardless a tribe or town is labelled as Greek or Illyrian among a list of several tribes (or settlements) by the same author. 2997:

providing me the sources I asked you. I am not moved by your personal views on Filos's work. Not in the slightest. I am moved by sources and facts. Like how you were suppposed to do too. You are deeper into

1612:. Nope, Option A never appeared until the RfC discussion started. The only one "Strenuously opposing it" is Ktrimi991. Unless Ktrimi can produce diffs of "other side strenuously opposing Option A". Doubt it. 1355:

opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

4571:

Well I'm still waiting for a decent explanation why S.Kos label 'Illyrian' warrants inclusion while 'Greek' should be removed at all costs. So far I see only tag-teaming fashion reverts without a slightest

1211:. RfC Option A indicates it, while RfC Option B omits it. The editorial side which initially opposed the RfC as "invalid", in fact is the same one which first brute-forced the RfC Option B into the article 2977:

They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe that spoke a language similar to other southern Illyrian tribes or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group and spoke Doric Greek.

1390:

2157:

Koinon a pu se réduire selon les époques et la défection d’une partie de ses membres. Quant au problème de leur frontière méridionale visible depuis Dyrrhachion, il ne peut pas être résolu définitivement.

3591:

arguments about Filos were true, then the source should be removed from the article - good luck with that. Jaupaj 2019 does not in any way contradict Filos. We've been over this, what, 10 times already?

4991:. The admin also is acknowledging our efforts to work past the RfC as well. To summarize: Ktrimi and I made a compromise by having the author who is the center of the dispute, be mentioned explicitly. " 3268:. However the admins can't really do much about this unless there is an obvious and gross violation of Knowledge's rules; For that reason, the AE is considered once both RfCs are over). Good day. --- 1249:

Filos's fieldwork makes use of all the available evidence about the tribe's language and thus is one of the most comprehensive linguistic works regarding the language of Atintanians we can have today.

1152:

Panayiotis Filos, In: Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects: From Central Greece to the Black Sea. Georgios K. Giannakis, Emilio Crespo, Panagiotis Filos, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Dec 18, 2017

4988:

Pinging you (sorry for that, its just once) to draw your attention here and discuss to resolve finally the issue of the language. Admin Rosguill closed the RfC with no consensus for either options:

3185:

without mention of the Illyrian hypothesis. If modern scholarly consensus has settled on one conclusion, secondary theories do not merit inclusion in the lead, whether it be this article or others.

3983:; and whilst the absence of a signature is not itself a problem, there is no timestamp at all - and those are mandatory. As a result of both those issues, this RfC is not being listed correctly at 3549:

linguistic information about the Atintanes was published in 1976. If what is "modern" and what is "outdated" was measured by year of publication then Filos (2017) is outdated because Jaupaj (2019)(

2181:

It is probable that they formed a Koinon which grouped together several different tribes, both Illyrian and Epirote, and that this Koinon was reduced over time and as some of its members defected.

4669:

is an example of the type of ideologically "correct" argument that was encouraged under communism and was designed to promote the notion of Illyrian supremacy over foreign (Greek) foundations.

5115: 5105: 4735:

discretionary sanctions and for this reason I am adding the relevant warnings on the talk page so that we editors do not forget about it. The last thing the article needs is a new edit war.

2965:

According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.

1883:

Jaupaj is completely silent on language. Classifying them as "Illyrian" does not mean anything with regards to language, since there are examples of Greek-speaking Illyrian tribes (e.g. the

340: 330: 2768:

situation were reversed and suppose we had a source of Filos' level that stated there was a consensus they spoke "Illyrian" and two older sources that said they spoke Greek. Yeah, exactly.

3937:]. I fail to see such an expansion in here. As Khirurg pointed as long as there is no concensus the previous verison will be restored, per wp:BRD. I suggest you present a decent proposal. 3295:

Epirote tribe"). Of course, frankly both of these options are rather bad, even if we ignore the grammar error... but B is the least crappy. Curiously, they both ignore the viewpoint that

2345:

The fact that the editors who support OPTION A are now cluttering the talkpage with a repetition of their arguments again and again must stop. You've had your say, now let others speak.--

5110: 2975:? Option B has messed up everything by having language appear as divisive among the scholars as identity and location by ramming 2 separate article sections into one big lede sentence: 4647:

ever encompassed as large a territory as Ceka proposes. It more probably was restricted in extent to the southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does not include Epirus.

1693:. That totals 2 attempts to add Option B to lede without consulting with the others at the Talk Page first about these edits. We are caught by surprise; RfC Option A doesn't exist yet. 1583:

on the table. It is easy to understand that their former position would stand no chance in a RfC. Now, while they have improved their stance, they can improve further. Filos says that

5100: 4758:

Also, do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit. Do not expect more comments by me here. I am busy and focused on other things.

2707:

as Option B regarding the varying views on identity/location. The only difference between the two options is that Option A also includes mention on Language consensus which your side

1306:

The opposite editorial side for example argued that the old sources (from decades ago, (2002 and 2005) can counterbalance Filos's 2017 report on consensus even though the old sources

4663:

Let me remind you that this "one word argument" was presented in Dimale about S.Kos. If you don't like Kos in Dimale the same counts here. About Stocker, you forgot to mention that:

1214:(where it remains, unfortunately, at the dismay of the rest of editors who felt that our POV/DUE/VERIF concerns weren't addressed adequately, and thus, giving birth to RfC Option A 3897:

and Illyria. About classification we should use Mallios wording, since "Illyrian" is a very abstract term we don't know the exact relations they had with the other Illyrian tribes.

3431:

considering they were in a border area. There is simply nothing to contradict the source from 2017. If Filos did not consider them Greek-speaking, he would NOT have included them.

2197:

I'm stating that in his concluding statement after listing various contradicting views the author avoids to term them Illyrians but he provides a more abstract definition instead.

2626:

If you agree with Option A that Filos' claim about consensus on identity/location is false, then why should we believe that his claim about consensus on language too is not false

1740:

If you agree with Option A that Filos' claim about consensus on identity/location is false, then why should we believe that his claim about consensus on language too is not false

3692:

No wonder that in the brand new Osprey publication (The Army of Pyrrhus of Epirus: 3rd Century BC), which specialises on military history Atintania is clearly located on Epirus

1822:

1) Hammond has contended in a series of articles stretching from 1966 to 1989 and in his monumental monograph on Epirus that there are two different countries and two different

306: 4641:

According to that argument, @Alexikoua, also Filos should be removed because he mentions the Atintanes in a single sentence, and in brackets. Stocker discusses Ceka's theory:

3223:

Taking a quick skim of the talk page and reading the debate going on I’m leaning B, going by the sources that seem clearly explained and arguments presented by fellow editors

1875:

We have Cambi et al. (2002) and Šašel Kos (2005) who locate the Atintanians in Illyria, and consider them an Illyrian tribe and their language similar to other Illyrian tribes

5050:

It has functioned as a middle ground and I think that any discussion to further change it - at this moment - will lead to the same disputes which won't be solved. A workable

1315:" To use old bibliography to counter newer bibliography (even though the old bibliography makes no explicit mention on consensus, while newer one actually does), constitutes 1206:

The only difference between RfC Options A and B is Filos's report on recent academic consensus regarding the tribe's language, which I copy-pasted here for more convenience:

4845:

Another point: The article is big enough now so inclusion of the various conflicts in which Atintanians participated will be a good initiative.18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

1433:

My opposition to the RfC Option B isn't limited only to the problems of wp:original research, wp:verifiability, and wp:due problems I have pointed to earlier, but also to

1076:. The current version is 2000 words long. It's POV to ask for a return to a lede as the WP:STABLE even while the article largely changed and that WP:LEDE became disputed. 876:

That's ok, you don't have to participate if you think it's an invalid RfC. And it was stable for years, until today when you and the others started edit-warring over it.

198: 3231:. I think some are reading between the lines when nothing is there. I don’t see Illyrian domination being pushed intentionally or unintentionally as a narrative. Cheers. 1644:

Filos who can not decide what is "overall consensus" is opposed by two scholars, who think that the tribe's language was similar with that/those of other Illyrian tribes

1484:

into promoting a certain pro-Illyrian POV. More info about our NPOV concerns can be found here at . Also to understand the background better, one can check the article:

696: 147: 3676:

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

4808:". I guess that makes it 2 of us? I will wait and let for the others to comment whether they agree with this or have better ideas, before I feel certain to proceed. 4153:

your help is much appreciated. I am very sorry for the trouble and inconvenience this may have caused. I am sure it wasn't intended. Mistakes with RfCs happen. ---

1959:

there's nothing new in the archaeological and historical record since the 1970s and even then all we had was one small inscription and a fragment of an inscription.

302: 297: 274: 4877:

There is no doubt that the language will have to be mentioned nevertheless. The question here is how to bridge the differences between the two sides, not whether

3005:. Im sorry. My time discussing with you about Filos is now like beating a dead horse's carcass even harder for no reason. Don't you have better things to do? --- 742: 1510:

where a report they do not like, is sandwiched elsewhere, into identity and geography, just to make it appear less distinguishable and prominent to the readers.

4739:

I would like to be brave and open a discussion here and see if can we get a common foothold on how to solve the disagreements and finally update the lede? ---

3587:

a consensus regarding language, and it is backed by perhaps the best source in the field. Option A gives due weight to this source. Option B does not. If your

2601:

If I were you, I could have checked more carefully what the RfC and its options really are about before participating and casting my vote to it. Good day. ---

301:, a group of contributors interested in Knowledge's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our 2255:. So far, Maleschreiber failed provide any sources on this and the debate here is nothing more than just anonymous editorial wp:or against Filos's wp:rs. --- 5160: 5035:

the inclusion of language in the lede. Now, if you are not interested in resolving the dispute, then you are welcome to leave this discussion. Good day.---

2043:

b)it presupposes as an undisputed fact that the Atintanes were indeed located in Epirus - although there's no consensus about their location in bibliography

5069:

actions. Perhaps it is time for you to leave the discussion to those willing to actually help resolve the dispute? At least that will be appreciated. ---

5016:

I'm under the same impression as Rosguill who noted that "editors seem to have successfully worked past it". The current lede version works well enough.--

4492:

every.single.thread. First you did everything you could to derail this RfC (including admin shopping). Now you want to manipulate user comments? No way.

3042:

Silent Resident makes an excellent point about the structure of the lede. Option A is better not only on content but on structure as well. The claims of

79: 4200:

tag (exclusive) to the timestamp (inclusive); references contribute to the total because it's the wikicode, not the rendered output, that is counted. --

3148:

talking points. It becomes very inaccessible for new editors if they have to be subjected to WP:FORUM in order to read arguments based on bibliography.

4671:

Conclusion: it does not reject only Ceka, but all those views presented in Albania (Jaupaj among them since he cites Ceka exclusively as shown above).

1671:". However, the Revision History Log tells us a very different story: RfC Option A is created by us and is our response to Ktrimi991's editorial side: 5140: 5125: 4540:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

3067:. It is impossible to have any kind of agreement with people that refuse to accept highly reputable sources and resort to these kinds of arguments. 1802:: is an unreliable statement because we have some of the 20th century sources (e.g. Hammond's works), which mention them as a Greek-speaking people. 558: 548: 524: 450: 440: 3556:

was published two years later. Obviously, what is contemporary and older research isn't measured by such arbitrary criteria. OPTION A is a massive

1481: 663: 2178:

with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..) To conclude, there is no doubt that the Atintanes covered a large territory (..)

5155: 5130: 653: 2797:

1) Anonymous Editor Βατο pointing to the modern source from 2017 by Filos and the decades-old sources from 2002 and 2005 as being a matter of

2725:

The claims in your question contradict what Option A and Filos's source about the language consensus really state, and that's an unacceptable

2067:

Unfortunately (and I do not enjoy doing this) there are claims so inaccurate made above, that I feel need to respond. In particular the claim

1446:

Illyrian flag-planting by the editorial side which rammed the RfC Option B to the article without editorial consensus. Such attempts include:

5165: 5145: 5135: 1815: 85: 2090:@Maleschreiber: The final conclusion by Jaupaj 2019 does not label them as Illyrians but as a confederation of Epirote-Illyrian communities. 4029: 2472:

It's OK, if SR doesn't want to accept that the one inscription about this tribe was found in the 1970s and that there's no "new research".

3666:"Faithfully quoting" it means to include the whole information with its specific context, which is the location in Epirus as per source: " 2563:

Ahmet Q., the present RfC isn't about Identity and Geography, which are the same in both options (only re-arranged around alphabetically):

1628:. That is not what Filos states. Filos states that there is a consensus that the tribes of Epirus spoke NW Greek, including the Atintanes. 4627:

There's not going to emerge any consensus about edits which aren't discussed in bibliography. Thank you. I've got other work to do now.--

2915:

OPTION A selectively chooses to keep as part of the "overall consensus" the language issue, but not their location. It goes through this

2856:

are not the same thing. By stating that, Option A rejects Filos' claim. You can now recycle arguments as long as you have time to waste.

5150: 44: 4863:

The current version seems good. The historical contexts concerning the Atintanes are concisely reported by Hatzopoulos (2020) p. 45. –

4117:. I've fixed it up: we'll need to wait until 17:01 (UTC) to see if Legobot is happy; if not, the problem will be one of non-brevity. -- 1300:. I have repeatedly asked them three (3) times to provide me any strong reliable sources explicitly countering Filos, but they failed. 1101:. You rammed through changes to the lede without consulting anyone and now you're basically demanding that all of your demands are met 3324:

the "Epirote Greek identity" POV is indeed the overall consensus -- meaning it would merit mention at least as a significant minority

799:

The Atintanes or Atintanians (Ancient Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between

767:

The Atintanes or Atintanians (Ancient Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between

516: 402: 1909:

which completely overrides all the academic research and invalidates all the claims of other scholars published in the last 20 years.

1268:

Filos's source is from 2017, making it one of the most recent and updated fieldwork we have available regarding the tribe's language.

1058:

The proposed newer versions are just as concise and not that different from the original. So the whole "50k" falls flat on its face.

5120: 4254:

Thank you very much for your help, it is greatly appreciated. Would you mind striking your "invalid rfc" vote above? Thanks again.

3820: 2478:

The Atintanes have bedevilled Macedonian and Epirote scholars for decades. They are mentioned by <lists authors of antiquity: -->

2111:

The Atintanes have bedevilled Macedonian and Epirote scholars for decades. They are mentioned by <lists authors of antiquity: -->

1650:

I asked the other side of the dispute to list those post-2005 works that established that new "overall consensus" mentioned by Filos

857:

The sources have been removed from the questions and many editors have mentioned that there is no WP:STABLE despite the RfC question

629: 426: 3520:

not. Saying this as a friend. This RfC has produced more text than the page itself, probably. On a side note, does anyone actually

890:

Maleschreiber, you are the one who, without consulting with other editors, rammed into the article the RfC's problematic Option B:

2934:

Exactly. Option A relies on one statement by Filos, although in the same time Option A refutes that very statement made by Filos.

1236:: Knowledge should reflect on what sources do say on the matter. The information comes from a reliable source: Panagiotis Filos. 3952:

There was an ongoing discussion on the draft, why did you start the request without consulting the other side of the dispute? –

1783:. It correctly presents in a neutral way what scholars put forward, and what is actually included into the body of the article. 1528:

Filos in an attempt to give more undue weight to other views predating that consensus. Hence, I am supporting RfC Option A. ---

4362:

should be taken into account if one of those two versions is the one chosen by the community at the end of the RfC discussion.

3190: 99: 30: 4601:

Stocker discusses several theories about the so-called Koinon. Jaupaj cites in this specific part cites CEKA 2011 exclusively

2285:

Hatzopoulos (2020) talks about identity, not language. Like I have said: to challenge Filos's linguistic fieldwork, you need

1977: 1957:). A new consensus in bibliography is established as new information emerges and new discussions begin. About the Atintanes, 1806:

while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.

1044:

in this very talkpage with plenty of comments from multiple editors about the RfC. If you didn't participate, that's on you.

104: 20: 3668:

There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, ... , spoke a North-West Doric variety.

3613:

There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, ... , spoke a North-West Doric variety.

3393:

up-to-date source on the subject, which no source less than 15 years older contradicts. I thought that was plainly obvious.

2152:

Pardon me but Jaupaj's conclusion -after listing all views- does not mention them as Illyrian. Here the quote you provided:

1409:, but I disagree that Filos' 2017 report on recent academic consensus on language shouldn't also be summarized on lede per 523:

so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our

512: 501: 473: 389: 363: 168: 74: 1348:: Besides the opposite editorial side failing to support it arguments by providing reliable sources to us (see above, at 2668:

today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.'

2577:

They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group

2381:

Just accept the fact that other editors don't agree with establishing consensus based on the claim of a single source.--

715: 692: 620: 581: 249: 135: 2211:@Alexikoua you are misrepresenting the source: Jaupaj states exactly that the tribe of the Atintanes was Illyrian. The 1610:

The other side of the dispute that is now supporting Option A till today was strongly opposing the version of Option A.

1669:

The other side of the dispute that is now supporting Option A till today was strongly opposing the version of Option A

381: 357: 65: 2783:

detailed paper about linguistic in Epirus. Its the best we have on this subject today. I suggest to follow wp:HISTRS.

1899:

Second guessing a high quality source. Even if this was true, this also applies to those claiming they are Illyrians.

1638:

sources that place the tribe in Illyria, including reliable sources published after Filos (for instance, Jaupaj 2019)

3804:

because it remains accurate and there is too much dispute about the veracity of the claims in Option A. I suggest a

2744:

Ktrimi's question is appropriate, because the Option A is based exclusively on a single sentence provided by Filos:

3469:

They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe.

3409:

They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe.

3186: 2958:

They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe.

2951:

OPTION A selectively chooses to keep as part of the "overall consensus" the language issue, but not their location.

2571:

They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe.

1288: 944:

and now you are calling it a biased RfC? As for the sources, they can be added. I just added Filos myself too. ---

711: 206: 194: 190: 185: 4868: 4654: 4043: 3957: 3925: 3683: 3624: 3119: 3033: 2839: 2758: 2426: 2329: 2276: 2224: 1930: 1843: 1313:

keep all theories there and let future academic works shed more light on the matter. That is a honest thing to do.

1891:

Hatzopoulos does not mention a "consensus" among scholars established in the years prior to his 2020 publication.

1232: 1097:

This is the most egregious case of attempting to sabotage dispute resolution I have ever seen, including all the

4804:", this is a step in the right direction and I like it, as it is more or less the same as my proposal which is " 4461:

misconceptions, don't you think? You wouldn't want my votes to make me appear silly, do you? :-) Take care. ---

3381:

here is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.

2967:

summarizes the "Language" section in the article which refers to past views and the academic consensus nowadays.

217: 4023: 3261:

and his side have made across 20 different articles of Knowledge - and there is an ongoing RfC in one of them,

3202:

per the contemporary and reliable source used and arguments presented by fellow editor SilentResident. cheers,

2183:]. Now, let other editors speak and don't make the RfC even more inaccessible by repeating the same argument.-- 1370:

sentences: a sentence on identity, and another one on language, summarizing their respective article sections.

4689:

on this. It's also interesting that Jaupaj's conclusion differs from CEKA2011 since he considers Atintanes as

2395:

Don't play the dumb with me by citing a decades years-old source from 2005 to counter Filos's 2017 statement "

237: 511:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

129: 5059: 5021: 4909: 4784: 4632: 4592: 4512: 4482: 4430: 4385: 3849: 3574: 3153: 2925: 2491: 2386: 2350: 2298: 2252: 2188: 2137: 2050: 1192: 1086: 1006: 932: 865: 109: 4779:

and I assume that at least one of them is an involved editor. So much workload, for so very, very little.--

2688:, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), 1925:

Filos included in the same sentence the location of the tribe in Epirus, the information is inseparable. –

3863:

that says that a consensus should be reached before filing. RfCs are precisely for situations where there

2446: 2302: 703: 520: 1702:

and is our delayed response to the RfC Option B being brute-forced into to the article 2.5 hours earlier.

1634:

Option A is perfectly in line with what is stated in Filos, provided one reads and quote Filos correctly.

714:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

3817: 3320:. That Jaupaj 2019 has been brought forward would seem to at least present a significant minority view, 2708: 1443: 255: 125: 4813:

Also, do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit.

3560:

of one source, which is selectively and inconsistently used for the purpose of a particular narrative.

2960:

summarizes the "Identity and Location" section in the article which is still debated by scholars today.

4979: 4864: 4650: 4286: 4136: 4086: 4039: 3953: 3921: 3679: 3620: 3258: 3224: 3115: 3029: 2835: 2754: 2467: 2422: 2325: 2272: 2220: 1926: 1839: 997:, the lede of a 12k semi-stub article can't reflect the WP:STABLE of a 50k article because it isn't a 695:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been

4554:

Although I can't understand why S.Kos is selectively removed when saying that a settlement was Greek

3738: 3059:. Not to mention a lot of distortion of the sources, for example with misreadings of sources such as 2802: 1485: 1258: 2893:

right to voice an opinion and having the right to repeatedly put forward factually wrong statements.

2324:

Read again my previous comment on the more in depth recent source on the Atintanes. Best regards. –

2247:

sources where the issues of the language and/or the academic consensus are mentioned explicitly and

5071: 5037: 5001: 4925: 4898: 4883: 4850: 4836: 4817: 4763: 4741: 4727: 4698: 4676: 4617: 4577: 4561: 4463: 4417: 4367: 4298: 4245: 4208: 4155: 4125: 4054: 4019: 3995: 3942: 3902: 3699: 3639: 3529: 3514: 3499: 3476: 3454: 3421: 3369: 3337: 3270: 3134: 3084: 3007: 3001:

territory and I can't help you. I already dropped the stick and backed away from this never-ending

2939: 2861: 2820: 2798: 2788: 2750: 2731: 2666:

group or an Illyrian tribe. According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while

2633: 2603: 2451: 2418: 2404: 2362: 2311: 2257: 2239: 2202: 2165: 2095: 1763: 1747: 1715: 1593: 1570: 1553: 1530: 1401: 1364: 1332: 1218: 946: 913: 894: 707: 175: 161: 55: 3102:

Filos' statement can't be separated to make an original research claim as incuded in the Option A.

2132:

doesn't need the repetition of the opinions of the filing editor under every comment. Thank you.--

628:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

401:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

5055: 5017: 4983: 4971: 4905: 4795: 4780: 4628: 4588: 4508: 4478: 4426: 4381: 4315: 4290: 3984: 3980: 3845: 3773: 3756: 3570: 3149: 2921: 2594:

The Atintanes or Atintanians were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Illyria and Epirus.

2550: 2487: 2382: 2346: 2184: 2133: 2046: 2025: 1507: 1188: 1082: 1002: 959:(ec) You are entitled to think it's invalid, although that doesn't seem to be policy based, just 928: 861: 808: 780: 776: 222: 70: 4881:

will be sidelined when it comes to Language section or applied selectively. Thanks anyways. ---

2588:

The Atintanes or Atintanians were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria

4497: 4451: 4404: 4342: 4259: 4222: 4183: 4114: 4110: 4100: 4009: 3884: 3657: 3597: 3436: 3398: 3236: 3072: 2773: 2081: 1974: 1916: 1658: 1439: 1168: 1110: 1063: 1049: 1028: 983: 968: 881: 825: 51: 5054:

has been established and it seems that it is the best that could emerge after many debates.--

2473: 2106: 5051: 3812: 3411:

The difference is that option A claims one 2017 source which mentions Atintanians cursorily

2806: 1406: 1344: 1276: 219: 4848:

So Alexikoua, I take it that you too are ok with Filos being mentioned on Lede, right? ---

4145:

part of our dispute on language academic consensus, can safely be removed. Like it or not.

3105:

Side comment: if you have never heard of it before, I suggest to read this from the policy

1761:

of scholarly consensus having settled on other conclusions such as a tribe's language. ---

4732: 4106: 3976: 3791: 3734: 3557: 3210: 3145: 3106: 3043: 3025: 3024:

If the information is not added into the same context as provided by Filos, it falls into

2916: 2650:

If you agree with Option A that Filos' claim about consensus on identity/location is false

2421:, the academic research should be presented neutrally, and the Option A does not do it. – 2036: 2031:

The argument of Filios (2017) is the only source on which the narrative of OPTION A relies

2020: 1994: 141: 4507:

opinion" comment, but the RfC can't selectively include only some replies. Thank you. --

3022:

There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, ...

1996:

Etudes des interactions culturelles en aire Illyro-épirote du VII au III siècle av. J.-C

488: 467: 4967: 4963: 4878: 4832: 4759: 4694: 4672: 4613: 4573: 4557: 4363: 4294: 4238: 4201: 4170: 4148: 4118: 3988: 3938: 3898: 3695: 3694:]. In fact 100% of 21th century western publications are in agreement about this point. 3635: 3563: 3525: 3493: 3487: 3472: 3449: 3417: 3365: 3333: 3266: 3130: 3002: 2980: 2972: 2935: 2904: 2857: 2784: 2719: 2629: 2306: 2198: 2161: 2091: 1954: 1836:

Atintania from the gorges of the Aoos at Kleisoura to the East to Selenice to the west.

1743: 1618:

Of course it can, because it's a literature review. That's what literature reviews are

1589: 1566: 1549: 1462: 1428: 1415: 1410: 994: 908: 432: 4565: 5094: 4359: 4311: 3860: 3805: 3769: 3752: 3228: 2546: 2289:

sources where the issues of the language and/or the academic consensus are mentioned

1434: 1020: 960: 612: 4775:- agreed. The last version proposed by SR is WP:NPOV. Side comment: The article has 4217:

I see. If I remove the references, will that do the trick? Is there a length limit?

3979:- whilst there is a statement that certainly appears to be neutral, it is decidedly 3893:

Option A appears ok, but we need to stress that it was a borderland between Epirus,

3053:

We asked you to report here the sources Filos used to make such unreliable statement

779:

dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a

684: 4975: 4493: 4447: 4400: 4338: 4314: 4255: 4218: 4195: 4179: 4058: 4005: 3880: 3671: 3653: 3649: 3616: 3593: 3432: 3394: 3251: 3232: 3068: 2998: 2769: 2726: 2686:

There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus

2235: 2216: 2077: 2072: 2016: 1912: 1793: 1654: 1616:

How can a single source decide that what other sources say does not have consensus?

1316: 1297: 1293: 1164: 1106: 1059: 1045: 1024: 979: 964: 898: 877: 821: 4422:

don't change your comments. Other editors may have replied to what you've written

3356:(Northwest Doric Greek) language community without implying an exclusively Greek 2011:

The claim that sources which link them to Illyria and the Illyrian language are "

1968: 3100:

and another sentence on language, summarizing their respective article sections.

1713:

it. There is a big difference between "oppose" and "create", IMO. Good day. ---

812: 784: 24: 4004:

Ok I added a timestamp. Not sure what to do about making it more brief though.

3378:

Option A absolutely does not state that "they were Greek". It only states that

3316:

support this narrative whereby there is an overall consensus about the tribe's

2984:

source on Academic consensus on languages. And this is only by providing to us

2696:

akin to that of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece"

2069:

there's nothing new in the archaeological and historical record since the 1970s

741:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as

596: 575: 4776: 3786: 3262: 3204: 602: 3935:@Bato: Off course you have to be kidding. The disputed pov edit was this one 3020:@SilentResident, Option A includes a partial presentation of this statement: 2979:

even though this is not the case and therefore Option B violates Knowledge's

1877:

They do, but they are far older than Filos and do not specialize on language.

1038:

Khirurg started the RfC without waiting for other involved editors to respond

3588: 3497:

me, or any future cooperation, because I don't want to be part of this. ---

3064: 2482: 2115: 1884: 1792:: older in comparison to what? Are there reliable sources that support this 1160: 398: 3678:

Hence, without the specific context, it can't be included into the lede. –

2652:" is distorting the RfC Option A. Nothing like that is stated in Option A. 1626:

Filos claims that there is "overall consensus" that the tribe was in Epirus

4192:

Yes, it's clearly too long. Presently, it's 3,622 bytes measured from the

289: 268: 3648:

Faithfully quoting a high quality source and giving it due weight is not

3350:

In my crystal ball I see this later sentence by Filos coming into view:

1903:

his work he did not cite any new discovery to make such decisive comment

800: 772: 507: 394: 221: 3809:

involving editors other than those already embroiled in this dispute.

2029:

their publishing house finished proofreading and moved to publishing.

1871:

Older in the sense that 2002 and 2005 are considerably older than 2017

1640:

Japupaj 2019 says nothing about language. No contradiction whatsoever.

1310:

Filos who came many years later. User Ktrimi991 specifically stated: "

735:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below.

4649:

Do not misrepresent sources, they can be checked by other editors. –

3388:

what Filos states. No "overinterpretation" whatsoever. Option A does

804: 768: 625: 4685:

Bato: insists in IDONTLIKEIT fashion, though Jaupaj cited CEKA 2011

3061:

Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus...

5079: 5063: 5045: 5025: 5009: 4933: 4913: 4891: 4872: 4858: 4840: 4825: 4788: 4767: 4749: 4702: 4680: 4658: 4636: 4621: 4596: 4581: 4516: 4501: 4486: 4471: 4455: 4434: 4408: 4389: 4371: 4346: 4322: 4302: 4263: 4249: 4226: 4212: 4187: 4163: 4129: 4047: 4013: 3999: 3961: 3946: 3929: 3906: 3888: 3853: 3825: 3796: 3777: 3760: 3742: 3733:, because of the well-grounded, reasonable points supporting this. 3703: 3687: 3661: 3643: 3628: 3601: 3578: 3533: 3507: 3480: 3462: 3440: 3425: 3402: 3373: 3364:

identity (just as modern day Arvanites are, in fact, bilingual). --

3341: 3278: 3240: 3215: 3194: 3157: 3138: 3123: 3092: 3076: 3037: 3015: 2943: 2929: 2865: 2843: 2828: 2792: 2777: 2762: 2739: 2637: 2611: 2554: 2495: 2459: 2430: 2412: 2390: 2370: 2354: 2333: 2319: 2280: 2265: 2228: 2206: 2192: 2169: 2141: 2099: 2085: 2054: 1934: 1920: 1847: 1771: 1751: 1723: 1662: 1597: 1574: 1557: 1538: 1196: 1172: 1114: 1090: 1067: 1053: 1032: 1010: 987: 972: 954: 936: 921: 885: 869: 829: 4075:, Legobot will simply ignore them and rebuild the page using what 3407:

Option A -- like option B -- presents readers with the dichotomy:

2716:

Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus.

1209:

of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece"

3542:

OPTION A is based on a source which links location and language:

1999:(Thesis). Université de Lyon; Instituti i Arkeologjisë (Albanie). 1467:

briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article

860:

and just keep the two questions (if OPTION A is your proposal).--

4691:

koinon which may have included both Illyrian and Epirotic tribes

4534:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

902:

article). And now you come here crying that the RfC isn't valid

3554:

with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..)

3471:

Either-or: meaning an exclusive "or" in propositional logic. --

1800:

According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect

1461:). That's for the main body of the article. Now, regarding the 1217:

which was our delayed response to their Option B). The lack of

3330:

cannot really determine the identity of a rather obscure tribe

3114:

An experienced editor should avoid making those statements. –

1911:

Science works like that. New science overrides older science.

1881:

we have Jaupaj (2019) who classifies them as an Illyrian tribe

941:

You are the one who inserted to the article the RfC Option B:

679: 435:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

431:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

231: 223: 15: 4109:

or not), it requires a pure timestamp such as is produced by

3332:

is missing, so my support for Option B is lukewarm at best.--

751:

Should the article's lede be changed from the stable version

3057:

Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence

2402:". It is clear that I am just wasting my time with you. --- 1897:

Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence

1352:), these editors also failed to take in consideration that: 3876:

you gave everyone else before you made changes to the lede

3670:" The information provided by the Option A falls deep into 305:. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our 2624:

the tribe at the borderland between Epirus and Illyria) .

2215:

that the Atintanes may have formed is another thing. Your

1738:

the tribe at the borderland between Epirus and Illyria) .

1686:- Ktrimi991's side is quick to brute-force Option B for a 1677:- Ktrimi991's side adds RfC Option B to the article lede: 702:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

515:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 3328:. Yet, at the same time, the middle viewpoint whereby we 1709:" is unfounded because we didn't oppose RfC Option A, we 4989: 4444: 4442: 4440: 4423: 4233: 4176: 4093: 4071: 4065: 4036: 4033: 3877: 3841: 3837: 3290:, without its grammar error ("as Epirote tribe" --: --> 1700: 1691: 1678: 1504: 1470: 1215: 1212: 1073: 1016: 942: 891: 4550:

Specific author (S.Kos) removed as 'one word argument'

1646:

Both those sources are over a decade older than Filos.

1480:

politically influenced and directed by the oppressive

1015:

Earlier today, you rammed in your version of the lede

745:). No further edits should be made to this section. 160: 4141:, sentences which are unaffected by the RfC and were 1586:

neighboring populations of central and western Greece

1486:

Albanian nationalism#Origin theories during communism

3785:- Per well-enunciated arguments by Khirurg et al. -- 3049:

Hatzopoulos would include it in his 2020 publication

624:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 393:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4773:

The last thing the article needs is a new edit war.

3859:The RfC will not be withdrawn. There is nothing in 3097:You are now contradicting yourself, you said this: 1150:tribes", while there is a newer source from 2018 ( 5116:B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings 5106:Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles 5032:"editors seem to have successfully worked past it 1893:Hatzopoulos is silent on the subject of language. 1814:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHatzopoulos2020 ( 1705:In simple words: Ktrimi991's claim that we were " 505:, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to 2718:" either. Option A is carefully reflecting (per 1699:- the pro-type RfC Option A, was created by us: 519:. If you are new to editing Knowledge visit the 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 5111:All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages 4643:Additionally, it is unlikely that the Illyrian 3063:- Filos says nothing of the kind. This is pure 2119:to light since the 1970s" about the Atintanes. 1831:Byllis would have eventually seceded from this 315:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 5101:Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles 4178:. Please advise. Is length the issue? Thanks, 4018:I noticed the original RfC was also edited by 2479:and on an inscription from Dodona (SGDI 1336). 2112:and on an inscription from Dodona (SGDI 1336). 743:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/User names 318:Template:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 4425:. It interrupts the flow of the discussion.-- 3768:- arguments made for the option are stronger. 174: 8: 4921:"So much workload, for so very, very little" 1667:User Ktrimi991 is erroneously stating that " 1606:All of the above claims are easily debunked. 1418:and this leads us to the next problem: NPOV. 2714:Additionally, Option A doesn't state that " 1809: 1565:in general works, reference is solid clear. 235: 4667:endorsed by other Albanian archaeologists, 3840:and the RfC was filed 89 minutes later at 2890:time and as some of its members defected.] 2006:time and as some of its members defected.] 1961:From sources published in the last years: 838: 570: 462: 352: 263: 2219:considerations are inappropriate here. – 1707:strongly opposing the version of Option A 999:a concise overview of the article's topic 1680:. 11 minutes later someone reverts them. 4079:can extract from this page, as advised 2297:, in a manner that leaves no doubts of 2251:, in a manner that leaves no doubts of 1275:because it reflects on these facts per 1019:consensus to file an RfC. This is just 572: 464: 354: 265: 5031: 4996: 4992: 4920: 4812: 4805: 4801: 4772: 4642: 4337:Thank you for your pointing that out. 3675: 3667: 3612: 3551: 3544: 3468: 3408: 3380: 3351: 3110: 3098: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3021: 2976: 2964: 2957: 2950: 2911: 2886: 2854:borderlands between Epirus and Illyria 2745: 2715: 2683: 2662: 2649: 2625: 2593: 2587: 2576: 2570: 2477: 2396: 2377: 2340: 2175: 2155: 2110: 2068: 2002: 1985: 1908: 1905:Second guessing a high quality source. 1902: 1896: 1890: 1880: 1874: 1868: 1821: 1739: 1706: 1668: 1649: 1643: 1637: 1631: 1625: 1615: 1609: 1584: 1489: 1488:, and especially the part which says: 1466: 1389: 1353: 1327: 1311: 1207: 1037: 998: 797: 765: 752: 3836:The RfC question discussion began at 758:to either of the following options. 298:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 7: 2692:Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, 618:This article is within the scope of 387:This article is within the scope of 295:This article is within the scope of 5161:WikiProject Greece general articles 3619:into the article's lead section. – 2035:a)it is the opinion of one author ( 254:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 5030:To me, it seemed as if Rosguill's 4032:) a few minutes after the opening 1786:Option A includes many fallacies: 433:project-independent quality rating 321:Classical Greece and Rome articles 14: 3867:no consensus. Option B is worded 3310:the citation for Filos 2017 does 1482:Communist Hoxha regime of Albania 1380:RfC Option A - Language sentence: 1374:RfC Option A - Identity sentence: 4549: 4328: 2694:spoke a North-West Doric variety 1105:the RfC even starts. Forget it. 683: 605: 595: 574: 487: 466: 380: 356: 288: 267: 236: 205: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 5141:Low-importance Albania articles 5126:Top-importance Illyria articles 4806:According to Author (year),.... 4358:The issue pointed out above by 3144:and don't clutter the RfC with 1548:per reliable sources of Filos. 755:dialect similar to Doric Greek. 658:This article has been rated as 553:This article has been rated as 445:This article has been rated as 335:This article has been rated as 4997:According to Author (year),... 4993:Author A (year) says that .... 4956:Post-RfC discussion about Lede 4802:Author A (year) says that .... 4800:Ktrimi, about your proposal, " 3652:. In fact the exact opposite. 2963:Option A - Language sentence: 2956:Option A - Identity sentence: 2397:There is an overall consensus 1: 5156:Low-importance Greek articles 5131:All WikiProject Illyria pages 4517:13:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 4175:Looks like it didn't like it 3810: 3743:16:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC) 3704:23:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3688:18:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3662:17:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3644:14:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3629:11:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3602:06:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3579:05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3534:18:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC) 3508:20:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3481:17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3463:03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3441:17:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3426:17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3403:01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3374:19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 3360:or even an exclusively Greek 3342:19:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 3279:02:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) 3241:01:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC) 3216:22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3195:16:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3158:14:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 3139:13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 3124:02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 3093:02:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 3077:02:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 3038:01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2648:Ktrimi, your statement that " 1772:03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 1752:12:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 1632:Option A rejects Filos' claim 1519:Common Practice in Knowledge: 1442:which had characteristics of 1072:The pre-expansion version is 716:contentious topics procedures 632:and see a list of open tasks. 533:Knowledge:WikiProject Albania 411:Knowledge:WikiProject Illyria 405:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 5166:All WikiProject Greece pages 5146:WikiProject Albania articles 5136:Start-Class Albania articles 4934:23:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4914:22:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4892:22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4873:21:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4859:20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4841:18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4826:18:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4789:18:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4768:17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4750:17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 4703:06:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 4681:01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 4659:01:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 4637:01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 4622:01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 4597:00:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 4582:22:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 4566:21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 4502:22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4487:22:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4472:03:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4456:03:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4435:03:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4409:03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4390:02:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4372:23:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4347:00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 4323:22:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4303:13:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4264:19:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4250:19:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4227:18:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4213:18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4188:18:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4164:16:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4130:16:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4048:16:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4014:15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 4000:13:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3962:13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3947:13:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3930:11:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3907:07:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3889:07:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3854:06:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3826:19:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 3797:03:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 3778:14:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 3016:22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2944:22:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2930:21:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2866:17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2844:16:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2829:16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2793:16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2778:16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2763:15:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2740:15:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2638:14:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2612:13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2555:12:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2496:02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2460:01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2431:01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2413:01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2391:00:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2371:00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2355:00:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2334:00:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2320:00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2281:23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2266:23:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2229:22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2207:22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2193:22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2170:21:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2142:20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2100:06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2086:06:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2055:05:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 1935:03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 1921:01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 1869:older in comparison to what? 1848:01:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 1724:01:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 1663:00:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 1598:23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1575:21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1558:21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1539:18:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1197:12:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1173:03:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1115:07:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1091:05:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1068:04:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1054:04:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1033:03:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 1011:03:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 988:03:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 973:03:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 955:03:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 937:03:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 922:03:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 886:03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 870:02:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 830:02:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 638:Knowledge:WikiProject Greece 536:Template:WikiProject Albania 414:Template:WikiProject Illyria 4097:, Legobot can't handle the 3761:11:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 3615:". Knowledge can't include 2801:and nothing else, not even 1973:. Narodni muzej Slovenije. 1967:Šašel Kos, Marjeta (2005). 641:Template:WikiProject Greece 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 5182: 5151:Start-Class Greek articles 5080:16:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 5064:14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 5046:04:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 5026:21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 5010:21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 4777:2 readers on a daily basis 1790:According to older sources 1690:time to the article lede: 1506:, which clearly a case of 1363:Better Lead Structure and 1185:overall consensus nowadays 664:project's importance scale 559:project's importance scale 451:project's importance scale 341:project's importance scale 4081:when you edited that page 1154:) that explicitly states 718:before editing this page. 657: 590: 552: 482: 444: 430: 375: 334: 312:Classical Greece and Rome 283: 275:Classical Greece and Rome 262: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 5121:B-Class Illyria articles 4537:Please do not modify it. 4063:Please don't make edits 3583:Except it appears there 1993:Jaupaj, Lavdosh (2019). 738:Please do not modify it. 712:normal editorial process 2338:From my first comment: 1465:which is supposed to: " 1335:and cannot be accepted. 893:which does not reflect 699:as a contentious topic. 4439:If I recall correctly 3467:Context, SR, context: 1431:concerns were ignored: 728:RfC regarding the lede 708:standards of behaviour 244:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 4923:again. Good day. --- 4721:Discussion about Lede 3606:Option A includes an 3187:Amanuensis Balkanicus 1499:Also, in addition to 897:and ignores what the 199:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 3263:at Parga's Talk Page 2449:. Good day. :-) --- 1970:Appian and Illyricum 1099:shouting in boldface 704:purpose of Knowledge 105:No original research 3832:Lede RfC discussion 2684:Filos 2017, p. 224" 2301:. Anything else is 1289:WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH 783:dialect similar to 502:WikiProject Albania 390:WikiProject Illyria 4105:template (whether 2474:Hatzopoulos (2020) 2107:Hatzopoulos (2020) 1233:WP:RELIABLESOURCES 809:northwestern Greek 781:northwestern Greek 693:contentious topics 621:WikiProject Greece 250:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 4799: 4319: 3608:original research 3555: 3547: 2914: 2891: 2015:" in OPTION A is 1143: 1142: 1040:There is a whole 858: 723: 722: 678: 677: 674: 673: 670: 669: 569: 568: 565: 564: 461: 460: 457: 456: 351: 350: 347: 346: 230: 229: 66:Assume good faith 43: 5173: 5078: 5044: 5008: 4987: 4932: 4902: 4890: 4857: 4824: 4793: 4748: 4539: 4470: 4421: 4336: 4332: 4331: 4321: 4316: 4241: 4236: 4204: 4199: 4174: 4162: 4152: 4140: 4121: 4104: 4096: 4090: 4074: 4068: 4062: 3991: 3824: 3794: 3789: 3567: 3550: 3543: 3524:this page...? -- 3518: 3506: 3491: 3461: 3277: 3255: 3213: 3207: 3091: 3014: 2909: 2908: 2884: 2827: 2738: 2705:exactly the same 2610: 2471: 2464:(edit conflict) 2458: 2411: 2369: 2318: 2309:. Good day. --- 2299:WP:VERIFIABILITY 2264: 2253:WP:VERIFIABILITY 2000: 1984:who writes that 1983: 1819: 1810:Hatzopoulos 2020 1770: 1722: 1537: 953: 920: 856: 843:Extended content 839: 811:group and spoke 740: 687: 680: 646: 645: 642: 639: 636: 615: 610: 609: 608: 599: 592: 591: 586: 578: 571: 541: 540: 539:Albania articles 537: 534: 531: 491: 484: 483: 478: 470: 463: 419: 418: 417:Illyria articles 415: 412: 409: 384: 377: 376: 371: 368: 360: 353: 323: 322: 319: 316: 313: 292: 285: 284: 279: 271: 264: 247: 241: 240: 232: 224: 210: 209: 200: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 5181: 5180: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5091: 5090: 5070: 5036: 5000: 4961: 4958: 4924: 4896: 4882: 4849: 4816: 4740: 4723: 4665:This proposal, 4552: 4544: 4535: 4462: 4415: 4329: 4327: 4318: 4239: 4232: 4202: 4193: 4168: 4154: 4146: 4134: 4119: 4098: 4092: 4084: 4070: 4064: 4052: 3989: 3834: 3792: 3787: 3561: 3512: 3498: 3485: 3453: 3269: 3249: 3212:(talk is cheap) 3211: 3205: 3083: 3006: 2910:Filos (2017) : 2902: 2885:Jaupaj (2019): 2819: 2730: 2677:Filos's source: 2602: 2465: 2450: 2447:WP:DROPTHESTICK 2403: 2361: 2310: 2303:WP:STONEWALLING 2256: 2174:Jaupaj (2019): 1992: 1980: 1966: 1813: 1762: 1714: 1529: 1139: 945: 912: 844: 837: 835:Lede RfC survey 736: 730: 706:, any expected 643: 640: 637: 634: 633: 611: 606: 604: 584: 538: 535: 532: 529: 528: 499:is part of the 476: 416: 413: 410: 407: 406: 369: 366: 320: 317: 314: 311: 310: 277: 248:on Knowledge's 245: 226: 225: 220: 197: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 5179: 5177: 5169: 5168: 5163: 5158: 5153: 5148: 5143: 5138: 5133: 5128: 5123: 5118: 5113: 5108: 5103: 5093: 5092: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5074:SilentResident 5040:SilentResident 5013: 5012: 5004:SilentResident 4957: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4928:SilentResident 4899:SilentResident 4894: 4886:SilentResident 4853:SilentResident 4820:SilentResident 4809: 4791: 4744:SilentResident 4722: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4551: 4548: 4546: 4543: 4542: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4504: 4466:SilentResident 4418:SilentResident 4393: 4392: 4374: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4317: 4306: 4305: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4158:SilentResident 4055:SilentResident 4020:SilentResident 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3799: 3780: 3763: 3745: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3515:SilentResident 3502:SilentResident 3457:SilentResident 3445: 3444: 3443: 3345: 3344: 3302:Greek-speaking 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3273:SilentResident 3244: 3243: 3218: 3197: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3103: 3087:SilentResident 3010:SilentResident 2968: 2961: 2954: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2823:SilentResident 2734:SilentResident 2723: 2712: 2709:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2701: 2700: 2699: 2680: 2679: 2673: 2672: 2659: 2658: 2641: 2640: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2606:SilentResident 2599: 2598: 2597: 2590: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2573: 2564: 2558: 2557: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2454:SilentResident 2407:SilentResident 2365:SilentResident 2314:SilentResident 2260:SilentResident 2153: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2013:older research 2009: 2008: 2007: 1990: 1978: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1906: 1900: 1894: 1888: 1878: 1872: 1866: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1803: 1797: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1766:SilentResident 1755: 1754: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1718:SilentResident 1703: 1694: 1681: 1672: 1647: 1641: 1635: 1629: 1623: 1613: 1607: 1601: 1600: 1577: 1560: 1542: 1541: 1533:SilentResident 1525: 1524: 1523: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1494: 1474: 1444:WP:NATIONALIST 1421: 1420: 1419: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1377: 1357: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1320: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1269: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1244: 1223: 1222: 1200: 1199: 1176: 1175: 1141: 1140: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1074:465 words long 1056: 1035: 975: 949:SilentResident 916:SilentResident 849: 846: 845: 842: 836: 833: 819: 818: 791: 790: 750: 748: 747: 731: 729: 726: 721: 720: 688: 676: 675: 672: 671: 668: 667: 660:Low-importance 656: 650: 649: 647: 644:Greek articles 630:the discussion 617: 616: 600: 588: 587: 585:Low‑importance 579: 567: 566: 563: 562: 555:Low-importance 551: 545: 544: 542: 492: 480: 479: 477:Low‑importance 471: 459: 458: 455: 454: 447:Top-importance 443: 437: 436: 429: 423: 422: 420: 403:the discussion 385: 373: 372: 370:Top‑importance 361: 349: 348: 345: 344: 337:Mid-importance 333: 327: 326: 324: 293: 281: 280: 278:Mid‑importance 272: 260: 259: 253: 242: 228: 227: 218: 216: 215: 212: 211: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5178: 5167: 5164: 5162: 5159: 5157: 5154: 5152: 5149: 5147: 5144: 5142: 5139: 5137: 5134: 5132: 5129: 5127: 5124: 5122: 5119: 5117: 5114: 5112: 5109: 5107: 5104: 5102: 5099: 5098: 5096: 5081: 5077: 5075: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5061: 5057: 5056:Maleschreiber 5053: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5043: 5041: 5033: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5018:Maleschreiber 5015: 5014: 5011: 5007: 5005: 4998: 4994: 4990: 4985: 4984:Demetrios1993 4981: 4977: 4973: 4972:Maleschreiber 4969: 4965: 4960: 4959: 4955: 4935: 4931: 4929: 4922: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4906:Maleschreiber 4900: 4895: 4893: 4889: 4887: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4856: 4854: 4847: 4846: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4823: 4821: 4814: 4810: 4807: 4803: 4797: 4796:edit conflict 4792: 4790: 4786: 4782: 4781:Maleschreiber 4778: 4774: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4747: 4745: 4736: 4734: 4729: 4720: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4668: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4646: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4629:Maleschreiber 4625: 4624: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4608: 4606: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4589:Maleschreiber 4585: 4584: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4547: 4541: 4538: 4532: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4509:Maleschreiber 4505: 4503: 4499: 4495: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4479:Maleschreiber 4475: 4474: 4473: 4469: 4467: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4443: 4441: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4432: 4428: 4427:Maleschreiber 4424: 4419: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4399:to that btw? 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4382:Maleschreiber 4378: 4375: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4354: 4353: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4335: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4320: 4313: 4308: 4307: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4291:Maleschreiber 4288: 4285: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4235: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4197: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4172: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4161: 4159: 4150: 4144: 4138: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4102: 4095: 4088: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4067: 4060: 4056: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4034: 4031: 4028: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3973: 3969: 3968: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3918: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3875: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3846:Maleschreiber 3843: 3839: 3831: 3827: 3822: 3819: 3816: 3815: 3807: 3803: 3800: 3798: 3795: 3790: 3784: 3781: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3764: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3749: 3746: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3729: 3728: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3609: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3571:Maleschreiber 3565: 3559: 3553: 3546: 3541: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3516: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3505: 3503: 3495: 3489: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3458: 3451: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3382: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3308: 3303: 3298: 3297:we don't know 3294: 3289: 3286: 3285: 3280: 3276: 3274: 3267: 3264: 3260: 3253: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3219: 3217: 3214: 3209: 3208: 3201: 3198: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3181: 3180: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3150:Maleschreiber 3147: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3108: 3104: 3101: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3090: 3088: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3011: 3004: 3000: 2995: 2991: 2988:sources that 2987: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2969: 2966: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2922:Maleschreiber 2918: 2913: 2906: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2888: 2883: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2826: 2824: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2803:WP:AGEMATTERS 2800: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2735: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2661: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2613: 2609: 2607: 2600: 2595: 2591: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2565: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2488:Maleschreiber 2484: 2480: 2475: 2469: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2457: 2455: 2448: 2443: 2439: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2410: 2408: 2401: 2400: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383:Maleschreiber 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2366: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347:Maleschreiber 2344: 2343: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2315: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2261: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2237: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2185:Maleschreiber 2182: 2179: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2151: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134:Maleschreiber 2131: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047:Maleschreiber 2044: 2040: 2038: 2032: 2027: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2004: 1998: 1997: 1991: 1988: 1981: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1960: 1956: 1951: 1948: 1947: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1829: 1825: 1817: 1811: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1785: 1784: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1767: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1725: 1721: 1719: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1581: 1578: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1534: 1526: 1520: 1517: 1514: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1487: 1483: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1432: 1430: 1425: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1391: 1386: 1381: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1334: 1330: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1305: 1302: 1301: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1283: 1278: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1261: 1260: 1259:WP:AGEMATTERS 1256: 1253: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1205: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1189:Demetrios1993 1186: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1153: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083:Maleschreiber 1080: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003:Maleschreiber 1000: 996: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 976: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 957: 956: 952: 950: 943: 940: 939: 938: 934: 930: 929:Maleschreiber 925: 924: 923: 919: 917: 910: 905: 900: 896: 892: 889: 888: 887: 883: 879: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 867: 863: 862:Maleschreiber 855: 854: 848: 847: 841: 840: 834: 832: 831: 827: 823: 817: 816: 814: 810: 806: 802: 796: 795: 794: 789: 788: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 764: 763: 762: 759: 757: 756: 746: 744: 739: 733: 732: 727: 725: 719: 717: 713: 709: 705: 700: 698: 694: 689: 686: 682: 681: 665: 661: 655: 652: 651: 648: 631: 627: 623: 622: 614: 613:Greece portal 603: 601: 598: 594: 593: 589: 583: 580: 577: 573: 560: 556: 550: 547: 546: 543: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 509: 504: 503: 498: 497: 493: 490: 486: 485: 481: 475: 472: 469: 465: 452: 448: 442: 439: 438: 434: 428: 425: 424: 421: 404: 400: 396: 392: 391: 386: 383: 379: 378: 374: 365: 362: 359: 355: 342: 338: 332: 329: 328: 325: 308: 304: 300: 299: 294: 291: 287: 286: 282: 276: 273: 270: 266: 261: 257: 251: 243: 239: 234: 233: 214: 213: 208: 204: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 5073: 5039: 5003: 4927: 4885: 4852: 4819: 4743: 4737: 4728:WP:CONSENSUS 4724: 4690: 4686: 4666: 4664: 4644: 4604: 4602: 4553: 4545: 4536: 4533: 4465: 4376: 4355: 4333: 4234:there you go 4157: 4142: 4076: 4026: 3971: 3970: 3916: 3914: 3913: 3894: 3874:zero minutes 3873: 3868: 3864: 3835: 3813: 3801: 3782: 3765: 3747: 3730: 3607: 3584: 3521: 3501: 3456: 3412: 3389: 3385: 3379: 3361: 3357: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3312: 3311: 3306: 3301: 3296: 3292: 3287: 3272: 3220: 3203: 3199: 3182: 3086: 3009: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2853: 2849: 2822: 2814: 2810: 2799:WP:WIKIVOICE 2751:WP:WIKIVOICE 2733: 2704: 2703:Option A is 2693: 2689: 2685: 2676: 2667: 2664: 2655: 2620: 2605: 2541: 2536: 2453: 2441: 2437: 2419:WP:WIKIVOICE 2406: 2398: 2364: 2339: 2313: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2259: 2248: 2244: 2240:WP:SYNTHESIS 2212: 2180: 2129: 2124: 2071:is entirely 2042: 2034: 2030: 2012: 2001:writes that 1995: 1969: 1958: 1949: 1832: 1827: 1823: 1805: 1799: 1789: 1780: 1765: 1734: 1717: 1710: 1696: 1687: 1683: 1674: 1619: 1579: 1562: 1545: 1532: 1518: 1515: 1500: 1496: 1476: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1426: 1423: 1402:WP:DUEWEIGHT 1400: 1395: 1379: 1373: 1365:WP:DUEWEIGHT 1362: 1359: 1349: 1343: 1340: 1333:WP:SYNTHESIS 1322: 1307: 1303: 1287: 1284: 1271: 1265: 1257: 1254: 1246: 1239: 1231: 1228: 1219:WP:CONSENSUS 1203: 1184: 1179: 1155: 1146: 1102: 1098: 1077: 1041: 948: 915: 903: 895:WP:CONSENSUS 852: 850: 820: 798: 792: 766: 760: 753: 749: 737: 734: 724: 701: 690: 659: 619: 554: 521:welcome page 513:project page 506: 500: 495: 494: 446: 388: 336: 303:project page 296: 256:WikiProjects 202: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 4687:exclusively 4115:five tildes 4107:substituted 3985:WP:RFC/HIST 3972:Invalid RfC 3917:invalid RfC 3814:SMcCandlish 3384:, which is 3353:onomastics. 2583:Geography: 2483:inscription 2123:autonomous 2116:inscription 2026:WP:OUTDATED 1812:, pp. 45–46 1508:WP:COATRACK 853:Invalid RfC 813:Doric Greek 785:Doric Greek 496:Atintanians 246:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 25:Atintanians 5095:Categories 4091:regarding 3735:Macedonian 3362:linguistic 3082:time. --- 2990:explicitly 2811:explicitly 2753:. Best. – 2690:Atintanes, 2592:Option B: 2586:Option A: 2575:Option B: 2569:Option A: 2566:Identity: 2438:explicitly 2291:explicitly 1979:961616936X 1440:WP:EDITWAR 1296:vs Filos' 697:designated 525:open tasks 517:discussion 5052:WP:STABLE 4968:Alexikoua 4964:Ktrimi991 4833:Alexikoua 4760:Ktrimi991 4695:Alexikoua 4673:Alexikoua 4614:Alexikoua 4610:argument' 4605:CEKA 2011 4574:Alexikoua 4558:Alexikoua 4364:Ktrimi991 4295:Ktrimi991 4171:Redrose64 4149:Redrose64 4094:this edit 4066:like this 3981:not brief 3939:Alexikoua 3915:It is an 3899:Alexikoua 3895:Macedonia 3696:Alexikoua 3636:Alexikoua 3634:language. 3589:straw man 3564:Calthinus 3526:Calthinus 3488:Calthinus 3473:Calthinus 3418:Calthinus 3366:Calthinus 3334:Calthinus 3131:Alexikoua 3065:straw man 2936:Ktrimi991 2905:Ktrimi991 2858:Ktrimi991 2807:WP:HISTRS 2785:Alexikoua 2656:Option A: 2630:Ktrimi991 2199:Alexikoua 2162:Alexikoua 2109:explains 2092:Alexikoua 1885:Bylliones 1744:Ktrimi991 1590:Ktrimi991 1567:Alexikoua 1550:Idealigic 1407:WP:HISTRS 1345:WP:SCICON 1277:WP:HISTRS 1204:Option A. 1161:Bylliones 793:OPTION B 761:OPTION A 710:, or any 399:Illyrians 307:talk page 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4733:WP:ARBEE 4572:comment. 4101:unsigned 4030:contribs 3977:WP:RFCST 3802:Option B 3783:Option A 3770:Resnjari 3766:Option B 3753:Mikola22 3748:OPTION B 3731:Option A 3558:WP:UNDUE 3318:identity 3288:Option B 3229:Ahmet Q. 3221:Option B 3200:Option A 3183:Option A 3146:WP:FORUM 3107:WP:SYNTH 3044:WP:SYNTH 3026:WP:SYNTH 2917:WP:SYNTH 2852:and the 2621:Question 2547:Ahmet Q. 2537:OPTION B 2399:nowadays 2037:WP:UNDUE 2021:WP:SYNTH 1950:Option B 1781:Option B 1735:Question 1580:Option B 1563:Option A 1546:Option A 1473:helpful. 1308:predated 1180:Option A 1147:Option A 777:Illyrian 203:365 days 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4982:, and 4976:Khirurg 4904:lede.-- 4879:WP:LEAD 4831:Dimale. 4494:Khirurg 4477:them.-- 4448:Khirurg 4401:Khirurg 4339:Khirurg 4256:Khirurg 4219:Khirurg 4180:Khirurg 4059:Khirurg 4006:Khirurg 3881:Khirurg 3869:exactly 3654:Khirurg 3594:Khirurg 3494:WP:LEAD 3450:WP:LEAD 3433:Khirurg 3395:Khirurg 3386:exactly 3326:mention 3252:OyMosby 3233:OyMosby 3069:Khirurg 3003:WP:IDHT 2994:clearly 2981:WP:LEAD 2973:WP:LEAD 2815:clearly 2770:Khirurg 2720:WP:LEAD 2442:clearly 2307:WP:IDHT 2295:clearly 2249:clearly 2160:tribes. 2078:Khirurg 1955:WP:LEDE 1913:Khirurg 1865:review. 1711:created 1655:Khirurg 1463:WP:LEAD 1429:WP:NPOV 1416:WP:LEAD 1411:WP:LEAD 1243:tribes. 1165:Khirurg 1107:Khirurg 1060:Khirurg 1046:Khirurg 1042:section 1025:Khirurg 995:WP:LEDE 980:Khirurg 965:Khirurg 909:WP:LEAD 878:Khirurg 822:Khirurg 801:Illyria 773:Illyria 662:on the 557:on the 530:Albania 508:Albania 474:Albania 449:on the 408:Illyria 395:Illyria 367:B‑class 364:Illyria 339:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 4645:koinon 4360:Æµ§œš¹ 4312:Æµ§œš¹ 4242:rose64 4205:rose64 4122:rose64 3992:rose64 3975:, see 3861:WP:RFC 3806:WP:RSN 3452:? --- 3358:ethnic 3129:etc.). 2986:strong 2850:Epirus 2287:strong 2245:strong 2213:koinon 2130:really 2033:, but 1833:ethnos 1828:ethnos 1688:second 1435:wp:pov 1103:before 1021:WP:JDL 961:WP:JDL 805:Epirus 769:Epirus 635:Greece 626:Greece 582:Greece 252:scale. 126:Google 4995:" or 4143:never 3842:02:12 3838:00:43 3672:WP:OR 3650:WP:OR 3617:WP:OR 3206:Sadkσ 2999:WP:OR 2727:wp:or 2543:them. 2243:need 2236:WP:OR 2217:WP:OR 2073:WP:OR 2017:WP:OR 1824:ethne 1794:WP:OR 1697:23:43 1684:21:19 1675:21:05 1317:WP:OR 1298:WP:RS 1294:WP:OR 911:.--- 899:WP:RS 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 5060:talk 5022:talk 4980:Βατο 4910:talk 4869:talk 4865:Βατο 4837:talk 4785:talk 4764:talk 4699:talk 4677:talk 4655:talk 4651:Βατο 4633:talk 4618:talk 4593:talk 4578:talk 4562:talk 4513:talk 4498:talk 4483:talk 4452:talk 4431:talk 4405:talk 4386:talk 4377:Note 4368:talk 4356:Note 4343:talk 4334:Done 4299:talk 4289:and 4287:Βατο 4260:talk 4246:talk 4244:🌹 ( 4237:. -- 4231:And 4223:talk 4209:talk 4207:🌹 ( 4184:talk 4137:Βατο 4126:talk 4124:🌹 ( 4111:four 4087:Βατο 4072:this 4057:and 4044:talk 4040:Βατο 4038:. – 4024:talk 4010:talk 3996:talk 3994:🌹 ( 3987:. -- 3958:talk 3954:Βατο 3943:talk 3926:talk 3922:Βατο 3903:talk 3885:talk 3850:talk 3774:talk 3757:talk 3739:talk 3700:talk 3684:talk 3680:Βατο 3658:talk 3640:talk 3625:talk 3621:Βατο 3598:talk 3575:talk 3530:talk 3522:read 3477:talk 3437:talk 3422:talk 3413:once 3399:talk 3370:talk 3338:talk 3307:only 3291:"as 3259:Βατο 3237:talk 3227:and 3225:Βατο 3191:talk 3154:talk 3135:talk 3120:talk 3116:Βατο 3073:talk 3034:talk 3030:Βατο 3028:. – 2992:and 2940:talk 2926:talk 2862:talk 2840:talk 2836:Βατο 2813:and 2805:nor 2789:talk 2774:talk 2759:talk 2755:Βατο 2634:talk 2551:talk 2492:talk 2481:The 2468:Βατο 2440:and 2427:talk 2423:Βατο 2387:talk 2351:talk 2330:talk 2326:Βατο 2305:and 2293:and 2277:talk 2273:Βατο 2238:and 2225:talk 2221:Βατο 2203:talk 2189:talk 2166:talk 2138:talk 2114:The 2096:talk 2082:talk 2051:talk 2041:and 2019:and 1975:ISBN 1931:talk 1927:Βατο 1917:talk 1844:talk 1840:Βατο 1820:): " 1816:help 1748:talk 1659:talk 1594:talk 1571:talk 1554:talk 1457:and 1427:Our 1193:talk 1169:talk 1111:talk 1087:talk 1064:talk 1050:talk 1029:talk 1007:talk 1001:. -- 984:talk 969:talk 933:talk 904:even 882:talk 866:talk 826:talk 803:and 771:and 691:The 397:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 4612:]. 4240:Red 4203:Red 4196:rfc 4120:Red 4113:or 4069:or 3990:Red 3823:😼 3788:Dr. 3390:not 3313:not 2125:and 1989:and 1620:for 1501:6a. 1497:6c. 1477:6b. 1459:3b. 1455:3a. 1450:6a. 1396:5a. 1323:3b. 1304:3a. 1272:2b. 1266:2a. 1247:1b. 1240:1a. 654:Low 549:Low 441:Top 331:Mid 176:TWL 5097:: 5072:❖ 5062:) 5038:❖ 5024:) 5002:❖ 4978:, 4974:, 4970:, 4966:, 4926:❖ 4912:) 4884:❖ 4871:) 4851:❖ 4839:) 4818:❖ 4787:) 4766:) 4742:❖ 4701:) 4679:) 4657:) 4635:) 4620:) 4607:), 4595:) 4580:) 4564:) 4515:) 4500:) 4485:) 4464:❖ 4454:) 4433:) 4407:) 4388:) 4380:-- 4370:) 4345:) 4301:) 4262:) 4248:) 4225:) 4211:) 4198:}} 4194:{{ 4186:) 4156:❖ 4128:) 4103:}} 4099:{{ 4083:. 4077:it 4046:) 4035:, 4012:) 3998:) 3960:) 3945:) 3928:) 3905:) 3887:) 3879:. 3865:is 3852:) 3811:— 3793:K. 3776:) 3759:) 3741:) 3702:) 3686:) 3674:: 3660:) 3642:) 3627:) 3600:) 3585:is 3577:) 3532:) 3500:❖ 3479:) 3455:❖ 3439:) 3424:) 3416:-- 3401:) 3372:) 3340:) 3322:if 3293:an 3271:❖ 3239:) 3193:) 3156:) 3137:) 3122:) 3109:: 3085:❖ 3075:) 3055:, 3051:, 3036:) 3008:❖ 2942:) 2928:) 2864:) 2842:) 2821:❖ 2791:) 2776:) 2761:) 2732:❖ 2636:) 2628:? 2604:❖ 2553:) 2494:) 2476:: 2452:❖ 2429:) 2405:❖ 2389:) 2363:❖ 2353:) 2332:) 2312:❖ 2279:) 2258:❖ 2227:) 2205:) 2191:) 2168:) 2140:) 2098:) 2084:) 2053:) 1933:) 1919:) 1887:). 1846:) 1764:❖ 1750:) 1742:? 1716:❖ 1661:) 1596:) 1573:) 1556:) 1531:❖ 1516:7. 1424:6. 1360:5. 1350:3. 1341:4. 1285:3. 1255:2. 1229:1. 1195:) 1171:) 1113:) 1089:) 1081:-- 1066:) 1052:) 1031:) 1023:. 1009:) 986:) 971:) 947:❖ 935:) 914:❖ 884:) 868:) 828:) 201:: 193:, 156:) 54:; 5076:❖ 5058:( 5042:❖ 5020:( 5006:❖ 4986:: 4962:@ 4930:❖ 4908:( 4901:: 4897:@ 4888:❖ 4867:( 4855:❖ 4835:( 4822:❖ 4811:" 4798:) 4794:( 4783:( 4762:( 4746:❖ 4697:( 4693:. 4675:( 4653:( 4631:( 4616:( 4591:( 4576:( 4560:( 4511:( 4496:( 4481:( 4468:❖ 4450:( 4429:( 4420:: 4416:@ 4403:( 4384:( 4366:( 4341:( 4297:( 4258:( 4221:( 4182:( 4173:: 4169:@ 4160:❖ 4151:: 4147:@ 4139:: 4135:@ 4089:: 4085:@ 4061:: 4053:@ 4042:( 4027:· 4022:( 4008:( 3956:( 3941:( 3924:( 3901:( 3883:( 3848:( 3821:¢ 3818:☏ 3772:( 3755:( 3737:( 3698:( 3682:( 3656:( 3638:( 3623:( 3611:" 3596:( 3573:( 3566:: 3562:@ 3528:( 3517:: 3513:@ 3504:❖ 3490:: 3486:@ 3475:( 3459:❖ 3435:( 3420:( 3397:( 3368:( 3336:( 3275:❖ 3254:: 3250:@ 3235:( 3189:( 3152:( 3133:( 3118:( 3089:❖ 3071:( 3032:( 3012:❖ 2949:" 2938:( 2924:( 2907:: 2903:@ 2860:( 2838:( 2825:❖ 2787:( 2772:( 2757:( 2736:❖ 2711:. 2698:. 2663:' 2632:( 2608:❖ 2596:. 2549:( 2490:( 2470:: 2466:@ 2456:❖ 2425:( 2409:❖ 2385:( 2367:❖ 2349:( 2328:( 2316:❖ 2275:( 2262:❖ 2223:( 2201:( 2187:( 2164:( 2136:( 2094:( 2080:( 2049:( 2039:) 1982:. 1953:( 1929:( 1915:( 1842:( 1818:) 1796:? 1768:❖ 1746:( 1720:❖ 1657:( 1622:. 1592:( 1569:( 1552:( 1535:❖ 1367:: 1326:" 1319:. 1191:( 1183:" 1167:( 1109:( 1085:( 1062:( 1048:( 1027:( 1005:( 982:( 967:( 951:❖ 931:( 918:❖ 880:( 864:( 851:: 824:( 815:. 787:. 666:. 561:. 527:. 453:. 427:B 343:. 309:. 258:: 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index