Talk:Chaonians/Archive 1

NPOV Talk
Can someone strip out the disputed notions of which ethnic group the Chaonians belong to and move these disputes to a lower section? Can we use more neutral language, especially throughout the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.86.19 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I urge you to read the discussion of this article. And read it well.  And again.  And again.  All sources (and there are very many) and editors are in agreement that the Chaonians were an ancient Greek tribe.  Wikipedia is based on sources, and that's what the sources say.  Period. Every once in a while, we get some nationalist Albanian user (such as yourself presumably) who has a problem with this, but if you read the discussion, you will see that they usually do not know what they are talking about and that the matter has been settled.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaonians are Greeks
Chaonians are Greeks

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.

Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8

Chaonians were not greek
Sertantly, Chaonians were a different ethnicity, from greeks. We can prove it, not through modern historians, who just interpret certain, not fully proved data, but through ancient greek historians. Thucidydes says: the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photys and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided. And also mentions: ...and afterwards during the war they collected this armament among themselves and the Chaonians, and other of the neighbouring barbarians This surely proves that chaonians were barbarians, i.e. not greek, and it shows that they are not neighboured by greeks. Another proof comes from Plutarch. In his book he says that Achilles had another language from epirotans, and thus there was a different pronunciation of his name: "From him Achilles came to have divine honours in Epirus, under the name of Aspetus, in the language of the country" The external links are on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.194 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the above section they were Greek.Sourced and referenced.And dont ruin pages againMegistias (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are Greek in Secondary sources

and in primary sourcesMegistias (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I want a pact with you. I will not go on undoing this page, if you provide real proof, not from modern time historians, but from ancient (Greek) historians, who surely know more. Don`t you think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.116 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be original research.But i gave you even primary sources in the 2nd link.Megistias (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only real proof is this "Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus.", all others speak that Pyrrhos had a Greek origin. Plutarch says that Pyrrhos was a descendent of Achileus, who was not "epirotan" and who did not speak their language. "From him Achilles came to have divine honours in Epirus, under the name of Aspetus, in the language of the country". So all others are not a proof of "greek" chaonians, but of greek descendent Pyrros. Do you agree? As of the above mentioned proof, i wold like from you an external link if that is possible, in order to see whats going on. Thnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.116 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aristotle,Meteorologica "so in determined periods there comes a great winter of a great year and with it excess of rain. But this excess does not always occur in the same place. The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes." MITMegistias (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been reported.Megistias (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ancient Greek philosophers also believed the world was flat. Clearly the modern scientists are wrong about that, too? Neıl  ☎  17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. I do not think you belive what you said. Ancient Greeks could not go to the "end of the world" to prove if that was flat or not, but surely they could go to Epirus and hear the language.
 * You are a disruptive user.17:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put the quote from Plutarch in the "Ancient Sources" section, where it sits better. Is that a reasonable compromise? Neıl  ☎  17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are Greek in Secondary sources

and in primary sources.The revertor user just wants to get me banned and is a sockpuppetMegistias (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistas i do not care who you are and what you do. I found evidences, that were not in the text. Why weren`t these references? I did add them. Why did you banned them?? That`s what i want to know. Plutarch has said that Achileus, a greek, did not speak the language of Epirotans and Thucydides says that chaonians were barbarians, i.e. not greek. Prove me wrong, if you can. These are the external links: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/plpwr10.txt to Thucydides and http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/pyrrhus.html to Plutarch
 * Explained below.And no original research.Megistias (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
How about "Both modern scholars and ancient sources disagree as to whether the Chaonians could be considered 'Greek'; Plutarch said one thing, Scylax said another. Joseph Historian said a third thing, but Bill Nairotsih said a fourth thing."

How's that? (And no, I don't really know who "Scylax" was) DS (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That`s what i did, in my last edit. I totally agree
 * No they were Greek in ancient and modern sources.Sourced and referenced above.Plutarch also says they are Greeks the aspetos is the local dialect word.Thycidides adopts the Athenian name calling against Spartan,Macedonians,Acarnanians,Thessalians as barbarians to indicate Athenian superiorityMegistias (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They were Greeks

 * Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62

Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78

Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98

Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994

Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996

EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)

North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.

Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.

Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.

Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.

A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.

Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.

The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.

His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.

An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.

It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.

Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.

Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.

Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.

Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997

Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.

David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

the Satyres by Juvenal

Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225

"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith

Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.

That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients

History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439

Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74

Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.

Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.

Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8Megistias (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

THe only problems with that is that the Dorian invasion hypothesis is old school. ANd if they were proto-Greek, it doesnlt mean they are Greek. Proto-Greek is a very abstract term, like proto-Balto-Slavic meaning that Lithuanians are Russian ( or vice versa) ! Hxseek (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Pelasgoi....afto einai....des ta xromata tous...min vazeis tin threiskeia...einai metagenesteri kai sto onoma tis ginane sfagkes 2003:D9:670B:ED69:ECB1:DA4E:F53C:6290 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Rules and the page

 * Please restore the page.This talk page is full of secondary sources.And the way the page is now is this "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."Megistias (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Greek is a descendent of Ancient Greek, as Albanian is of Illyrian language. this doesn`t mean that it`s the same language. All indo-european languages have that histry. French and Italian, etc, derives from Latin, it doesn`t mean that they`re latin. Whatever, it is another discussion. balkanian (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Albanian is not a descendant of Illyrian. You don't know what you're talking about.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I learned a lot of things talking to you guys. First of all I learned that Albanian does not derive from Illyrian. Fact it! Linguistics and historians say that it derives from. Secondly I understood that it is not a reliable source Thucydides (?!), who is cited by almost every single historian, that talks about ancient world. And I really thoughtfully understood that that ancient greek historians facts are unpublished, speculation, ore just ideas, according to wiki. I am sure that they`re not "speculations", so wiki does not treat them as such.balkanian (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which linguists? Which historians?  Have you even read the article on Illyrian language?   And nobody said Thucydides was unreliable.  You are making that up and putting words in people's mouths.  He merely describes the Choanians as barbarians in one passage, which really doesn't mean anything.  And nowhere does he say they were Illyrians.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I have read it. But, wiki is my hoby, and so I have read 500 times more than that to speak about the Illyrian and Albanian Language. Have you read the article about the Albanian language, there are some sources, and i can give you more, if that is not enough. If you did not say that Thucidydes is not reliable, why you do not want that the passage when Thucydides tells that Chaonians are barbarians not to be added? Because he is telling clearly that Chaonians were barbarians? He says they`re not greek, and nowhere says the oposit, it surely says something. I did not say that Chaonians were Illyrians in my edits. I edited the page, saying "Barbarian|non-greek". Who is putting words to others` mouth? balkanian (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I have read the article on the Albanian language, and I know that it says that there simply isn't enough evidence for a connection between Albanian and Illyrian. And for the last time, just because an ancient author says that a people is "barbarian" doesn't necessarily mean that they are not Greek.  It can very well mean that they spoke and unsophisticated dialect of Greek.  So the fact fact that Thucidydes refers to them as "barbarians" proves absolutely nothing.  And nowhere does he explicitly say they were "not Greeks".  That is your own interpretation.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to run some errands now; when I come back, I'll edit the page some more. (Hint: goatse) DS (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want the page restored to normalcynormal state not the shambles it is now and Balkanian to understand what Secondary sources are.Megistias (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read, ancient greek writters? If you had, you would understand that "non greek" is not mentioned anywhere, and the word which means "non greek" is barbarian. Whatever, Plutarch says that there is a language, different from Achilleus, not a dialect, as Plutarch refers to the Spartan one, but a language. Also, tell me one lingusit or historian, that says that albanian does not derive from illyrian, or illyro-thracian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Vladimir Georgiev, for one. There is no such thing as Thraco-Illyrian.  That classification is obsolete.  This just shows you do not know what you're talking about.  And please familiarize yourself with the article on barbarian.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm
Can we agree that the rotting fleshless bones of the millennia-dead Chaonians are claimed by both the modern-day Greeks and the modern-day Albanians? DS (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who "claims" them is irrelevant, don't you think? --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with modern peoples.Just bring the page to normalcy.normal stateMegistias (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Who "claims" them has everything to do with it. Why do you think there are people who say that the long-dead Chaonians were NOT greek? For that matter, why do you care whether they were? Look. I'm just trying to get the best possible article, so as to satisfy everyone - or, if necessary, to dissatisfy the least amount of people. Accuracy, verifiability, and keeping people from shitting themselves in rage. DS (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, people will just need to stick to WP:RS. It is clear that the party disregarding policy was the anon (now ). I have read stuff like "Linguistics and historians say that it derives from" too often. That's not how we play. It is really irrelevant who may be dissatisfied with the situation as depicted in the article, if they cannot cite academic references, they'll just have to swallow it. dab (𒁳) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to do with something called historical integrity.Just bring the page to normalcy people.normal state.i got punished and the Original research fellow did nto and the page changed as he wished.Look at all the sources i have.What is up? Just bring the page back and lets get on with our business.Megistias (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, here's the way I see it from a purely logical standpoint. There are only two possibilities here, considering the geopgraphy:  The Chaonians could only have been either Greek or Illyrian.  While numerous sources, both ancient and modern, attest that they were Greek, not a single source mentions them as Illyrian.  User:Arditbido is taking the fact that not every single ancient source explicitly states that they were Greek as proof of the fact that they were not Greek.  This is a logically false argument.   Specifically, he cites a passage in Thucydides that states they were "barbarian" as proof that were not Greek, but everyone knows that the word barbarian had a an ambivalent meaning in those times.  In addition, the fact that Pseudo-scylax does not mentions as either Greeks or Illyrians seems to me empty and meaningless.  They were either one or the other, so that source seems irrelevant to me and should be removed.  These two apart, every other source I have seen mentions them as Greek-speakers.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

as with the notorious Macedonians, the question is when. I have no doubts that by Hellenistic times they had been Hellenized. For earlier times, I don't suppose it even makes sense to ask the question, since "Greekness" was a rather fluid term that sort of faded out towards the north. If we are going to debate "were they Greeks" we need attribution that the question has been discussed in these terms in notable literature. Anything else is WP:SYNTH. dab (𒁳) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, ethnicity is a modern notion, but there is the question of what language they spoke. I think that has been discussed in the literature.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PMFJI, but -- "Thucydides[5] noted that their neighbors considered them "barbarians", a term typically (but not exclusively) reserved for those who did not speak Greek." -- is WP:SYNTH from here to Kalamazoo and back. Who in a WP:RS has advanced this interpretation of what Thucydides meant? rudra (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quieted down?
Have tempers quieted down enough to get the article unprotected again? I see there seems to be consensus that the "Greek-speaking" view is indeed predominant in the modern literature. I'd suggest taking out the "Were they Greek?" heading and the following sentence (it could be replaced with a "Language" heading, perhaps?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you admins ignoring all the myriad primary and SECONDARY sources on this page? Just return the article to its pre attack state and will work it from there to merge it with the other one as Dbachmann said.Just bring the page to normalcy people.normal state.I am the one that abides by the rules and brought proper sources and i got punished and the page has changed to fit the invader's wishes.Megistias (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current version is unacceptable.Its all primary sources & misinterpreted ones.The previous state had reached a consensus for months of editing now and this thing it has become has nothing to do with it.Its against the Rules.

The above didnt happen but the opossite did .Megistias (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What should have been done is
 * The article protected in its normal state and then the disruptor taken care of
 * Then we go on with our bussiness
 * The rules support my suggestion and the state the page was is before the incident.Admins in general didnt take proper measures.You first protect the page in its pre-edit-war state and then see the talk page and the situation.You dont just change the pages lights and then start doing things that turn out to be wrong and against the rules.My position remains the page should become like so normal state and then work to merge it with the other page as Dbachman suggested.The obvious dispruptor should be checked and not allowed to disrupt pages that are sourced with secondary sources in the talk page and article as this one.Thats adhering to historical & wiki rules intergrity.Megistias (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, relax. Most people who were involved yesterday in stopping the edit war haven't even been online again. Have a cup of tea. People will want to check that the sourcing situation is really the way you present it. I'm sure somebody will unprotect the article pretty soon, as soon as people are again able to have a friendly talk about those sources in a relaxed manner. Make it happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy or issue other than a sockpuppet disruptor who knew his way around better than most of use in here and by breaking rules he succeeded his goal -and me by adhering to 2ndary sources rules got punished and the page changed.When legality crumbles of course i am not relaxed.You know for a fact that is not a new user and he is a familiar individual.If i am gonna spend my time in wiki fighting off disruptors in half the pages and fringe theories on another like pelasgian talk and other ones there is no reason for me to edit.The only reason i edit here is because of Source rules.And admins should be less lenient against users that simply waste and have wasted our time in abundance in the past.Megistias (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You just need to learn to meet these people more efficiently. Less excitement. Less alarmism. More light, less heat. More flexibility. Less personal accusations. If you are certain about the sources, just point it out briefly, in a matter-of-fact way, on talk. Then wait. Ever heard of the trick of "slow reverts"? It works great.
 * Fast reverting beyond 3rr is definitely not the way to respond. Once you'd gone up to 9 reverts in a row, admins had no other choice but to either protect the article or to block you both. Those are the rules. You were lucky. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias has provided a lot of secondary and primary sources. Even the fact that {Borza agrees of the Greek character of the Epirotans should have been enough. (Borza who is by far the most skeptic of all!)}. It is not a matter of “equal representation of all sides”. The vast majority of the historians and the ancient sources agree that Epirotes were Greeks. Only a handful (I personally don’t know anyone but I assume there is probably at list one. ) Megistias sources are enough and since they exist they should be mention. Other articles are based only on one questionable source! Perfectly good cited material should be entered in the site. I do also notice the complete absence of the archaeological discoveries. {(was there any not Greek ever found? As I know the archaeological discoveries are the ones that have proven the Greek character of the Epirotans and the Macedonians (the ancient ones)} (By the way none has ever linked Ancient Epirotans with Albanians.) Seleukosa (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This situation is a failiure from the side of the Admins.It would have been not an issue if what i suggest above was done and the Admins themselves adhered to Wiki rules regarding sources.I did.Megistias (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am watching the current debate and I honestly don’t see what was the problem prior to the edit by the unregistered user who started that whole thing at the first place! Indeed we got sources declaring that Chaonians were Greeks, Greek-speaking, or even barbarians (which btw can mean a bunch of things), but we don’t have even one reliable source in fact declaring they were not Greeks, at least as far as I know!! I strongly believe the page should return to here. Not to mention the current section’s title “Were they Greek?”! Shouldn’t it change to “Weren’t they Greek?”??? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * there is no problem. This article was under attack by an anon. Megistias threw a fit and entered a wild revert-war with the anon, then FutPerf and I simultaneously semiprotected the article. It could have ended there, but DragonflySixtyseven joined in the merry reverting, then fully protected the article, and then told me he doesn't have time to figure out what is going on. I suggest we just unprotect the article at this point and resume business as usual. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that’s the best thing to do at this point. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC:Restore the page to normalcy
Restore the page here. normal state Why are my many secondary sources ignored by the admins and the page changed and ruined to say the least according to the disruptors wishes? I adhered by wiki rules on sources but the disruptors and the admins did not.Why?


 * I've already asked the protecting admin to unprotect the page. He feels he wants to wait until he finds the time to evaluate the case and edit the article himself. I find this, and three consecutive edits like this:, a bit dubious wrt WP:PROT (DS reverted, then applied full protection, and then edited the protected article once again), but Megistias, you really need to cool down. Less alarmism, less hysteria, there is no deadline. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys I am back again. First of all, I am not a new user, i have logged in a year ago, but I hadn`t contribute as much as you, so i respect you. Secondlly, I had a message from Akhillues who told me not to start a edit warr. I did not start that. I just added, tow references, which said that chaonians were barbarians, without getting off any reference, and than this was reverted. It is said in this conversation that barbaros, does not mean only foriegner. I want a reference to that, because in dicitionaries it is clear that barbaros meant only "non-greek", or "not-greek-speaking". I asked, even one greek ancient writter that has said the words "non-greek", and nobody found it, because "non-greek" in Ancient Greek, is "barbarous". Nevertheles. Plutarch says that "Achileos, (a greek hero) had a different language from chaonians" (you can find the external links to the books in my edits. In todays page, it is still citied Plutarch tellin "greek-speaking tribes", which is totally unproved. You can read Plutarch`s book here. Adidtionally, it is said that Hammond says that greek due to "archeological evidence", which are epigraphs in greek language in todays Epirus. This means that the written language for Epirus was greek, but does not mean that the spoken language was that too. Even Galls, Illyrians, Dachians, and all Celts, did not have a written language, and they wrote in Greek or/and Latin. Whatever, it is said that every modern day author, says that Chaonians were Greek. It is just not true. Francis Fallon wrote: "Chaonians had a language different from Greek, as Plutarch and Thucydides say, and it is posibly Illyrian" in his book Illyria. I gave you this reference too. Not even him, but a lot of other respectable modern time historians writte the same thing.Why? Becouse the tow biggest historians of antiquity say that Chaonians and Epirotans did not speak greek. Nevertheless, in my edits, i did NOT even a single time say that Epirotans were Illyrians, as Fallon, eg, says, becouse i belive in ancient historians, and they clearly say that Epirotans were not greek, but do NOT specify their ethnicity. It is said that ancient historians, whom books are published, are primary resources. I had not, but i read, wiki`s rules, and i did not found that. '''HISTORIOGRAPHY DEFINES THAT PRIMARY SOURCES ARE PERSONAL THOUGHTS, TESTIMONIES, OR WITTNESES. THUCYDIDES AND PLUTARCH WERE HISTORIANS, WHO WROTE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES AND NOT WITTNESES. I would like that an administrator explain what a primary and a secondary source means.''' balkanian (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are those sources that are so close to the topic and so distant from the present that we can't just rely on taking their word at face value, because reading them requires a non-trivial amount of interpretation. That's exactly the point here, where these guys speak of barbarian: you need to be an expert historian to form a judgment about what they meant by that. Therefore, we should rely on those expert modern historians who have made such an informed judgment for us, and report how they interpret it. Okay, we'll check who this Fallon guy is and whether that's a position that warrants inclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exept of those facts that I gave you, I am prviding tow great sources. An ancient one and a modern time. Pliny, the third ancient source i provide in his book Appian, part Illyrike, chapter 1 says: The Greeks call those people Illyrian who dwell beyond Macedonia and Thrace, from Chaonia and Thesprotia to the river Danube." And the modern one, is even greater. Enciclopedia Britanica: "The Illyrians were not a uniform body of people but a conglomeration of many tribes that inhabited the western part of the Balkans, from what is now Slovenia in the northwest to (and including) the region of Epirus, which extends about halfway down the mainland of modern Greece" - says Enciclopedia Britanica. I think that that is enough. The biggest enciclopedia in the world, and the most respected one, says that Epirus was Illyrian.. balkanian (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything about that "Francis Fallon". Ref please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is encyclpedia Britanica secondary source? About the "barbarian" thing, please read this. We need expertise, and I am giving it to you. Give me a single historian who says that barbarian means greek-not civilised. In such a case I would accept it. But, if you can not provide it, and i provide evidence that barbarian means "not-greek", it means that I am wright, or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you need to provide evidence that scholars who have specifically addressed the question of the Chaonians have interpreted "barbarian" as non-Greek-speaking. As for Britannica, it's actually a "tertiary source", and the Albania article you quote is unfortunately an example showing that its articles are not always written by the most competent experts. The author, Peter Prifti, does not seem to be an expert historian, certainly not for ancient history, and he cites the book by Edwin E. Jacques as "a panoramic yet detailed and generally objective study of Albanian history, based on an impressive amount of source material" - which casts rather a lot of doubt on his own competence. We should definitely take that article with a pinch of salt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, ref for Fallon please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About Fallon, I cannot find his whole work in internet (you can see the first page here, my references are in the second and third page, i have the work published, not online. You can purchase the work if you want so). About britanica, this is written in wiki`s page of Enciclopedia Britanica: "The articles in the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias"(with referencies). If you do not belive, what is written and edited in wiki (with references), than I cannot belive, your sources. About the barbarian thing, I gave you a refference, I will give you one more: "Nobody ever called themselves barbarians. It’s not that sort of word. It’s a word used about other people. It was used by the ancient Greeks to describe non-Greek people whose language they could not understand and who therefore seemed to babble unintelligibly: “ba ba ba”." - as from Terry Jone. This is an extract of the book retrived by Sunday Times. Your argument was...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That Fallon is apparently a theologian, writing about a topic totally unrelated to ours, and only mentioning Illyrians or Chaonians in passing. There's no evidence he has any expert knowledge on this issue. You said above he wrote a book "Illyria". Did you just make that up? About the Britannica article, the guy is writing an article about the whole of the history and society of Albania, spanning several millenia. He was apparently chosen because he was an expert on modern Albanian politics. Nobody can be an expert for all those topics at once. There's no reason to believe he is also an expert on ancient Epirotic tribes. And my argument about the "barbarian" issue was stated already, so I'll not repeat it here just because you chose to overlook it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Plutarch ref gives nothing. He just says that they had a different local name for Achilles in Epirus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fallon is a historian, and not a theologian. This essay that you found online, is part of his book "Illyrians". The page when he talks about is 2-3, in the essay and 244-245 in the book. Read the Britanica`s page on wiki. Encyclopedia Britanica says that there are a lot of contributors, for every page, and editors too. Prifti maybe one of the contributors, or an editor. Plutarch says that there is another name for Achileus in their language, neither in dialect, nor in pronanunciation, but in their language. balkanian (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fallon is a doctor of divinity, got his degree at Harvard in 1970 and wrote books on gnostics, the New Testament and related topics. If he wrote a book on Illyrians, there is no reference to it on the web anywhere. The reference you gave us is not to a book but to a theological journal. If such a book exists, give us the full bibliographical citation and ISBN please. – Prifti is the author of the whole Britannica article on Albania, he signs his name under it. – Ploutarch doesn't say "in their language", he says "επιχωρίω φωνή", lit. 'in the local voice', which can mean dialect or language or anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Plutarch uses the word phonE. I doubt the ancients had a specific understanding of 'dialects' and 'languages' like we do. Also, afaik, 'Aspetos' (the name of Achilles in the language of Epirus as given by Plutarch) is a Greek word meaning '(unutterably) great' but someone more qualified could of course confirm whether this is right or not. Edit: bad timing on my part, apologies! 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aspetos is a nice Greek word meaning "unspeakable" or "boundless". I haven't looked at the Plutarch, but it's hard to see how he would have thought it was a non-Greek word; probably what he's saying is that this was the local title for Achilles. (You'd think, given my username, that I'd know more about this!) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are unspeakably great too. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am restoring the page to normalcy.If the involved admins and users whether they agree with me or not is irrelevant as the secondary sources that are abound here are according to WIKI RULES and so am i last time i checked them.The "new" user is the heretic here and not me.Megistias (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aspetos
Aspetos - according to Albanian language means quick, fast in the context of the warrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavronjoti (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ἄσπετος Aspetos divine epithet of Achilles in Epirus (Homeric aspetos 'unspeakable,unspeakably great,endless' (Aristotle F 563 Rose; Plutarch, Pyrrhus 1; SH 960,4) its Doric Greek,Megistias (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up article
Just so everyone knows, I tweaked the article so that it is easier for both users and readers to navigate through the text and references. Moreover, I created the "Barbarians" section in order to ensure that the article's overall content is broken down properly. That is all. Deucalionite (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * it needs more work. It is perfectly unclear why the article harps on the question of "Greekness". This may be of interest to nationalists of various descriptions, but it shouldn't be the main focus of an encyclopedia entry. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we don't put the "barbarians" from Thucydides in it will be called POV .Megistias (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article may need some more tweaking here and there Dbachmann. However, the Greek identity of the Chaonians has been (and still is) attested by the reliable secondary sources Megistias provided. Whether the question of the Chaonians' "Greekness" is of interest to "nationalists" is a POV argument based on perception. As users, we shouldn't care about whether the direct evidence associated with the Chaonians coincides with misguided ideologies supported by "nationalists" of any creed or color.


 * So far, all arguments and statements in the article are sourced in accordance to WP:RS. If the evidence directly shows an "emphasized stance" pertaining to the identity of the Chaonians, then that in of itself constitutes a form of academic consensus. Anyone who wants to question this consensus needs to provide serious evidence. End of story.


 * Granted, NPOV should be maintained. However, the tone of the article seems neutral enough since the purpose of the encyclopedia entry is to provide evidence-based facts and not misguided ideological banter. Deucalionite (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a bunch of the sources that supposedly say that the Chaonians were Greeks don't say that. E.g. Cassius Dio 9.40.3-4 doesn't mention Chaonians, and it's unclear whether he's saying that Pyrrhus was a Greek or whether Greek fugitives had come to stay with him (it looks like the latter). Pausanias 1.11.7-12.2 is all about Pyrrhus, and says that he's a descendant of Neoptolemos; but that's not the same thing as saying the Chaonians are Greek. Strabo 7.7.5 says that the Chaonians once ruled over all of Epirus, but it doesn't say that they were Greeks.

On this talk page, we have many secondary sources that say that the Chaonians were Greek-speaking, and at least one that says that the Chaonians were trying to emulate Greek forms of political organization; this probably justifies a claim that the Chaonians were Greek. (Although I think the approach to ethnicity/identity taken here is over-simplified, but this is Wikipedia, so I'm not expecting too much subtlety.) But none of this justifies claiming that primary sources say things that they don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are on Epirus and the Epirotes in general and on the fact it was ancient greece with anceint Greeks .That meant the epirotic tribes that chaonians were part of.Megistias (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The references that I mentioned (Cassius Dio, Pausanias, Strabo) do not say that the Epirotes were Greeks. Some of them say that Pyrrhus is a descendant of Neoptolemos, but that's not the same thing as saying the Epirotes were Greeks (nor is it the same thing as saying the Chaonians were Greeks). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotes in generaly are on Epirus/Epirotes being Hellenic ,the "Chaonian" particular can change.

Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, had a particularly high opinion of his powers because he was deemed by foreign nations a match for the Romans; and he believed that it would be opportune to assist the fugitives who had taken refuge with him, especially as they were Greeks, and at the same time so forestall the Romans with some plausible excuse before he should suffer injury at their hands. For so careful was he about his good reputation that though he had long had his eye on Sicily and had been considering how he could overthrow the power of the Romans, he shrank from taking the initiative in hostilities against them, when no wrong had been done him. I am still looking into more of Cassius dio.He mentions it 80 times +48 times. I dont know where this below corresponds in the internet link in the already given one. cassius text Thesprotia, are not river beasts but migrants from the sea." 4.34.1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Paus.+4.34.1 Since Pyrrhus is considered Greek and secondary sources(which matter) say they -Epirotes-were Greek and a number of primary sources say the same on Epirus the position is that it was and thats the "planet" where other points are "satellite" to .Being thus any mention of them not being Greek explicit are the ones that matter from a point of interest like Thucydides i.e. . Megistias (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/9*.html
 * We didnt quote Strabo for this element but for another.
 * Pausanias mentiones Epirus 82 times alone in Attica, ". But the rivers of Greece contain no terrors from wild beasts, for the sharks of the Aous, which flows through
 * Aristotle and others have mentions in Chaonians particular,i ll start adding & removing more writers on the whole.

Peloponnesian war

 * This was their involvement in the Peloponessian war.diff.Megistias (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone put it back in and add this as well.And no m cloak and dagger please.


 * Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic by Barbara Graziosi,2002,ISBN 0521809665-page 118,"Thucydides defines himself simultaneously against Homer and against Herodotus ,though he explicity mentions only Homer.In this respect as in many others the beggining of the Histories is programmatic.He starts by describing his subject matter the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians and by stating the reason why he chose it ; it is the greatest event that ever happened . He adds that what happened before the war (Heordotus subject matter ) and the remote past cannot be known but do not seem to have been as great as the present events.In order to make this claim plausible Thucydides must undermine the Greek vs Barbarian dichotomy .Otherwise he would be open to objection that while Homer and Herodotus depict a war fought by the whole of Greece against the Barbarian world Thucydides is only concerned with an internal Greek affair."Megistias (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not readd itdiff.The paragraph is still missing.Megistias (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole paragraph. I checked the first four or five of the sources quoted there, and none of them seemed to be even mentioning Chaonians. This is total OR junk and needs to be rewritten from scratch, and based on reliable secondary sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They refer to Epirotes/Epirus.And you removed quoted ones that gave more data.diff.You removed the salty river
 * a salty river-http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.2.ii.html Meteorology By Aristotle, "In Chaonia there is a spring of brackish water that flows into a neighbouring river which is sweet but contains no fish."- whose water is sweet but bears no fish
 * And the small headed oxen "Κεστρινικοί βόες οι έν Χαονία"Megistias (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, those were the trivial ones. What are they supposed to show, beyond that the word "Chaonia" was known to these writers? If you want to write articles on Ancient Chaonian cattle husbandry and Ancient Chaonian sweetwater ecology, you are of course welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivial doesnt make it unimportant.Its still data.Megistias (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivial is, by definition, unimportant. That's why we call it trivial, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strabo is the only one who actually mentions them in a non-trivial way, so I've re-added him. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, good call. Sorry I hadn't the patience to check them all this morning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I went through them one by one and Strabo was the only one worthy of inclusion in the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone add the "trivia" in a trivia section.They are very nice.Megistias (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hellenized Illyrians?
Is there any concrete proof to substantiate the notion that the Chaonians were "Hellenized Illyrians"? Are there "Illyrian" settlements in Chaon by any chance? Deucalionite (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania TF
I am placing the Albania TF tag and I hope no one will revert me. Since there is a lot of archaeological research in Albania about the Chaonians (they lived in today's Albania), I think it's important to include this under the Albania TF. --sulmues (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted what appears to be POV tagging by the banned Sockpuppeter Sulmues. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert andalism
I reverted this edit which was made by the same anonymous user identified as vandalism; the anonymous user changed the word "ancient Greek" with the word "Illyrian" contrary to the sources that state the opposite. The same user has vandalised the page in the same way many times before, see article's history. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Chaonians / Molossians inhabited Epirus / Southern Illyria since Mycenaean times
At that period, Greek tribes existed only in the very southern tip of what is now the modern nation state of Greece (possibly offshore on some varied islands as well) but only barely north of the Peloponnese. If the Molossians and the Chaonians were in Epirus before the Greeks had heard of Epirus, I am not sure how these tribes came to be Greek. Need I remind anyone that Epirus was never considered part of Greece until, essentially, Byzantine times? Alexander the Great, whose mother was an Epirote, did not even annex the region into his empire. The Romans considered it a separate entity as well. Strange for so Greek a place to be so unaffiliated with Greece for so much of its history…

There were myriad tribes on the mainland with whom the Greeks traded and assimilated during the undocumented years which we know in contemporary scholarship as the Dark Ages, when the enormous non-Greek powers of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean collapsed in a sudden cataclysm. The Pelasgians, as they are called, were a real population. They are not the stuff of fiction and they were indeed pre-Hellenic. This presents something of an inconvenient truth for Greek scholars (past and present). Unfortunately, Greek historians have taken it upon themselves to explain away the Pelasgians, and this was accomplished in antiquity through mass assimilation into the Greek way of life of various regional peoples.

History is written by those who have come to be victorious enough to make the account. The Greeks prevailed in the territories into which they came to settle. Largely, we accept the Greek perspective in our evaluations of the ancient world. There are far too many inconsistencies in that perspective, however, for our casual ignorance of the facts to continue unchallenged. The Greeks have a kind of monopoly on ancient history. While the Barbarian Alexander put his adopted country on the map, aggrandized its ideals, and perpetuated its standard, the philhellenic Romans helped to excise much of the pre-Greek way of life during their tenure, especially in their systematic decimation of the Illyrians over several centuries. The debate in this talk section is important to a fostering of the larger debate which exists between the Greek interpretation and the reality of history. I am glad that there are those who have come to this forum to discuss this matter with an open mind and an unprejudiced outlook.

No one will take Greek history and the accomplishments of Greece away. No one wants to. No one can. But the facts cannot be buried by nationalism and zeal. We need to reexamine the historical implications suppressed by biased authorship and reopen the affairs in glossed-over antiquities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.47.58 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your first paragraph is a plain proof that you have no idea about history. The rest of the text is the outcome of your biased personal view of the issue. - Sthenel (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My first paragraph presents information that is consistent with every map of the Mycenaean period on display in the Greek galleries at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. In a legitimate institution, resources are far more accurate than whatever Wikipedia can muster. Greece began in the Peloponnesian region. In pre-classical Greece, during which point the Molossians were already in Epirus and flourishing there, Greeks had barely penetrated the hinterlands of the Mainland. Eventually, they made their way north. You may choose to consult a pre-Twentieth century map; they tend to be more neutral.

During Magna Graecia and colonization, Greek culture flourished in all parts of the Med, the Ionian, the Adriatic, and the Euxine seas, as you know. The Greek city of Massilia was in Gaul. Were the Gauls also Greek? Were the peoples indigenous to that region Greeks? They traded with Greeks, they may have spoken Greek, and they may have embraced Hellenic norms, but they were not Greek. This, of course, is based on our understanding of what it means to be "Greek," which I take to refer to an ethnicity, although to what extent the early Greeks consisted of one unified ethnic group is not very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.47.58 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Useful source
There is a good, lenghty discussion article about this by Hammond The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirotic Atintanes and the Roman Protectorate

I have access to it if anyone wants it Hxseek (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Massive pov edits
Yet again the usual Illyrian possibility gets overemphasized, while on the other hand Filos gets nearly dismissed. It sounds quite reasonable to ask for a decent explanation. Even Stocker is very reactant on this issue not to mention that he is only selectively used in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The content is sourced with full quotes provided by Filos (2021) and Stocker (2009). – Βατο (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You should explain their removal. – Βατο (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should explain why did you cite Ugolini, a fascist archeologist? Seriously now? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Stocker describes a quite different situation about the Chaones: An Illyrian origin according to him is a minority theory, there are some theories but can't be considered valid. Should I offer precise quotes ? Filos fully dismisses this Illyrian origin as completely outdated in literature. Also Stocker declares that the Greek speaking area stretches as north as Apollonia & that's a good addition for Apollonia I assume. Yes we can offer more in depth view of their work in a neutral way.Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not, where do you see it? I just added Filos (2021) and Stocker (2009). – Βατο (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The material in question is a footnote within a Ph.D. dissertation about an entirely different topic (the archeology of the Greek colony of Apollonia). Hardly the kind of source appropriate for a claim of this magnitude. Khirurg (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * quotes are needed for your statements. The stretching of the Greek-speaking area does not contrast with the information Filos (2021) and Stocker (2009) provide. – Βατο (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * what do you mean with "a claim of this magnitude"? – Βατο (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That it's a pretty major claim that they may have been Illyrian, when the bulk of the literature considers them Greek, or at least Greek-speaking (Filos, Hammond, etc.). Khirurg (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm currently reading linguistic papers about Illyria and Epirus, particularly those published by Filios in 2017 and 2021, which are quite interesting. They should be re-added them in the manner in which Bato has used them, they are RS. It is necessary to provide an explanation for removal. —Excine (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Filos is already in the article. The burden of obtaining consensus is on those seeking to add the disputed material, not the other way around. Khirurg (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Excine, Βατο's edits aren't exactly positive contributions in this case. In Wikipedia we are careful to avoid citing the Honxa communist regime's archeologists, we ain't going back from that just to cite Fascist archeologists. Wikipedia accepts biased sources as reliable ones, but avoids sources that are propaganda or propaganda-influenced sources. As for Filos (not Filios), I won't comment as this isn't my concern here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg:
 * The source you removed is not in the article. *
 * Wording is naturally something which can be debated, but why is the source being excluded per se? The article gives undue weight to certain opinions over others if a 2021 very recent publication is excluded.--Excine (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Excine (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Filos (2021) and Stocker (2009) are WP:RS, nobody cited "Fascist archeologists". Reasonable arguments should be provided for removal of sourced material. – Βατο (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Filos (2021) and Stocker (2009) are WP:RS off course! Stocker for example declares that : The Argive list also included two specific cities in Chaonia, Phoinice and Himara, both of which must have been Greek, but no "Illyrian" cities. @Bato: I'm afraid that your interpretation on Filos and Stocker is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I re-added Filos (2021). But Stocker 2009 is a footnote in a Ph.D. dissertation about another topic, in which she further cites the 1930s fascist archeologist Ugolini, and some other rather old sources (Cross, Cabanes). This is outdated. In earlier scholarship, the Epirotes were indeed considered Illyrians, but this is no longer the case. There isn't a single modern scholar to my knowledge that considers them Illyrians. Khirurg (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First, an advice. as I suggested to you years ago, it would be great if you stopped mistaking "off course" with "of course". That makes it more difficult to understand what you want to say. "Of course" is used to give or emphasize agreement or permission. "Off course" is used when someone or something is lost or confused. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Stocker (2009) is a reliable source, and her statements can be added in Wikipedia, like you did several times (including in Bylliones). Galaty (2002): "In fact, in past times the situation was yet more complex than that. Both the Illyrian and the Greek 'nations', for lack of a better term, were further subdivided into smaller tribal units, each possessing a different name (the Chaonians, Molossians, Bylliones, etc); and it is not at all clear how each of these different tribal groups was distinguished one from another, whether by custom, such as dress, ancenstry or language. What made one group Greek and another Illyrian, and was this even a meaningful distinction in the past?". Furthermore, "Greek-speaking tribe" does not mean "Greek tribe", and in the case of the Chaones this is evidenced also by the fact that this tribe claimed descent from the Trojans, not Greeks. – Βατο (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still not a single source that claims they were "Illyrians". "Not necessarily Greek" does not automatically imply Illyrian. They could have have been Pre-Indo European ("Pelasgian"), but the notion that they were "Illyrians" is totally outdated and cannot go in the article. You are making major claims in your edits, which are sourced to a footnote in a Ph.D. dissertation about an entirely different topic. Suppose I did that, about e.g. the Bylliones. Yeah, exactly. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is uncertainity about them, as reported by different reliable sources, and comments by scholars should be included into the article, including Stocker's analysis which takes into account several recent opinions. – Βατο (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem. The "recent" opinions she cites are not recent at all, they include Luigi Maria Ugolini and Cross from the...1930s. This is poor scholarship at best. Khirurg (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * She considers also Cabanes and Winnifrith, but it is irrelevant, since she provides her own opinions. – Βατο (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Galaty 2002, p. 122:
 * Those are enough for the uncertainity about them. – Βατο (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to go down this route? Regarding Wilkes, shall we add that the "southern limit of the Illyrians was around Apollonia" at Apollonia and Illyrians? Shall we? Shall we also add that part from Galaty to Bylliones? Yeah? Stocker we've already been over, and you are quoting Filos highly selectively, he only discusses language, not ethnicity (and I re-added him to the article anyway). Khirurg (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Around Apollonia is the area at the mouth of the Aoos, hence it's in agreement with other sources. About Galaty, why not? And Stocker's analysis is fine, since it considers the evolution of historical accounts about them. – Βατο (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as you well know, Apollonia is north of the Aoos. So then I presume you would be ok with adding "the southern limit of the Illyrian area was around Apollonia" to Apollonia, Illyria, Illyrians, etc...? Then we have Amantia, Atintanes, Amantes, which were wll to the south of "around Apollonia", therefore not in the Illyrian area according to Wilkes. Stocker cites a number of out of date sources, which I;ve already explained is problematic and not the best scholarship. Khirurg (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to go down this route? Regarding Wilkes, shall we add that the "southern limit of the Illyrians was around Apollonia" at Apollonia and Illyrians? Shall we? Shall we also add that part from Galaty to Bylliones? Yeah? Stocker we've already been over, and you are quoting Filos highly selectively, he only discusses language, not ethnicity (and I re-added him to the article anyway). Khirurg (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Around Apollonia is the area at the mouth of the Aoos, hence it's in agreement with other sources. About Galaty, why not? And Stocker's analysis is fine, since it considers the evolution of historical accounts about them. – Βατο (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as you well know, Apollonia is north of the Aoos. So then I presume you would be ok with adding "the southern limit of the Illyrian area was around Apollonia" to Apollonia, Illyria, Illyrians, etc...? Then we have Amantia, Atintanes, Amantes, which were wll to the south of "around Apollonia", therefore not in the Illyrian area according to Wilkes. Stocker cites a number of out of date sources, which I;ve already explained is problematic and not the best scholarship. Khirurg (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A recent source: Buckler 2003, p. 256: Can you provide a recent source describing them as a "Greek tribe" and not a "Greek speaking tribe"? – Βατο (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A more recent source that discusses them as Greeks, citing another three sources within. Khirurg (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, are both WP:RS, as are all the others mentioned above. – Βατο (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to like Ph.D. dissertations, here's one from 2020 that goes in depth about the Chaonians (unlike Stocker), and definitively considers them Greek . This is perhaps the most in-depth source on the topic.Scholarship has moved on from the days in the 19th century when anything north of the Gulf of Corinth was considered "Illyrian". Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Companion to Ancient Macedonia has an entire chapter dedicated to Epirus, and definitively considers the Epirotes (including the Chaonians) Greeks. There are simply way too many sources calling them Greeks or Greek-speaking. You're not going to "win" this, so to speak. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Chaones were Epirotes, as explicitly described in ancient sources, and they distinguished themselves by claiming a Trojan descent. While their origin is dubious, and it can't be determined by the culture material of Hellenistic times. All the above mentioned reliable sources are equally relevant. – Βατο (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Epirotes were Greeks, as explained in detail in the Companion to Ancient Macedonia, and many other sources for that matter. Lots of Greeks claimed Trojan, or all kinds of exotic, descent. That means absolutely nothing, and you know it. You just completely ignore every single source that states they were Greek. The majority of sources in fact does so (Hammond, Nitsiakos, Arvantinos, Hatzopoulos, Kokolakis, Hanteli, etc...). This is WP:IDHT. Khirurg (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They were not a homogeneous reality, because the region was inhabited by several tribes, of which some were unrelated to each other. Your personal comments about their "exotic" descent are irrelevant without reliable sources. – Βατο (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What does "exotic" descent mean? "Non-Greek" would be a much clearer term in this case. Khirurg has a habit to use words after other people use them. In this case he probably used "exotic" after Maleschreiber used it there. In any case, IMO the article is good as it is now. Chaonia and southern Illyria certainly had some degree of diversity and bilingualism, but in the end Chaonia chose a Greek identity, and southern Illyria an Illyrian one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with editor Ktrimi991 here. Basically, what Ktrimi991 is saying, is somehow reminding me of these unfortunate long debates about the Ancient Macedonians which ravaged Wikipedia for whole years before it settled down with the editors ultimately acknowledging the facts about ancient Macedonians which were backed by the majority of the academic scholarship. Likewise, here the editors have two options as I can see: to go the long and hard way, or just follow the example of the ancient Macedonians and reflect on the facts about Chaonians. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that the way certain aspects are described is inclusive of diverging opinions. If modern bibliography is used, then I don't think that a dispute will emerge. A side comment: More should be written about history of this group. Communities are what they did, not what we consider that they were.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not to nitpick, but communities exist performatively and non-performatively (though, yes, how communities act is important). 2605:AD80:0:186F:39A3:BA64:D77:32EB (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Georgiev
I removed a Georgiev quote about Proto-Greek presence in Neolithic Greece. It's wrong. Proto-Greek entered the Balkans with other IE languages geographically defined as "Paleo-Balkan" around 2200 BCE. The linguistic part of the quote referred to Epirus-Western Macedonia in general but not Chaonia specifically which is not included as part of the Proto-Greek area of settlement in Greece in bibliography (see the ). The full discussion about Georgiev can be read at Talk:Proto-Greek language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * According to Peter Trudgill (a well-known sociolinguist), Georgiev's Proto-Greeks are in northwestern Greece in circa 2500 BC (technically Bronze Age even if Georgiev mislabelled the dating as "Neolithic"). So with or without Katona's map, the estimate of ca. 2200 BC is not an absolute fact since direct evidence of Proto-Greek (or Proto-Indo-European leading to Proto-Greek) is lacking (for now) and whatever knowledge of prehistory we currently have is always changing if you recall the historical impact of Linear B's decipherment and the ongoing expansion of archaeological groundfacts. So there is really no justification for deleting Georgiev's scholarly contributions even if they are limited to onomastics. And given your edit summary invoking WP:OUTDATED, it's hypocritical for anyone to be gung-ho about removing Georgiev on the grounds that his work is outdated when on the Proto-Greek language page, Robert Drews' outdated 1900 BC estimate is in the lede when everyone knows that Drews' estimate has been debunked and rejected by experts (especially Mycenologists). In conclusion, your edits to this page must be rejected on WP:COI grounds. 2605:AD80:0:186F:39A3:BA64:D77:32EB (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from alleging WP:COI against your colleagues without any evidence whatsoever. Thanks. --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated content
I removed this part because the two inline citations do not mention the subject of this article, they are talking about Achaean mythical descent, which was claimed by Molossians: :, and [https://books.google.com/books?id=WpiRCQeTBIAC&pg=PA342 p. 342. ]. – Βατο (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The map added by is anachronistic and unrelated to the subject of this article, furthermore it is not properly sourced. – Βατο (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The map shows Epirus, so it is relevant. You just don't like it. Regarding the IPs edits, I will let them defend them, but I will remind you that you also added stuff about the Molossians that doesn't mention the Chaonians. So, don't pretend. You can't have it both ways. I will remove the material about Tharyppas otherwise. Regarding De Simone, that is from 1985, and there is no way we are going to state in wikivoice that there is no clear etymology using a source fom 1985, when there is newer research on the subject (Filos 2017). Also why did you remove Polybius? Khirurg (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read Filos? He reports: The Chaonians are not mentioned before the 5th century, a map that depicts the situation 8th-5th century is unrelated and anachtronistic, and it is also not properly sourced. – Βατο (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to add "seems" that's fine, but now way we are going to have De Simone in wikivoice saying there is no etymology. And Filos is newer, so that should be mentioned aslo. In fact De Simone is obsolete and should be removed. It doesn't matter about Georgiev, if Filos endorses the view that the etymology is Greek, that's good enough. Khirurg (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Epirotes are mentioned well before the 5th century, and the Chaonians were Epirots. So the map is relevant.
 * By the way, you should at least give people some time to post on the talkpage before you revert literally within seconds with the excuse "unexplained revert". Khirurg (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * De Simone is not obsolete, his publication is WP:RS and published after Georgiev's one. Stocker is clearly talking about Chaonians, explicitly mentioning them, while and  do not mention them and talk about Achaean descent, which was the opposite of Chaonian's claim, hence it can't stay into this article. You can't equate those citations. You also restored primary sources in Ancient Greek while removing content from secondary sources. Your edit is clearly not an improvement. – Βατο (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * De Simone (because of Filos, who clearly endorses the etymology) is absolutely obsolete, and you should be grateful I do not remove it. Regarding "Hellenization", which clearly a mistranslation (seems like Stocker cannot read ancient Greek) that refers to the Molossians and not the Chaonians. Also, you are not answering my question: Why did you remove the cite to Polybius? Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry but you can't, De Simone is a WP:RS and Filos is citing, a 1976 publication and an earlier one are older than De Simone's publication (1985), and Filos is not providing himself an etymology. Anyway, they can stay because there is not certainity. We do not interpret reliable secondary sources like you are doing with Stocker, and we do not cite primary sources, as you already told me in other talks. – Βατο (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Βατο you cannot say 'according to plutarch' and then say that plutarch is wp:primary. you also removed hatzopoulos as unrelated but you keep stocker who talks about tharrypas (a molossian, also unrelated). this is the definition of wp:jdl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.171.148 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutarch is primary, while the secondary source, which analyses the primary one, provides conclusions about the information recorded by the primary source; Wikipedia is considered a tertiary source based on reliable secondary sources. Hatzopoulos does not mention Chaonians, and it is completely incorrect to add that information into this article because Chaonians did not claim mythical descent from Achaeans. – Βατο (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What's this ? You replace the original from Plutarch with Stocker on the grounds of WP:PRIMARY, but then add Plutarch for the "Greek letters and customs", and then have the nerve to add a primary source tag. And all this, to push the same POV: That the Chaonians were not Greek "originally" (the old blood-and-soil POV). So when it suits you, you remove the primary source using the primary source tag, and when it suits you elsewhere, you add it back. This is intellectually dishonest and will not stand. You can't have it both ways. No way. I hope you are not too attached to that edit, because it won't last. Khirurg (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I separated the secondary from the primary content, and added the tag because if secondary sources are not provided instead of the primary, that part can be removed. Also added the English translation of Ancient Greek. – Βατο (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Bull. Everyone can see what you did. When the primary source is "inconvenient", you replace it with the secondary. When the primary source is "convenient" you add it in as is. Don't pretend, anyone can see the diff. Khirurg (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see that I separated the primary form the secondary content, because the IP replaced the secondary one with its own translation of the primary one from Ancient Greek. – Βατο (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see that every single one of your edits, including that one, pushes the "ThEy WeReN't GrEek!!!!!1" POV, using whatever means necessary: misusing sources, WP:CHERRY, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY, etc...Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * From this you can understand why the anachronistic map you added can't stay into the article. – Βατο (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All maps of the ancient era are approximate, there are no "boundaries". Everyone understands that. Except those who purposely refuse to do so. Btw, your additions form Chapinal-Heras are either repetitious (that they ruled over all over Epirus is already mentioned) and fall under WP:COATRACK and are also contradicted by a large number of sources (Hammond, Engels). They will be removed. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Noticing this WP:CHERRY and WP:COATRACK attempt here, I can't help but have a question. Why so much obsession of Βατο's part about "ethnic this" and "not ethnic that"? Checking at Βατο's edit contribs log, shows that this editor is, only for the years 2021 and 2020, engaged in heavily biased ethnic POV flag planting across several articles in the Albania and Epirus topic areas where they obsessively have either promoted Albanianess and Illyrianess or demoted Greekness of locations and tribes, and this is troubling. Comparing the before/after in several articles in this topic area will easily reveal that the editor's contributions, especially the ones that have caused debates, are following this pattern. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added what recent bibliography put forward, this and other articles about ancient history were based only on pre 21st century sources. I am interested to know why certain editors contrast adding updated information into Wikipedia articles. – Βατο (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop pretending, will you? Everyone can see that literally every single one of your edits is solely intended to push POV. It's plain as day. Anything not specific to the Chaonians will be removed - don't bother edit-warring it back. Khirurg (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See your contribution log before commenting on mine, please. If you are talking about sources that provide information about Epirus/Epirotes in general but not specifically referring to Chaonia/Chaonians, I can agree on that. – Βατο (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP was quick to remove some of the problematic edits made by Βατο which do not concern Chaonians per WP:RELEVANT, yet, are one of Βατο's efforts to promote a certain POV about the Chaonians: . Βατο has no WP:CONSENSUS for their edits and if they don't stop with this arrogant attitude of theirs, continue cherrypicking and coatracking, then I won't view their contributions as part of WP:GOODFAITH and they will be reverted. Editor Βατο's contributions log are exactly this kind of nationalist POV editing the admins at the AE board were talking about this Spring 2021 about the WP:BALKANS. Please note that the admins have been notified this Summer 2021 that the Albania topic area requires more Admin attention against this kind of nationalist editing. If I see that nothing changes here on Βατο's side, then their edit diffs will be forwarded to them. I recommend that they are more careful than certain editors around here who assumed that I was just bluffing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't consider relevant only the parts that suits you. As I already stated, If you want to remove sources about Epirus/Epirotes that does not mention directly Chaonians, I agree on that. The IP removed directly related content while adding unrelated content. – Βατο (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see, what others do or not do, doesn't bother me (and never did, thats why I am letting it go) unless the edits show a specific WP:NATIONALIST pattern as they do in your case. It is exactly due to your edit contributions especially since 2020 (I can provide diffs if you want) that your edits are being scrutinized and treated cautiously, and that's exactly because there is a reason to worry, don't you think? Like I said, I am in favor of all opinions being covered (that's why I didn't revert your edits on Chaonians, or didn't remove any POVs from the artice so far but restored some bits of information) but when I see that all your edits are emphatically a very specific one-sided POV which is result of wp:cherrypicking and wp:coatracking, then I can't just stand indifferent. Do you understand? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not one-sided, the article lacked neutrality and relied almost entirely on pre 21st century sources. Filos' 2017 content in the name section was added by me, because previously the information was based on Gerogiev (half a century old publication). I provided also other content by recent sources, including the 2021 publication by Chapinal-Heras. If Scholar's opinions that accept the Greekness of Chaonians are included, also scholars' opinions that do not accept it should be included as per WP:NPOV. In this edit Khirurg removed content about Epirotes in general which I added, but he did not remove IP's additions equally about Epirotes in general. Double standards can't be accepted if we want neutrality of article's content. If you want to report me, you are free to do it, but stop casting aspersions and focus on content, please. I will reply here only for issues regarding the article. All the best. – Βατο (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just checked again the article's history log and you were right. . I got lost in the edit diffs giving me the impression this edit was from the others, not you, which heightened my perception that your edits are one-sided. In that case, you have my apologies and thank you for telling me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

POV edits
The article has many problems. I have removed some quotes which are unrelated to Chaonia and the map which wasn't in the article before added it. It is tagged as factually disputed in wikicommons. We probably shouldn't rely on such maps.--Excine (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:JDL much? Why did you remove Pseudo-Scylax and "from Herodotus to Strabo"? Khirurg (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "From Herodotus to Strabo" says nothing about Chaonia or the time period that the previous sentence talks about. Pseudo-Scylax is mentioned in the article. See sentence "The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax makes a clear distinction between the Chaonians and their northern neighbours, the Illyrian tribes that occupied the coastal and hinterland regions further north" --Excine (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit is the confirmation that Khirurg is not interested on removing all the parts that do not explicitly concern the Chaonians. He removed only the parts he does not like while keeping the parts he likes. – Βατο (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * disagree. khirurg in the same edit removed claims about herodotus regarding the epirotes as non foreigners (greeks) engels (who claims that Epirus' greekness is undisputed) and duke university, (every ancient historian from herodotus to strabo regards epirus as part of the greek world). excine on the other hand, excine removed my well referenced dedits and re added something that has to do about villages north and south of chaonia. weird... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.21.134 (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point maybe the article should be tagged for POV reasons. --Excine (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It was perfectly fine before one user started messing everything up by adding stuff not related to the Chaonians. Khirurg (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Who? The IP? My edit was reverteed without explanation, also restoring a false information attributed to Hernandez (by one of those IPs). – Βατο (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you. All the stuff you added today is not related to the Chaonians. It's just pure POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you consider Chapinal-Heras (2021) - who is talking about Epirotes in general - as not related to the Chaonians, start to remove also IP's additions that are not related, but also other content sourced with citations that do not explicitly talk about this tribe, otherwise there are double standards. – Βατο (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I removed everything not directly related to the Chaonians . Khirurg (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IP's (Trudgill 2020), IP's (Hatzopoulos 1997), Alexikoua's (Hernandez 2010) additions (among others, but which have been kept in your edit), and also Hammond's 1982 quote (p. 285), are not directly related to the Chaonians. They are equally of the same weight as Chapinal-Heras (2021) for the subject of this article. As I've already stated, there can't be double standards for the neutrality of the article. If they are relevant they can all stay, if they are not relevant they should all be removed. – Βατο (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Trudgill cites Georgiev who does mention them indirectly. Hatzopoulos 1997 and Hammond 1982 are the only sources in the Religion section, without them, we have nothing on religion. Hernandez 2010 is redundant and can be removed. On the other hand, your additions mention Greek colonies in Epirus to imply the Epirotes weren't Greeks, but there were no colonies in Chaonia. On top of that you repeated mention of Tharypas to imply they weren't Greeks. Anyway, I am fine with removing anything not directly related to the Chaonians. Khirurg (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The information about Tarrhypas is directly related to the subject as reported by Stocker. I agree on removing all the parts supported with quotes/citations that do not mention directly Chaonians/Chaonia. – Βατο (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. If I missed something feel free to remove it as well. Khirurg (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Before restoring content that is not directly related to the Chaonians, dicuss it here, please. – Βατο (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Chaonians and Chaonian cities were mentioned by the theoroi. That's certainly connected to the Chaonians.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources that do not directly mention Chaonians have been all removed. Don't readd some of them, please. – Βατο (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

IE languages in the Balkans
One of the IPs which target these articles had added the Proto-Greek was spoken in 2500 BCE in the Balkans. It wasn't - as many editors have explained at Talk:Proto-Greek language. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It is fringe. Indo Europeans had not crossed the Romanian plain in 2400 BC. I am not to sure on the policy about using fringe sources for claims that are considered wrong but writing per X author is not an excuse for including all kinds of claims under the sun. Balkan Indo-Europeans were not around Epirus before 1900 BC. Durraz0 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Durraz0: What makes you believe that Indo-Europeans were not around Epirus before 1900 BC? I assume you need to read the specific article about Proto-Greek, take a look at the infobox for example.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Proto-Greek being spoken in the Balkans at around 2500 BCE is not unrealistic from a modern scholarship perspective, since even Adams (2007) that was cited by TaivoLinguist at Talk:Proto-Greek language writes that pre-Greek split away from late PIE at approximately 2500 BCE. He also estimated the formation of Proto-Greek at least (minimally) between 2400-2200 BCE. But regardless of the date and whether it remains or not (personally i think that no date is better), the linguistic research of Georgiev is something independent. Also, "The Proto-Greek Region" chapter in the 1981 publication expands on the linguistics and presents over a 100 names of regions, tribes, rivers, mountains, settlements, and localities; Chaonia is actually within the boundaries of his proto-Greek region, and even mentioned as one of the regions/tribes that support it. By the way, IE could have reached the Balkans even from 4200-4000 BCE; pertaining to the Anatolian branch:
 * page 262.
 * page 365.
 * These quotes don't pertain to the Greek branch, but just saying; IE presence in the Balkans seems to be much older than 2400 BCE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't pertain to the Greek branch, so Georgiev's outdated hypothesis should be removed. if Alexikoua adds back an assertion which has been rejected at the article about Proto-Greek, then the article should be tagged for spreading fringe content to readers.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds very much like an intent to orchestrate an edit-war (by addressing yourself to another user). Don't even think about it. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Demetrios, Georgiev both here and in Proto-Greek can stay.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is an outdated hypothesis; Georgiev's linguistic research? This has nothing to do with the proposed dates. By the way, the only date provided by Georgiev (1981) in a different subsection of the chapter ("The Proto-Greek Region"), is an estimation for when the Argives (Greek ethnonym) settled in Thessaly; where he estimates that it occurred at the latest during the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way since we are talking about outdated theories we have Cabanes (1979) and the so-called bilingualism speculations which has been summarily rejected by mainstream literature. Moreover, in the available reference this claim is just a part of a footnote.Alexikoua (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree Maleschreiber, the map of Georgiev is outdated and fringe. It should be removed as soon as possible. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC) I have tagged the article because it has been the subject of many POV-edits made by ip's and other users. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ahmet: There is no map based on Georgiev in this article. Moreover, Georgiev's views is attributed to Georgiev the same happens with Cabanes'. If we want to remove those not so widely accepted theories I propose removing both of them.Alexikoua (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed two recently added maps. As already discussed, the anachronistic map that depicts the Classical and (mainly) Hellenistic situation but describing it as being the Archaic period between 8th-5th centuries BC can't stay. The other map has several issues already discussed in other articles. – Βατο (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Note to any admins observing this discussion: This seems to be retaliatory behavior (especially on the part of ) over this discussion here. The maps that Ahmet removed were in the article for some time, but they only really annoyed him after the discussion at Origin of the Albanians over a map he had made. This is further made obvious by the fact that here he refers to the map of Georgiev, but there was never any such map in the article. In his haste to revenge-revert, he is making errors so glaring that make it very hard, if not impossible, to assume good faith. Khirurg (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Euhm... this looks like another case of casting aspersions by Khirurg. I have never said that the maps that I removed, which were introduced in this article by brute-force by some ip's and other editors, were based on Georgiev's views (?) I was talking about the proto-greek map. Please read the conversation carefully. This is awkward and I would like to ask you to calm down before trying to edit on wikipedia. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What proto-Greek map? There was never a proto-Greek map. And you didn't answer my question: What is the map of Georgiev? It seems that in your haste to revenge-revert (because of what happened at Origin of the Albanians, you got mixed up with other articles where you have edit-warred in the past. Yes, you should follow your own advice. Khirurg (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wont repeat myself again, read what I wrote above. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexikoua wow nice to know that, I am actually also working on a map about ancient tribes in Epirus at it will include the Chaonians. I am curious to see your result, don't forget to post it here so that other users can evaluate it as well. Btw, I am also making a Proto-Greek map which will include different viewpoints, maybe you will find it interesting. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your interest in all things Greek, is...interesting. I note you have made many many maps. Yet few if any have made it on the encyclopedia. I wonder why. Khirurg (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you I am actually a hellenophile, I thought this was obvious to everyone by now. I haven't made that many maps actually and a considerable part are still used. Making maps is a learning process, sometimes the result is good other times it is not, but the most important thing at the end of the day is to try and keep on trying. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear @Khirug your selfish and inconceivably arrogant manner is no longer bearable. It is nevertheless great to see that there are also users as Ahmet Q. who invest their precious time to contribute instead of constantly carping and being involved in disputes as you do.--Lorik17 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg: I've just realized that you are 100% correct: fact is very that few of Ahmet's maps (if any) were accepted for inclusion in this encyclopedia. It's really astonishing that this editor keeps threatening here that this POV activity will expand in various topics.Alexikoua (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well this is simply not true, and anyone who wants to check it can watch my uploads on Commons. I have never threatened anyone (??) It seems that you are taking "assuming bad faith" to a whole new level. Making false accusations can get you in trouble real fast Alexikoua, this is really disappointing and not beneficial to Wikipedia. Either-way I am almost done with the Porto-Greek map. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By saying that you will continue to create maps the same way constitutes disruption. I can name several of your maps in which you are simply painting vast region as ethnically Albanian without decent citation or by misusing sourced material:[], [], []. No wonder non of them stayed in this encyclopedia. It's also weird that you always add those maps without previous discussion in talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well about the first map you mentioned I actually based it on an already present map of another user which you uploaded: . Funny thing is that you didn't see any problem back then in using an ethnographic map to paint vast regions as ethnically Greek. Even more weird is the fact that you more recently added a ridiculous source to that map, which tries to imply a majority of Greeks in regions where bibliography clearly says there never was, and you did that even after an other user explicitly opposed such addition . As for the second map I made, which didn't even depict any ethnicity, I just simply vectorized a map that was present in the related article for years . You then removed that map and added a clear OR-map which tries to imply something the mentioned author never once said (Elsie never said that) . As for the last map, I simply vectorized an ethnographic map considering I don't have access to the original file. You remember, you once uploaded an ethnographic map yourself . You are accusing me of doing things which you actually have been doing yourself for a while now. This is really not the spirit of Wikipedia Alexikoua. Actually, if I think more about it and if I follow your logic you wrote above, this edit summary you recently made is supposed to be a threat ? I naively thought that you were trying to be cooperative, it looks like that was not the case. Not cool. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * and those maps are of low quality. If one of you wants, you can make a map where disputed tribes between Illyria and Epirus (Amantes etc) are shown in a color other than those used for Illyrians and Epirotes. Greek colonies in the territory of Illyria (Oricos, Apollonia etc) could be shown in a different color from Illyrian and other Greek settlements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea Ktrimi991. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the other map too. These maps should be removed from all articles where they are present. IMO, two new maps are needed. They should have consensus and be the standard ones for all relevant articles. One map should show the tribes, and should have 3 colors. One for Greeks, one for Illyrians and one for disputed tribes (Amantes, Atintanians). The second map should show the settlements. It should have 5 colors. One for Illyrian settlements in Illyria, one for Epirote settlements in Epirus, one for disputed ones in disputed territory (Amantia etc), one for Greek colonies in Illyria (Apollonia etc), and one for Greek settlements in disputed territory (for example, Oricos was a Greek settlement in a territory that has been described as either Epirus or southern Illyria). and  if you make such maps, post them on a talk page like this one. After discussion and consensus, those maps should be the standard ones to be used on all relevant articles. This way the quality of articles is improved and waste of time through continuous reverting cycles is avoided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The map you removed has been there for a long time, and should not be removed without consensus. Until a new map is (good luck getting consensus), it should stay. Khirurg (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that a small team of editors is eager to display wp:IDONTLIKEIT in a aggressive fashion to remove images and maps one by one. Maybe a full protection would be appropriate to calm things down.Alexikoua (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The map which you want to use has been removed in many articles. It was first removed in a discussion which saw admin oversight Talk:Dimale (October 2020). Articles can't have maps which contradict core aspects of several other articles. The lede at Atintanes was decided via RfC. We won't use a map which contradicts the outcome of a particularly long RfC which lasted 2-3 months. It's understandable that we have to find a way to depict Chaonia. There are many maps which do just that without putting forward a particular POV.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Removals
The part that's removed with the excuse that's wp:WIKIVOICE or supposedly related to the Dexari is this one: ''Though they lost some pastures at that time, they managed to retain control of an area stretching from Grammos mountain (ancient Boion) to the southwest of Ohrid-Prespa lakes. They also lost some regions in their north, in particular the southern part of Malakastra plain to the Greek colony of Apollonia, as well as to the Illyrian Taulantians. '' Geographically the Dassaretae were not related to those regions: Grammos, Malakastra, Apollonia etc. No wonder even the quote does not mention them.Alexikoua (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bogdani criticises Hammond's conjectures about all those regions. And for sure they can't be included in WP:Wikivoice. There is no historical or archaeological basis for these considerations: They are just hypothetical reconstructions. – Βατο (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite abstract arguments. What do you mean about all those regions? We have plenty of additional authors, Stocker also concludes that Chaonian rule reached Apollonia. As such don't wp:IDONLIKEIT please. By the way who is Bogdani that every other historian that disagrees with him should be censored in wikipedia?Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:WIKIVOICE, you should avoid stating opinions as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Hammond's assertions are just speculative reconstructions without any historical or archaeological basis. – Βατο (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworded it appropriately. – Βατο (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. Though Hammond supports his statement based also on archaeological data. I wonder what makes Bogdani's opinion a 'historical fact' while Hammond's one 'assertion' or 'speculation'? I'm afraid we should be neutral when presenting various views.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Northern border fixed on the Ceraunian range?
The borders were not fixed and as several authors agree that Chaonian rule -at times- reached as north as Apollonia & the mouth of Vlore (both ancient and modern, Stocker & Hernandez among them). As such stating from lead that Chaonian northern border was limited to the Ceraunians is against wp:lead not to mention that this is pushing a certain POV. No wonder the main text of the article rejects this stereotypical view & we should present a neutral view in lead as well.

We also know that the south & eastern Chaonian borders changed through the centuries and the same happened with the northern borders as well. Alexikoua (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no historical evidence of Chaonian rule in Apollonia, or on the mouth of the Aoos (Bylliones and Amantes ruled there, and according to Ptolemy also Taulantii in Aulon). The hinterland of Aulon was inhabited by Illyrians, Chaonia ended on the Akrokeraunian range, according to both ancient authors and modern scholars, and the lead section should be according to them. – Βατο (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are into OR, Stocker for example is quite clear that Apollonia was in the Chaonian-Illyrian contact zone. In general saying that the Chaonian border was limited to the Ceraunian mountains falls clearly into POV and OR. Even the main text in the article is refuting this extraordinary view. Also by making selective use of sources that fit your personal POV can solve the issue. See Stocker: Even the main text of the current version refutes your extreme version that you want. Let's remain neutral. Should I also mention Hernandez, Pliakou, Hammond, Hatzopoulos, Wilkes and Handeli?

Instead of creating a mess in the lead it would be better to contribute in a neutral manner to the appropriate section (geography) which is already detailed about the topic of the dynamic and fluid boundaries of the area.Alexikoua (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:DUE WEIGHT, speculations by modern scholars don't have the same weight as historical documented information that is clearly accepted in present-day scholarship. Chaonian rule over Apollonia, Aulon, Amantes, Bylliones or Taulantii is never documented. And I am not into WP:OR or WP:Extraordinary, the current lead content is well sourced. As for "selective use of sources", I am not the editor who removed information provided by Stocker because it didn't suit them. – Βατο (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet again wp:OR and POV, even the sources you selectively add again and again are presenting a different reality: "Epirote boundaries cannot be reconstructed with certainty before the 5th century... and then the Acroceraunian boundary" but nevertheless you interpret this as "historical times:. You need to respect wp:BRD and avoid this kind of OWN tendency.Alexikoua (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no OR, read the sources I added, both present-day scholarship and ancient authors agree on that. As for "historical times", it refers to the period when we have historical documentation about it as stated by all the sources (the rest is speculation, and should always be treated as such). As for Hernandez, his quote does not mean he includes Aulon within Chaonain territory, which again would have not historical basis. The bay was within Amantia, Apollonia, and Taulantii as well (as reported by Ptolemy). Only Oricum is mentioned by Ptolemy as being in Chaonia, but it again falls within the definition on the Akrokeraunian range. Btw, am I wrong or Hadeli's work (2020) is a Master thesis? – Βατο (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Addressing the question also to, who firstly added Hadeli (2020) into this article. I read 'Master', but I am not sure. If it is a Master thesis it should be replaced by reliable sources as per WP:DISSERTATION. – Βατο (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to stick to the sources: Chapinal-Heras 2021, pp. 20–21 for example states that we can't be certain about pre-5th century BC boundaries. Suha mentions that the Chaonian winter pastures were located as north as the Vlore bay (historical era in ancient Greece begins at 8th century BC).Alexikoua (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I see due to the specific thesis Hadeli was awared a PhD candidateship. This definitely proves that it had a significant scholarly influence per WP:DISSERTATION. Alexikoua (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a Master's thesis. I have exchanged a number of messages with Chanteli, and she told me that she is currently working on her PhD, which is an extension of her previous work on the Chaonians; she also added that she will probably publish her work as a book once it's ready. I also know that she plans to publish some articles on the Chaonians. I wasn't aware of WP:DISSERTATION back then, but i did learn of it later. Regardless of that, some of the claims that refer to her, are also backed by additional reliable sources already. However, even the content that isn't backed by additional reliable sources, is useful for the readers in my opinion. If there is no disagreement, a solution could be to tag these claims with, as we wait for the publication of the aforementioned works; or as we look for other sources for some of these claims. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree to tag the undisputed claims supported only by that source with better source needed, however claims put forward by that source while contrasting with scholarship should be removed. – Βατο (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Demetrios: That's great news about the Ph.D. and upcoming book. I will follow this closely and look forward to update this and other articles when these become available. Khirurg (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the claims by Chanteli (2020) that were contradicted by more reliable sources. I also tagged the undisputed claims that were only backed by Chanteli (2020) with, and i introduced more reliable sources for some of them; thus, claims that are backed by both Chanteli (2020) and other reliable sources aren't tagged. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some statements which don't exist in Chanteli (2020) e.g. Chanteli (2020) is a product of MsC studies, it's not a PhD thesis. As such, for the most part it summarizes the views of other authors. I'm not certain if an extra attribution to Chanteli is required for statements which already have other sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Damastion
I removed this part:
 * "However, Šašel Kos, also stated that the line stretching from the Acroceraunian mountains as far as Damastium inland (in Dassaretis) is generally accepted among modern scholars as its border."
 * which has this citation Kos, Sasel (2007):
 * The reasons are: 1) The original quote states that, whose meaning is different from the wording "the line stretching from the Acroceraunian mountains as far as Damastium inland (in Dassaretis) is generally accepted among modern scholars as its border" because does not necessarily mean "the line stretching from the Acroceraunian mountains as far as Damastium inland (in Dassaretis) is (...) its border" 2) The location of the mines of Damastion has not yet been found, so that definition is inconclusive, there is no need to rely on a definition based on a line drawn from the Caraunians to an unlocated city, present-day scholarship generally places Epirus proper south-west of the Pindus Mountains, in particular of Mount Qelqëz; 3) The north-eastern border of Epirus is relatively irrelevant for the scope of this article (Chaonians were located on the north-western area), and Sasel Kos does not discuss it as in relation to Chaonians. – Βατο (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not a reason of removal: the fact that we don't know the location Damastion isn't an excuse for removal.Alexikoua (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained above, there are 3 reasons to remove that part, anyway it seems you agreed . – Βατο (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Pseudo-Skylax and Hecataeus
There is extensive analysis of primary material by several secondary sources, these additions are extraordinary and misleading content, but in the case of Wilkes also general statements that have been misinterpreted by the editor here. Wilkes states:, which is completely different from the wording "Pseudo-Scylax on his Periplous notes that Chaonia begins in the region of Apollonia" added into this article. More specific analysis of Pseudo-Skylax: No need to add general misleading information with partial analysis of the primary material, while the primary sources explicitly provide detailed information. And the ahistorical claim that Byllis was on the border with Chaonia, while ignoring Amantia and the tribal territory of the Amantes located between Bylliones and Chaones, falls into WP:extraordinary. - Βατο (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, the quote reads: the Periplus sets the southern limit of Illyrians around Apollonia, where Chaonia began. I believe with some carefull rephrasing this is a nice to have part in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What the Periplis of Pseudo-Skylax reports has already been described in detail. – Βατο (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Blanket reverting
Blanket reverts of someone else's work, such as this, are very disruptive, especially when they re-instate all kinds of bad English and irrelevant material. If I removed something that you did not agree with, you can re-add with out blanket reverting. If there are more blanket reverts re-instating the ungrammatical changes, I will be contacting an admin. This article should not turn into a cluttered, ungrammatical disorganized mess like so many others in the topic area. Khirurg (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear what you are doing here. You litterally WP:CHERRYPICKED Dausse (2015), keeping only the comment about Acroceraunian mountains and removing the comment about the Aoos. Also removing, without proper explanation, 2,000 bytes of relevant, accurately sourced text that has been provided by scholars expressly in relation to the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is "clear"? I did not cherry-pick anything, I just translated the quote as it was, and when you added the rest of the quote I re-instated your edit. Unlike you, who just blanket-reverted all my copyedits. It took me a long time to fix the bad grammar and re-organize it. You could have made additions on top of that instead of just bulldozing everything. The comment about the Aoos did not make sense. Your work implied that the Aoos was the border between Thesprotia and Chaonia, which is nonsense. Also, since the Aoos is the border with the Amantes, how can the Amantes be on the left bank? That implies the Chaones were in the right bank, which is complete nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Before my edits, the Geography section was a huge mess. PseudoScylax and the Acroceraunian mountains mentioned in three different paragraphs. I get it, you want the article to state the Acroceraunian mountains were the border. There is a whole paragraph about that now. Is that enough? How much is enough? Khirurg (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I re-instated that part from Dausse you mentioned. I don't have a problem with it, I just missed it. Mistakes happen, you know. You should WP:AGF. My main concern is readability and avoiding repetition. For example, that Pseudo-Scylax drew a boundary between Chaonia and Illyria is now mentioned three times in the article after you added it again in the Geography section. This is not something I object to, but is it something that needs to be repeated three times? If this gets out of hand, I will request help from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Readability is very important. Many articles in this topic area have been edited to the point they are difficult to follow. Khirurg (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is so clear that you ended the entire section with:, completely ignoring the neighboring peoples. Readability is very important, but don't confuse it with removal of sourced content that is clearly provided by the reliable sources expressly in relation to the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Chaonians, not about the neighboring peoples. In fact the neighboring peoples are already mentioned three times in the geography section. Is that enough? If not how much is enough? Is it necessary to state The author of the Periplus differentiated between the Illyrian peoples, barbarians, like the Amantes, to the north of Chaonia, and the Chaonians to the south when that is already mentioned elsewhere in the article? Why single out the Amantes? Is it perhaps to try to influence the reader that the Amantes were Illyrians, despite a number of sources claiming they were Epirotes? Yes, I think it is. Do you see how it's damaging to this article to misuse it to try to push POV about another article? Do you think a neutral editor would see that too? Yes, I think they would. Cluttering the article about "neighboring peoples" and then trying to push POV about the neighboring peoples is not encyclopedic. Khirurg (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to add it is necessary to make a clear distinction between a horizontal transhumance, practiced at very large distances with different forms of nomadism, and a horizontal transhumance at short distances or vertical transhumance, which can be practiced by thoroughly sedentary populations. What does this tell the reader about the Chaonians? Nothing, that's what. This is the perfect example of cluttering the article with off-topic info, making it difficult to read. If you want to add that the Chaonians were not nomadic, that's fine, but anything more than is off-topic. This is not the article to describe the different types of transhumance. Khirurg (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * May I remind you we had an earlier agreement to keep out anything not directly mentioning the Chaonians 1#POV_edits? Khirurg (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have agreed on it. I'll add the relevant quotes for the relevant content, so you can see that they are expressly concerning the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I remind you both about WP:3RR. Khirurg has 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. The number of reverts by Βατο is unclear to me but it obviously is not far from the 3RR as well. Given the fact that such topics tend to be controversial and Khirurg has a recent block for edit-warring, better seek input by the community if you can't solve the issues by yourselves. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not anywhere near 3 reverts, but outside intervention will definitely be sought if the article is damaged further. Khirurg (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Something to notice about your own addition : this is different from this, the original claim of the scholar has been distorted. – Βατο (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You could have just told me, you know. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I made two clarifications with proper quotes from the relevant source. – Βατο (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Khirurg (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jaupaj (2019)'s work is a published PhD dissertation, it is a reliable source. I suggest you to self revert. We also had an agreement with other editors here on the content of that section. – Βατο (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean published? where? Uploading a dissertation to a repository doesn't make it published if you mean that. Per WP:DISSERTATION it should be treated with heavy precaution especially when it presents a different reality on various aspects.Alexikoua (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also extremely weird to claim that the area of the Gulf of Aulon was occupied by the Amantes.: Oricum was located on this gulf and per Shpuza&Cipa (2021) etc had its own territory that included at least the southern part of this gulf.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point., where does Jaupaj state that "The gulf of Aulon was occupied by the Amantes"? I don't see that anywhere in the quote. Khirurg (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jaupaj (2019): . Orikos has been attested as part of Amantia/Amantes territory, nothing to do with speculations without historical foundations like the ones Alexi is trying to push. That Chaonians were delimited by the Acroceraunians, and by the Amantian strongholds of Cerje and Matohasanaj, is supported by ancient sources, archaeological findings, and modern scholarship. As for this addition, it will be reverted again, Byllis has not been attested in Hecataeus, that is a WP:FRINGE claim. As for Wilkes, I've already explained that Alexi's additon misinterpreted the source, but also selected it for a specific POV purpose. Pseudo-Skylax never says this: . What Pseudo-Skylax says has been already extensively analysed. Alexikoua is just trying to push the unsourced and historically unfounded POV that Chaonians occupied the lower Aoos and Apollonia, which is not acceptable. – Βατο (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Matohasanaj and Cerje are well to the north of the Ceraunian mountains though, aren't they? Khirurg (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe Filos' statement is a good intro on the issue: . The limits were far from clear and not fixed at all as Filos explains.Alexikoua (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Jaupaj (2019)

 * is a reliable source (PhD WP:THESIS) which is used across many articles including Atintanes, where major content disputes have been solved since 2021. Jaupaj's PhD thesis was published on 22/11/2019. I'm not involved and will not be involved in this discussion, but I want to remind everyone that sources which are undisputed across solved content disputes, shouldn't become part of trivial arguments which have never been invoked in other disputes. It's a step backwards from a quite successful status quo.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This source should be treated per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Major improvements have been solved on Atintanes? I don't thing so & definitely that's not an argument to ignore also wp:HISTRS. Jaupaj should be treated with heavy precautionand as I see he is pushing a certain POV in various parts & heavily contradicting scholarship. Typical example:
 * The area of the Gulf of Aulon was occupied by the Amantes.:

it's contradicting available scholarship since Oricum -the main ancient settlement on this gulf- was definitely not part of the Amantes. On the other hand Albanian scholars have recently presented serious works (and published ones): Shpuza, S.; Cipa (2021) for example simply reject Jaupaj's extreme points and put the Amantian-Oricum frontier to the Lungara massif (east of this gulf). Another question is if this was the case of a military campaign: a. when did this occurred, b. why there is no evidence in ancient and modern bibliography as well as in terms of archaeology of the Amantian expansion towards this coastal area. On the contrary: Shpuza, S.; Cipa (2021) note that Amantes and Oricum were always in friendly terms. Alexikoua (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument which you posted is by definition WP:OR - and not supported in bibliography. The area of the Gulf of Aulon could have been inhabited/occupied/controlled by the Amantes regardless of the status of Oricum. The two statements don't contradict each other.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oricum was an independent polis on this gulf and controlled at least the southern part of the Gulf of Aulon (Shpuza&Cipa et al). Amantes were another entity. They both shared a common border on mount Lungara (east of the gulf). If the Amantes inhabited/occupied/controlled this gulf then this means that Oricum came under Amantian control.Alexikoua (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even a cursory overview of the geography of the area strongly suggests that the location of Oricum at the southern point of the gulf doesn't necessarily contract an Amantian control over the territory of the gulf.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It could have become, like Olympe, which by the way is considered to have been founded in the ethnic context of the Amantes and later organized as a proper polis. – Βατο (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not wp:crystal. Oricum is not the case of Olympe & this isn't supported by archaeological evidence. Nevertheless Shpuza & Cipa consider Oricum a separate region outside of the territory of Amantia.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant for the scope of this article. The relevant information has already been extensively and accurately described in accordance with resent research. – Βατο (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wilkes & Pliakou removals as supposedly misleading and fridge
It's really weird to remove sourced information that has been taken from top graded works on the subject while both are citing their primary material (ancient authors):
 * 1. Wilkes, 1995, p. 104: "the Periplus sets the southern limit of Illyrians around Apollonia, where Chaonia began"
 * 2. : "...In the fragments of Hecataeus, the geographical limits of Epirus are identified with the area north of the Ambrakian gulf («της ηπείρου της περί Αμπρακίαν τε και Αμφιλόχους»), to the northern end of the Acrokeraunia and the area of Byllis («Βυλλιακή·πόλις της Χαονίας»".

The question here is why Wilkes & Pliakou are spreading WP:fringe and misleading statements []. Accusing top grates academics and archaeologists such as Pliakou (leading figure of the Antegonea Greek-Albanian archaeological project) is clearly non-productive and raises serious wp:BLP issues. I would better avoid such edit summaries that accuse serious mainstream scholarship such as this.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not reported by Hecataeus, this (Billerbeck 2008):
 * 12 Βαιάκη, πόλις τῆς Χαονίας, Ἑκαταῖος (FGrHist 1 F 104). τὸ ἐθνικὸν Βαιακαῖος. δύναται καὶ Βαιακῖνος. ἄμεινον <δὲ> τὸ πρῶτον.
 * 12. Baiake, Stadt in Chaonien;8 Hekataios (FGrHist 1 F 104) . Das Ethnikon Baiakaier. Möglich ist auch Baiakiner. Besser ist jedoch Ersteres.
 * is reported by Stephanus of Byzantium, citing Hecataeus. Baiake is not Byllis. – Βατο (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its Bylliake not Baiake. Bylliake means in Greek region of Byylis. I'll proceed to restore this part. P Lease be careful before accusing leading scholars on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And you will be reverted again, that statement is based on Baiake = Bylliake = Byllis, which is an unfounded conjecture. You can't add content pretending it was recorded by Hecataeus while it actually was not. Above you can read the relevant information provided by Hecataeus' fragment, which is preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium. Byllis was not attested by Hecataeus. The first attestation of Byllis is from the Hellenistic era, while the Bylliones first appear on an inscription form Dodona. – Βατο (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another confirmation of this quote presented by Pliakou: The evidence in favor of Bylliace is overwhelming.

Well you haven't still provided an explanation about removing Wilkes but yet declare to be revert-ready. You understand that wp:OWN isn't productive. Quotes by Pliakou and Wilkes should be presented in the text. There is no misleading info or frindge on them. If you have any issues on those highly respected scholars you can take it to wp:RSN.Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is about something that Hecataeus actually did not say, don't derail the discussion casting irrelevant aspersions. Read the original fragment above (FGrHist 1 F 104). And read this: Baiake (Βαιάκη) for clarifications about that conjecture. As for the passage you selectively added from Wilkes, the article already contains a more detailed description: . If you wish, we can add further, even more detailed, info from : But I don't think it is necessary. – Βατο (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Amantes
The text offers the wrong impression that the Amantes were clearly an Illyrian tribe, though the general picture in scholarship isn't that cleat. This should be changed per correspondent article.Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. That question can only be discussed in the respective articles. Here is not the place. Khirurg (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have already included content by Dominguez about the ambiguity of the Amantes. It's enough. With regards to the belonging of the Amantes tribal community to the Chaonians, it is an ahistorical WP:extraordinary view contrasted by the whole bibliography. It should be clarified in accordance with the sources that describe both those communities. Don't [remove] WP:due weight content while inserting WP:OFFTOPIC material with sources that are not directly mentioning the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice. However, it's sad that this doesn't appear enough and Bato insists to add evidence only in favor for an Illyrian version. Not to mention he changes for an unknown reason the meaning in the text thats cited by Dominguez (2020). Edit warring and extreme wp:OWN tedency to hide sources that are not maximazing an Illyrian territory. Unfortunately not productive editing at all. Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is not productive is adding WP:OFFTOPIC content into articles. – Βατο (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That the Amantes were considered Epirotes or Illyrians depending on various authors is not offtopic. Also Dominguez, being in favor of a Greek identity of the Amantes doesn't make him 'dubious': several scholars agree with this version. Why you changed the text that's based on Dominguez? Nor is there sufficient reasoning to believe that their Hellenic nature may have been aquired, rather than for seeing them as always having been Greek. At least Hatzopoulos, Hammond provide the same picture on this. They are all mainstream. Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * tell me please, what makes Donmingues' work ahistorical?Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement contrasts with all the recent publications that focus on the Chaonians and Amantes. I have already explained several times that present-day scholarship treats Amantes and Chaonians as two separate communities, as also documented in ancient sources and archaeological findings. So that statement should not be added. I think the same reasoning can be applied to the theory of the Atintanian confederacy, which lacks historical evidence. – Βατο (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wrong and you know that: There are several mainstream authors that consider the Amantes as Epirotes. Dominguez is one of them & he is not the only one. He is one of several scholars. Yet another important addition is that Amantia was also a settlement of the Chaonian north per Daurbner 2018 ([]. I believe you owe a sincere apology by removing RS that is not in agreement with a specific POV.Alexikoua (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, and it is stated into their article, and in this article as well. Nothing to apologize for, Dominguez' citation about that has not been removed. I am not wrong, read the sources that are already included into the article. Placing Amantes into Chaonian territory, and Amantia, the chief city of the community of the Amantes into Chaonian territory, is ahistorical WP:POV content going against whole bibliography, historical accounts, and archaeological findings. I suggest not to add unfounded speculations like Amantes' belonging to Chaonians and Atintainian confederacy (stretching into Chaonian territory) as they would lower the quality of the article not respecting the current specialized research. Also, I would suggest not to search for some sources that make those extraordinary claims while not being focusing specifically on the subject of the territory, organization and settlements of Chaonians and Amantes. – Βατο (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your statement clearly shows that your intentions are nothing but to add content pushing a certain unfounded POV narrative despite lowering the quality of the article. That statement does not make any sense, the settlement of Amantia was located in the region of the same name, and it was the chief settlement of the Amantes, who built fortification systems to protect their country against Chaonians:
 * – Βατο (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of mainstream RS like Daurbner (2018), Dominguez (2020) reveal that we should finally get rid of POV. What makes Domingues & Daurbner non-appropriate for wikipedia? There is RSN if you still want them out of this project. I understand that some scholars are more close to your personal POV (maximizing the Illyrian region) but not all of them. Unfortunately we need to accept all of them. Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bato, please avoid tagging text cited by Dominguez about the expansion of Apollonia towards the Chaonian border zones. I've provided full quote on this. There is a connection between the destruction of Thronium and the Chaonians indeed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also surprised why a 'Peloponessian war" subsection isn't warranted []: The Acarnanian campaign covers so much detail as such the reader should be informed that this is the war the Chaonians were involved.Alexikoua (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, what's exactly wrong on this part and should be removed at any cost: Dominguez has provided a mountain of scholarship on the Epirus. Removing information with the excuse that it doesn't fit a specific POV is quite disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bato, please avoid tagging text cited by Dominguez about the expansion of Apollonia towards the Chaonian border zones. I've provided full quote on this. There is a connection between the destruction of Thronium and the Chaonians indeed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also surprised why a 'Peloponessian war" subsection isn't warranted []: The Acarnanian campaign covers so much detail as such the reader should be informed that this is the war the Chaonians were involved.Alexikoua (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, what's exactly wrong on this part and should be removed at any cost: Dominguez has provided a mountain of scholarship on the Epirus. Removing information with the excuse that it doesn't fit a specific POV is quite disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Outdated theories
Older theories presented such as Crossland and Hammond (60s) should be trimmed as more updated scholarship exist. As I see there is modern scholarship that has already pointed to the weakness of such approaches.Alexikoua (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought you wanted to trim older scholarship, did you change your mind? Don't rely in outdated statements which cross WP:FRINGE theories, Hecataeus did not mention that "Molossians and Chaonians had formed the most important political entities in Epirus". Strabo did. – Βατο (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This "fixing prose" is not an improvement. It is a contested outdated modern conjecture and should be treated as such. – Βατο (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is definitely an improvement since the prose you insist is recycling the same cliches again and again. It's bad English to repeat the same phrase on each line.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)