Talk:Atintanians/Archive 1

Messaging in edit summary
I would be very grateful if you could behave in an open way and raise questions directly with me if you have problems or doubts around my edits, instead of messaging me via the edit summary where I cannot react. What a hostile attitude is this?

You removed my sentence by accusing me with "source manipulation", claiming that Wilkes does not say that the Atintanians were Illyrians. True, my sentence didn't attribute this statement to Wilkes, but said that the Periplus was listing the Atintanians among the Illyrians, and Wilkes is a source for that as on the page 96 he cites the Periplus itself which finishes the listing of the Illyrian peoples with the Taulants, Amants and Atintanians, by concluding that "These are the Illyrian peoples”.

The removed piece:

The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax in the 4th century BC was referring to the Atintanians as one of the southernmost Illyrian tribes,

My version correctly listed who thought the Atintanians to be be simply barbar, Illyrian or Epirote. You also failed to notice that the previous version of the article was just echoing Hammond's theory about the two Atintanians. For me it seems that you want to remove any clues that anyone ever had about the Atintanians being Illyrians.

And now the citations:

page 29 in Cabanes: “Le Pseudo-Scylax, dans son Périple (parag. 28–33), n’est pas d’un avis différent : après avoir présenté les Illyrioi (parag. 22–27), comme on l’a déjà noté, en terminant, après les Encheleis, par les Taulantins, les Atintanes et les Amantes, l’auteur présente, après les Illyriens, les Chaones, puis les Thesprôtes, les Cassopéens, les Molosses.”

page 96 in Wilkes: “26 Taulantii. [...] The journey to the sea of Oricus is eighty stades, of Amantia sixty. Bounding all these on the south are the Atintanes, below. Oricus and Chaonia as far as Dodona. Around this area are the Ceraunian mountains in Epirus, and nearby is a small island, named Sason. From there to Oricus the voyage is one third of a day. | 27 These are the Illyrian peoples, extending from the Bulini up to this point.”

Pasztilla (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, there is still a mention in the article, namely that Appian was thinking the Atintanians to be Illyrian, when talking about Roman–Illyrian wars. Pasztilla (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My edit summaries concern Wilkes in the part that he was supposed to contradict Hammond's research that there was a another tribe (Amantini). Actually Wilkes finds the specific explanation of the 2 different tribes very convincing in p. 97 (quote: "One

recent solution is that there were in fact two groups of this name, the Atintanes in Epirus and the Illyrian Atintani in the region Cermenike north of Elbasan.").Alexikoua (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where did I write that Wilkes contradict? Please read more carefully. I wrote Papazoglou and Cabanes were contradicting. Pasztilla (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see how Wilkes claims that the Atintanes are Illyrian in p. 96, it would be weird since he supports the dual-tribe scenario in p. 97. Scylax describes the Atintates as located "below" Oricus and Chaonia as far as Dodona, then he states that "Around this area are the Ceraunian mountains in Epirus, and nearby is a small island, named Sason. From there to Oricus" and concludes that "These are the Illyrian peoples, extending from the Bulini up to this point." . This point obviously refers to Oricum, thus excluding the Atintanes from the Illyrian peoples since they were located below Oricum.Alexikoua (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 14 February

2018 (UTC)

I understand my English is poor, but: Wilkes only cites the Periplum, my sentence in the article was about the Periplum, not Wilkes, Cabanes (that you also removed) was added because he reads the Periplum in a way that the Taulantii, Amanti and Atintani are listed in the Periplum as Illyrians. I understand the citation the same way. Plus you don’t understand Wilkes: he doesn’t support the dual tribe scenario, but he mentions it as one recent option, and right after that, in the next sentence he introduces the option of Papazoglou and Cabanes. He doesn’t say that one or the other is true, he’s not supporting or debating any of them, just mentions. Atintanis being below than Oricum is something hard to interprete. If they lived where Papazoglou thought, they are east from Orikos. Also considering that Bylliones (in and around Byllis) are a group of atintanians as some scholars think, than Orikos is below Atintanis. Anyway, the thing is this: some thought they are ethically Epirotes, some others that they are Illyrian. I don’t see the harm of mentioning this. It is clear that whoever they were, they had the strongest social and cultural links with the epirotes, they were hellenized pretty early. I don’t see the gain of banning information. Pasztilla (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway what the Periplum says is this: bounding all these, ie taulants and Amants from the south are atintanians, then comes the Greek polis of Orikos, then south from it the epirote lands. Pasztilla (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I admit that various authors offer different interpretations about Atintanes in the disruption of Scylax. Here is a quote from the review of Cabanes' work from [] p. 217:

"A major problem of historical topography is considered by M.B. Hatzopoulos, that is the question of the Antintanes and their situation, in the aftermathof the radical solution of N.G.L. Hammond (JRS 79 [1989] 11-25) which distinguishes two groups of that name,- Illyrian Atintani in the Cermenike region of Central Albania and the Epirote Atintanes somewhere around the upper Drino. It is, according to Hammond, the former who figure of Cassander's operations against Epidamnus in 314 bc (Polyaenus 4.11.4) and subsequently in the Illyrian and Macedonian wars of Rome reported by Polybius (2.11.10-11; 7.9.13), Appian (///. 7-8) and Livy (27.30.13; 29.12.13; 45.30.7). The latter figure in the western Greek campaigns of the Spartan admiral Knem- os in 429 bc (Thuc. 2.80.6) and also named by Pseudo- Scylax (c. 26), Lycophron (Alex. 1042-6) and Strabo (7.7.8). Unable to accept Hammond's duality, Hatzopoulos presumes an error on the part of Polyaenus (based on Hieronymus of Cardia) who would have been ignorant of local geography. Along with the Chaones, the Atintanes will have been the most northerly of the Epirote communities."

The above claims that Scylax' account classifies them as Epirote, however some other authors claim the opposite.Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New section
@Khirurg can you avoid edit warring in Wikipedia, please. It is highly disruptive because your activity here is only reverting other editors. Btw, "Mollosians" was already in the article. – Βατο (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC) As I can see above you have already blocked another user to edit this article. WP:OWN should end. – Βατο (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, for starters, don't use edit summaries to attack, like you did with rv edit-warrior . Admin intervention will be sought if this happens again. Now, instead of a whole bunch of personal attacks as above, can you explain why you removed important material from the lede? Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is the neutral way to present the views of the authors in bibliography. I noticed your activity in Wikipedia is mainly focused on reverting other editors, can you give an explanation about that? – Βατο (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also you have to give an explanation why you are blocking from editing other users like Pasztilla above. – Βατο (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Except it's not neutral, but in fact disruptive, because you removed very strongly sourced material. That's the usual nationalist POV-pushing we've seen at many other similar articles, where sourced material is removed under the guise of "neutrality", can you give an explanation about that? Btw, can you at least not mess up the creation of a separate talkpage section for this dispute. I mean, come on. And I have no idea who Pasztilla is and how I'm "blocking" them. No more conspiracy theories, ok? Khirurg (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Bato: the new lead you propose violates among others wp:MOSINTRO, the article is about the tribe not the region.Alexikoua (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but the fact that they spoke NW Greek, for which there is academic consensus per Filos, should absolutely be mentioned in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised because its actually based on a source Bato declared that he is using often. I admit it's too weird to hide such a vital information from lede.Alexikoua (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Always the same with you two. Unbelievable! Lorik17 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Šašel Kos 2005, now the lead should be neutral. – Βατο (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is really unbelivable Iaof, because Khirurg is here only to revert other editors' contrubutions. – Βατο (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised myself, to be honest. I can expect WP:NATIONALIST edits hitting every article in the Balkans like they have attempted here. Thanks for restoring the article back to its last stable version, Alexikoua and Khirurg. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: You removed Filos, perhaps the most up to date source on Epriote linguistics and replaced him with a much more obscure and older source. Unbelievable. You are deep in WP:DIS at this point. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes these editors only are seeking to make nationalist edits anywhere, as they did in the article Amantes (tribe) where they cited older sources at the expense of the newest one. Why? Because it suits their POV. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but another favorite tactic of this group of editors is removal of top rate English language sources (e.g. Cambridge University Press) with obscure, non-English language sources that are not viewable online. This has happened across far too many articles already, and it stops now. Not only is this the English wikipedia, but English is the international language of science nowadays, like it or not. SilentResident, thank you for your intervention and please keep an eye on the article. Khirurg (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg I did not remove Filos, see the diffs, before false accusations. Also you can't label "obscure and older source" the 2005 publication of Sasel Kos, an expert on the subject. @Alexi, Sasel Kos considers only one tribe of Atintanes. With this edit you removed sourced content that should be restored. – Βατο (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sasel Kos is total bunk. There was no "Illyrian kingdom". And you pushed POV by placing this source before Filos. But Filos is up to date, and Sasel Kos obviously outdated. There is academic consensus that the Atintanes were Greek-speaking. Full stop. Khirurg (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To make it clearer: An obscure Slovak source from 2005 absolutely cannot override a prestigious English language literature review from 2017 that shows academic consensus. Yet in this edit, you did just that . Unacceptable. Khirurg (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the reliability of a publication by one of the major experts on the subject, you can take it to WP:RS. You are an anonymous Wikipedia user, and your personal opinion is irrelevant here if not backed by sources. – Βατο (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read all the source, Filos bases that statement on the epigraphic material, which is written in Northwest Doric. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I used to avoid editing this topic area in the past ten years, but seeing how things have escalated, I am now monitoring this article and at same time I am contacting the members of the AE Committee to bring the matter to their attention, as the History logs in 18 articles show an organized WP:TAGTEAMING across all these articles which are rocked by nationalist flag-planting edits to change their long-established consensus in them, and the edits are characterized with citing very specific sources which all share a common keyword: "Albanianess" and "Illyrianess" which clearly falls under WP:NATIONALIST. So far over 18 articles in the Epirus and Illyria topic areas have been affected by nationalist edits like this. The Diffs are gathered and are being prepared to be sent to the AE committee members. Sorry but I wouldn't ignore this and do nothing about it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Filos is not limited to the epigraphical evidence. I fail to see this in his work. Modern scholars such as Filos make use of all the available evidence (contemporary accounts, etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can see that there was not a consensus in this article in 2018, when another user tried to edit it but not allowed by Alexikoua, the same way as you are doing right now (WP:OWN). The only flag-plainting edit here was this one by Alexikoua, did you notice it? Or you want to ignore it because it suits your POV? – Βατο (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have checked the whole history log. Can you be more specific in which part of the edit you are referring to? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A WP:STABLE version requires good use of bibliography. The recent reverts by Alexikoua don't comply to that baseline. Marjeta Šašel Kos is a Slovene archaeologist and member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences. Her work in contemporary Illyrian studies is acclaimed. If you're not familiar with her work or the corpus of contemporary Illyrian studies, it doesn't make it "obscure".  Competing Balkan nationalisms like to call "nationalist" everything that doesn't agree with their narrative. It's contemporary bibliography that discusses the Illyrians as a subject, not "Albanian nationalists". If you disagree with it, it's your choice - but you can't change what bibliography does discuss and how that discussion is highlighted on wikipedia. Ultimately, many articles have changed recently because bibliography doesn't discuss what was removed, but does discuss what was added. Research progresses and new concepts emerge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: with this one I've added Filos, a source you suggested that it's good to use (by the way you rejected Hammond as unreliable). I can't understand why you accuse me to SilentResident about this.Alexikoua (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua with this edit you added the template Northern Epirus, an irredentist modern concept. you should explain why you ignored that relevant detail. And please, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS and FOCUSONCONTENT, if you are here to build an encyclopedia. – Βατο (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The stable version is this one. And it will stay that way until there is consensus to change. We are absolutely not going to remove or misuse top notch sources based on the likes and dislikes on some "anonymous wikipedia users". Khirurg (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Panagiotis Filos is an expert on the linguistics of Epirus. His work in Hellenic language studies is acclaimed. If you're not familiar with hia work or the corpus of contemporary Hellenic language studies, you should familiarize yourself with it. Nowadays, most things worth publishing are published in English. English is the international language of science, and more "foremost experts" publish in English instead of obscure Balkan languages. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Toynbee
Source: Article: Does that look to anyone like good use of bibliography? --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to read Filos he seems certain about the Greek origin of the suffix -anes.Alexikoua (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) The persistent and peculiar refusal of Maleschreiber and Βατο to acknowledge the existence of this top notch source (Filos) is perplexing, disturbing, and disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid Maleschreiber will need provide a very strong source to challenge this.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Maleschreiber can you provide full quote for your edits? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To challenge what? Does anyone of you think that Toynbee has been correctly cited in the article? I haven't removed Filios, I've corrected Toynbee. I've read the whole book of Filios. He discusses epigraphic evidence. That is how anyone makes claims for the language of a certain people in a certain era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this answer doesn't address the problem. Please would you be kind to provide the quote specifically stating this? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Maleschreiber please provide here below this a clear explanation as the tag you added will need to be justified. Can you please explain what text should be added or what text should be removed to address the issues the tags are added for? Also you will need to justify each one of these additions/removals. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg nobody contested Filos, and nobody removed it from the article. You instead, contested and removed Sasel Kos. You need to read all Filos to understand the subject:
 * p. 221:
 * pp. 222-223 Sources:
 * p. 224, Studies:
 * p. 224, Language and script in Epirus:
 * As you can see, Filos bases his statements on epigraphic written material. – Βατο (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see both Classical period and Archaic periods mentioned here but not the Hellenistic period. Note: since all these periods are totally different to each other I want the sources explaining the addition of Hellenistic period to it which Male was trying to add. Can you help me with that? One problem at a time. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bατο: I've read Filos from start to finish. Have you? Because he also states In addition, one also ought to cite here the numerous ethnonyms in -anes, e.g. Atintanes, Athamanses, etc. which are also common to other NW Doric Greek varieties. on p. 240. Did you miss that? Khirurg (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: That's is really disruptive: Filos does not limit his research to epigraphy. He is not that stupid to make such conclusions. Serious scholars take into account all aspect. No wonder there is nothing to back your claim in this qoute: 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.Alexikoua (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added specific quotes from three different sources (Toynbee, Sasel-Kos, Wilkes). They do not discuss what the article now claims as the full quotes show. I even moved the tag which I added from the head to the specific section as a middle ground to not tag the entire article, but articles should put forward what bibliography puts forward. The Atintanes aren't even attested in the Archaic era and they're mentioned once in passing by Thucydides in the 5th century and all other times they are mentioned are Hellenistic or post-Hellenistic in the context of the Roman-Illyrian wars. Filios is doing what every historical linguist does: he draws conclusions from available evidence. What other evidence - besides what Filios explicitly mentions - do you think that there is?--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will ask you to be more specific: if you want the tag to stay, you ought to explain now what you want to be added to the article or removed from it to address the tag. Can you please be more specific by providing quotations/examples here, and brief descriptions justifying their removals/inclusions? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want the tag to stay - it's not a POV tag which involves a deeper dispute. I want Toynbee, Sasel-Kos and Wilkes to be used on the basis of what they have written and then the tag to be removed. This can start with removing from the section the part which Wilkes doesn't discuss - the full quotes are in the beginning of the section. If we can agree on that, we can move to Toynbee and Sasel-Kos.-Maleschreiber (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilkes reports two possible solutions, they need to be both included. And Winnifrith's vew is completely different from the article content it is supposed to support. He is talking about pastoralism and tribal movements in the region. – Βατο (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your response. If you don't mind, I am waiting for everyone's input on this before we proceed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 03:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the above are made obsolete by Filos (2018). Khirurg (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here Maleschreiber used Dausse 2015 to remove the fact that the southern border of Illyria was the Aous, which was sourced to Wilkes. Bato and Maleschreiber also consistently deride the Cambridge-educated scholar N.G.L. Hammond as "outdated, even he published well into 90s, but here want to include Toynbee 1969 (who is already included actually). The double standard is incredible. Khirurg (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: What other evidence - besides what Filios explicitly mentions - do you think that there is?- I can't understand your question. We can also use Chatzopoulos, 2020 he clearly rejects an Illyrian label.Alexikoua (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: As you can see, Filos bases his statements on epigraphic written material. I don't thing so, a serious research does not make this kind of errors. There are several aspects from which a scholar concludes which language an ancient population spoke (social factors, culture, religion, participation in Panhellenic institutions etc.) not only epigraphy. Imagine that based solely on epigraphy Bylliones would have been also Greek which is unacceptable, right?Alexikoua (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Academic consensus
So here we have a top notch literature review from 2017 by an expert on the topic, that unambiguously states the Atintanes are included in the consensus that Epirote tribes spoke NW Greek. This is the current state of the art in the field. So any older sources that contradict this are deprecated and should not be used. Especially if they are not expert on Epirote linguistics (e.g. Sasel Kos). If we cannot agree on something this simple, then there are very deep problems and admin intervention may be needed. Khirurg (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filios also writes that and Dause places Atintania within the transboundary region between Illyria and Epirus:  There's a big difference between ambiguity and periodization.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that contradicts the consensus that the Epirotes, including the Atintanians were Greek-speaking. Filos clearly draws a distinction between Epirotes and Illyrians, as does any source worth reading on the subject (not including some Albanian nationalist WP:FRINGE authors). Dausse only speaks about their localisation, not what language they spoke. The language issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, becasue Filos and Sasel Kos are not in disagreement. Sasel Kos states that the Atintani were Illyrian speakers and then, after the influence of their Greek neighbors, acquired Hellenization. Filos states that – Βατο (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filios doesn't a draw a distinction in the way you may think that he does The methodological model of interpretation now is based on the concept of transboundary regions of cultural meeting instead of "hard barriers". The issue is the periodization as fas I'm concerned which means that Sasel-Kos and Filios are not mutually exclusive. There should be an explanation that a)we're discussing the language of the Epirotic population based on   b)Sasel-Kos proposes a model of acculturation and we could stop there in terms of discussing their language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clutching at straws and veering dangerously into intellectual dishonesty. Filos could not be more clear that he includes the Atintanians in the consensus. Using verbose sophistry The methodological model of interpretation now is based on the concept of transboundary regions of cultural meeting... doesn't change. So if you guys will not accept a source that is a) by a top expert, b) recent, c) a comprehensive literature review, and d) unambiguous, then we have a problem. It impossible to have any kind of agreement or discussion with this level of intellectual dishonesty. Khirurg (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that I am not accepting a) to d)? He is unambiguous but he is discussing his subject within a certain timeline. I am genuinely trying to work this out. I don't know why it's so hard for an agreement to exist that a people about which we have one comment in the 5th century, one inscription and few other comments in the late Hellenistic era were X-speaking within the given timeline about which we have evidence of their existence in available (epigraphic) evidence.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sasel Kos wrote in 2005, a full 13 years before Filos. As you yourself are fond of saying, this is a rapidly changing field. The consensus that Filos wrote of was not solidified back in 2005, but it is now. Sasel Kos should thus be considered outdated. Now let's do the following thought experiment: Suppose Filos said the Atintanians were Illyrian speakers, and that Sasel Kos had written in 2005 that they were Greek speakers. Now, imagine me babbling about The methodological model of interpretation now is based on the concept of transboundary regions.... Yeah, exactly. Khirurg (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dause clearly dismisses the possibility of Atintanes being Illyrians as he states that they were considered either Epirotes or Macedonians.Alexikoua (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber, Bato: Filos is not limited in his reasearch in "epigraphic evidence" and this "widescale concensus in scholarship" concerns the entire field of linguistics and social science. Such conclusion in scholarship is the product of wider research.Alexikoua (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @You are misusing Filos, after the presentation of all the information on epigraphic material, he states that . A "Greek-speaking population of Epirus" were also the Bylliones at some point of the expansion of the Molossian rule, attested in epigraphic material, but they were always referred to as Illyrians. Also about Pierre Cabanes we have Castiglioni (2003): Shpuza(2009) too considers them Illyrian:  To solve the problem of the labeling "Illyrian" to the Atintanes by ancient authors, Hammond proposed that they were two tribes, the Atintani in northern Albania and the Atintanes in Epirus, but this is now the less likely hypothesis (Sasel Kos 2005), or the one that have to be abandoned (Dause 2015). Ceka (2009) reported some of the relevant locations by different authors:  The solution that proposes Ceka (2009) himself is that the Atintanes formed a koinon with the Bylliones, Amantes, Antigoneads. According to this vew the koinon of the Bylliones emerged after the division or assignment of Atintania to Macedon by the Romans. Indeed in that period we have the emergence of first epigraphic material that attests the koinon of the Bylliones. A similar view is shown in the 2017 Martinez-Sève's map at p. 85, which shows Atintania on the Aoos, between Byllis and Amantia, and which passed in different periods under the Epirote rule and the rule of the "Royaume illyrien d'Agron". I suggest you to see it becasue it is very informative about the relevant events of the 3rd century BC. All of these theories should be included in the article, because the Atintanes are one of the most debated ancient tribes, and because there is cleary no "Academic consensus". – Βατο (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see evidence that a koinon was formed by the Atintanes, there is no coinage, no epigraphy and no contemporary historians point to this. It's a hypothesis that's not accepted by scholarship. Chatzopoulos rejects the two tribes scenario and states that the Illyrian label was used by Appian to show that they were under (short term) Illyrian rule. On the other hand Dause states that they were either Epirotes or Macedonians depending on where they belonged. Antigoneads? I assume they might be Illyrian?Alexikoua (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think Antigoneads were Illyrian. Their inlcusion along with Bylliones and Amanetes into the Atintanes can solve all the problems, because Atintanes and Atintania are mentioned several times in ancient sources, while the koinon of the Bylliones was never mentioned, but attested in epigraphic material. The consideration of including Bylliones and Amantes (like 2017 Martinez-Sève's map at p. 85) or the Bylliones, Amantes and Antigoneads, with the Atintanes, can solve the problem of the labeling "Illyrian Atintanes" and "Epirote Atintanes" by ancient sources. Different scholars claim different views, and they should all be added into the article. – Βατο (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't object that there are some minor issues among scholar, all of them are presented. However, the "inflated Atintania" (Amantia, Byllis, Antigonea, etc down to Dodona) is a hypothesis that is rejected. It is also mentioned among others.Alexikoua (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that's a nice map in this Atlas.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there are many major issues that need to be fixed, because your misuse of sources is impressive. You added Winnifrith and Wilkes as they are two scholars that support Hammond's view of two different tribes, but they don't. Also Hatzopoulos interpretation is not more important than those of Sasel Kos, Cabanes, Shpuza, Ceka and Winnifrith, who consider Roman times Atintanes to have been Illyrian as well. All the views should be included, not just the ones you like. – Βατο (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The map in that atlas illustrates very well the situation, and as you can see on it, Atintania is represented as a region between Byllis and Amantia, one time Illyrian but annexed by the Epirote state. According to that map, Agron's Illyrian kingdom reacquired it. – Βατο (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of attacking others with comments like your misuse of sources is impressive, how about you make a concrete proposal and we can take it from there. Sasel Kos's claim that they were Illyrian is entirely unsubstantiated. All the sources you mention are also much older than Filos, some nearly 20 years older. This is a rapidly changing field, and the consensus mentioned by Filos (2018) is recent. Ceka cannot be considered reliable. He is a politicians with maximalist views, who considers pretty much everything and everyone "Illyrian". We cannot use such sources. Khirurg (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is again another talk about Illyrianness? Then that makes it the 19th article in the long "Illyria and Albania" flag planting nationalist war that has been going on. The history logs never lie. However the editors stated that they are here only to work at improving the Project and its articles (per their statements always). If this is truly the case, I am willing to give it a chance; however I shall remind everyone here that they ought to follow the same rules and practices as the others done before them. It seems Βατο wants to challenge the recent academic consensus. Fine. However, in Wikipedia there is only one way, and this is by countering the consensus with new sources. Βατο, please, would you be kind as to provide us any recent sources to challenge it? Any strong and substantiated sources will help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: You stated that You added Winnifrith and Wilkes as they are two scholars that support Hammond's view of two different tribes, but they don't.. Wilkes states: . Conclusion: Wilkes supports the 2-tribes concept.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexi, you are misusing sources again, you should avoid it because it is not constructive. Wilkes does not "support the 2-tribes concept", you are falsifying him! Here is the full quote: and the footnote:  @SilentResident, I provided above many quotes from a great number of scholars, all of which have been published in the last 20 years. As it is clear, there is no consenus about the identity and location of the Atintanes, and the views of different scholars should be impartially included in the article. – Βατο (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't undestand why you accuse me on the standart basis. The quote by Wilkes you provided proves that he finds this 2-tribe solution fine and no wonder its the first option he mentions. As about the 1-tribe solution supported by Hatzopoulos etc. this is totally diferrent from the wp:FRINGE of the "inflated & Illyrian Atintania" that stretched down to Dodona.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody proposes the . WP:STAYONTOPIC. – Βατο (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilkes reports both the solutions, and you can't include him in the article only for one of them. – Βατο (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you: Hatzopoulos, 2020: . Let me remind you that it's actually one of the maps you proposed here [].Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add this 1-tribe solution as an alernative view by Wilkes.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some editors here have to accept the fact that there are many different scholarly interpretations on the specific tribe. The majority of scholars does not accept the view that there were two different tribes with a similar name. Based on ancient accounts and culture material, among those scholars who do not accept the division, some consider the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe, others as an Epirote one and they place the specific tribe in completely different locations as well. You can not construct a narrative mixing completely different views, hence you have to inlcude them all as they have been proposed by the scholars. Btw, along with the information that gives Wilkes, the interpretation that provides Winnifrith was misused and should be fixed. – Βατο (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but such an interpretation is not reflected in bibliography. In light of recent publications on the subject an Illyrian label is absent. Cabanes, Papazoglou, even Wilkes (1-tribe alternative view), Hatzopoulos mention one non-Illyrian tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Cabanes' view in the article, and you can see that it is well reflected in bliography. – Βατο (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Βατο you have provided old sources and I thank you for that. However they are old and are predating the recent consensus. You stated earlier that: "there is cleary no "Academic consensus"" and for this reason I asked if you have newer sources to confirm that. Otherwise the argument on the recent consensus is between an anonymous editor VS published material by a well-known and respected scholar. So, I am asking again: do you have any sources to challenge that consensus? If yes, please I would appreciate if you provide us these sources so that we check them. However, given the sensitive nature of this topic area, the sources will have to be strong and published by reliable and well-known authors. If you can't provide them, then the article will have to stick with what the recent scholarly fieldwork says on the matter. Last, if for whatever reason you are insisting on the inclusion of older sources, then the article may take note of them, as long as there is WP:CONSENSUS for their inclusion and everyone agrees that they predated the newer consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pierre Cabanes is one of the major experts, and his considerations are extremely relevant for the specific subject. If you have not reliable sources that contradict his views, he can't be dismissed by editors on their personal thoughts because Wikipedia is an Encyclopeadia based on reliable published material. – Βατο (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not challenging Cabanes and you can rest assured that I will not. However I still need the newer sources I asked above. Cabanes's fieldwork was from two five decades ago, before the recent consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the recent consensus? There is no consensus on Atintanes. They are one of the most scholarly discussed ancient tribes of the region. – Βατο (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) The piece from Cabanes that you added is from 1976, nearly 50 years old. We are not going to present it to the world as if it were up to date scholarship. What you have added is contradicted by modern scholarhip, inparticular the consensus that the Atintanes were Greek speakers and not Illyrians. You have a history of using heavily outdated or outright unreliable sources (predatory publishers, nationalist Albanian sources, etc.). No way. Khirurg (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, was that even older than I thought? My apologies for the wrong impression. My above comment has now been corrected. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do not provide reliable sources that contradict scholarly views, Cabane's ones in particular, they can't be dismissed by Wikipedia editors. – Βατο (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The view is contradicted by Filos, who includes the Atintanes among Greek-speakers and draws a clear distinction between Epirotes and Illyrians. Stop pretending you didn't hear that.. Here's the link to Filos,, so everyone can see it. Khirurg (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos does not discuss the identity or location of the specific tribe, he is discussing the language variety of those tribes who spoke Greek in Epirus, based on epigraphic material. – Βατο (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Cabanes more recent view (1993) he considers them Epirotes and Greek speakers (why you changed this reference by the way?) Alexikoua (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actualy, Wilkes is the author of that chapter, and those considerations are by him. Cabanes' removal is not constructive. You have to restored the sourced content you removed in this edit]. – Βατο (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Βατο, sorry but we cant return to outdated information from many years ago just because it suits your POV. Either provide recent sources, or agree that the outdated viewpoints can only be referred in a historical scientific context, not contemporary. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident, sorry, on what Wikipedia policies or guidelines are you basing your claims? If you do not provide reliable sources that contradicts scholars and their reliable publications, they can be used in articles. And Cabanes is definetly a reliable scholar. I suggest you to read WP:RS. – Βατο (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of making snide comments like read WP:RS, how about you read Cabanes 1995? Cabanes in 1976 considered the Atintanes Illyrians, but by 1995 he clearly includes them among the Epirotes. The field has changed since 1976. That's why you shouldn't use outdated sources. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read Cabanes (1995)? The source provided by Alexi is actually a chapter by Wilkes. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant Wilkes. In any case, it explicitly contradicts Cabanes 1976. That's why you shouldn't use outdated sources. Khirurg (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Why I have the feeling that this change was not so innocent []?Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi with that edit I used the harvnb style, adding the book in bibliography. Come on, it is clear. – Βατο (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's ok, but the inline was wrongly linked with Wilkes, John (1995). The Illyrians. Wiley-Blackwell..Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A serious scholar needs to be carefull in cases of book reviews when his personall opinion differs from the one expressed in the specific book itself. I have seen numerous case when reviewer and book author disagree on a subject, but that's not the case.Alexikoua (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can's make such unreliable assumption. The author is Wilkes, and the claim is by him. You removed a more recent publication (Castiglioni 2003) that reported Cabane's view. You have to self-revert, because that edit was not constructive. – Βατο (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Castiglioni in his footnote cites Cabanes (1988), right?Alexikoua (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, can you provide a more recent view by Cabanes that contrasts it? Or a reliable source that dismisses it? If not, the information you removed should be restored. – Βατο (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way the full quote from Cabanes, 1988, p. 62 does not confirm this Illyrian view. I remember you have full access of this work.Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a reliable source about the specific information (Castiglioni 2003). There is no need for your interpretation. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The view from 1976 is contradicted by sources from 1995 and 2018. There is no need for your interpretation. Khirurg (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not yet reported sources that contradicts Cabanes' view. Wilkes' 1995 view was made only 7 years after Cabanes' 1988 view. As already stated above, Filos (2017) does not discuss the identity or location of the specific tribe, he is discussing the language variety of those tribes who spoke Greek in Epirus, based on epigraphic material. While Sasel Kos (2005) accepted Cabanes' view, but you removed her too. You clearly are not allowing the introduction of other scholarly views that you do not like. This is highly disruptive. – Βατο (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been shown two sources that explicitly contradict the view that they were Illyrian, but you are pretending not to notice. That is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide specific quotes that dismiss Cabanes' and Sasel Kos' view? Filos does not comment on their identity or location, but on the variety of Greek they spoke. – Βατο (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have many examples of Illyrian tribes that spoke Greek (based on epigraphic evidence), one of them were the Bylliones, as reported also by Sasel Kos. – Βατο (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos does not include the Bylliones with the Atintanes and the other Greek-speakers. He also clearly draws a distinction between Greek-speaking Epirotes and Illyrians, and includes the Atintanes among the former. If you had read Filos, you would know this. And you can't consider Hammond from 1994 to be outdated, but not Cabanes from 1976. Making and repeating unreasonable demands is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, they are not unreasonable demands, and you know it. Scholarly views can't be excluded from Wikipedia articles until a reliable surce dismiss them. I did not "consider Hammond from 1994 to be outdated" according to my personal thoughts, as you are doing in this case. In previous situations I provided quotes from more recent reliable sources directly contrasting some theories proposed by Hammond. But you have not provided yet relevant quotes on Cabanes' (1988) and Sasel Kos' (2005) views. Hence they cannot be excluded just because you don't like them. You are breaking several Wikipedia rules removing them from this article.
 * Filos is commenting on the Greek language variety of epigraphic material found in Epirus, not on the identity or location of the specific tribe. All the quotes reported above reflect the variety of academic views on the subject. You are misusing one statement by Filos to support an original WP:FRINGE theory of an "academic consensus" on the identity and location of Atintanes. --Βατο (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: for the n-th time you need to avoid falsifying Filos' statement that Atintanes were Greek speakers exclusively based on epigraphy. In fact he concludes that some local peculiarities among the Epirotes existed. He also rejects the claim that those Epirote tribes spoke initially Illyrian and were later hellenized (p. 222): such views, which largely rely on some subjective ancient testimonies, are not supported by the earliest (and not only) epigraphic texts.Alexikoua (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've checked, Cabanes indeed in his 1988 work claims that Atintanes were connected with the Illyrians (though in various other works he adopts a slightly diferrent view), nevertheless I have to admit that Khirurg is correct in his concern about the use of outdated information. By the way, there is no epigrapraphic evidence from the Atintanes. All we know about them is from ancient historians and one incription from Dodona. So it's totally wrong to claim that they were Greek speakers based on their (non existent) epigraphy.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, if you do not provide recent reliable sources discussing Cabanes's view, he can't be removed from the article just because editors here disagree with his academic opinion. Do you realize that you are considering your personal opinion more important than that of an expert scholar, who published his view in a secondary reliable source? His views are commented in many other recent reliable sources like Castiglioni and Sasel Kos, and there is no need for your personal thoughts about them. This unbelievable POV attitude is extremely disruptive in Wikipedia, and if you persist, you will be reported. – Βατο (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Obsolete views are not always explicitly rebutted, but often quietly dropped and forgotten. Cabanes has been publishing as recently as the 2010s, you should have something from him that's more recent than...1976. Let me remind you that this is a very similar case with the Molossians and Macedonians, where older scholarship widely considered them to be "Illyrian" (at a time when that term was very vague and included most of the Balkans) but this is no longer the case. There are few sources that explicitly say that "the Macedonians are not Illyrians", but the consensus nowadays is pretty clear that they are not, even if not explicitly stated most of the time. As for the Illyrians, the term keeps becoming more and more narrow as the years go by. At one time it was a catch all term for any tribes in the western Balkans, but the scope keeps "shrinking" as the years go by. The Epirotes and Macedonians are no longer considered Illyrian, ditto the Paeonians, the Liburnians, etc...The field is changing, and we can't rely on sources from 1976 and present them as fact in wikipedia's voice. Khirurg (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have the most recently published monograph on Illyrians after that published by Wilkes in 1992, but you consider it "obscure". Ignoring and dismissing reliable sources that you don't like, even having the courage proposing the specific source to , can not be allowed in in this site, which is based on published reliable secondary sources. As I already told you, if you persist with this highly disruptive behavior, you will be reported. – Βατο (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Im not sure if you have noticed that all the sources you mentioned are old. Now the contemporary sources support otherwise. I am sure everyone will like to know why you are dismissing modern sources and emphasizing on outdated ones and are threatening others with reports for telling you the obvious thing which elludes you only for the very fact that only the outdated sources support your POV. I am not disputing Cabanes but I wonder why the double standards here. In other cases you favored use of contemporary sources over older ones, while in this particular article, you are favoring the older sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way the only epigraphical evidence that mentions the Atintanes is this one [], and its not an Atintanian one. @Bato: you still believe that they were Greek-speakers exclusively based on epigraphy?Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) The most in-depth and up-to-date coverage on the Atintanians is in Hatzopoulos from 2020. He a) clearly includes them among the Epirotes, b) distinguishes them from the Illyrians, and c) explains that their inclusion into "Illyrians" is due to brief political annexation by Illyrian rulers. What Sasel Kos' claim based on? Is it only based on Appian's description? The Illyrians left behind no written records or epigraphy. How is the claim then substantiated? Khirurg (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And how Hadzopoulos' claims are substantiated? We are not here to discuss the views of scholars, but to incude them neutrally into the article. Hatzopoulos reports, supporting them, Holleaux and Leveque's view. He then reports three different views, Hammond's, Ceka's, and Cabanes'. He reports that Cabanes accepts Ceka's vew, but without the Drynos valley. Hatzopoulos is not commenting on Sasel Kos' views, while he rejects Hammond's view as "unacceptable and unnecessary". Sasel Kos and Dausse do not accept Hammond's view as well. Neritan Ceka published his views also on a recent 2017 paper coauthored with Olgita Ceka. In this paper, the Atintanes are considered neighbors of the Amantes, stretching down to the Drinos valley, not Dodona. Hammond's view is the only outdated one, but you kept it in the lead of the article. – Βατο (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, Filos does not state "Greek population of Epirus", I reworded it as per source. Can you please provide the full quotes about 1995 Wilkes' views, which are more recent than those included in The Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I accessed Wilkes 1995, and that claim was Hatzopoulos' one, while Alexikoua removed Cabanes' view with this edit summary: . Your misuse of sources is impressive Alexi. --Βατο (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some theories are rejected as outdated or obsolete since new evidence emerges. Bato I can't understand why you falsify Hatzopoulos, he states that Cabanes accepts Ceka's view in terms of geography with Drino (and obviously Dodona) excluded and that's most of the territory. The remaining region is roughly the same as Hatzopoulos' states. Dausse mentioned that atintanes were classified either as Epirotes or Macedonians (not Illyrians). Hammond's view is the only outdated? No, on the contrary actually Ceka's view is the only that's rejected as fringe.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to dismiss Ceka's view presented in his 2017 paper, which does not include Dodona, you have to provide reliable sources commenting on it, otherwise, your personal opinion is irrelevant. – Βατο (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my earlier question. Sasel Kos writes about the Illyrians, not the Atintanians specifically, and only mentiones them in passing along with a bunch of other tribes. Her view that they spoke Illyrian is explicitly contradicted by Filos. And the only one who has written extensively about the Atintanians is Hatzopoulos. This is the most specialized source on the subject, and also the most up to date. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious, @Khirurg? The one that "only mentiones them in passing along with a bunch of other tribes." is Filos, actually, and in brackets. Sasel Kos provides a full analysis of the specific subject:
 * Sasel Kos' publication is one of the most valueble one that deals in detail with the specific tribe. And you can't exclude it just because you don't like her academic views. --Βατο (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kos (2005) simply lists them among other names. I can't understand how you interpret this as the "most valuable analysis". Also "less likely" per Kos means she does not reject this option. On the other hand Hatzopoulos who is up to date presents all options, even Ceka's one which he terms as 'fringe'.Alexikoua (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read my previous comment, please. You have no more valid arguments. Cheers. --Βατο (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato: If the above is all about Atintanes from S.Kos then she just lists them among other names. There is plenty of real analysis on the subject and its up to date. Don't forget that you insisted that even statements from 2008 publications (as Cabanes about the Amantes) can be dismissed as obsolete.Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way Appian's use of the ethnonym Illyrian had a strict political meaning (Hatzopoulos, 2020), that the Atintanes had been under Illyrian rule. You see that more recent research can turn previous hypothesis obsolete.Alexikoua (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Βατο: All I see in Sasel Kos regarding the Atintanians and the Illyrian/Epriote question is that a) the Periplus includes them among the Illyrians, and that b) they acquired a degree of Hellenization. That's it. Khirurg (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And all I see in Filos is that he "only mentiones them in passing along with a bunch of other tribes":, in brackets. – Βατο (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot (or didn't read) p. 240. Anyway, Filos places them among the Greek speakers, explicitly contradicting Sasel Kos. Khirurg (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they perfectly agree, becasue Sasel Kos states that the Atintanes acquired a certain degree of Hellenization. Best. – Βατο (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A question. Please. Šašel Kos cites someone's fieldwork which is severely outdated. Yet Alexikoua and Khirurg are providing much more modern and updated fieldwork on the matter yet I am seeing you (an editor who has dismissed decades-old outdated sources in favor for more modern ones in other cases), doing the opposite in Atintanians's case: insisting on using outdated scholarship and giving it as much weight as newer ones. When academic consensus today is different from what scholars used to believe 20 or 50 years ago, it would be wrong to point on outdated fieldwork to make a point about today's consensus. I would like to know why an editor must rely on sources from the 1970s to 1990s instead of sources from 2010s and 2020s. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident, I would like to know what is the "academic consensus" you are claiming. If you read the sources, you would notice that there is no "academic consenus" on the subject of this article. There is a great number of recent publications which comment on the academic views of different scholars. – Βατο (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Ceka's work? I would appreciate if can I be enlighted on this. Because as far as I know, the recent scholars do not disagree with each other on the matter. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it means that you have not a sufficient knowledge on the subject. I can suggest you to take a look at the map depicted by Martinez-Sève's at p. 85 ( to see one of the most uptaded views of a current scholar, and it is completely different from any of the above reported academic views. – Βατο (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In your response you were giving me the false impression that there is actual scholarly fieldwork. Instead, you are presenting me the hellenistic map which was mentioned already earlier in this topic discussion. I will ask again: Do you have strong sources which explicitly disagree with the current consensus? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I will ask you again: can you tell me what is the "current consensus" you are claiming? Because I can't provide sources commenting on something that desn't exist. – Βατο (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Martinez-Seve atlas is not viewable online, but I have ordered it and it should be here shortly. As far as consensus, we have Filos (2018), Hatzopoulos (2020), and Dausse (2015) who all clearly include the Atintanes among Greeks/Greek speakers and draw a distinction between them and the Illyrians. Against this we have Sasel Kos (2005) who states that they are Illyrian who became Hellenized. Khirurg (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg: You are definitely right, per S.Kos: "Appian is also the only one to mention the Illyrian Atintani ( sic, not Atintanes ) (2005, p. 275), while current research notes that " Appian's (Ill. 7–8) use of the ethnic “Illyrian” for the Atintanes has been explained away as referring to their political situation after their annexation by Illyrian rulers."Alexikoua (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, Dausse does not "clearly include the Atintanes among Greeks/Greek speakers" (WP:OR). Hatzopoulos is the only one that considers them an Epirote community. Filos "only mentiones them in passing along with a bunch of other tribes"' in brackets, reporting the current consensus on the variety of the Greek-speaking population of Epirus. Ceka, a contemporary of Hatzopoulos, had different views from him in the 20th century. Ceka presents his updated views, like Hatzopoulos, also in more recent publications. Unlike Hatzopoulos, Ceka's views have been accepted in the past, a little bit modified, by Cabanes and Papazoglou. We have Sasel Kos that accepts Cabanes considering them Illyrian, and Shpuza that considers them Illyrian as well. Martinez-Seve depicts on his map at p. 85 Atintania in an area that coincides with half of Ceka's updated poroposal. As you can see, an "academic consensus" does not exist. – Βατο (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ceka's views have been accepted in the past, a little bit modified, by Cabanes and Papazoglou. Pardon me but none agrees that Ceka's (Illyrian) Atintanes were in control of Drino and Dodona. That's not a little bit modified that's way too much modified. Ceka (both H. and N.) have been accused promoting Albania's glorious Illyrian past [], while publishing ideological manifestos (The Illyrians to the Albanians). By the way why should we rely on works that are written by authors who are primarily politicians? Fact is that his Atintanis theory is dismissed.Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Dausse stresses that they were either Epirotes or Macedonians depending on which state they belonged. An Illyrian option is not mentionedAlexikoua (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are irrelevant if not backed by sources, @Alexi, see WP:OR, and WP:RS as well. Cabanes and Papazoglu, two experts of the field, accepted Ceka's view, but they modified the area he proposed, while they did not accept Hatzopoulos' one. Cabanes reduced the area proposed by Ceka, while Papazoglu enlarged it. Ceka presents his updated views in more recent publications which includes the area down to the Drino valley (it does not include Dodona). And the map depicted by Martinez-Seve icludes an area that coincides with the northern one presented by Ceka, not by other scholars, indeed Atintania is depicted on that map as an area between Byllis and Amantia. Dausse states this:, do not misrepresent his statement, as you did many other times, because it is highly disruptive. – Βατο (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "They appear as Epirotes at certain times, or Macedonians at others. That's the case of the Atintanians...". Epirotes or Macedonians. Not Illyrians. No one is misrepresenting anything. Khirurg (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific Atlas agrees on Hatzopoulos view about the area. @Bato: I assume you are kidding me this label is in full disagreement with Ceka's map you presented in another article (stretching from Myzeqe to the Greek-Albanian border). And yes Ceka's theory includes Drino-Dodona.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the specific Atlas includes Atintatia outside the Epirotan tribal territoy, between Byllis and Amantia, on the lower valley of the Aoos, which coincides with the northern area of Ceka's view. While Hatzopoulos locates them in the middle valley of the Aoos. In the 2017 publication, Neritan Ceka and Olgita Ceka consider Atintania stretching down to the Drino valley. You have to provide reliable sources that consider this view as fringe. – Βατο (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "lower valley of the Aoos" was the northern limit of Epirus (Hatzopolos etc.). I believe you are recycling the same wrong views. And the Cekas view of the great Illyrian atintania 'has been rejected', there was no Illyrian people dominating from Myzeqe to Dodona. Such an event is complete fiction. I suggest you avoid works written by politicians, they are not the best examples of neutrality. Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to provide reliable sources that consider this view as fringe.: Hatzopoulos published a paper to mention that this falls into clear fringe. Hammond the same, Pliakou also confirms the same fringe. The rest simply ignores him or accepts a tiny part of his definition (Cabanes).Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Papazoglu ("Politarques en Illyrie") agrees with Ceka: Cabanes accepted Ceka's proposal, but without the Drino valley. Anyways, I can't see a reliable source that discusses this recent publication:  Hatzopoulos, in his 2020 publication, seems to place Atintanes on the middle Aoos valley, not the lower one as depicted by Martinez-Seve in his Atlas, which coincides with Ceka's consideration that the northern area of Atintanes were constituted by the Bylliones and perhaps by the Amantes, on the lower valley of the Aoos. – Βατο (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, I added the 'qn' tag for the statement "M.B. Hatzopoulos roughly agrees with the above boundaries" because Hatzopoulos (2020) seems to accept Holleaux' solution of the "middle valley of the Aoos". – Βατο (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The theory of the Cekas and their 'great illyrian atintania' has been published in several works beginning from the 1980s. It's fringe no matter in how many works this has been recycled. I'm not sure if this Atlas depicts the label 'atintani' too close to the coast: Atintanes were one tribe, Amantes another and Bylliones yet another. This fiction that one tribe might bear several names has to stop. Atintanes never formed a koinon or a wider-koinon and a they were not a group of tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabanes accepted Ceka's proposal, but without the Drino valley. you forgot to state that Dodona was also excluded by Cabanes. Cabanes limits Ceka's Atintania to 60% if not more. We need to provided a clear picture, not to use wp:CHERRY in order to promote a specific agenda. Alexikoua (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version presents all views. I have to admit that though Hammond's view is not generally dismissed nevertheless its only mentioned in the 'location' section, same as Cekas.Alexikoua (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see 'great illyrian atintania' in recent works, and Dodona is not included as well. "" your personal opinion is completely irreleavant for Wikiepdia, we are not here to discuss reliable sources based on our thoughts. What should stop is your continuous labeling of academic views as "fiction" or "fringe" just because you don't like them, it's highly disruptive for Wikipedia. The current version does not include many views, some of which you unconstructively removed with misleading and improper arguments such as "" and "" . – Βατο (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to avoid pretending that Cabanes' information is not present []. It appears you stubbornly insist to present fringe concepts as scholarly accepted view but this won't work in this case. Politics and ideologically motivated works should be avoided in our case and yes this falls directly into wp:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT. Nevertheless per wp:AGF the theory of the Cekas in included with the appropriate label it received by scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So we have a theory about a so-called state in which several koinons and cities participated (Bylliones, Amantes, Antigonia, stretching to Dodona), but this supposed independent state (Atintania) had never extracted a single coin, no decrees, no epigraphy and no contemporary historian mentioned it. You understand that's way too fringe. Even yourself admitted that Antigonea was probably not Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This unbalanced version is unacceptable [] to present views of the 90s and 80s as accepted in modern scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, if you remove again sourced content, I will report you to the admins. – Βατο (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's not the way BRD works. You need to be more conveincing in preseting your arguments.11:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to present arguments for the removal of sourced content. I did not remove your additions. – Βατο (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed the information about the sources that mentioned them in antiquity, and the information about Cabanes' view, without explaining why. – Βατο (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's not the way BRD works. You need to be more conveincing in preseting your arguments.11:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to present arguments for the removal of sourced content. I did not remove your additions. – Βατο (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed the information about the sources that mentioned them in antiquity, and the information about Cabanes' view, without explaining why. – Βατο (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You replaced modern scholarship with views from 1992 (Wilkes) and 1967 (Toynbee). It appears you have a highly selective taste of sources coming from that period. Nevertheless modern scholarship is quite clear: Dausse, Filos, Hatzopoulos among them.Alexikoua (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Toynbee (1967) was added by you. Wilkes (1992) talks about the problem of their identity. If Hatzopoulos' view (1993) presented by Wilkes in 1995 is included, Cabanes' view (1988), presented by Castiglioni (2003) should be included as well. – Βατο (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you restored Toynbee's outdated explanation about their name while we have a more recent one (typical way to descredit modern scholarship). Hatzopoulos supports the same view in his 2020 paper. Also Appians use of the name Illyrians is explained in a very recent publication, which you again you attempt to discredit as the personal view of Hatzopoulos.Alexikoua (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment on Appian is Hatzopoulos' personal view, because we have Sasel Kos, Ceka and Shpuza which consider it otherwise. – Βατο (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you every thought that Hatzopoulos (2020) is much more recent and up to date compared to Kos (2005)? Research makes progress. By the way you selectively chose those authors. I can only wonder why you neglect Hammond since you refer to works of his era.Alexikoua (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Βατο, the point here you are missing is that these views which are old, do not replace the newer academic consensus. You may note the decades-old views but you may not use them to make a point which modern-day consensus overturned. Nor you can use the old sources to challenge the today's consensus which is based on modern sources. You can argue as much as you want, even take the matter to a dispute resolution, but everyone will tell you that are facts are facts, and how old a source is, actually matters in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per your arguments, we must remove all the sources and use only Hatzopoulos 2020 publication, and from this publication we should remove all the information he cites from more older works. Btw, Hatzopoulos reports that " and he cites Cabanes. – Βατο (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Modern scholarship should be presented as such, you can't present it as "personal view" in contrast to other older obsolete views. That's not only about Hatzopoulos but also about Dause and Fillos. What;s erroneous is that you presented as "modern scholarship" a work from .... 1992.Alexikoua (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, the specific information is presented by Hatzopoulos as "" citing Cabanes (1986). If you do not provide quotes from more recent publictions that dismiss older academic views, they can be included, especially when they are presented by more recent works. – Βατο (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Βατο, Wikipedia often had disputes among editors favoring the older views and others the modern ones regarding the same fieldwork. Eventually all the disputes were resolved in two ways: either by referring to the old conflicting views in a historical context while at same time noting what scholars believe today, either by not mentioning the old views/modern views and rather reflect contemporary academic concensus. I take it from your responses so far that you do not wish to follow any of these approaches to resolve the problem and rather present old views as having equal in weight with the modern ones? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident, you have to understand that Cabanes' considerations are not "older views" because they are presented and many times accepted in more recent works. They are presented, for instance, in Castiglioni (2003), Sasel Kos (2005), Ceka (2009), Dausse (2015), Hatzopoulos (2020). You can't remove what scholars present on their works.--Βατο (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And again, there is no "contemporary academic consensus" on the specific subject. – Βατο (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: You present as "modern scholarship" a view from 1992. Nevertheless everything published the last decade and especially the last 5 years does not accept some older theories.12:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do not provide a more recent source that states that the identity and location of the Atintanes is no longer a problem, dismissing this statement by Wilkes, that part can't be removed from the article just because you don't like it. – Βατο (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You present a source of 1992 as 'modern scholarship' while there is plenty of modern scholarship and indeed you avoid the use of post 2010s publications.12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If a post 2010s publication directly comments on the specific statement, than we can discuss it. – Βατο (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, can we reword the information about Hatzopoulos' location, because it is not clear from the text. As it is now, the current version reports that Hatzopoulos agrees with Cabanes, but it seems he doesn't. In 1993 Hatzopoulos placed them on the upper valley of the Aoos. – Βατο (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos agrees with Cabanes on the way that it was one tribe. You did not answer why Ceka mentions Atintanian/Illyrian control stretching down to Dodona. Pliakou who participated in the excavations of Antigonia considers it.... non-historical.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How many theories?

 * Being away from the wikisphere meant that I took some distance from this article and now I'm reading how the discussion and gathering of bibliography has played out. Sometimes distance is good because it allows you to get a broader perspective on an issue. Now, as it stands the article is unintelligible and contradicts itself from sentence to sentence. Any person who reads this will leave article with the impression that they read an article about an "authentic Epirote" and/or Illyrian and/or Macedonian people who were Greek-speaking and may or may not have lived in any position along the modern Albania-Greece border. The map used in the article places these people in the only location (coastally, to the north of Antigonea) which is not mentioned as a theory.
 * Hatzopoulos (2020) presents three theories which are currently under debate: Then Hatzopoulos disagrees with Hammond (1989)  and places the Atintanes in the hinterland of Phoenice.
 * The overview by Hatzopoulos highlights that there is no consensus about this population in terms of identity and location as of 2020. Thus, the article should (WP:DUE) and avoid claims of consensus where a consensus doesn't actually exist outside of the claim of one particular author about a particular aspect in a particular timeline as in the use of Filios (2017). The unbalanced approach in how viewpoints are represented creates for the reader implications that are not put forward by bibliography. There can't be a consensus that they were unambiguously Greek-speaking, but then a debate about their identity as either Illyrians or "authentically Epirote" or Macedonians and a debate that they lived just about everywhere. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos offers a precise view so I can't understand why you suggest that he is confused in terms of identiy. Like all serious modern scholars he mentions some past theories and then he presents an up-do-date approach based on all available evidence and research. Scholarship works that way.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way this 3 theories concern the "location" not the identity of the Atintanes. The quote you provided begins with ""There have been roughly three theories contesting the above location of Atintania (or Atintanis):"....[]Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that one of those theories is presented by Hammond, a view you remove at first sight []. I can't see why Hammond is less important to the Cekas or the older Cabanes' view.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed @Maleschreiber, there are many theories, as suggested also by Wilkes, who was removed by Alexi without explanation. He does not even provide here more recent sources commenting on it. Alexi the info in Ohrid is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH content, in his hypothesis Hammond places the specific tribe in the area south of the lake, and you know it. – Βατο (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing was removed, everything is included. Nevertheless, older research should be reflected as such and a view from 1995 is not modern research. Wilkes and his theory are part of the current version. I can't understand what you mean.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this statement by Wilkes you removed: because there are many views in older and newer research. And until you provide a more recent source that dismiss Wilkes' statement, it have to be restored in the article.--Βατο (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There are three theories and they are linked to different viewpoints. They should be fairly represented and the article should avoid contradiction. It can't start with the premise that there are different viewpoints in terms of identity and location and then discuss language as a certainty. It can either contextualize the language issue in order to make it compatible with all theories or place it in terms which don't contradict what Hatzopoulos (2020) puts forward as an overview of the discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually current research is fairly presented. Off course pretending that a work of 1992 constitutes modern research is problematic. As I see from the above 3 views the one that has been completely rejected is one of Ceka. Cabanes though outdated (80s) has a fair share. Hammond is presented the same way as Cabanes. If one article is problematic in the representation of modern theories I can name this one [].Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only consensus mentioned in the article is the linguistic. Which is the current state of the art in the field, and not up for discussion. Khirurg (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, if you are referring to Filos, he "only mentiones them in passing along with a bunch of other tribes"' in brackets, reporting the current consensus on the variety of the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, but as sources show, there is not a consensus even in the location of Atintanes. – Βατο (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Filos is definitive (no hedging or qualifying). He is also recent and comprehensive. The language question is not up for discussion. Any manipulation in this regard will be treated as disruption and dealt with accordingly. Khirurg (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) The "three theories" is yet another example of source manipulation by Maleschreiber. The full text from Hatzopoulos states that The obvious and after all roughly correct solution was sketched by M, Holleaux and adopted by P. Leveque, namely that Atinatnia was the middle of the valley of the Aoos. The "three theories" mentioned by Hatzopoulos are "contesting" this obvious and correct location. Hatzopoulos states There have been roughly three theories contesting the above location of Atintania . There aren't thus "three theories" on an equal footing. There is a main theory, namely, the middle of the Aoos, and three contesting theories. To anyone intellectually honest, this means that Hatzopoulos considers the location in the middle of the Aoos valley to be the correct one, and the "three theories" to be less than that. This also only concerns the location of the Atintanians, nothing about their "identity". Khirurg (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: It appears you have a personal dislike towards Filos. He also mentions the Atintanes in terms of their name. He is definitely among the best in the field of linguistics in this area. Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Alexi, I am only highlighting the subject of the reported by Filos, which is the language variety of the Greek-speaking population of Epirus. In his statement Filos reports in brackets the Atintanes among the minor tribes of Epirus. A consensus about the identity and location of the specific tribe does not exist as shown by sources. – Βατο (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All Epirote tribes are mentioned the same way in Filos. Well he clearly states that there is an overall consensus. So far you have not contested this view. In terms of identity as the same sentence states they were Epirotes.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * this is your WP:OR, and it reflects clearly your continuous misuse of sources. He states they were among the tribes of the region of Epirus, not that they had an Epirote identity. – Βατο (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos has his own viewpoint (first published in 1993) but that is not the consensus. Sources must be compared and contrasted in the article, not half cropped and used in ways that cause contradiction. Filios is a reliable author who discusses linguistics in particular timeline based on specific epigraphic evidence and should be contextualized because right now his work is used as a talking point which contradicts with the historiographical discussion. See : --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are referring to a much older paper, that's from 1993. It's actually the first of a series dedicated to Atintanians.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No Alexi, the first paper completely dedicated to the Atintanes was that of Hasan Ceka, Atintanët (1956). – Βατο (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way Sasel-Kos adopts a 50-50 view. She isn't sure about their identity but this is fixed by much more recent scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Maleschreiber, this means that in terms of modern research, we have one theory, that of Cabanes, accepted by a recent scholar (Sasel Kos), while the other two theories (Hammond and Hatzopoulos) reach less weight, and it is a very big step on the historiography of the Atintanes. – Βατο (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's 2020 so those theories have been updated, new papers have emerged. By the way I can't understand why you rely on a... footnote.Alexikoua (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, can we take a step back and not use to the term "consensus" to refer to something that doesn't exist? Authors who wrote in 2005, 2010, 2017, 2020 about a population about which the very little that has been found, was found in the 1970s all write with access to the same primary data. If one of them claims consensus about a particular viewpoint, it can be added in a contextualized form but it can't be taken at face value in terms of access to data when other sources put forward different theories based on the same information. I'm comparing this with the editing process in Amantes: Hammond (1989) was compared to six sources published in the last ~15 years that all identified that tribe as Illyrian. Where are these sources in this article? I'm not necessarily saying that they don't exist, but if you claim consensus about something and then other editors put forward other sources, you should do the grunt work and get the sources which support the claimed consensus. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mallios (2011) presents an entire chapter (not just a footnote): Well, a 2-line footnote can't be considered research in terms of modern scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, the above quote does not provide new information on the subject. – Βατο (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It actually provides a fair representation in current scholarship and I though that this is your concern. Older theories (Cabanes) are just limited in footnotes (as in Mallios).Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you do a manual translation of the last sentence? Does it say that Hatzopoulos places Atintania/Atintanes from the Upper to the Middle Aous basin, east of Chaonia/Chaones and south of Molossia? --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * South of Molossia would be impossible he obviously means north of Molossia.Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you do a translation of this sentence word by word? --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I gave a precise answer on this. The sentence means: east of Chaonia as well as north of Molossis. It's far too obvious since the opposite directions are impossible.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to know the translation word by word by a native Greek speaker, not what you believe that the author "really meant to say". Let's not repeat the same discussion as in Zagori where another native Greek speaker had to be pinged to provide a translation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) There are three issues: Language, identity, location. The language issue has been resolved convincingly by Filos, who includes the Atintanians among the Greek-speaking Epirotes. The location is still debated, however, the most recent and convincing case is by Hatzopoulos regarding the Aoos valley. The identity is trickier, some include them among Epirotes or Macedonians (Hatzopoulos, Hammond, Dausse). Others, mainly older among the Illyrians. Khirurg (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, 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), 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. – Βατο (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in "creative" interpretations of Filos, and it is not up to us to second-guess sources. Unless you have a source that criticizes the consensus in Filos, the language issue is closed. We can't this situation of challenging even the most reliable sources with irrelevant, older material. If we can't agree on something this basic there is no point in continuing. And no one has "accepted" anything regarding location. The most recent and up to date source on the matter is Hatzopoulos 2020. He also devoted much more space to the Atintanians than Sasel Kos, who is 15 years older as well. And we also have Mallios, Dausse, Hammond, and Toynbee all arguing that they were Epirote. Khirurg (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but even Kos back to 2005 was not so certain if they were located in Illyria he states that:  This is stated in the context of Appian's description who is the only ancient source that uses the label 'Illyrian' for the Atintanes, while this is refers to their political situation being under Illyrian rule. @Bato: I can't unjderstand why you insist on falsifying Kos.Alexikoua (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, it is not a "creative interpretation" of Filos, because your acclaimed "academic consensus" about the inclusion of the Atintanes among the tribes of Epirus is completely WP:FRINGE, it does not exist. Filos is reporting the consensus on the language variety spoken by the tribes of Epirus, it can't be otherwise. @Alexi, Sasel Kos includes many informations on the specific tribe, and we have a 2010 source that reports the most relevant views, including that of Sasel Kos, while Hatzopoulos (2020) does not include her view. And in no way you can consider a 2005 and a 2010 publication as outdated.--Βατο (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, you should fix this content, because it is highly problematic: . You can not use a source from 2011 to support a 2020 publication. Come on! – Βατο (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good notice I will rephrase that to reflect the the recent paper. At least it's not from the early 90s.Alexikoua (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does Mallios make some proposal himself? Or he just reports the views of other scholars? – Βατο (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mallios finds Hammond and Hatzopoulos convincing and concludes with Hatzopoulos who agrees about Hammond's Epirote Atintanes. In his summary he mentions that there was a certain connection with the Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, checking the sources, I noticed that Hasan Ceka and Neritan Ceka had two different views on the location of the Atintanes, can you provide the citations reported by Hatzopoulos (1997) about the specific subject? Hatzopoulos (2020) cites only Neritan Ceka.
 * Hatzopoulos' view about the location should be clarified in the article. Hatzopoulos (2020) does not report his view on the location, he just comments on those proposed by Holleaux and Leveque, also stating that "Leveque added the valley of Drinos for no good reason." He also refers to his 1993 paper but I can't access it. Other sources report that Hatzopoulos considered the location from the upper valley of the Aoos stretching to the Këlcyrë Gorge. – Βατο (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: In the 1997 paper he mentions both H. and N. Ceka on how they connect the Bylliones with the Atintanes and propose this hypothesis:
 * Hatzopoulos (2020) statement is that the view of M. Holleaux & P. Lévêque is correct based also on the quality of some primary reports.
 * Leading archaeologist in Dodona, Katsikoudis (2000), also confirms that Hatsopoulos' arguments (1997) against inflated Atintanian state (N. Ceka hypothesis) are convincing [].Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sources. Hasan Ceka had a different view from Neritan, because Hasan located them in the hinterland of Apollonia, in the areas of Mallakstër, Skrapar and Opar, and he excluded the Drino valley. The areas of Mallakstër and Skrapar coincide with the location of Cabanes/Sasel Kos. Neritan Ceka's view was accepted by Papazoglu (1986) p. 444: The statement now included in wiki's voice: "A hypothesis that Atintanians formed a larger Illyrian state (including Byllis, Nikaia, Antigoneia, Drino valley and reaching Dodona) claimed by H. Ceka and N. Ceka has been rejected by modern scholarship." is not correct, because Hasan's views can't be equated with Neritan's ones, and because none of them included Dodona in Atintanian territory. About the Bylliones, Neritan Ceka and Cabanes included them as having been once part of Atintanes, and Sasel Kos accepts it as a possibility. The quote that was added to support the statement "rejected by modern scholarship" from Hatzopoulos (1997) includes also outdated informations, because he reports that Byllis is considered a Greek colony by Hammond, but it is now considered a Hellenized Illyrian city (e.g. Winnifrith, Papadopoulos, Eckstein, Lasagni, Olgita Ceka), and it is regarded as the chief city of the koinon of the Bylliones as well. Hatzopoulos (2020) indeed does not make conclusions about a "rejected theory by modern scholarship". In his more recent paper (2009) Neritan Ceka considers the Bylliones as having been once part of Atintanes, also for the Amantes he considers a possibility of inclusion. In the 2017 paper, Neritan Ceka and Olgita Ceka consider the Atintanes located on the southeast of the Amantes, stretching into the Drino valley. As for Hatzopoulos' location, in his 2020 publication he considers that Holleaux' solution is roughly correct, and it was followed by Leveque, but Leveqeue included also the Drino valley, hence they are not the same view. However, from this we can't assume that Hatzopoulos' location coincides with that of Holleaux, because in 1993 his location was on the upper and middle valley of the Aoos (Mallios 2011, Ceka 2009), while Holleaux' location is just its middle valley.--Βατο (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Cabanes did not limit his conclusions on Ceka, but on literary and epigraphic sources. This part should be added in the article. I rewrote the part about Hasan Ceka's views, while the part about Neritan Ceka's views should include more recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) I removed H. Ceka. Not only extremely outdated, but also form the Hoxha era. We can't have sources like this in the article, especially in wikipedia's voice. Khirurg (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos (1997) refers both to N&H Ceka hypotheses, rejects them both but I can't understand how you interpret this as supposedly being exactly the same view. Both propagate about the theory of an inflated Illyrian Atitanian state. By the way Hatzopoulos (2020) clearly states that N. Ceka includes Dodona in his definition. Leading archaeologists have declared that Cekas interpration of various inscriptions are completely wrong since Atintanes can't be connected to Bylliones.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Several leading archaeologists and historians declare that H. and N Ceka on various works defined Atintania as such. This is enough to warrant inclusion. @Bato: I can't understand why you insist to discredit those statements, while some ot them (Hatzopoulos 2020) are quite recent ones. By the way Cabanes limits Cekas' Atintania and does not include its southern part (Drino) that's actually a serious difference.Alexikoua (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On the comment that Ceka supposedly does not include Dodona in his so-called Illyrian state, Hatzopoulos cites the following works:

''1. Ceka H. Numismatique, Questions de numismatique illyrienne (Tirana, 1972), 2. Ceka N. "Les Koinon de Bylliones" (Clermont-Ferrand 1987) 135-149, 3. Ceka N. "Inscriptions bylliones", 1987 Illyria.'' As such there is no reason to refute statements by leading scholars by simply saying I can't confirm Cekas claim based on a limited number of papers. In Hatzopoulos (2020) he cites Ceka N. "Les Koinon de Bylliones" (Clermont-Ferrand 1987) 135-149" exclusively. Alexikoua (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, you removed an information from a 2009 source, which has been also included (with partial errors) in Hatzopoulos (2020). Hasan Ceka's view is the most similar to the views of Cabanes and Sasel Kos, that information should be included in the article because it is part of the historiography of this tribe. @Alexi, I agree on your new rewording, the only inaccuracy is that Hatzopoulos (2020) do not comment on the dismissal of the specific theories, moreover there is an error from that quote, in which Hasan Ceka's and Neritan Ceka's views are equated, I removed it from the specific sentence. Btw, the fact that some scholars disagree with the views of other scholars does not indicate that those views can be considered "fringe", especially in the case of this tribe whose location and identity is still discussed in scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the sources that comment directly on Hatzopoulos' precise view of the location (upper and middle valley of the Aoos), because in Hatzopoulos (2020) he makes only comments on the roughly correct solution suggested by Holleaux (middle valley of the Aoos) and on the solution of Leveque (middle valley of the Aoos and Drino valley), from which he disagrees about the inclusion of the Drino valley. – Βατο (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos (1997) about Byllis and Nikaia is based on Papazoglou's view ('Greek settlements in barbarian territory') and indeed a seperate coinages (Byllis vs Bylliones) indicate seperate political entities. Nevertheless, apart from hypotheses, there are no inscriptions that connect Atintanes with those settlements.Alexikoua (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Byllis is now considered a Hellenized Illyrian town by most scholars, including Winnifrith (2002), Eckstein (2008), Olgita Ceka (2012), Papadopoulos (2016), Lasagni (2019). Hence, that information is outdated. About the inclusion of Bylliones among Atintanes suggested by Neritan Ceka and Pierre Cabanes, we have Sasel Kos and Shehi who consider it a possibility. – Βατο (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow me to dissagree at least about Winnifrith and Papadopoulos, there is no such statement in both of them, while Cabanes dates from the 1980s same as Papazoglou. Hypotheses are hypotheses, while I notice that Castiglioni (2003) considers Hatzopoulos research "a more in-depth analysis of the issue" compared to the rest (Cabanes&Hammond, while the Cekas aren't even mentioned).Alexikoua (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabenes is not the same as Papazoglu, because along with N. Ceka, he criticized Hatzopoulos' view in his 1993 paper, and mantained his view. Morover Cabanes' view is accepted more recently by Sasel Kos, which makes it a recent view. Neritan Ceka's suggestions have been accepted by Shehi (2015), the more recent view currently included in the article. : ; : . All the above mentioned recent scholars – Winnifrith (2002), Eckstein (2008), Olgita Ceka (2012), Papadopoulos (2016), Lasagni (2019) – exclude the possibility of a colony, hence the information from Hatzopoulos (1997) is outdated. – Βατο (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Hatzopoulos' (1997) quote: is incorrect too, because he equates Hasan's and Neritan's views. Hasan located them north of the Aoos, he never included the Drinos valley and Antigoneia. I think that Katsikoudis is enough for that statement, indeed the article currently includes his opinion. – Βατο (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm it's very weird to interpret "indiginous" as "illyrian". In fact this is completely wrong. Hatzopoulos considers Byllis not a Greek colony but the northernmost non-colonian Greek settlement (Epirote) in the region. This fits 100% with Papadopoulos. However, fact is that Byllis is completely irrelevant with this topic (Atintanes). Atintanes were not Bylliones. A brief mention of this very extreme hypothesis is more than enough
 * Hatzopoulos (1997) statement is 100% correct, both of them (father and son) were propagating a "greater Illyrian Atintania".Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way I'm still waiting on Cabanes (1988) statement that considers Atintanians Illyrian, so far the existing quote says nothing close to this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * H. Ceka did not include the Drino valley and Antigoneia, they are completely different views. – Βατο (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Both views are propagating a "greater Illyrian Atintani" that's the issue, Hatzopoulos (1997) is enitrely correct in his statement. By the way Shehi briefly summarizes Ceka (1987) there is nothing new on this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Shehi (2015) claims that as a possibility, and it has been included as such. If both views of H. Ceka and N. Ceka are, then they shoud be treated as such, not as the same view. But Katsikoudis (2000) mentions only N. Ceka, because that content is related to his view. – Βατο (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the best we can say is that this is a posibility and it's mentioned by a minority of works as such. Alexikoua (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Katsikoudis cites both Hammond and Hatzopoulos, and those two refer to both H&N Ceka. Katsidousis uses plural "Albanian archaeologists" not singular. As such both Cekas are involved in this issue.Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If both are involved, their view's can't be equated. It is an error to include Antigoneia and Drinos in H. Ceka's view. it has been proposed by Cabanes as well, and accepted as a possibility by Sasel Kos too. – Βατο (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: User Khirurg removed information from the article however User Ktrimi991 reverted him and I stepped in to revert the edit TWICE not only for the problems others pointed out, but also for info being too old and contradicted by the modern scholarship. I am frustrated that editors are so eager to resort to edit owarring and the use of older scholarship just to brute-force information which suits their POV, into the article at the expense of seeking WP:CONSENSUS, exactly like how they did recently in several other articles. This is unacceptable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * H. Ceka is extremely outdated, and from the Stalinist Hoxha era, when there was no intellectual freedom in Albania. We cannot have such sources in the encyclopedia. N. Ceka writing about H. Ceka also possibly falls under WP:COI and does not meet the "independent thirda party" requirement of WP:RS. Khirurg (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember when nationalist editors tried 12 years ago to insert old sources written by a Greek politician about the Albanian immigration of the 1990s to Greece and were countered by the rest of us who oppose the use of 1) outdated sources and 2) sources from politicians? This whole situation here feels like a deja-vu from back then. Edit: also to not mention the disputes over Macedonia and certain editors wanting to use older but outdated sources about this kingdom, which was countered by the editors who favored modern academic consensus instead. Everyone can see how the Macedonia topic area articles ended up today. Perhaps they should give a look at them instead of seeking to do things differently here just because it suits them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether Ceka is included or not changes nothing. The article makes it clear that the origin and location of the tribe are murky, regardless of your failed efforts to hide that. Ceka had his issues due to the time he wrote, but still his opinion has been cited, even when opposed, by several Western RS. The topic is already disputed, and Ceka's opinion was shown on the article just as an opinion. The problem here is only your desire to remove Albanian sources. If the country of origin might cause issues, then certain sources published in Greece should be removed if used in the future. It actually happened once when you tried to use crappy Greek nawespapers on Albanian nationalism. Now, I am not going to waste minutes of my happy life arguing over a single sentence of an article that maybe no important person will ever read. I use the internet for things other than silly fights and nationalist trolling. I prefer to focus on meaningful things. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A typical issue in many ancient tribes is defining their precise location. In ancient Epirus this problem is evident in all tribes and this is not surprising since population movements occured quite often.Alexikoua (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is how Hatzopoulos (2020) who disagrees with Ceka describes an overview of his work. Obviously it's not WP:FRINGE or WP:OUTDATED and it's a problem that editors engage in reverts without having an overview of bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: You can't at the same time almost only use bibliography by Greek authors in order to object theories by Albanian authors, but then ask for Albanian authors to be removed because they lived in the Communist era. It's ludicrous that the sentence is included in the article, but the readers never get to learn what exactly N.Ceka wrote about. According to SilentResident and Khirurg, readers should know what a Greek author wrote about N.Ceka in a Greek journal, but H. or N.Ceka should be removed from the article despite the fact that others who agree and repeat their theories are included. Completely unacceptable, and I think admin intervention will be required to look into this behavior. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Ethnicity of authors doesn't matter here, age matters. Per WP:AGE MATTERS: Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years.. If you really are here to improve the article, then you ought to prioritize on modern day scholarship instead of outdated scholarship of the communist era. If you look carefully how things were across Wikipedia's articles regarding scholarly conflicts / scholarly consessus, then you should know that modern authors may cite on older fieldworks without problem, (and mind you, regardless of their ethnicity), and that mordern scholarship should be emphasized over outdated one. Also as an editor you ought to allow for the academic consensus to reflect on the article instead of trying to point on older sources just to challenge a a consensus that came later. The same is true for the differences among scholarship where sources disagree with each other: Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree on a scholarly dispute, but not by citing sources that came 50 years ago, but with modern ones. (again regardless of ethnicity). And if there are modern sources whose fieldwork counters the scholarly consensus mentioned in other sources, then as an editor you may not have it cited in a fashion that gives the readers the false impression the sources are disagreeing with the consensus but note their differing views. Per WP:SOURCETYPES: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. [...] Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. I will repeat a last time: You want to stick with old sources regarding a dispute? Then sorry but there is no WP:CONSENSUS for that. You want to use modern sources? Then you are more than welcome to cite them. Simple as that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfotunaterly this definitely falls under wp:fringe as Hatzopoulos has convincingly dismissed this hypothesis. Katsikoudis also confirms this, while Castigloni also supports the view that Hatzopoulos (1997) constitutes the most in-depth research on the subject.
 * By the way a brief mention with this hypotheses with the label .. "according to Ceka who propagates Albania's glorious Illyrian past" [] should be appropriate in order to reflect the specific POV.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This theory suggested by Ceka and his son hasn't received approval by the academic community outside Albania and therefore should be treated with heavy precaution. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: Hatzopoulos (2020) in his detailed research, as an experienced scholar, lists all views that have been presented the last half century. About N.&H. Ceka he also cites his 1997 paper where he dismisses their 'greater Atintanian state' hypothesis. Moreover, saying that N. Ceka believes that his father H. Ceka did a very good job.... isn't the most neutral person for such a statement.Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From Hatzopoulos (2020): So which is the "academic community" outside Albania which hasn't accepted their views? Authors from Greece and Hammond. But nobody removed them, unlike what you're trying to do with authors from Albania.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Any authors from Albania are welcomed to be cited, as long as they are modern day ones. Something in me tells me the only reason you are complaining now is because these two authors are the only ones you found? Sorry but the solution to the lack of modern authors (if this is really about it) is not to overlook how old they are. Just this is NOT how Wikipedia works. You can however cite foreign authors citing back at the Albanian ones, as long as the foreign ones is a recent scholarship. For Wikipedia, author nationality doesn't matter but WP:AGE MATTERS. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mschreiber:As you stated Cabanes drastically reduced the so-called 'great Atintanian' state to a small area. You don't believe that this can be considered full acceptance? However, the rest of the sholarly community fully rejects this hypothesis. Hatzopoulos (1997), Katsikoudis (2000), who finds Hatzopoulos (1997) convincing on the issue, Castiglion (2000) who finds Hatzopoulos (1993) the best more in-depth analysis on the issue (i.e. dismisall of Ceka's theory) and Hammond (1991). Nevertheless Cekas hypothesis is mentioned as all other past theories (Hammond etc.). As such overephasizing a hypothesis that's dismissed (or partly dismissed by some) falls into POV.Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The view of H. Ceka has been included (with some inaccuracies) in Hatzopoulos (2020), which makes it relevant for the history of research in this article. Moreover, H. Ceka's view is the most similar to that of Cabanes / Sasel Kos, which is the most accepted one. The view of Hatzopoulos coincides partially with that of Holleaux, the most old here. Hatzopoulos, as a scholar, reported in his 2020 publication both Holleaux and H. Ceka, because Hollaeaux was in partial agreement with his own views, while H. Ceka was in partial agreement with Cabanes' views, which have been accepted by Sasel Kos. There is no reason to exclude relevant informations that are commented in recent reliable sources. – Βατο (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: You understand that this is against MOS [] it's actually the epitomy of POV in terms of introduction. I wonder why you ignore the desctiption offered by Dausse (2015) and overinflate dismissed theories and turn them into accepted once.Alexikoua (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alexikoua for reverting the POV. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tynteni
reverted cited information (Toynbee,Hammond) about the link between Atintanes-Atintani-Tynteni. The article has become WP:OWN by few editors who revert everything which they don't want to be included in the article. Maybe the article should be tagged as an extreme POV which tries to put forward a narrative which ignores much of what bibliography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already performed a partial self-rv since this part appears to have some merit. Nevertheless your intro addition has serious POV and UNDUE issues and need to be discussed.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The "POV issue" which you saw is literally a transfer to the intro of the overview by Mallios (2011).--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. Intros aren't used for that, Maleschreiber. They reflect on the academic consensus, not on individual views. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have not realized yet that there is no consenus on this tribe. Since you don't like checking the sources, you can find the informations in the article, I sugget to read them to have a clear idea and to comment more appropriately. – Βατο (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Dausse explained that they were either Epirotes or Macedonians, if this is what you mean. Yes definitely per modern scholarship they were non-Illyrian. However, depicting Ceka's view as the most accepted one falls directly into POV.Alexikoua (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The most accepted view is Cabanes' one. The others are all equal. Dausse states that they may have been called Epirotes or Macedonians depending on which state ruled them. – Βατο (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabanes, a publication from the 80s? You have to be kidding. That's way too old. Even Castigloni accepts the fact the an in depth research on the subject was conducted by Chatzopoulos.Alexikoua (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Βατο, Unless you aren't referring to sources mentioned in the talk page -or used in article edits-, then I am confident that I didn't miss anything. The only thing I was unable to check is the map about the Hellenistic era. Now, regarding the differing views: I take it that you do not trust the editors when they are asking you to let the article reflect on the modern sources more than on the older ones. However I am sure you can at least check how things were done about consensus in other articles which are even more prominent than the present one, with more editors and visitors. The article of the Macedonians, as you see, had similar challenges as there were many differing views on whether the tribe was Greek in its early period, some scholars doubted the same about its middle period, with others (but fewer ones) doubting that for its late period. However, long story summarized, the editors ended up accepting (not all, some still object) what the growing consensus of sources ended up saying, that the tribe was essentially Greek (note the term "essentially"). That's for the lead. On the main body however you can find some of the differing views about the tribe's origins. About the Atintanians's Lead section, you may disagree with the editors here, but if it can reflect one thing, this isn't the historically differing views but what the current consensus is about them, while in the article body, opposite views can also be covered. This way, both views on Atintanians are reflected without consideration of "due weight" that can lead to a "false balance" against the modern consensus, and thus reducing the possibility that the readers perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. Modern scholarship's consensus doesn't mean different views do not exist, nor different views mean that a consensus can't exist. Thing is: modern consensus isn't favoring the Illyrian origin of the tribe, but this doesn't mean we have to portray this as being nowadays more controversial than it is. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, it seems you ignored the source provided by Maleschreiber that reports that Sasel Kos accepted Cabanes' view and considered less convincing Hatzopoulos' view. @SilentResident, I noticed you do not check sources, I am reporting here the quotes form the current article to make sure you read them: : ; : ; : . Avoid repeating yourself, please, and provide valid arguments based on specific quotes from recent reliable sources. – Βατο (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ideological manifestos used as reliable sources
I've noticed a specific work labelled as ideological manifesto among the references here:

1.Archaeology in the Adriatic. From the Dawn to the Sunset of Communist Ideologies Elisa Cella1, Maja Gori2 , Alessandro Pintucci): . 2.(Nationalist Crossroads and Crosshairs, 2018) 3. (Maja Gori, Archaeological Review from Cambridge)  I do not doubt that this raises serious questions here in terms of neutrality (ideolodical guidelines, ideological manifestos, nationalist archaeology, ethnogenetic approach etc. etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it related WP:RS? RS is not determined by anonymous wikipedia editors on the basis of political criticism. Neritan Ceka is RS because he can get his work published in reliable sources (international journals, symposia etc.). RS is not determined politically or via the fact that another author disagrees with what Neritan Ceka wrote in a 2005 book about the Illyrians. That is valid scholarly criticism and itself may be the subject of further review, but it doesn't make anybody's work "unreliable". Don't place further comments which attempt to politically discredit living authors in their fields - WP:BLP. Also, "the old ethnogenetic approach to material culture" as Maja Gori calls it is Culture-historical archaeology, the archaeological school which every author you've ever quoted falls under. Maja Gori belongs to Post-processual archaeology. So, a side comment: Don't quote authors from fields without an overview of what is being discussed. Maja Gori is writing about methodological criticism, don't turn her comments into talking points.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Damning stuff, and all of it reliably sourced. Perhaps it should be added to the article on Neritan Ceka, especially if some editors continue to try to ram this stuff into the article by force (as usual). Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All of it is part of legitimate criticism of differents schools. It isn't related to RS. You've already tried to remove one author (Sasel Kos) and that didn't pan out, so maybe you should turn your attention to how bibliography is used. Every reliable paper which discusses the subject is welcome and nobody has removed authors which you've used, although I know that if I search for political criticism about Hammond, I'll find equally "damning stuff". Instead, the focus has been on criticizing Hammond's work.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Authors that are primarily politicians or have been accused that they present everything under a pro-Illyrian bias should be labelled as such since the case here revolves around this issue. I'm not against such an inclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Giuliodori (2004), The Foreign Policy of Macedon c.513 to 346 BC: Carney (1991), writing about Hammond's book The Macedonian State: The Origins, Institutions and History (1989), raises some queries regarding working methods and his attitude towards Macedon as a whole. With reference to Hammond's service in Macedon during World War II and his personal ties to that country, she comments 
 * As might notice I've never - ever - brought up any quote which discredits Hammond on this level, because unlike other editors, I know very well that every archaeologist who is known internationally has faced or will face similar criticism but that does not affect their ability to be considered WP:RS. RS is determined by someone's ability to get their papers published in reliable journals, books, symposia and to be cited by other academics. If a theory they put forward is abandoned, then gradually citations about that theory stop and a new consensus emerges. But RS is not determined by criticism at the level of political talking points. Now, Alexikoua takes a quote out of context about one author, but doesn't realize that the very same bad use of criticism can be applied to the sources he has been using even more so. To recap, we add Ceka (2009) and we continue to discuss bibliography based on existing debate about different sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * H. Ceka's proposal can't be excluded just because some editors here don't like it. He has been cited many times in western sources, and his location in the hinterland of Apollonia is in agreement with many other scholars, including P. Cabanes (1988), M. Sasel Kos (2005), and B. Kirigin (2006). – Βατο (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who in her 11 years in Wikipedia is vehemently against citing politicians or politicians/scientists, especially on sensitive topic areas such as the Balkans, I oppose to the use of them as sources. Let alone when the editors are seeking to use these sources in an article which saw a POV dispute over an ancient tribe's ethnicity! Imagine if we started citing sources from Greek politicians about Epirotes, or sources from the ethnic Macedonian politicians about ancient Macedonians, whose articles have been intense battlegrounds in the past years. This has never happened and won't happen now just because certain editors like them. Sorry but no. Also I shall remind everyone here what the case was with attempts to use sources from Turkish politicians (who love publishing) about the history of Turkey, the Ottomans and the Turkic hordes. Wikipedia chose to not rely on such sources and everyone here ought to respect that here as well. If Βατο and Maleschreiber insist so much on using Albanian sources, they are absolutely welcome to do so, as long as they cite someone else, not politicians. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neritan Ceka is an archaeologist who 20 years ago in 1997-98 was briefly the Minister of Culture of Albania. He is published and cited in reliable journals - that makes him WP:RS. You are an anonymous editor in wikipedia, you can't bypass the consensus in the academic world because you read on a talkpage that an archaeologist has received criticism by another archaeologist. And you should understand that historians and archaeologists do not discuss each other's work in the way you are trying to do. Hatzopoulos, Ceka, Cabanes have all collaborated with each other: Inscriptions d'Epidamne-Dyrrhachion et d'Apollonia. A. Inscriptions d'Apollonia d'lllyrie, B. Listes des noms de monétaires d'Apollonia et Épidamne-Dyrrhachion / par Pierre Cabanes et Neritan Ceka ; avec la collaboration d'Olivier Masson et Miltiade Hatzopoulos in 1997. This is not a WP:FORUM and you are not in a position to determine RS via your own political judgment. You can only accept what real academic consensus puts forward as it emerges from years and years of published papers and peer review boards. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Side comment: It's very easy to swiftly judge - basically in the form of a tweet - a 40-year-old career in academia. Michael Dawson (2019), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Placemaking. Butrint and the global heritage industry: Now, the method of dismissing sources based on out of context quotes should stop. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not going to use nationalist historiography in this encyclopedia. And yes, it is up to us (the community) to decide what is RS and what isn't. It is not for you to dictate what is RS and what isn't. Ceka's 2005 publication "From the Illyrians to the Albanians" is nationalist historiography and is as such disqualifying. End of story. Khirurg (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that most of archaeological information we have about the region have been discovered by those archaeologists? Do you know that most of the publications on the subject, including Greek ones, rely on the information provided by Ceka to make their research? Do you know that international projects include many western scholars and Ceka as well? We are not here to dismiss the works of academics, because that wuould mean to dismiss all the other publications that cite them. A specific work or a specific claim by those scholars can be removed when sources that criticize them are provided, as in the case of "The Illyrians to the Albanians". Whe have a recent reliable source, Hatzopoulos (2020), which provide their proposals (although H. Ceka's one is not presented correctly), and this makes them relevant for an inclusion into the article.
 * Here is, for instance, Hammond's consideration in his The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirote Atintanes (1989): – Βατο (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the use of Albanian nationalist archeologists who worked at the time of the oppressive and isolationist communist regime which influenced their fieldworks. The more we talk about this I start to realize that certain editors here may have forgotten about the communist past in Albania. The issue of the communist influence on archeologists, is covered here at Albanian nationalism #Origin theories during communism already and those who participated in the article's improvement know this already:
 * Imitating Stalinist trends in the Communist Bloc, Albania developed its own version of protochronist ideology, which stressed the national superiority and continuity of Albanians from ancient peoples such as the Illyrians. Albania developed its own version of protochronist ideology, which stressed the national superiority and continuity of Albanians from ancient peoples such as the Illyrians. 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 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.
 * On any of the Balkan topic area disputes in Wikipedia where I have participated in the past, such as the editorial dispute over Macedon, the editors have intentionally avoided citing any politically influenced nationalist archeologists from the Balkans (i.e. the nationalist Macedonian archeologist Pasko Kuzman whose work is greatly respected in North Macedonia, yet was influenced by the VMRO-DPMNE's Macedonian nationalism), and I expect that the same kind of respect and sensitivity is shown here as well by the editors who are seeking to cite directly a nationalist archeologist in a nationalist POV dispute in the present article. There is no problem citing other Albanian archeologists or foreign sources which referred to communist-era Balkan archeologists (nationality doesn't matter here) whose scholarship evaluated independently and referred to older fieldwork. That's fine. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your quote doesn't discuss authors or bibliography linked to this article. Side comment: Trying to imply that a living author supports something that they have never written is itself a WP:BLP violation, so if you try to link - by association - N. Ceka with "Pelasgian theories" and other similar stuff, I'll ask for your comments to be stricken. we're discussing a 2009 paper which itself has been cited by later scholars. Neritan Ceka's publications are as RS are Hammond's publications because they are within RS criteria. It can't be asked for Ceka to be removed, but Hammond to be kept, despite the fact that Hammond's theories have been abandoned today, while N. Ceka's are the theories most accepted outside Greece. That is the international view here. Take a step back and observe the editing history. You have been mostly adding Greek authors who agree with Hatzopoulos and partially Hammond but most other authors who are not from the Greek academic scene support Ceka's theories. I'm not implying any ethnic division of bibliography, but you have to start working with recognition of the facts.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows who was 'the father of Albanian archaeology' and about his work on archeology during the Communist era. We aren't stupid. "You have been mostly adding Greek authors who agree with Hatzopoulos and partially Hammond but most other authors who are not from the Greek academic scene support Ceka's theories." I haven't added anything. I was simply reverting your WP:NATIONALIST edits which were brute-forced to the article using extremely outdated sources from 50 years ago and dubious political eras. And were used in ways that would give false balance versus the modern academic consensus that has developed in the recent years. Despite the lack of editorial WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page about your edits. You want to speak about other's edits but not about your selective promotion of pro-Illyrian sources and the omission of pro-Greek sources, prompting the other editors to balance your edits by doing what you didn't do. The history log of the past month is glaring about how and when the disruption begun. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't refer to your edits, because - as you said - you haven't added anything. You haven't reverted "outdated sources from 50 years ago" - you might want to review your reverts at some point.
 * That someone who is the father of Albanian archaeology is Hasan Ceka who died in 1998, not Neritan Ceka whose post-1990 papers we are discussing. It's the same Ceka who co-wrote with Hatzopoulos: Inscriptions d'Epidamne-Dyrrhachion et d'Apollonia. A. Inscriptions d'Apollonia d'lllyrie, B. Listes des noms de monétaires d'Apollonia et Épidamne-Dyrrhachion / par Pierre Cabanes et Neritan Ceka ; avec la collaboration d'Olivier Masson et Miltiade Hatzopoulos.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) to allow foreign scholars refer to Ceka's outdated work and dismiss the greek ones from doing the same, and 2) seeking to cite Ceka himself even though he is outdated and 3) seeking to cite Ceka even though he is originating from the communist era where there was political interventionism to their work as archeologists, I am afraid is not an issue of knowledge of bibliography, is an issue of editorial bias. Wikipedia uses contemporary bibliography from independent scholars, especially on sensitive topic areas instead of sources influenced by governments of their times. And that means no scholars who worked under oppressive nationalist regimes such as Hozha's. Independent scholarship (be it Albanian, Greek or French or whatever) citing on Ceka, was never removed by me from the article for very simple a reason: his work was re-evaluated by independent scholars. That's why I don't mind using these independent sources in disputes. However citing non-independent and politically-directed scholarship of the Communist period without evaluating it through third, independent scholars, and then ramming them into editorial disputes in Wikipedia is something I have NEVER consented before and I will not now. Be it scholars who worked during the Mussolini's era, the Nazi era, the Metaxa's era, the Hoxha's era, or even less oppressive regimes such as Gruevski's era. Don't get me wrong but I can't consent to this. That's for Hasan. Now, about Neritan, like I said above multiple times: Politicians are not to be cited either. You will never see for example Greek Ministers or politicians from the whole political spectrum of Greece: from the leftist party SYRIZA, to even far-right Golden Dawn members which in the past have published fieldwork, (dubious or not, your call), being cited to Wikipedia. I am vehemently opposing this. If you don't believe me go see the disputes I have been participant in the last 10 years. You will find not a single source from politicians being used in editorial disputes in Wikipedia and then come talk to me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ϊ've made my point about nationalist historiography, and I stand by it. Publications such as "From the Illyrians to the Albanians" are absolutely disqualifying. One can easily imagine the howls of rage if I tried to add a Greek author who had written stuff like that. Fortunately we no longer have such historiography in Greece anymore. And any attempts to equivocate between Ceka and Hammond also fall flat (not to mention that Hammond is from Cambridge, so trying to discredit him is...ambitious to put it mildly). Khirurg (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction/factual errors or falsification of in Sasel Kos
In this edit, Sasel Kos clearly states that Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people.". In this edit , it is stated that Sasel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples. Sasel Kos thus contradicts herself. If Appian is the only one to refer to the Atintanians as Illyrian, it can't be that PSeudoScylax included them among the Illyrians. Most disturbingly, '''the translation of Pseudo-Scylax does not include the Atintanes among the Illyrians. It only mentions them once, and says nothing about Illyrians in that passage.''' This can clearly be seen on p. 62 of the translation here. There are only two possibilities: Sasel Kos contradicts herself and contains glaring factual errors regarding Pseudo-Scylax, and is thus not reliable. Or else Sasel Kos falsified/mistranslated. Either way, this has gone too far, and it now time for community intervention. Khirurg (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I second this. In my draft filling to the AE committee I am pointing to similar problems of source falsification in other articles too. For example the article Amantes shares similar issues to this one, (such as falsified Pseudo-Scylax and outdated Ceka). I will appreciate if can you verify that for yourself. I will be grateful. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support community intervention preferrably in the form of an AE discussion about this. wrote that Sasel-Kos in p.276 supports the theory that Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people and  wrote that in the same page Sasel-Kos supports that Šašel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who  included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples, barbarians, located to the north of Chaonia. Alexikoua used the quote  and Bato used the quote . Khirurg added a dubious tag on Bato's edit, but not on Alexikoua's. So, what's going on behind these edits?
 * The obvious thing that any editor who is concerned about possible falsification would do is to verify bibliography and the full quote by Sasel-Kos in p.276: What Bato wrote is on p.276 and is fairly represented in his edits.
 * The quote which Alexikoua used(p.275-76) in a very bad way puts forward: Now, compare it again with how Alexikoua transferred that in wikipedia: Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people.
 * Until you ask for community intervention, the very least that should happen now is that Alexikoua's edit should be entirely removed, all his edits should be checked and you should also remove the misplaced tag on Bato's edit. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good job Khirurg, actually Scylax says nothing about that. However, this discrepancy continues "In the Periplous, the Atintanes were located in the regions extending above Oricum and reaching towards Dodona ( c "., the primary source behind that is Ceka (1988) and Ceka (1983). Indeed that's the reason why Hatzopoulos states that Ceka supports a so-called 'great Illyrian/Atintanian nation' stretching down to Dodona. We should rely on mainstream and contemporary material, wp:fringe theories should be treated as such.Alexikoua (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos has his own opinions, and they are not more relevant than other scholar's opinions, as per WP:NOPOV. @Khirurg, Sasel Kos states that Appian is the only one to mention the "Illyrian Atintani". She than states that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe, and compares this information with the data from Pseudo-Scylax, who lists them among the "Illyrian peoples, barbarians", distinguished from the Epirotes or Hellenes (you can see it in the primary source). Mesihović and Šačić report the same information : Cabanes (2002 [1988]) states the same thing about the Illyrians north of Chaones:  You are claiming that H. Ceka is fringe, N. Ceka is fringe, F. Papazoglu is outdated, P. Cabanes is outdated, M.B. Hatzopoulos is ok but he can't be used to add the views of other scholars, M. Sasel Kos is unreliable. While N.G.L. Hammond is ok (placed in the lead), although outdated. More consistency is required in this collaborative project. You are clearly trying to exclude all the scholars who present informations that you don't like. This makes the article a WP:POV. – Βατο (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder, is it coincidence that all these source problems appeared only in the last month, when you came to the article? The history logs never lie: the article existed for 11 years. And never again in its history had such source and POV issues until you showed up here and started rammming problematic sources to it. Communist-era sources? Really? Sources where one scholar is politician and leader of political party in Albania and at same time son of another scholar? Really? Source falsification such as about Skyllax even though Skyllax's own document never supported such claims? Really? Brute-force attempts to include information to the article even though there is no consensus for such inclusions? Really? And edit warring with other editors because they told you the obvious? And this comes at a time 20 other articles which saw your passage too, now have problems too. Problems they didn't had before your edits (and no, don't argue to me about them having problem in presenting different POV views, that can be done WITHOUT causing this mess). The history logs don't lie. The first thing the AE committtee checks are these diffs and the diffs in the present article match in pattern and time synchronization the disruption that has appeared elsewhere in other articles such as Amantes and Parga. And this speaks volumes. I am disgusted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem on the misrepresentation of scholarship on the subject of this article was already highlighted by another editor here: Talk:Atintanians. Before their edits the article was this POV . After their edits Alexikoua restored this POV . Instead of making such unkind comments, you should consider your reverts restoring WP:OR material without checking sources, and your refusal to update articles as per WP:NOPOV adding the works of different scholars who are commented in recent bibliography. If you are here just to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, then I have nothing to discuss with you anymore. All the best. – Βατο (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem on the misrepresentation of scholarship on the subject of this article was already highlighted by another editor here: Yes there was a discussion. However you didn't participate in it. Nor in any other discussions. Instead you edit warred with another editor: and then you guys opened a discussion here in this Talk Page, where, instead of pointing to the content/POV issues the article may have, you focused on each other's actions and objections to your edits! Considering the large amount of article disruption predating Atintanians, how are the rest of the editors supposed to know and trust that all what you wanted to do is improve the article? Your choice to edit war first instead of, lets say, WP:BRD, wasn't helpful. In the Talk page, the new talk section wasn't even properly titled: it was given the generic "New Section"!). Don't get me wrong, but this comes at a time you already had a long history of fights and edit warring with certain fellow editors.
 * The worst is, before I come here to Atintanes, first I witnessed more of these edit wars at Parga and other articles of the Greece topic area, and before them, in articles of the Albania topic area, where consensus building was terrible at moments and edit warring was preferred over WP:BRD discussions. Recently, even though I have been monitoring some articles, I still had no idea how big the problem is until I begun checking over 40 diffs in about 20 articles to get a full picture of what's going on there. My findings only confirmed my worst fears: many of the articles had edits focused solely on ethnic flag planting by promoting a certain ethnicity (Illyrian and Albanian) versus others (Greek). I repeat, so please read this carefully: I didn't check just one or two articles. I checked about forty whole diffs on twenty different articles; the sources in several of them have citation problems, of which some have already been brought to everyone's attention (see Parga Talk Page, as well as here in the Atintanians talk page) and the Illyrian/Albanian flag planting pattern was too noticeable to miss. And that was before the edits at Ohrid's article (where the diffs again appear to indicate another attempt of Illyrian flag planting). I feared that Ohrid became one more setting for disruption, hence I stepped in to revert them regardless. To understand how much mistrust you have caused, you can see my Edit Summary in Ohrid's history log: . But worry not, once I am done checking all the previous articles, I will move there too and scrutinize the sources thoroughly. If problems with the newly added content are found there, they will be reverted without consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 15:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This hypothesis that Atintanes were some kind of regional power remains a speculation. A couple of indications mentioned by a tiny minority of scholars. No wonder this receives nearly zero coverage in English bibliography (Kos was the only one but she also keeps a distance from this point). By the way no current scholar would ever translate 'Edonia' as Dodona.Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the part from Dausse was already included in the first paragraph of that section, you can't add it in this context because it is WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. – Βατο (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:SYNTH and WP:POV would be a partial presentation of the source which fits perfectly on what you trying to add. This article is about 'Atintanians' and the specific source clearly states that they were called either as Epirote or Macedonian. This needs to be clarified (i.e. a non-Illyrian character).Alexikoua (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is already included in the first part of that section: which is correctly contextualized. – Βατο (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The recent addition as a partial presentation of the source offers the wrong impression that the Atintanes might also have been called Illyrian. It needs to be stressed that the author rejects this view. Without this addition we have a clear WP:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That information is included in a footnote by Dausse commenting on Papazoglu and Hatzopoulos. I think it is better in the current location, if you want to move it to Dausse's considerations, feel free to do it, but do not repeat the same information and do not add partial content without the specific context. – Βατο (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, Βατο. Alexikoua got a point here and you know this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope SilentResident, Alexi added a contet that was not contextualized, and you know it. As already stated, you can move the full information from the first part of the section to Dausse's considerations. – Βατο (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A source should be presented in its entirety or not presented at all else we are promoting a certain POV. I hope this partial presentation was done by accident.Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been already included in the first part, are you ignoring my words? If you want to move it to Dausse's considerations, you can do it. And where do you see a POV in the part about Dausse? – Βατο (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that information is not about the identity as added by Alexi, but about adminitration. In the relevant footnote Dausse states In that source I found just this information on the specific subject:  Hatzopoulos (2020) is more precise about that subject:  – Βατο (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You understand that you indirectly attempt to present a specific work in a partial way. I'm going to add the full view of the specific author in order to restore POV.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Dismissal of H. Ceka and N. Ceka theories
@Alexikoua, these additions: and  are based on ureliable quotes, the proposals by H. Ceka and N. Ceka are completely different from each other. They are commenting on N. Ceka, but incorrectly including also H. Ceka, which makes those comments unreliable, hence they can't stay in the article. Btw, can you tell me why did you remove the proposals of those scholars, but you added the critics on those scholars? – Βατο (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding, Pliakou and Hatzopoulos are among the best on their field of Epirus archaeology. For future reference they are fully reliable. You are an anonymous Wikipedia user, and your personal opinion is irrelevant here if not backed by sources.Alexikoua (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: I assume you are into disruptive proxy edit-warring []. Removing information about the so-called Atintanian hypthsesis that included settlements of the Bylliones from the Bylliones article?Alexikoua (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, they are reliable. But those quotes include statements that equate the two completely different proposals of H. Ceka and N. Ceka. About your disruptive additions in Bylliones, the sources do not comment on that tribe, and that article includes Cabane's proposals as well. – Βατο (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * About my constructive addition, my edits comment on the main settlement of the Bylliones (i.e Byllis) and what you probably dislike is that they comment on the so-called 'great Atintania' fiction. You can't term Hammond, Hatzopoulos, Pliakou, Katsikouds as unreliable because they simply dismiss a fictional hypothesis.Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not term them as unreliable. I said that some statements that equate two completely different proposals are not reliable. – Βατο (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion is irrelevant here if not backed by sources. Statements by top graded scholars should be mentioned as such.Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am adding here the relevant quotes from recent sources:
 * Unlike you, I consider unreliable some statements form reliable sources only if they are dismissed by more recent reliable sources. As shown above, statements that equate the proposals of H. Ceka with those of N. Ceka are incorrect. – Βατο (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if you do not provide the citations reported by Hatzopoulos (1997) about H. Ceka, the information you restored will be removed. – Βατο (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another older, but more informative content about the specific subject was provided by Hammond (1989): – Βατο (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if you do not provide the citations reported by Hatzopoulos (1997) about H. Ceka, the information you restored will be removed. – Βατο (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another older, but more informative content about the specific subject was provided by Hammond (1989): – Βατο (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

H. and N. Ceka in a series of works (beginning almost from 1980s as part of the P.R.A regime archaeological research) supported a hypothesis of 'great illyrian Atintania'. Though not all of their works share exactly the same features they all aimed at promoting this theory. As such various leading archaeologist on the field (Katsikoudis, Pliakou) and historians (Hatzopoulos, Hammond) expressed their serious concerns and declared those theories as problematic and dismissed them. Conclusion: their statements need to be presented else this raises serious wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to add comments on the dismissal of those theories, you have to find sources that present correctly the information. Except the quote from Katsikoudis, the remaing quotes are incorrect because they equate the two different theories, hence they can't be included. – Βατο (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the current version of the article does not include the proposals of H. Ceka and N. Ceka. Comments by other scholars who disagree with them can be added only after the inclusion of the correctly presented original theories. – Βατο (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As you correctly stated politician N. Ceka completed H.Cekas initial hypothesis. That's very typical for archaeologist to slightly inflate a past hypothesis. Nevertheless the statements by the leading archaeologists in the field are fully correct: all Ceka papers pointed to a greater Illyrian atintania (which became further inflated by them per quote you presented). Stubborn removal of sourced information consitutes wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the information, Alexikoua. The removal was unacceptable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I reverted the addition of Hatzopoulos, Katsikoudis and Pliakou by User:SilentResident. As with the case of Ceka, there is no consensus to add them. Sort it out here as Bato has a point: if Ceka is not on the article, Greek historians discussing him have no reason to be. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Greek historians discussing him have no reason to be. Only the Greek historians discussing on Ceka or all the historians discussing on Ceka? Are you entering a racist approach of scholarship based on a scholar's ethnicity now? Either you self-revert yourself, or else all historians on Ceka should also be reverted. There can be no double-standards on scholarship. And no, don't argue with me by pointing on modern scholar's nationality as response to not citing directly communist-era scholarship. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I highlighted them being Greek not because I remove authors based on their nationality. I do not care about nationality; all I care about is being reliable source regardless of nationality. I highlighted them being Greek because some two years ago you removed a source due to being Albanian. Ceka is being removed due to coming from Communist Albania. It is very bad that you remove sources due to being Albanian and then add Greek authors to oppose their point. Whoever, Greek or Albanian or whatever nationality, has no place there to refute Ceka while Ceka himself is not allowed to be on the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's irrational to discuss important opinions with which all other theories either agree or disagree without mentioning said opinions. The article can't discuss that someone agrees or disagrees with N. Ceka without even presenting what N. Ceka says in his own words. There's also an WP:UNDUE problem : Hammond's theory has been abandoned or debunked in all contemporary theories but his opinion takes up an entire subsection, despite the fact that nobody agrees with his two-tribes theory today. There are many authors that agree with Ceka, but Ceka is out of the article while Hammond who has been criticized as been extremely pro-Greek is being given an entire sub-section. The article cannot be be written exclusively based on one standpoint. The middle ground is to accept the differences that exist in scholarship and do a fair representation of them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "two years ago you removed a source due to being Albanian" wow. Ktrimi991, apparently it eludes you that here my objections are only limited to Hassan and Neritan Ceka. Apparently it eluded you that I had made specifically clear that other Albanian scholars can be added to the article. Apparently it eluded you that Olgita Ceka was never questioned. Apparently, in your incompetent mind, all these are just "details" and now are making false accusations just because you run out of arguments here. I will very kindly repeat myself: either you self-revert and have everyone except these 2 scholars cited even if they comment/refer to Ceka's fieldwork, or none of them is cited. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "[...] while Hammond who has been criticized as been extremely pro-Greek is being given an entire sub-section" Maleschreiber, scholarship POV is tolerated in Wikipedia. Don't confuse scholarship POV with political propaganda. It is the later that isn't allowed here. Scholarly sources may have POV per Wikipedia's rules but editors must attribute them in a neutral POV tone. Simple as that. Anyways, if scholarship POV wasn't allowed in Wikipedia, 80% of the Project would have been impossible to exist today. Get your facts straight and don't compare scholarship POV with political propaganda and political nationalism. The one is welcomed, albeit with careful attribution, the other has no place here. Someone like you should have knew that already. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "in your incompetent mind" What an aggressive personal attack. I am very happy with my competent mind. I have never complained about any mental disabiliy or asked the community to pity my mental situation. So never repeat that to me or anyone else. On the rest, it is very clear there is no consensus to add those 3 authors discussing Ceka while Ceka himself is not there. Open a RfC if you wish. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. Then there is no consensus for other scholars citing on Ceka either. Their information will be removed from the article due to lack of WP:CONSENSUS for their inclusion. I'm glad we made our disagreements clear here. Who else is opposing inclusion of scholars whose work is based on Ceka from being used in the article? Note: regardless of nationality. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Katsikoudis wasn't removed in the previous reverts but now a more extreme agenda by Ktrimi has them all removed. By the I fail to see Hammond being labelled as "greatest nationalist", "ideologically motivated", spreading "ethnogenetic manifestos".Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have applied that criterion to both Ceka and Hammond - both should be included, because they are cited/discussed in bibliography. You can't argue for the removal of Ceka, but not the removal Hammond. And you can't argue for Ceka's removal because his theories are generally accepted today, so if you went on to remove authors who cite Ceka you would have to remove much of the article. You have to be familiar with an overview of bibliography before you claim that one or the other author should be removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's weird that Ceka is still inside the article nevertheless several statements on the quality of those published papers are absent. I assume this means we should procided to a full removal of recently added information about Ceka in terms of neutrality. @SilentResident: "The Illyrians to the Albanians" isn't this a title screaming for nationalism?Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't if it screams for political nationalism. My concern is that certain editors here are not understanding that it screams for political nationalism. Thats why I prefer contemporary independent scholars who reevaluated Ceka (both those who agree or not, it doesn't matter) instead of just citing Ceka directly. But I am losing hope they can be reasoned with. Due to this, I think the complete removal of Ceka and any criticism (positive or negative) to his work is the best thing we can do. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WOW. We finally reached the point where user are being personally attacked. Such disrespectful statements, as from @SilentResident, are not acceptable and totally disruptive.--Lorik17 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its amusing how you, an editor who generally is avoiding the Talk Pages, is suddenly coming here to comment on my harsh responses to someone else's insulting accusations, but failing to see what prompted them. This is a worrisome sign of incapability to understand that the black smoke has a cause (fire). I wouldn't expect more from an editor who failed to realize that his recent edits ignited the fire of a long edit war at Parga: for which you have shown no signs of remorse yet. Even when you got reported for edit warring:, once again, you failed to show signs of remorse and instead you countered to the ANI report with an arrogant "What about you?"?. This is a worrisome sign indeed. Is better to not comment at all than commenting about the smoke while ignoring the fires, let alone not commenting about the content. Edit: and not only that. Unlike you, I already happen to regret that the accusation took place prompting my harsh response. If the editor who accused me strikes his comment, I will gladly strike mine as well. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Language section
We're not going to water down the language section with the usual POV tricks. Undue qualifiers ("however", "possibly", "According to"). Nor are we going to clutter it with irrelevant material to make it harder for the reader to get the meaning of it. 19:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's quite apparent the language section really really bothers some people. Too bad. The language is crystal clear, the source is top-notch, it is recent, it is a literature review, and no one disputes it. Thus the POV qualifiers are completely undue and constitute a red line. No way. Khirurg (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some sources say that the tribe was Epirote, others, including Jaupaj 2019, say it was Illyrian. Hence the lede should be modified accordingly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Filos includes the Atintanians in the consensus that they were Greek-speaking. Jaupaj says nothing about language. Khirurg (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely yes. Filos says that there is "overall consensus" that the tribe was in Epirus. Several sources on the article, including Jaupaj 2019, say the tribe was in Illyria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the sources befor reverting and spouting nonsense? Here's what Filos says: "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.".. Overall consensus that includes the Atintaes that they spoke Greek. Jaupaj says nothing about what language they spoke. Get it now? Khirurg (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What you do not get is that there is no consensus that the tribe was, as Filos claims, located in Epirus. Hence his entire claim on the tribe is his own opinion, not an "overall consensus". Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos states that there is an overall consensus on the language variety of the Greek-speaking peoples of Epirus, it cannot be otherwise. An inclusion of the Atintanians among the peoples of Epirus is not accepted by many scholars, hence the specific information should be attributed to the author, otherwise it is an unreliable statement. The lead section should be modified in order to reflect the opinions of the scholars on the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato: You need to avoid wp:CHERRY. Selectively using sources equals disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, it seemed you made the same reasoning about attributing the author something that is disputed by other scholars: "not universally accepted". And unlike you, I do not selectively use sources. – Βατο (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato: I can't see one other author declaring something about a different language, expressions like "similar to", "closely associated" do not contradict a current academic consensus. I'm afraid that wp:IDONTLIKE becomes quite typical recently.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi, Wikipedia reflects on the academic distinction of languages and ethnicities. Mixing languages with identities to make a point is crossing WP:OR. Editor's duty is to provide what sources explicitly say about languages, not to play with sources about a tribe's identity to make a point about the tribe's language. WP:VERIFIABILITY is not merely my position, but a core policy of Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Filos obviously can not establish what is consensus in such a debated topic. He claims that there is consensus that the tribe was part of Epirus, but several sources ,including one published in 2019, place the tribe in Illyria. While Filos is not good at establishing what is consensus, Šašel Kos says that their language was similar with other southern Illyrian tribes and Cambi judges language as one thing that linked the tribe with southern Illyrian ones. A RfC too can be open on this, although it would be a pity to give time to sth so easy to understand. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus about the identity, location and language that should be put forward. If Filios (2017) claims that there is a consensus, but that "consensus" is disputed in other sources, then it can't be argued that what Filios (2017) puts forward, should dominate the discussion. All 6-8 editors who have been involved for a week, almost exclusively in this article, have probably added most papers and publications which discuss the subject. There's no consensus about anything because there's very little that actually exists as archaeological evidence (one inscription and one fragment of an inscription which mentions the name Atintanes). --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should now modify the lede accordingly. It gives the Epirote theory only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said: Unless you have sources stating otherwise about the recent academic consensus, please revert yourself on the Language section. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SR: Let me guess they have no source stating anything like that. Statements that they spoke something "similar to" or "close to" can not contradict a widely established consensus in scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus. One single author, Filios, puts forward a claim about consensus and that is in the article, but to argue that Filios should dominate the discussion is WP:UNDUE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources show clearly there is no consensus among scholars, and do not change the article with false edit summaries because it is highly disruptive. – Βατο (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was fully correct. There was a constructive addition indeed, while I've already explained here that those disruptive edits will be reverted as soon as there is no consensus.Alexikoua (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Show sources or it didn't happen. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He made a revert and didn't mark it as a revert. I believe that we've discussed about this before. For the sake of not having to discuss about whether an unmarked revert was a revert, just don't do it - it's not like other editors will just read the summary and never check the edit itself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(undindent) You can't use sources from 2002 and 2005 to dispute a literature consensus from 2018. Especially when the consensus is established in a source that focuses on linguistics and represents a comprehensive review of the subject. No way. Khirurg (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I ask again: Do Βατο, Ktrimi or Maleschreiber have a recent source to confirm/deny that the recent scholarly consensus of the recent years about languages, stands? Note: the editors will need to provide to me a very strong source, which is precisely about the language topic, is made by a reputable scholar, and the quotation must specifically refer to the recent consensus about language, not other aspects of the tribe. Or else we are in WP:OR territory. I am waiting. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus is established as new information and new discussions emerge. The reason why there are many new sources about the Amantes since the 2010s is because there are ongoing excavations which have produced new bibliography. About the Atintanes, there's nothing since the 1970s and even then all we had was a full inscription and a fragment of an inscription. Everyone who has mentioned them since then is basically writing comments about what others have written before him. Filios (2017), a good and respected author in his field, mentions them in a sentence and Jaupaj (2019) in his 552-page has a chapter about them and he calls them Illyrians. But Jaupaj (2019) isn't "new literature" compared to Filios (2017) and in turn Filios (2017) is not "new literature" compared to Sasel Kos (2005) because there is nothing new under the sun to write about. It's an academic recycling of arguments in a more modern context. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can't counter a source about a recent academic consensus using just your anonymous editorial conclusions based on an decades-old source. I need recent sources specifically mentioning/countering this scholarly consensus or else there will be no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes as they constitute original research. Please provide me the sources specifically mentioning the recent consensus on languages. On an article where there were a number of disputed edits and debates, the more we stick to what sources say about scholarly consensus than on your editorial perceptions about scholarly consensus, the better we can find a common ground. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos does not decide what academic consensus is. I have seen many weird things on Wikipedia 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 keep all theories there and let future academic works shed more light on the matter. That is a honest thing to do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos has the most thorough analysis on language of all the scholars and he is the most recent source. You are using outdated scholarship and giving it as much weight as newer ones. And you are asking that, against WP:AGEMATTERS, the recent academic consensus today shall be weighted from what scholars used to believe 15 or 20 years ago. It goes against Wikipedia's practices to point on outdated fieldwork to make a point about today's consensus on the language topic. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A 21th century work is not "outdated". If you say sth and I oppose you by saying that my opinion is the consensus, it does not make your opinion "outdated". If you do not like sth, at least try to find some arguments that can somehow be considered serious. If consensus on the language of the tribe changed after 2005, list me all the post-2005 academic works that established that consensus mentioned by Filos. If you do that, I will be very happy to agree with you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am using "outdated/recent" but not in the sense of dismissing it. Since you don't like it, then allow me to use "old/new" here. Does that help you understand? OK here we go: The sources you want to give too much weight are old, from 20 years ago, compared to the new source which is from 3 years ago. Giving more weight to the old information and less to the newer one, is not how things are done in Wikipedia. We can argue indefinitely but that's how things are. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "old/new" information that emerged in the last 20 years (see Hatzopoulos (2020)). Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence on the language of the Atintanes. If Filos stated that the consensus is about the inclusion of this tribe in the region of Epirus, the specific information has to be considered unreliable because the scholar has not evaluated the research on the specific subject. He did not cite any new discovery to make such decisive comment you are claiming, which completely ignores all the academic research (including the publications of the last decade). – Βατο (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Bato. She did not respond to my request to list those post-2005 academic works that established the consensus mentioned by Filos. She very well knows that consensus does not exist. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There absolutely is a consensus regarding language. That much is crystal clear. The rest is just WP:JDL and WP:IDHT. Khirurg (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If your acclaimed consensus emerged more recently, why Hatzopoulos, an expert scholar of the Atintanes, does not include it in his recent work published in 2020? Also, can you provide the citations in Filos (2017) about your acclaimed consensus, which invalidate all the claims of other scholars published in the last 20 years? – Βατο (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on draft proposal for a RfC about Lede
Since the editors made disputed changes to the article's lede without the necessary WP:CONSENSUS and the edits caused more problems than solved, even more edit warring sparked, the article got locked and for 10 days, and one of the editors appears to have suggested a RfC to be opened and solve once and for all the disagreements we are having here.

Considering the sources, with the older ones supporting a different POV than the newer ones, I am recommending something on the lines:

RfC Draft #1
"Should the Lede be changed from:

"They were one of the Epirote tribes that belonged to the northwestern Greek group.

and

"They were occasionally subordinate to the Molossians and spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek."

to

"They have been described as either an Illyrian or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group They were occasionally subordinate to the Molossians. According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while according to recent sources, there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke Doric Greek."?

How is that? (sources + wikilinks can be cited ofc.) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC should contain the two lede versions. That means the current one of the protected page and the other one in its entirety, not just the last sentence. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that you do not even know what the dispute is about. None of the versions above is the one supported by the other side of the dispute. When you get it, ping me to have a constructive discussion. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is the problem with your argument: The current Lede one isn't added with WP:CONSENSUS. We are opening a RfC so that these disputed changes get consensus for inclusion to article. If no WP:CONSENSUS in the RfC, then we we return back to last stable version prior to the disputed edits. RfCs do not start from disputed content and ask for people if they agree to changes that make it less disputable or else return back to a disputed version. That's not how RfCs work. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that a RfC should solve the dispute without having the version of one side of the dispute as an option. Ask some admin, they will clarify the mess you know about RfCs. Bye again, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The "current one" was rammed through by the usual brute force edit-warring and has zero standing. Khirurg (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ktrimi's uncompromising attitude even during the RfC's crafting leaves no option but to propose the very problematic edit as well.


 * Wait for all editors to discuss it and then it can be filed, there's plenty of time. I waited for 4-5 days before I filed it at Parga. You should pick one of the two questions as it is your proposal. The other question should be
 * Another issue which we must agree on so that we're all on the same page is what we do in the case of a "no consensus" (the most likely scenario)? --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First: The RfC is already on, by user Khirurg. Sorry. There is nothing I would do. I guess the editor assumed that everyone was happy with the 2-option choice.
 * Second: your proposed quote: ignores the very simple fact that you are the one who, without consulting with other editors, rammed into the article: a new Lede which does not reflect WP:CONSENSUS. Your bold actions triggered another edit war and Admins stepped in and locked the article (with your debatable edits on it). You know the rest. Khirurg opened a RfC based on this reality which you caused. The above question you proposed, would have been possible to discuss had you not caused this mess on the Lede section. Sorry but now it is too late and you are responsible for the RfC being how it is now.
 * Third, in the event of no consensus at the RfC, then the lede returns back to last stable version and a new discussion may open for a more lasting solution in accordance with WP:LEAD. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 03:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeap, stable version in the event of no consensus. But the closing admin will probably decide anyway. Khirurg (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC Draft #2
"Should the following sentence in the Lede:


 * "Atintanes or Atintanians (Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Atintanii) was an ancient tribe in Epirus. It 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 dialect similar to Doric Greek."

be changed to one of the following two options (OPTION A or OPTION B)?

OPTION A:
 * "Atintanes or Atintanians (Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Atintanii) was an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Illyria and Epirus. It inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Illyrian or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group. According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke Doric Greek."

OPTION B:
 * "Atintanes or Atintanians (Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Atintanii) was an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Illyria and Epirus. It 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 northwestern Greek group and spoke Doric Greek."

By the way, I made a change ( striken ) to reduce repetition abit, and also pinging --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed "They were occasionally subordinate to the Molossians" since it is not part of the dispute. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not include the first parts of the various versions. – Βατο (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The first part (Illyria or Epirus) isn't disputed as far as I can tell in the talk page. Only the consensus over language is. We can include it if you want but I haven't heard anyone disputing this inclusion. Nevermind: will include it for obvious reasons. Edit: Done. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)