Talk:Dexaroi

Comments

 * Can someone make a redirect for Dexari and Dexaroi?Megistias (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't, because Dasaretes are an Illyrian atested tribe. There are no Dexari and/or Dexaroi neither. Claiming that Desareti are a greek tribe is a false statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.17 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not what the sources say.Megistias (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

illyrian
this source here, says the were illyrian.
 * A Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography: "Abacaenum-Hytanis''. Volume 1, ed. by W. Smith: Walton & Maberly, 1854. p. 755 (... an Illyrian people... the Dassaretae possessed all the lower mountainous country lying between Koritza and Berat) Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Epirote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

and the Dassaretae as the most southerly Illyrians in his list, and Pliny ,

illyrian

Appian, though vague in his geographical placement of both, recounted the legend of the Dassaretae as one of the original Illyrian tribes.

The Dassaretae, an Illyrian tribe, is described by Pliny  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No you are referring to these List_of_Illyrian_tribes . Read the article sources carefully, the link was at the top, how could you have missed it?Megistias (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Between KOritza and Berat? see page 755. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've told you you need to rely on 20th century bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (@SM&socks) For certain it is pathetic to insist on this crap almost 3 years latter.Alexikoua (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources said; Dassareti were an Illyrian tribe. The ancient Hellenic authors had exaggerated many times, but they generally said the truth. Dassareti and Perrhaebi were Illyrians. Piro ilir (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Illyrian tribe
There is only one tribe called Dassaretae and this tribe is Illyrian. Read the sources:       and so on -  Euriditi  12:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Jingiby (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry? Actually there are two diferrent tribes with similar name. The one that inhabited central-southern Albania (Dasaretae) was the Greek one (just click again on the sources you provided, for example CAH [] and Hammond []),all references confirm that the specific tribe belonged to the Chaonian group].Alexikoua (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For God sake, Chaonia is an Illyrian tribe too. Note that I will not mention sources written by Albanians.

While in another source George Broke in his book ''History of Greece: Repr. from the ... London ed: Volume 3 - page 414'' states that:
 * Gillian Gloyer and Gillian Gloyer in the book Albania: the Bradt travel guide state that:
 * Gillian Gloyer and Gillian Gloyer in the book Albania: the Bradt travel guide state that:
 * (img)
 * Citation of Cassell's illustrated universal history by Edmund Ollier -

Other sources:. -  Euriditi  11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Chaonians weren't "Illyrian too". Your sources are extremely old (Arnold), or else don't say what you claim they do (Hammond). Hammond is the main source on the Hellenicity of the Chaonians, he nowhere says they are Illryian, rather the opposite. And travel guides are not appropriate sources for articles such as these. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A source is never old or archaic. If it is old enough you may call it reliable because it had stand alive through the time. I think that referring to only one source is unilateral. -  Euriditi  17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which "alive" source? Someone who haven't read older (ancient) sources that where citing Chaonians as Greeks and was only assuming? In the same way someone could assume at that time that Turks where Greeks,Hittites,Armenians,Luwians because they lived on part of the lands of these people and they were an "alive" example but we all know that this is not true. Take your nationalistic rantings out of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.255.235 (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's true, Chaonians aren't anywhere mentioned as Illyrians in ancient sources, instead the Dassareti were. According to the ancient Hellenic myth, Dassareti were Illyrian. It's a primary source, and neither you nor a romanticist like Hammond can do anything against it. Piro ilir (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

New section

 * Dassaretae was the name recorded by Pomponius Mela to describe an Illyrian tribe. This article should be moved to Dexari or Dexaroi, the name recorded by Hecataeus to describe a Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A precise spelling of the Illyrian tribe would be 'Dassareti' (also per Hammond).Alexikoua (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pomponius Mela reports Dassaretae, whose correct spelling is Dassaretai. – Βατο (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. CAH a SECONDARY reads: "Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassaretae, were the northerly member of the (Chaonian) group. The Dassaretii option is supported by modern sources.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. Winnifrith: They were neighbours of Greek-speaking tribes, grouped under the common name Chaones, of whom the most northerly, the Dassaretae, extended into the lakeland south of Lake Ochrid.Alexikoua (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. Wilkes: "Behind the  coast  Illyrians  bordered  the  Chaones,  the  Epirote  people  of whom  the Dexari or Dassaretae were the most northerly  and  bordered  the  Illyrian  Enchelei".

Those above are sources I've already presented in talk:Enchele. Pardon me but is there a problem you can't understand the above quotes or are they simply interpreted is "assumptions" as you once said about modern literature?Alexikoua (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The name Dassaretae is reported by Pomponius Mela to describe an Illyrian tribe, a fact that cannot be discussed: Hammond (1966):  Matijašić, Ivan (2011). "Shrieking like Illyrians": Historical geography and the Greek perspective of the Illyrian world in the 5th century BC", p. 293:  The Chaonian tribe is called Dexari by Hecataeus. If this article is about the Chaonian tribe, it cannot have the name used in ancient sources to describe an Illyrian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is an analysis about the name Dassaretae by Carl Deroux (1979), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, p. 81 – Βατο (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And Winnifrith (2002) Badlands, Borderlands: A History of Northern Epirus/Southern Albania, p. 214: . – Βατο (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring the sources Alexikoua posted. There is a term for this: WP:IDHT. The Dexaroi are often also referred to as Dassaretae. It is trivial to find sources for this . Khirurg (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And you are completely ignoring all the sources I have provided without further arguments. See the more recent Winnifrith (2002) for that. – Βατο (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Bata: The source you offered describes the Illyrian Dassareti in northern Albania: "The Dassaretae along with other peoples, are situated inland along the path of the Dilo river, the modern Drin". Hammond said that there are 2 tribes with similar names. That's no news, it's already in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua his theory is debated: (Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), p. 342). All we know is that the term Dassaretae has been used by Pomponius Mela to describe an Illyrian tribe, not the Chaonian tribe, see Winnifrith and Deroux I posted above. – Βατο (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deroux describes the Illyrian tribe in northern Albania... "The Dassaretae along with other peoples, are situated inland along the path of the Dilo river, the modern Drin". Hammond stated that there were two tribes of similar name, what your problem with that? Hard to believe?Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many sources describe places like Pelion, Creonion, Hecatompedon, and others as settlements of the Dassaratae. So the reason he is deliberately ignoring sources that say the Dassaretae were Chaonians, is so that he can then claim all those settlements as Illyrian. Unfortunately, it seems there are at least two Dassaretae, Greek and Ilyrian, and that the Illyrian Dassaretae were well to the North of the settlements he is...interested in. Khirurg (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And you keep ignoring Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), p. 342: . The term Dassaretae is attested in Mela's works to describe an Illyrian tribe Hammond (1966): . This article should be renamed Dexari or Dexaroi, the name attested by Hecataeus to describe the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to split it into 2 articles: about the Greek Dexaroi and Illyrian Dessarete. Jingiby (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, perhaps the best thing is to make Dassaretae a disambiguation page. – Βατο (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that Bato seems very confused on which info belongs to the Illyrian tribe. So far the paragraph about this tribe is very tiny to warrant a separate article. Expansion should be the first step.Alexikoua (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not confused, there are many recent publications about the Illyrian Dassareti. As proposed by Jingiby, it is reasonable to split "Dassaretae" into the Greek "Dexaroi" and the Illyrian "Dassareti". The first step is to move "Dassaretae" to "Dexari" leaving "Dassaretae" as a disambiguation for Dexaroi and Dassareti. – Βατο (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Illyrian Dassareti seems ok, but I have objections with the other name: the name of the NW Greek tribe is mostly known under the name Dassaretae.Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the name "Dassaretae" is used also for the Illyrian tribe, moreover, it was attested in Mela's works to describe an Illyrian tribe. That's why "Dassaretae" should be a disambiguation page for Dexaroi and Dassareti – Βατο (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes Mela more important than Livy who states that they were not Illyrian?Alexikoua (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing makes Mela more important than Livy and viceversa, that's why "Dassaretae" should be a disambiguation page for Dexaroi and Dassareti. – Βατο (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with . This one can end very quickly and everyone can edit the Dexaroi/Dessareti they're interested in.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess this isn't a new way to pretend consensus. The proper names are Dassaretae/Dessareti.20:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, using "Dassaretae" only for the Chaonian tribe is WP:POV, since it was attested by ancient authors to describe an Illyrian tribe, and is used even by modern scholars for that. – Βατο (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually based on the source you provided https://www.jstor.org/stable/30103175?seq=1 Hammond (1966), on the last page: Dassaretae/Dessareti for each tribe not Dexari/Dessareti.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? "Dexaroi" is the name attested in Hecataeus to describe the Chaonian tribe, while "Dassaretae" is thae name attested in Mela to describe the Illyrian tribe. Nothing changes, "Dassaretae" should be a disambiguation page. – Βατο (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why you ignore modern scholars and rely exclusively on ancient. If this Dassaretae/Dessareti confuses you we can make it Dassaretae (Chaon.)/Dassaretae (Illyr.), Hammond stated that the have the same or similar name.
 * Hammond stated that, but he is outdated, there is a current debate among scholars about the Roman times people named Dassaretae/Dassaretii/Dassareti/Dassarenses etc. and about the southern Ilyrian region of Dassaretis. Wikipedia articles can not be based only on the theories of a single author and on WP:CHERRYPICKING informations. The agreement among all scholars is that the precise term Dexaroi was used to describe a Chaonian tribe, this is why "Dassaretae" should be a disambiguation page for Dexaroi and Dassareti. – Βατο (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) Enough with Pomponius Mela and other ancient sources. We are only supposed to rely on modern sources. I propose Dassaretae to refer to the ancient Greek tribe, and Dassareti/Dassaretii for the Illyrian tribe. Khirurg (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposal, that leaves things as they already are, is WP:POV, read the comments above to understand it. – Βατο (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have the feeling that there is a personal obsession against modern bibliography, Hammond read:

To sum up: The Greek tribe is primarily known as Dassaretae. There are also a couple of maps in this paper which you personally don't like (as you displayed in Enchele).Alexikoua (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In this way we ignore the suggestions of Cabanes, Fox and others, including only one view about the subject. Since the consideration that Dassaretae were Greek Dexari is disputed by scholars, the neutral solution is to leave "Dassaretae" a disambiguation page for Dexaroi and Dassareti, encompassing in this way all the suggestions by scholars. – Βατο (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So far Hammond&Wilkes agree with this and they are scholars too. Is that the first time you mention Cabanes&Fox here?Alexikoua (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We can state whatever Cabanes says, besides Hammond and Wilkes and Sakellariou, without deleting anything. The page could use expansion anyhow.--Calthinus (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the sources here I don't think a split is necessary. Ancient geographers were crappy and often gave conflicting accounts. The differences on who was Celtic or "Belgic" in Belgica are one example that also led to a ton of nationalist (French/German) debates, for one analog. Best to just discuss their views (Hecataeus, I'll reinsert Strabo once sourcing is in order on one side, Mela on the other). Hammond/Sakellariou/Wilkes seem to think Hecataeus is to be relied on so we that's their view. If Cabanes says something else, likewise. Spanish is a pretty accessible language so I see no issue with using him too. That way readers can see both sides of the debate, everyone wins, no need to generate talk page convos 10x the length of the article. Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

, I am adding here some quotes from Cabanes and Fox, you can evaluate what to do next.
 * Cabanes, Pierre (1988). Les Illyriens de Bardulis à Genthios (IVe–IIe siècles avant J.-C.):
 * pp. 49–50: "A partir de la Haute Macédoine, il faut maintenant chercher à suivre la zone de contact avec les Illyriens, vers la fin du Ve siècle, même si la documentation est souvent d’une époque plus tardive... sont établies sur le versant oriental de la chaîne du Pinde, comme les Tymphaioi, les Orestes, ce sont les Dassarètes qui sont le premier ethnos illyrien qui avoisine avec les Orestes...l’entrée en Illyrie étant défendue au IVe siècle par la forteresse de Pélion [From Upper Macedonia, we must now try to follow the zone of contact with the Illyrians, towards the end of the 5th century, even if the documentation is often from a later period...on the eastern slope of the Pindus chain, like the Tymphaioi, the Orestes, those are the Dassaretes who are the first Illyrian ethnos who neighbor with the Orestes...the entry into Illyria being defended in the 4th century by the fortress of Pelion...]"


 * pp.64–65: "Entre Parthins et Atintanes, vers l’Est s’étend le pays des Dassaretes, dont l’étendue paraît considérable, puisqu’il comprend toute la région comprise entre l’Osum et le Devoll, dont la réunion forme l’Apsus (l’actuel Seman), le plateau de Korça verrouillé par la forteresse de Pélion et, vers le Nord la Dassarétide s’étend jusqu’au lac l’Ohrid (121). C’est certainement une zone centrale de l’Illyrie méridionale, celle qui est aussi la plus directement en contact avec les régions de Haute-Macédoine, notamment avec l’Orestide et la Lyncestide. Selon Polybe, (122), en dehors de Pélion, les Dassarètes possèdent, au début du IIe siècle avant J.-C., plusieurs villes, Antipatreia... [Between Parthins and Atintanes, towards the east extends the country of the Dassaretes, the extent of which seems considerable, since it includes the entire region between Osum and Devoll, whose union forms the Apsus (the Seman), the plateau of Korça locked by the fortress of Pelion and, towards the North the Dassaretis extends to Lake Ohrid (121). It is certainly a central area of southern Illyria, that which is also the most directly in contact with the regions of Upper Macedonia, in particular with the Orestide and the Lyncestide. According to Polybius, (122), apart from Pelion, the Dassaretes owned, at the beginning of the 2nd century BC, several cities, Antipatreia...]"


 * p. 133: "Dans les opérations devant Pélion, en 335, le roi Kleitos, fils de Bardylis, le Dassarète, commande son armée et semble traiter d’égal à égal avec le roi des Taulantins, Glaukias. [In operations before Pelion, in 335, King Kleitos, son of Bardylis, the Dassaretian, commanded his army and seemed to be on an equal footing with the king of the Taulantins, Glaukias]"

Here is Cabanes' report about Hatzopoulos suggestion of Bardylis as a Dassaretian king and not a Dardanian one:
 * p. 90: "M. Hatzopoulos...propose avec raison semble-t-il, de voir dans Bardylis un roi, non pas des Dardaniens comme le voulait Hammond, mais plutôt des Dassarètes, ce qui met son domaine au contact direct avec la Lyncestide et l’Orestide, et, lorsque ces régions sont plus étroitement unies au royaume argéade, avec la Macédoine elle-même (11). [Mr. Hatzopoulos ... seems to be rightly proposing to see in Bardylis a king, not of the Dardanians as Hammond wanted, but rather of the Dassaretes, which puts his domain in direct contact with Lyncestide and the Orestide...]"

More recently Robin Lane Fox Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011) analyzed the views of Hammond, Hatzopoulos, Cabanes and Walbank stating: – Βατο (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * p. 342: "Their own king Bardylis was king of a realm along Lake Ohrid and east to the two Prespa Lakes, the "Dassaretis" of later topography, not "Dardania", as Hammond postulated..."


 * Thanks a lot ^. Keep posting. I now have Hammond's 1966 Kingdoms and it gives a much more nuanced view. Thanks for posting this. Will be doing a bit of an expansion. As expected the region of Dassaretis was a contested border area between Greeks and Illyrians... and also Phrygians. --Calthinus (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You complain about Hammond being outdated, yet you don't seem to have that concern at all about Cabanes...from 1988. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * there is Robin Lane Fox (2011) that analyzed the views of Hammond, Hatzopoulos, Cabanes and Walbank, and supported the view that Bardylis' realm was Dassaretis (see also the footnote). – Βατο (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bardylis realm stretched to a wider region and for a period included this region too (or part of it). This article is about the tribe not the region.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * New page Dassaretis? Currently a redirect here. --Calthinus (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jingiby (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of Proeva
Fortunately I have full access to this source. The specific quote concerns the Enchelae and not the Dassaretae. It can be easily confirmed from the source:

Actually this is a good addition for the Enchelae: and indeed they were possibly considered Boetian settlers due to the myth of Cadmus. Also, interesting appears the fact that they were considered Illyrian exclusively by Albanian and outdated (until early 20th century) scholars (see footnote). Alexikoua (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is referred also to Dassaretae, here is the full quote: – Βατο (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Even by checking the footnote it's clear that this part concerns the Enchelae:

However, the following paragraph (the problems facing a possible Illyrian origin of Dassaretae), well this is relevant. Alexikoua (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is clearly also referred to Dassaretae. All information is relevant, not just what you like. – Βατο (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first part concerns the Enchelae. By the way the author claims that Dassaretai inherited the land of the Enchelae... Well this is serious assumption that needs to be stated.09:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because some scholars (including Proeva) consider the Dassaretae as the successors of the Enchelae, or the same but with different names. But unlike the statement of the presence of different theories (a fact that doesn't need "According to Nade Proeva"), the names of those scholars who support the Enchelean affiliation should be clarified because others like Hammond disagree with it. – Βατο (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the opinion of the specific scholar about the Enchelae (which you avoid to present in the correspondent article by the way). About the Dassaretae she is convinced that those Illyrian origin theories are outdated in light of archaeological and inscriptional evidence. I fail to see an agreement in western literature about Proeva's Enchelaen theory. Alexikoua (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dexari
The only thing that we know of the Chaonian Dexari is this single mention in historical sources, from Stephanus of Byzantium (Ethnica) who cites Hecataeus of Miletus: Stephanus clearly distinguishes the Chaonian Dexari from the Illyrian Dassareti, listing also the Dassareti that were described by Polybius as a completely different tribe:  The content of this article is based on the speculative equation of the Chaonian Dexari with the Illyrian Dassareti. The uncertain hypothetical link should be presented as such, not as a historical fact. – Βατο (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't not allow this kind of disruptive wp:CHERRY of primary sources. Off course several ancient authors such as Strabo and Liby have declared that they were Epirotes and the most important is that a mountain of modern sources accept this equation as a fact. Experienced editors need to follow wp:RS and there is not a single source that objects the connection Dexari-Dassaretae.Alexikoua (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Chaonian Dexari are documented only in the above mentioned passage recorded by Stephanus. The Dassareti are mentioned several times, always as an Illyrian tribe. Your statement "several ancient authors such as Strabo and Liby have declared that they were Epirotes" is original research, the Dassaret- are never mentioned as an Epirote tribe in ancient sources. Also this "a mountain of modern sources accept this equation as a fact" is not correct, that equation is just a modern conjecture because they are attested to have lived in two completely different periods: Dexari in the 6th century BC, Dassaret- three centuries later. A recent publication about that uncertain hypothetical connection:, p. 56: Furthermore, the Dassareti are considered by current scholars as the tribe of the first attested Illyrian king: Bardylis. You should understand that Wikipedia articles can't present modern uncertain hypotheses as historical facts. – Βατο (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In which language is the original text written by the way? Katicic is a well known author of the 70s-80s though his work can be considered wp:OUTDATED in this fashion [][]. There is off course a minority view (especially in non-English, non-mainstream bibliography) I can't object that. Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The author is not Katičić, he is one of the editors. It is not "a minority view", it highlights that there is no sufficient historical data to make that uncertain hypothetical equation, since the Chaonian Dexari are mentioned solely by Stephanus citing Hecataeus, while the Illyrian Dassareti are mentioned several times, but in the Roman era, three centuries later, and in completely different contexts. Please, do not label "non-mainstream bibliography" a source which is published under an editorial board that includes renowned scholars, it is inappropriate. You can't consider a 2010 publication an oudtated source, it has been published two decades after the works of the scholars that are included in the current version of the article to support that hypothetical equation. – Βατο (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that this significant and insufficiently answered question has been already answered by top graded historians.Alexikoua (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong this paper states that the Enchelae can be indentified (?) as Dassaretae U strukturu ove legende i odnosu ova dva područ-ja su čvrsto integrirani i Enhelejci, narod koji se prema riječima  Strabona  može  poistovijetiti  sa dobro poznatim Dasaretima. while their origin is traced back to Beotia. Correct? Alexikoua (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It remains an uncertain hypothetical link as per the lack of historical data. Wikipedia articles can't present modern conjectures unattested in primary sources as historical facts. – Βατο (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The identification of Dassareti with Enchele is not relevant for this discussion, stay on topic, please – Βατο (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you are slightly out of topic. I don't really understand your argument here: 1. the Enchelaean origin is from central Greece 2. they were absorbed by the Dassareti (or Dassaretae?) 3. the source you provided (if the translation is correct) can not answer the question of the Dexari in conncection to the Dassareti that absorbed the Ecnhelae whose origin is found in Boiotia. It comes nothing useful just riddles.Alexikoua (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you missed it, the rilevant part to this discussion is: Whether the Dexari are in fact Dassareti still represents a significant and insufficiently answered question. Who is out of topic? You are now commenting about the WP:TALKOFFTOPIC origins of the Enchele and the equation of their tribal name with that of the Illyrian Dassareti by Strabo. Stay on topic, please. The article should present historical facts as such and modern conjectures as such, the current version wrongly leads readers to believe that Dexari existed in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, while they disappeared after Hecataeus (6th century BC) and the attested facts of the Roman period that you included actually concern the Illyrian Dassareti, including the title "Dassaretae". – Βατο (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are recycling the same arguments as in the previous discussion here: Talk:Dassaretae but they have been addressed. The 6th-3rd century gap applies to both Taulatians-Dexari/Dassaretae per Weber. In Greek language its phonetically the same word with the addition of the suffix (see Weber & Hammond). The ξ -> σσ transformation is a typical rule when comparing archaic era vs classical/koine era authors.Alexikoua (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weber (1989, original year: 1983) actually states that the Illyrian Dassaret-, like the Illyrian Taulanti first appear in a fragment of Hecataeus. He also states that The stem he is talking about is Illyrian, you can see it here Dassaretii. Although the two names stem from the same root, there is not certainity about the equation of the tribes Dexari with Dassareti, as stated by Juzbašić (2010). They lived in completely different periods, and most probably in different places (about the Dexari we only know that they lived under Mount Amyron). The link is a modern hypothesis proposed by some older sources, which still remains unverified. – Βατο (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, can you provide the entry of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2012) that reports this statement, please? – Βατο (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I noticed it is from Hammond's chapter "Illyrian and Epirotic tribes" p. 265 in CAH 1982. – Βατο (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keramopoulos says that this sounds to be connected with διος-ορείται with a specific degree of barbarisation so a partial non-Greek root/influence in this is not objected.Alexikoua (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the 1953 source as per WP:AGEMATTERS, that uncertain etymology is not discussed in more recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that it's mentioned in Hadeli 2020. As such I'm adding it back under this context.Alexikoua (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Really, why don't you begin with Krahe here []? Theres a mountain to delete. The specific author (Keramopoulos) as I've said is among most well known in linguistics on the field of ancient Macedon.Alexikoua (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You should provide more recent bibliography, a 1953 source is very old and is to be removed as per WP:AGEMATTERS. The tribal names Dassaret- and Dexar- are not considered to be related to Διός όρος-ορείται "Mountain of Zeus". That etymology is unreliable, also on phonetic grounds. About Krahe, nobody objects the removal of his suggestions if they contrast with more recent publications, because his works are old as well. – Βατο (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's wp:OR you know it. You need to provide a citation about this. The tribal names Dassaret- and Dexar- are not considered to be related to Διός όρος-ορείται "Mountain of Zeus". That etymology is unreliable, also on phonetic grounds. .Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed Šašel Kos because in those quotes she is not commenting on the Chaonian Dexari. – Βατο (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * do not add content that is not directly related to the Chaonian tribe, please. Sasel Kos is not commenting on the Chaonian tribe in those quotes, hence I removed them. Furthermore, Hatzopoulos too is not referring to the Chaonian tribe, this scholar was one of the first to support Bardylis' affiliation with Dassareti. The outdated 1953 source should be removed since a more recent source is included about the widely accepted etymology by linguists. – Βατο (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see such a rule in wikipedia especially in the case when a more recent source is not certain about the specific etymology. As I've stated you cited Krahe extensively in Albanian mythology though much more outdated and in several cases ignored by more recent bilbiography (Zeus Parthinus claim etc.). The Dassaretae were an independent community though they were initially part of the Chaonian state, that's cited. Hatzopoulos refers to the hellenistic era.Alexikoua (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * is Hammond's speculation. About Krahe, you are free to remove his suggestions in other articles if they contrast with more recent sources. The 1953 source that provides the etymology "Mountain of Zeus" trying to relate Dassaretai with Dios oros-oreitai, should be removed as per WP:AGEMATTERS, and because it goes against the relation of the tribal names Dexar- and Dessar-/Dassar-, it's also offtopic for that reason. – Βατο (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the word 'speculation' that's actually a statement based on historic evidence. There can't be a removal per wp:AGEMATTERS since Keramopoulos is a well known academic on the field while the Dexar-/ Dessar-/Dassar- ξ/σ transformation is a phonetic rule in terms of archaic vs classical era phonetics. If have have read Thucicides you can understand that this is a very common feature in Ancient Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * is not a good reason for the inclusion of a 1953 publication (70 years old) in Wikipedia article, on the contrary WP:AGEMATTERS is a good reason for removal of that outdated source. – Βατο (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keramopoulos suggestion is not rejected by more recent scholarship though various diferrent reconstructions and connections have been proposed.Alexikoua (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm you understand that overemphasizing on primary sources constituted POV.Alexikoua (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am listing here all the problematic content you restored with this edit:, do not restore it because it is not constructive:
 * is WP:POV because this hypothesis is not accepted by many scholars as a fact, hence it should be presented as such;
 * is WP:OR and unreliable, because Hecataeus, cited by Stephanus, does not provide that description;
 * is WP:OR;
 * is WP:OR;
 * Weber support something else, as included in the neutral version;
 * is information that concerns the Illyrian Dassareti, Hatzopoulos does not mention the Chaonian tribe. He is one of the first scholars who supported Illyrian king Bardylis' affiliation with Dassareti;
 * , Weber does not suggest it, he states that two Illyrian tribes existed: Dassaretae (with all the other spellings) and Daesitiates.
 * Furthermore, with that edit you removed the content supported by Toynbee: Why? About the primary sources, I did not use them, I used secondary reliable sources that provide information and analyses about the primary sources. – Βατο (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The section "In Greek mythology" includes Appian's mythological tradition that describes the Illyrian tribe, I added the tag . That section should be removed because it is unrelated to this article. – Βατο (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits which I undid made the article a fork of Dassaretii. Where did you come up with the weasel-word "solely"? And Katicic is controversial and his work has been criticized. Khirurg (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, do not edit war ignoring all the problematic content I listed above. Furthermore you removed relevant content supported by many sources, including Toynbee, Weber, Šašel Kos, Katičić and Kaljanac. That is not constructive. – Βατο (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dexari is a term that is attested only once in literature. That should be made clear to readers. I think that the bigger problem of the article - whichever version ends up as WP:STABLE - is that it is a fork of Dassareti because most of it involves events linked to the Dassaretii under a narrative of Dexari=Dassaratae=Chaonians=ancient Greeks. Too much of the article presupposes high conditional probability across multiple theories.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Side comment:5 readers/day (excluding editors) - reality check before this escalates to a grand dispute.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's always funny you bring that up, as if it only applies to those disagreeing with you, buy not yourself. Khirurg (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is even an entire section dedicated to the mythological tradition recorded by Appian, which clearly concerns the Illyrian tribe. That should be removed because it is completely unrelated to the topic of this article. Also the speculative narrative about Bardylis as a Dardanian king has been recently dismissed, it should be fixed as well. – Βατο (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this information is completely unrelated to this article: Šašel Kos states "mines of Damastum in the region of the Dassaretes", not commenting on the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not prepared to accept qualifying the Cambridge-educated Hammond as "according to Hammond", but having the controversial, primordialist, and essentialist Katicic in wikipedia voice. Absolutely no way. Khirurg (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, we're not going to have Toynbee from 1969 describe the Chaonians as "Illyrian-speaking", when that contradicts all modern scholarship. Khirurg (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have placed both Hammond and Katičić without wikivoice. And I removed the "Northern Epirus" template. I don't think that a template about modern Greek nationalist narratives has a place in what this article discusses. Whichever WP:STABLE is agreed, it should be made clear that the name Dexari in literature of antiquity is attested once. Its relation to a Dassaratae/Dassaretii is a subject of discussion and diverging narratives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Side comment: Toynbee (1969) - of the same cultural-historical period as Hammond - is used at Atintanians in support of the Greek etymology of the name. By comparison, Keramopoullos (1953) puts forward a fringe "etymology" which isn't discussed in contemporary bibliography and is the first theory which should be removed in terms of WP:AGEMATTERS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keramopoullos (1953) is outdated and provides an unreliable etymology that is not taken into consideration by linguists in more recent publications. In another discussion Alexikoua dismissed a 1954 source, it obviously should be applied here with a 1953 source as well. – Βατο (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These parts are unrelated to the topic of this article:
 * "It appears that the chief magistrate of the Dassaretae bore the title "Strategos", a title typically given to the chief magistrates of northern Greek tribes during Roman antiquity.";
 * "As for their administrative structure an inscription of the Dassaretae epigrammatically lists the main organs of their state Δασσαρητίων άρχοντες, βουλή και δήμος (The archons, the boule and the demos of the Dassaretae).";
 * "Various Illyrian tribes were located in the area north of the Dassaretae, in the region north of the mines of Damastion.";
 * The entire section: "In Greek mythology".
 * I tagged them, but they should be removed. – Βατο (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Name
If the equation between Dexari and Dassaratae is a subject of discussion, shouldn't the article be named "Dexari" in order to avoid WP:UNDUE weight to one narrative? --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should, Dexari is the attested undisputed name, and also the WP:COMMONNAME that scholars use to refer to this tribe. – Βατο (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to all the sources already included into the article, there is also Winnifrith (2002) who reports the Chaonian Dexari and the Illyrian Dassaretae as two different tribes:
 * . – Βατο (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . – Βατο (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Version based on PRIMARY
Relying on wp:PRIMARY is the epitomy of POV []. There are plenty of secondary sourrces on the subject, follow wp:RS. No wonder even S. Kos does not being being that way:

It is quite obvious that the proposed version falls clearly into POV even in the way it begins it deal with the subject. What's also interesting is that have archeological evidence that the Kuci zi Tumulus II belonged to Dexari rulers. As such there is also clear archaeological evidence on this. Alexikoua (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not true Alexikoua, everybody can check it. The provided full quote is this: : Don't lose your credibility as an established editor with those false comments. We are WP:Here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, you undestand that you restored a version with much WP:OR, WP:CHERRYPICKING of sources like Weber, and WP:SYNTH of information to add a narrative unsupported by sources. – Βατο (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but WP:OR, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:SYNTH fits perfectly in what you try in here. The source does not emphasize that this is the only evidence we have about this connection. No wonder I see a much different introduction on this topic in S.Kos. Not to mention that you are recycling the same (unsuccesful) arguments 3 months ago that this connection is problematic. Alexikoua (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a secondary source that reports another mention of the name "Dexari" in primary sources? I provided two reliable secondary sources stating that the name "Dexari" is mentioned only once, and you can't dismiss it with your personal thoughts. About Šašel Kos I provided the relevant full quote, no need for your baseless comments. – Βατο (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you present one single source that begins with "this name is only mentioned once in a primary source." No wonder even s.Kos you prefer to cite begins with a more neutral way instead of immediately screaming that this name is used by only one ancient author. We need to follow directions per wp:PRIMARY.
 * The x/ks (ξ) is phonetically equivalent with ss (σσ) in Ancient Greek literature of that time not... Illyrian (both names are recorded in ancient Greek texts per Weber), unless you can provide Illyrian literature proving this.
 * You can't present sources you personally dislike as "according to author X ....". Why are you tagging Hatzopoulos? He mentions the Δασσαρεται that lived in Δασσαρετις.
 * You insist on Tonybee? ok I'll add recent bibliography that rejects Tonbee's view about the Chaonians (Wilkes, Papadopoulos, Filos, Hatzopoulos etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You also tagged mythology section without any explanation. You understand that all changed need to be explained not to mention that you don't provide the necessary quotes and in some case your citation info is extremely poor (has Kunstmann & Thiergen 1987 no additional info to provide?)Alexikoua (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * About the so-called phonetic equivalent in the Illyrian language I fail to see a work written in Illyrian by Hecateus: Weber reads: According to Stephanus of Byzantium, Hecataeus wrote of the Δεξάροι, Έθνος Χαόνων, who live υπό Άμυρον όρος. The ξ is the phonetic equivalent of ss, so Hecataeus' Δεξάροι is the equivalent of Δεσσάροι, which has a stem identical to Dassaretae.. I also wonder why was Weber removed in his claim that both names have identical stem. @Bato: why you insist that Weber labels the Dassaretae as an Illyrian tribe? there is nowhere to find this info.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Name section begins with the fact that the name "Dexari" is mentioned only once in ancient literature, and it is stated by Katičić and Šašel Kos. After the attestatation of the name comes the etymology, and your claim about "Greek phonology" is unsourced, on the contrary, Illyrian phonology is surced with Kunstmann & Thiergen (1987). Also, the root 'daksa/daxa/dassa' is considered of Illyrian origin by linguists, the suffix -ar- is Illyrian in both Dexar- and Dassar-, and the suffix -at-/-et- in the variants Dassaret- is Illyrian as well. Hence, all the variants are of Illyrian etymology. I presented "according to author X" for statements that are stated by Hammond and Katičić. @Maleschreiber reworded furthermore the content in that aspect. Toynbee is relevant equally to Hammond for this topic. Kunstmann & Thiergen 1987 is accessible online, anyway if you wish I can add the relevant quotes. Appian's mythological tradition that describes Illyrian genealogy obviously is not related to this article. – Βατο (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In general we cite per Citing_sources, simply saying Kunstmann & Thiergen 1987 without even providing a title is not a productive way to contribute here especially if you intent to edit war about this subject.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I will add those quotes. About Weber, you should read all the source and the content relevant to this topic: :
 * p. 81:
 * pp. 83-84:
 * p. 86:

Hatzopoulos provides information about "Dassaretae", who are attested in epigraphic material from Lychnidus, not this specific tribe. He is the scholars who has shown convincingly that Bardylis' dynasty was Dassaretan. You can't use every source that mention the tribal name "Dassaretae" and add it here even if it does not clearly concern the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I added Kunstmann & Thiergen 1987 in Bibliography, I thought it was already there. The source is accessible, the relevant information is in pages 110–112. – Βατο (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for this. About Weber the above quote doesn't claim that they were an Illyrian tribe according to the author ... Appian's description (myth of Illyrius etc.) is not accepted by Weber. Also in The ξ is the phonetic equivalent of ss, so Hecataeus' Δεξάροι is the equivalent of Δεσσάροι he refers to the Greek spelling of both names since he mentions Greek sources.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've checked Hatzopoulos' paper, by saying Dassaretae he links to "Hammond's" Dassaretae: (p. 100) Hammond1 equates Beue, on the border between Lynkos and Dassaretis. It's about the same tribe. In another passage he locates Dassaretis in the same region (p. 95: Korce).Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Cabanes (1988) cites Hammond for some areas inhabited by the Illyrian Dassaretae. Since Hatzopoulos is not directly commenting on the Chaonian tribe, it can't be assumed that he supports the equation between Dexari and Dassareti, and that he is talking about the Chaonian tribe. Weber provides information about the situation of Illyrian tribes, including the Dassaretae, one of the introductory statements he provides about the specific subject is . – Βατο (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In that source, Hatzopoulos also states:, which is this source: It is one of the most detailed about the Illyrian region of Dassaretis and the Illyrian tribe of Dassaretes (this info, for instance: ) Hatzopoulos, and other sources that are not directly commenting on the Chaonian tribe, can't be used for this article. – Βατο (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weber nowhere says that Dassaretae are Illyrian. The quote above does not confirm this one while Weber in general describes the wider region (he also mentions Chaonians and Molossians and Macedonians, mount Vermion are they also Illyrian(s)?). I assume you need to self correct this kind of error.Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Hatzopoulos is not directly commenting on the Chaonian tribe, it can't be assumed that he supports the equation between Dexari and Dassareti, Off course you are kidding here: Hatzopoulos cite's Hammond's Dassaretae that's enough for inclusion. This article is titled Dassaretae not Dexari. You understand that you begin with wp:IDHT arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually a neutral beginning of the name section is this one base on Weber, pp. 83: "Like the Taulantii the Dassaretae first appear in a fragment of Hecataeus and are known throughout a long tradition that survived to Livy's day and beyond.". No need to abuse wp:PRIMARY.Alexikoua (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not a neutral beginning of the section because the equation between Dexari and Dassaratae is disputed. The undisputed fact is that the Chaonian tribe is attested as Dexari in Stephanus citing Hecataeus. Weber states clearly Illyrian Dassaretae. You can't interpret him with original research. Hatzopoulos can't be included if a clear mention of the Chaonian tribe is not reported, furthermore, he talks about the Dassaretans. Hatzopoulos did not cite Hammond in the quotes we are discussing, but even if he did, that does not imply he is referring to the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weber does not state Illyrian Dasaretae at all. He actually states that the Dassaretae were the same tribe as the Chaonian Dexari. By saying Illyrian name it can't be interpreted as Illyrian population. You provided the quotes about this. Hatzopoulos refer's to Hammond's Dassaretae. Everything fits inside this context.Alexikoua (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weber is commenting on the Illyrian situation, I provided the full quotes above, read them, please. Hatzopoulos, in this quote does not cite Hammond, you can't imply it with your original research interpretations of the sources, do you understand it? – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wilkes 1995, p. 217: This is what Hatzopoulos supports, directly commented by a reliable source, not by our personal thoughts. – Βατο (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems did not check the citations:   They are misused. Do not reinsert them, please. – Βατο (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For Hatzopoulos I already cited Wilkes 1995, p. 217: There are several other sources about Hatzopoulos' view on the specific subject. He considers the first attested Illyrian dynasty (Bardylis' one) as Dassaretan. he can't be included in this article, which concerns the Chaonian tribe. Also Morton (2017) (wrongly presented in this article as "Norton"), provides information about the Dassaretii, it is not about the Chaonian tribe. Also the part about Damastion sourced with Šašel Kos should be removed because Damastion is attested only in Strabo, as in relation to Illyrian tribes, in particular the Sessarethii, interpreted by modern scholars as Dessaretii. – Βατο (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, you can't include misused citations into Wikipedia articles, as an experienced editor you should know that. Furthermore, with this edit] you removed sourced content without explanation. – Βατο (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bato you are yet again into disruptive wp:OR and performing massive removals. Let me help you: He considers the first attested Illyrian dynasty (Bardylis' one) as Dassaretan., Hatzopoulos view on the Dassaretai is based on Hammond's Dassaretai cites directly Hammond about their position and settlements. S. Kos should stay since she provide relevant information on the subject (i.e Illyrians were located north of Damastion near Lychnidus). Such removal falls directly into wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed them yet, I am discussing them. You removed sourced content with these edits  without explanation, reintroducing misused citations that I listed above. – Βατο (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your removal of sourced content, please? – Βατο (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit contains multiple issues in the terms of wp:OR, POV, CHERRY (a theory by Kunstman about a linguistic reconstruction should presented as such and not as a generally accepted view, Weber states that Dassaretae is an Illyrian name? I don't thing so, the quotes above may disappoint you), structural issues.Alexikoua (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You unconstructively removed sourced material from Winnifrith (2002) and Kunstmann and Thiergen (1987), you have to provide an explanation about that. Weber states exactly: I am not interested in your thoughts because the information is well sourced. – Βατο (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An Illyrian name/word can't be interpreted as an Illyrian population. We have also multiple cases of Illyrian tribes which are known with their Greek names. This doesn't make them Greek. Anyway, Weber states that they were the continuation of a Chaonian tribe. Please avoid this kind of extensive SYNTH and OR. Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weber exactly states Yur opinions about scholar's statements are not needed. The information should be included as provided by the scholar. You removed from the article: "Weber states that Dassaretae is an Illyrian name, and he equates the Dexari mentioned by Hecataeus with all the forms Dassaret- mentioned in Roman times." You also removed Winnifrith (2002) and Kunstmann & Thiergen without prividing an explanation, it is not constructive. – Βατο (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know what has been removed because I can't understand what is being removed in every edit because the summaries are confusing. is wrong. The Dexari were part of the Chaonian state - it's stated in Hecataeus, it's not a modern theory. I have added that they are described  (Hornblower) in the context of the one source which mentions the Dexari in antiquity. The modern theory is about the connection between Dexari and Dassaratae. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Numerous other scholars consider them part of the Chaonian state, not just Hornblower. Yet you removed them all. Khirurg (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When an author states Illyrian name this can't be interpreted by us as "Illyrian tribe". I hope this is fully accepted right now. As I remember Bato accepted the fact that the Illyrian tribe of a similar name Dassareti deserves a separate article.Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * instead of edit warring, can you take the time to check the sources, please? With those edits you added misused citations and removed sourced material, they are not improvements. – Βατο (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bato: I hope this means that you understood that the Illyrian name Dassaretae can't be presented as the Illyrian tribe Dassaetae... we should be precise and avoid this kind of OR. Also Hatzopoulos doesn't say a word about Bardylis. Can you provide a direct quote from him?Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I am referring to the information provided by Kunstmann & Thiergen, Weber and Winnifrith that was removed without explanation:
 * Sourced material should be restored. The source misuse is the information provided by Hammond in different publications, wrongly attributed to Edson and Winnifrith. Furthermore there is source falsification of Winnifrith (2002) and Oxford Classical Dictionary (2012), who do not support the part for which they were used. – Βατο (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Source falsification should be avoided. I don't understand why disruption has reached a new stubborn level. To sum up:
 * Kunstmann, Thiergen: There is no reason to remove who claimed this connection (nothing was removed from this part)
 * Weber states Illyrian name not Illyrian tribe. You understand this begins to be disruptive.
 * Winnifrith: You really believe that the Dassaretae are connected with this tribe and not the Illyrian Dassaretii you created yourself. Someone can easy conclude that Winnifrith refers to the Dassaretii.Alexikoua (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't really understand whats the problem with this one: They (Dexari) are described as the northernmost subtribe (Greek: έθνος ethnos) of the Chaonians, as stated by modern scholars J. Wilkes, R.J. Weber and N.G.L. Hammond.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you see removals? There are scholars who equate the Dexari with the Dassaretae (Hammond, Weber, Wilkes), and others who consider Dexari and Dassaretae two different tribes (Kunstmann and Thiergen, Winnifrith). You can read all the relevant quotes above. Also this part you removed: "Weber states that Dassaretae is an Illyrian name, and he equates the Dexari mentioned by Hecataeus with all the forms Dassaret- mentioned in Roman times.", is exactly about, it is content as per the source: . – Βατο (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gegraphic location proposed by Kunstmann, Thiergen coincides with that of the Illyrian Dassaretii since they describe an area with a southern border on the Apsus. You actually copy pasted this part from the Dassareti article. Why should this description about one tribe be applied on... two diferrent tribes according to your rationale? All we need about Kunstmann, Thiergen is their etymology on the name since both tribe had a similar name.Alexikoua (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We also need from Kunstmann and Thiergen their distinction of the Dexari from the Dassaretae, a distinction also made by Winnifrith (2002). – Βατο (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you see removals? There are scholars who equate the Dexari with the Dassaretae (Hammond, Weber, Wilkes), and others who consider Dexari and Dassaretae two different tribes (Kunstmann and Thiergen, Winnifrith). You can read all the relevant quotes above. Also this part you removed: "Weber states that Dassaretae is an Illyrian name, and he equates the Dexari mentioned by Hecataeus with all the forms Dassaret- mentioned in Roman times.", is exactly about, it is content as per the source: . – Βατο (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gegraphic location proposed by Kunstmann, Thiergen coincides with that of the Illyrian Dassaretii since they describe an area with a southern border on the Apsus. You actually copy pasted this part from the Dassareti article. Why should this description about one tribe be applied on... two diferrent tribes according to your rationale? All we need about Kunstmann, Thiergen is their etymology on the name since both tribe had a similar name.Alexikoua (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We also need from Kunstmann and Thiergen their distinction of the Dexari from the Dassaretae, a distinction also made by Winnifrith (2002). – Βατο (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated content
The content from Hatzopoulos is not directly related to the topic of this article, Hatzopoulos supports other theories: We are not going to include all the information from sources that mention Dassaret- into an article about a Chaonian tribe that was attested as Dexari. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wilkes 1995, p. 217: "Unable to accept Hammond's duality, Hatzopoulos presumes an error on the part of Polyaenus (based on Hieronymus of Cardia) who would have been ignorant of local geography. Along with the Chaones, the Atintanes will have been the most northerly of the Epirote communities. Beyond these but yet south and west of the real Illyrian Dassaretae, Parthini and Taulantii was a mixed zone, generally reckoned as a part of Illyria but culturally an extension of Greek-speaking Epirus."
 * Cabanes, Pierre 1988. Les Illyriens de Bardulis à Genthios (IVe–IIe siècles avant J.-C.), p. 90: "M. Hatzopoulos...propose avec raison semble-t-il, de voir dans Bardylis un roi, non pas des Dardaniens comme le voulait Hammond, mais plutôt des Dassarètes, ce qui met son domaine au contact direct avec la Lyncestide et l’Orestide, et, lorsque ces régions sont plus étroitement unies au royaume argéade, avec la Macédoine elle-même (11). [Mr. Hatzopoulos ... seems to be rightly proposing to see in Bardylis a king, not of the Dardanians as Hammond wanted, but rather of the Dassaretes, which puts his domain in direct contact with Lyncestide and the Orestide...]".
 * You know that this part Unable to accept Hammond's duality, refers to the Atintanes not the Dassaretai. I cite Hatzopoulos directly and he agrees that the specific Dassaretis included the area around Korce: Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on this. I'm quoting Hatzopoulos Macedonian Institutions under the Kings and his inline citation (Hammond):

. Alexikoua (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No wonder you have already used both Cabanes (1988) and Jaupaj (2019) for the Dassareti tribe. May I ask why you believe that those authors refer to two different tribes at the same time?Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't make such original researches. In scholarship authors can cite other scholars for some information, but that does not imply they accept all their proposed hypotheses. Does Hatzopoulos mention Chaones in relation to Dassaret- in that source? If not, it can't stay in this article. – Βατο (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you have not yet understood the subject: the relashionship between Dexari and Dassaretae is not generally accepted in scholarship. There are two tribes, the Chaonian one, undisputably called Dexari (because attested as such), and the Illyrian one undisputably called Dassaret- (because attested as such). All the other information is modern speculation. – Βατο (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you created a second Dassaret- article? You obviously agreed for the existence of two Dassaret- tribes that way or not?Alexikoua (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Dassaret- article is about the Illyrian tribe, this one is about the Chaonian tribe (undisputably called Dexari). Whether or not the two tribes were the same, is still a topic of discussion among scholars. – Βατο (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is called Dassaret- since 2008. You just declared that you intentionally created a POV fork (another Dassaret- article). That's definitely not a productive initiative to build an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos cites Hammond about the Dassaratea and I've cited directly Hatzopoulos on this. There is not objection that they both refer to the same region and tribe. Even if Bardylis was located in this area this reject nothing. Indeed the article already states that for a period Dassaretis was under Dardanian rule. I can't see why you insist for Hatzopoulos' removal.Alexikoua (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we are not going to include here sources that are not directly related to the Chaonian tribe. As already stated, but you ignored, an author can cite another scholars for some information, although not accepting all the hypotheses proposed by that scholar. Does Hatzopoulos discuss Dassaretans (the tribal name used in that source) as related to the Chaonian tribe (citing or not Hammond)? About the article's title, there are sources like Winnifrith and Kunstmann & Thiergen that describe the Dexari and Dassaretae as two distinct tribes in completely distinct space and time contexts, and others that state to be cautious about their equation. Now you can understand how much POV is that title for an encyclopedic article. The undisputed name of this specific tribe is Dexari, for which all scholars agree. It is also the first mentioned one among all those similar tribal names. – Βατο (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you need to take a deep breath and accept that this article is titled "Dassaretae". Hatzopoulos cites Hammond in his Dassaretae (in terms of Geography and settlements) so there is no doubt that both are referring to the same tribe. Anyway you just admitted that you created a POV fork article (Dassareti) in order to include your POV there and now feel ready to copy-paste material here too. You understand that this isn't a productive way to built an encyclopedia. Hatzopoulos refers to this tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . – Βατο (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on the settlements and region of this tribe This information is essential for an article under the title Dassaretae..Alexikoua (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't see the information Can you provide another quote about it? I provided specific quotes above, which refer directly to the views of Hatzopoulos. And they contrast with your WP:OR claims. – Βατο (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see that Hatzopoulos refers to a tribe which Hammomd calls Dassaretae. Nothing OR about it. This article is called Dassaretae you need to become familiar with it.Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Read Wikipedia policy: WP:SYNTHESIS, please. – Βατο (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the citations in the source you recently added from which it achieve a presumed "dominant view"? – Βατο (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation you just completely removed in wp:NINJA contains all details. I'm afraid they are too many.Alexikoua (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide here the citations used by that source to support the achievement of a presumed "dominant view", please. A scholar can't establish a dominant view while contrasting with other scholars. – Βατο (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The bibliography used is mentioned in the pages 95 and 96. You can't judge an author in case you simply don't like his conclusion. I've provided a full citation with a full quote. You can look at the rest of this work its online.Alexikoua (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you understand that including information about the Illyrian area of Lychnidus, which was the capital city of the Illyrian Dassareti, goes beyond the scope of this article, and even contrasts with Hammond's hypotheses, on which this entire article is based? – Βατο (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the information you added from Proeva, she is one of the scholars who does not accept the equation of the Dexari with the Dassaretae, p. 564: "". – Βατο (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source about the presumed "dominant view" reports:
 * The citation provided is this: Can you translate the citation 89 please? I don't understand which one is the Αντίθετα. Also, who are the ""? The views of a scholar which contrast with those of other scholars can't be considered as the "dominant view". – Βατο (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I. Miculčić: agrees with the predominant view as stated by the author (n. Epirote tribe), while Papazoglu states that they were Illyrian tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not remove tags when there is an ongoing discussion. Also, you cherrypicked unrelated content from Proeva, while not including relevant content about the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific author after offering a description about the Dassaretae ends up with a conclusion about the predominant view in modern bibliography (Dassaretae = northern Epirotes tribe)

So for an unknown reason you feel that this needs to be hidden. You need to stop this disruptive wp:IDHT pattern. Why you also remove Proeva? Alexikoua (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific author reports Miculčić against Papazoglu for that statement. A claim about a "predominant view" can't be considered reliable because the mentioned scholars have contrasting views. You included from Proeva unrelated content, while not adding her disagreement with the equation between Dexari and Dassaretae, it is WP:CHERRYPICKING. – Βατο (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that there is no predominant view. The specific author has this specific view and this is clearly attributed to him. You are just an anonymous editor to judge him. No WP:CHERRYPICKING at all. I have the feeling that the only problematic article under this scope is the Dassaretii (presenting them as purely Illyrians). Alexikoua (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Dassareti were a well attested Illyrian tibe, both in ancient sources and in epigraphic material, also the etymology of their name supports it. They are not subject to modern speculation like the Dexari, which were a tribe attested only once in ancient literature. You provided Proeva's suggestions concerning the Enchele, while not adding her disagreement with the identification of Dexari with Dassaretae, which is exactly WP:Cherrypicking from the source. – Βατο (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears you inist on wp:IDONTLIKEIT. You need to stick to the sources. What do you mean epigraphic material? You need to provide examples of Illyrian incriprtions from them.Alexikoua (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Onomastics on inscriptions, indeed the tribal area of the Illyrian Dassareti belongs to the core area of the Illyrian language in current linguistics. There are reliable sources, I have not to provide you examples. On the contrary, you have to provide an ancient source that explicitly considers the Dassaretae an Epirote tribe. It does not exist, that's why Hammond invented two distinct tribes, avoiding contrast with historical facts. You are adding unrelated content concerning the Illyrian Dassareti to create a POV article that goes against mainstream views. Weber clearly considers the tribe Illyrian, although equating them with the Dexari, but not considering them Epirotes. This entire article is based on Hammond's uncertain hypothesis, and on Wilkes 1992 who cites him: and who considered in that book Bardylis as a Dardanian ruler like Hammond, a speculation already dismissed 30 years ago. In current scholarship the first attested Illyrian king is considered Dassaretan. Wikipedia should present updated information generally accepted in scholarship, not outdated hypotheses that contrast with recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed you removed the tags, although you reverted improvements of the article and keep on adding unrelated content. Those tags should be restored. The incorrect name of the article is not a good reason to include all the sources that mention the name Dassaret- in completely different contexts. – Βατο (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your concerns about Hatzopoulos, Dragic and Weber have been addressed so far. By the way when saying "ethnic state in Illyria" this can't be interpreted as "Illyrian tribe" you understand that this can't be the same especially when the author (Hatzopoulos) has contradicted this simplistic expression. I 'll fix Proeva about the Dexari, though this can't justify tagging the entire article.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they have not been addressed, Hatzopoulos does not provide information about the Chaonian tribe, and Weber is misused, you can't create a WP:FRINGE narrative mixing Hammond's and Weber's proposals, to obtain an Epirote tribe that extended up to Dardania. – Βατο (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You again restored the "In Greek mythology" section, whose content is entirely irrelevant for the subject of this article. You're not even trying to improve the article, why did you remove the tags? It is not constructive. – Βατο (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you added an WP:OR: Hatzopoulos does not support it:  Come on, you are an experienced editor, do not add original research into articles. – Βατο (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Hatzopoulos provides information about the relation of Encheleis and Dassaretioi, why did you add it into this article? – Βατο (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Greek mythology section is relevant to this tribe and its backed by sources that describe the background of the Dassaretae. What exactly is your objection with Hatzopoulos? The text supports the quote: : the available personals names in the area display a clear Greek majority. An experienced editor can understand that this is perfectly backed by RS. Off course additional text can be added but that isn't a reason for a disruptive full removal.Alexikoua (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The text does not support the content you added, you need to read carefully the sources. Furthermore, since you have access to the source, you have already seen in the same pages that Hatzopoulos explicitly describes the Dassaretioi as an "Illyrian ethne". Inclusion of information from Hatzopoulos into this article is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. – Βατο (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's really weird you insist on falsifying the cited material. The quote perfectly supports the specific addition. If you look carefully it states that according to a specific fragment according to Strabo they were counted among some Illyrian ethne while in another fragment by Strabo they can't be grouped at all. Hatzopoulos concludes that their onomastics are mainly Greek ones (a fact you personally DONTLIKEIT), but this isn't enough for a clear grouping.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he does not. Read the source carefully, please. But to avoid original research interpretations of Hatzopoulos views, there is Wilkes, a renowned scholar who provides them: I am not continuing this discussion, it is not bringing improvements, since you keep on ignoring clear evidence provided by sources. – Βατο (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexi, please, stop disruptive inclusion of WP:OR, the source does not state "inscriptional evidence from the region of the Dassaretae and the Enchelae", but "Unfortunately, only those from the areas in the former Yugoslavia have been collected: and although these exhibit the expected intermingling of a clear majority of Greek, and indeed Macedonian, names with few Illyrian ones, especially in the south, and also with a few other, probably Phyrgian names they do not permit the drawing of any clear conclusion." Furthermore, the source is talking about the Illyrian Dassaretioi. – Βατο (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another blind revert while the quote is quite clear on this "The fragmentarity and corruption of the manuscript tradition of the available sources makes it impossible to clarify the relations between the Dassaretioi and the Encheleis. Study of the peronsal names of these regions might help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, only those from the areas in the former Yugoslavia have been collected: and although these exhibit the expected intermingling of a clear majority of Greek, and indded Macedonian, names with few Illyrian ones. IDONTLIKEIT is clearly on your side you understand that this stubborn removal of sourced information is clearly disruptive. Hatzopoulos and Hammond refer to the same Dassaretae (they are citing each other on the location and settlements of this tribe) Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source talks about Dassaretioi, and states: Now start with constructive editing searching sources that actually describe clearly the Chaonian tribe and not the Illyrian one. – Βατο (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Excactly Hatzopoulos mentions a description according to Strabo, i.e. Hatzopoulos disagrees about them being an Illyrian ethnos. In fact he concludes that the available onomastics (citing Hammond's Dassaretae) contain a majority of Greek names, though he is reluctant to label them Greeks. That's a information that needs to be included. I'm sorry but your stubborn attempt to remove RS such as this one falls clearly into IDONTLIKEIT, OWN.Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, read WP:SYNTH: Interpreting the sources with your original research should be avoided because it does not improve Wikipedia. – Βατο (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder how's that relevant to the use of Hatzopoulos. What's clearly mentioned in his work should be presented in the article. On the other hand the only OR claim so far is that Hatzopoulos refers to an Illyrian tribe something he clearly dismisses. The majority of their known onomastics are Greek and its sourced.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again with original research interpreatations, they are not relevant in Wikipedia, you have to understand it to avoid additions of WP:SYNTH content. Since you are ignoring Wilkes (1995) about Hatzopoulos' view, see what he directly says: Hatzopoulos 1993 p. 84: Hatzopoulos provides information about the Illyrian Dassaretans (Δασσαρητίων, Dassaretioi or Dassaretai), it should be removed from this article, which is about the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No wonder yet again you declare yourself that you have run out of arguments and begin mixing information with this tribe and the other one (Illyrian tribe). For future reference Hatzopoulos states that thee available onomasticis of the non-Illyrian Dassaretae which - by the way- inhabited the same region of Hammonds Dessaretae has a majority of Greek names. You also admitted that they were two distict tribes Dassaretae and Dassaretii by creating the later article.09:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They are two distinct tribes, the Chaonian Dexari attested in Hecataeus and the Illyrian Dassareti attested in Roman times; and Hatzopoulos provides information about the Illyrian tribe that can't be included here. – Βατο (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Hatzopoulos, in Macedonian Institutions states: or, and that: . Why did you include that source into this article? It does not provide information about the Chaonian tribe. The article should include only information that is explicitly about the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about this specific tribe, i.e. the Dassaretae. Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on this: . Yet again wp:IDHT. Lychnidus was located near the Epirote-Illyrian border, see S. Kos.Alexikoua (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement: "Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on this: ." is wrong, you are disrupting Wikipedia with WP:OR and addition of WP:SYNTH material. Hatzopoulos (1996) cites Ptolemy, Macedonian Institutions Under the Kings, p. 100: "Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans.2 2 . Ptol. 3.12.29". You can't use a source to suppose that a scholar support the hypotheses of another scholar if not explicitly stated by that source. The word "Chaon-" never appears in Hatzopoulos (1996), how can it be presumed that this scholar is referring to the tribe of this article? The current version of this article is a fork of Dassareti, instead of fixing it you keep adding other unrelated information to push a WP:FRINGE narrative unsupported by the sources you are using. – Βατο (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hammond, in his 1974 paper "Alexander's Campaign in Illyria" states: . In that paper he talks about the Dassaretii without linking them with the Chaonian tribe, but I avoided adding info from it to the article Dassaretii because I know Hammond's view, who considers the tribe a Chaonian one equating them with the Dexari. The same here with Hatzopoulos, he can't be included because he considers them always as related to the Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes that statement wrong? Let's sum up: Hatzopoulos reads: Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans... and his inline citation is Hammond, Macedonia I 64. An author uses an inline citation to point where he found this piece of info and Hatzopoulos about his description of the Dassaretans is citing Hammond's Dassaretans. This is called inline citation in academics and its cery usefull indeed. Nothing wrong, nothing FRINGE on that. Everything its perfectly sourced.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos has deep knowledge on the subject, he cites Hamond for some information, while he cites specifically Polybius, as reported above, for the statement about Lychnidos. But we are not here to interpret the source, Hatzopoulos is not explicitly talking about the Chaonian tribe. Hence, it can't be included here. – Βατο (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dexari/Dassaretae though initially part of the Chaonian group formed their own association during the Hellenistic era. Both Hammond and Hatzopoulos agree on that they were not part of the Chaones during that era..Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct name
This article should be named Dexari. The Chaonian tribe Dexari is mentioned solely by Stephanus of Byzantium citing Hecataeus, but Stephanus also mentions the Illyrian tribe Dessaretae citing Polybius, and clearly distinguishes those two tribes. Some older modern publications considered a possible equation of the two tribes, but in recent scholarship they are mostly considered distinct. The current name of this article (Dassaretae) is based on an old conjecture which still remains unproven, for this reason the article should be moved to the historically attested name. – Βατο (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Recycling the same arguments here has no meaning. I suggest you read the previous discussion on the very same subject about the failed move request. This article is about the Greek tribe Dassaretae/Dexari. "Some older publication"? Publication such as the Oxford Classical Dictionary of 2012? You have to be kidding.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that recent scholarship is clear that Dassaretae where an Epirotic tribe: These people (i.e. the Illyrian tribes) bordered on people of Epirotic origin an dubious ethnicity, the Chaonians and Molossians, and the Dassaretae possibly the same as the Dexari. This is from a very recent publication from Winnifrith.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are again misusing bibliography, don't do it because it's unconstructive for the discussion. The Oxford Classical Dictionary of 2012 does not mention Dassaretae, but Dexari, another reason to move the article to the correct name. Winnifrith (2020) states also that the Dassaretae were an Illyrian tribe south of Shkumbin. But the statement you added above is irrelevant for this discussion, as Winnifrith reports it as a hypothesis: . The historically attested name of this tribe is Dexari, the other one is a conjectural relation unaccepted by recent scholars like Eichner (2004) and Campbell (2009), who distinguish the Dexari and Dassaretae, hence it is enough to make the title of this article completely inappropriate. Strong arguments should be provided to keep the current name of the article, since it contrasts recent realiable sources. – Βατο (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but Winnifrith, 2021 states that the Dassaretae were people of Epirotic origin. We can not claim that a 2021 publication is an ... old one. This article is exactly about this tribe. If they were or were not the same people with the Dexari this is also part of the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not claim Winnifrith (2021) is an old publication, don't put words in my mouth, which btw are nonsense because you have no arguments. Your misuse of sources becomes disruptive now, stop it please; this is the full quote from Winnifrith (2021), not just the the part you cherrypicked above: who reports the Illyrian tribes south of Shkumbin - Bylliones and Dassaretae. Whether or not the Roman times Dassaret- are the same as the Chaonian Dexar- is a matter of dispute among modern scholars, and this article is about the Chaonian tribe. The current name of the article contrasts several reliable sources, violating WP:NOPOV. I fail to see a reason why hypothetical name Dassaretae should be considered more relevant as a title for the Wikipedia article about an ancient tribe that is surely attested as Dexari, can you provide one? – Βατο (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As you noted the Chaonians and Molossians, and the Dassaretae are grouped together by Winnifrith and he clearly states that they are of Epirotic origin. I fail to see how Epirotic in this case can be interpreted as Illyrian ('Illyrian power' has not the same meaning with 'Illyrian people' if you mean that). I'm happy that you finally admit that recent publications make use of the Desarretae form. I'm not againt the creation of a new article (Dexari), but this one has to stay. Recycling old wrong arguments in this case falls into wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Update
I replaced old hypothetical reconstructions with new scholarship which criticize them. Also the history section should be updated because this new source: rejects many hypotheses by Hammond. Many old reconstructions, which are now presented in the article as facts, are now rejected in current scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua you should not remove recent scholarship restoring old criticised hypotheses in WP:WIKIVOICE. – Βατο (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm actually this applies to you, 1. you just removed Winnifrith (2021) who stated something about "Epirotic origin" like the rest of the major Epirotic tribes. 2. Removed 'ancient Greek' from lead which should be restored. You didn't provided an explanation for this removal too. 3. You also removed the major settlements of the Dassaretae...

I'm afraid that's not productive editting & you need to provide at least a decent explanation for this massive removal of valid information.Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the full information provided by Winnifrith, and another information in the lead section as per the sources. – Βατο (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit that it sounds very weird interpreting "Illyrian power" to "Illyrian tribe". Definitely Winnifrith in this part does NOT state that Dassaretae were an Illyrian tribe, he is clear that "Mollosians, Chaonians and Dassaretae were Epirotes":


 * You forgot the previous sentence where he describes them among the Illyrian tribes south of Shkumbin: Bylliones and Dassaretae: . – Βατο (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm "Illyrian power" doesn't mean "Illyrian tribe". No wonder the partial quote you provided does not include the term Illyrian even once. You understand that your are clearly into wp:IDONTLIKEIT territory: Winnifrith clearly states they were Epirotes like the Chaonians and the Molossians. Being under possible Illyrian control does not make them Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You WP:CHERRYPICKED info from Winnifrith, I added the full content: . – Βατο (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how editors cherrypick information from the sources for content they like, but they don't use them for content they don't like. @Khirurg, if you want to add Weber's views in WP:WIKIVOICE, add also into the lede the fact that he considers the Dassaretae/Dexari Illyrians. No Chaonian/Epirote tribe lived in the city of Lychnidus, that is a fringe POV pushing. That information pertains to the Dassareti, who are documented in that area from ancient inscriptions and literature. Even Hammond's old hypotheses does not stretch so far north, as it would have resulted ahistorical and completely unreliable. – Βατο (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Strategic value" section as it is based in Hammond's speculations that are rejected by . Feel free to restore content neutrally taking into account the information provided by this recent source. – Βατο (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also avoid incuding information from sources that talk about the Roman times Dassareti, if they do not explicitly mention the Chaonian tribe, because it falls in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. – Βατο (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This statement by Winnifrith (2002) is unreliable : . Hecataeus does not. That information can't be included as it is false. – Βατο (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Point taken about Lychnidos, but there is absolutely no reason to remove the rest of the Geography section, including the "strategic value" subsection. It's all reliably sourced and useful to readers. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't reinsert Hammond's obsolete speculations that are highly criticised by recent scholarship. Vujčić (2021):.
 * Hatzopoulos' content can't be used for this article, it is clearly offtopic: Hatzopoulos 1993 p. 84: – Βατο (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The article uses Htazopoulos 1996, not 1993. Hatzopoulos stays. Khirurg (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's WP:OFFTOPIC, Hatzopoulos 1996 provides information about Ptolemy's Dassaretans: There is no mention of the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dassaretae formed their own association and were independent in the Hellenistic era. That's not an argument to remove this kind of information altogether.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually clearly wp:IDONTLIKEIT to remove well known historians though they are well respected in mainstream research. Fillos and Handeli for example state that Hammond's research is of great value on the issue. Hammond should be part of Epirus-related topics. If we have alternative theories they are welcome to stay.Alexikoua (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't add rejected conjectures in WP:WIKIVOICE, please. – Βατο (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hatzopoulos states that the Dassaretae had Greek offices and institutions, that they had primarily Greek onomastics in their southern settlements. It's far too obvious that this information concerns the Dassaretae. You understand that the kind of massive removal equals disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's your WP:SYNTHESIS]. And don't restore conjectures in WP:WIKIVOICE. You must avoid that kind of editing. – Βατο (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are stubbornly removing essential information about the subject. I', sorry but wp:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. Don't remove again essential information about the Dassaretae please.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wich is the "essential information"? Appian's genealogy of Illyrian tribes or Hammond's conjectures that are rejected by Vujčić 2021? You know the content can't stay in this form. – Βατο (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We should be precise on what the bibliography states. As such Wilkes does not count the main settlement by saying "According to the conjectural equation of the Dexaroi with Dassaretae, their cities would have been ...". What's also weird is that Eordaikos / Osum "is" located in this area (from Berat to Korce). In fact that's a simple fact even if it wasn't Hatzopoulos everyone can conclude in terms of geography that the specific river is indeed located there. Stop pretending about synthesis please.Alexikoua (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The removal of everything stated by Hammond tends to become a real obsession: the mythological ancestry of Illyrios is attributed to Hammond. So it seems fine to me. If you believe that this is POV or whatever take it to RSN. I really doubt if main CAH contributors can be dismissed so easy.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CAH contributors can't be dismissed. 20th century CAH contributors' hypotheses can be rejected in current scholarship, and Wikipedia should provide updated information about them. Some of Wilkes (1992)'statements remain a conjecture because that area is associated in ancient sources and in current scholarship with Dassareti. The presence of a Chaonian tribe there is far from certain. Whether you like it or not, that's not a "simple fact", as stated in recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well CAH contributors state that the Dassaretae were a nw Greek tribe and its the same tribe with the Dexari. Like it or not it's not a speculation but presented as a historical fact in CAH. You need to present serious arguments why Bogdani claims are enough to put CAH under question.Alexikoua (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. On precision grounds. It's apparent from the discussion that "Dassaretae" doesn't unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, while Dexaroi does a better job at that. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Dassaretae → Dexaroi – The name of the tribe that is the subject of this article is recorded as Dexaroi by ancient Greek writer Hecataeus of Miletus, cited by Stephanus of Byzantium. Whether the Dexaroi were the same as the Dassaretae, a tribe that is mentioned in Roman times, is a matter of dispute among scholars. The name of the article should not be hypothetical, misleading, and contrasting with the views of many present-day scholars. Βατο (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * So what happens to Dassaretae? And what of Dassareti? (I get more hits for Dassaretii.) Srnec (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The name Dassaret/-ae/-ai/-ioi/-ii is used in Roman-era sources for a people that is attested on coins and epigraphic material in the area of Lake Ohrid and the city of Lychnidus. There is no historical evidence for the existence of two different tribes that were named Dassaretii and Dassaretae as proposed by a modern conjecture. However there is evidence for the existence of two different tribes: Illyrian Dassaret- and Chaonian Dexaroi, as can be seen in the sole ancient source that provides us the only known historical information about the Chaonian tribe, Stephanus of Byzantium's Ethnica:
 * Δασσαρῆται, ἔθνος Ἰλλυρίας, Πολύβιος η¯ (8,14b,1). καὶ τὸ θηλυκὸν Δασσαρῆτις. λέγονται καὶ Δασσαρηνοί καὶ Δασσαρήτιοι καὶ Δασσαρητῖνος. Delta - Iota, pp. 14–15
 * Δεξάροι, ἔθνος Χαόνων, τοῖς Ἐγχελέαις προσεχεῖς, Ἑκαταῖος Εὐρώπῃ (FGrHist 1 F 103). ὑπὸ Ἄμυρον ὄρος οἰκοῦν. Delta - Iota, pp. 28–29
 * – Βατο (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you move the page Dassaretii to Dassareti? The former seems clearly correct. Srnec (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I used the most simple version of the name I found in sources. But it is not a problem, that article can be easly renamed Dassaretii. – Βατο (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This has been refuted multiple times. Bibliography prefers Dassaretae and the article points to that also (Hecataeus isn't the only primary material we have also inscription from Dodona). I assume the right move should be to delete the wp:POVFORK Dassareti. Alexikoua (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems there is heavy uncertainty concerning the exact relation between the Dexari and the Dassaretae/ii. Keeping it simple, which in this case would be to move the article to its much more uncontroversial, historically attested name, seems like the best course of action.Alltan (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: 80% of the article is already dedicated to the Dassaretae. As such that's not a valid argument for a move such as this one. If there is an uncertainty about the Dexaroi being related to the Dassaretae that's discussed inside the article and guess what... an article titled 'Dassaretae' is the one that should deal with this issue. Alexikoua (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is dedicated to a Chaonian tribe that is attested in historical sources as Dexaroi, and that has been conjecturally equated by a modern uncertain hypothesis to the Dassaretae/ii that are mentioned in Roman times as an Illyrian tribe. The ancient account that attests the Chaonian tribe and most present-day scholars consider Dexaroi and Dassaretae/ii as two distinct tribes. A fictitious name can't be preferred to a factual name for a Wikipedia article title, there is absolutely no reason for that, especially when most scholars do not accept that hypothesis and the historical evidence contrasts it. – Βατο (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per the points made by Alltan and Βατο. We should strive to be as concise as possible when we encounter potential misnomers such as this one. The name Dassaretae/ii is quite often used to refer to the Illyrian tribe, so Dexari seems to be the best fit here. Durraz0 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The name Dassaretae can be misleading due to the fact it also is used to refer to the Illyrian tribe, it would make more sense to name it Dexaori as we know they were historically and unambiguously recorded this way Truthseeker2006 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The lede makes this summary of the article: The Dassaretae, or Dexaroi (Ancient Greek: Δασσαρῆται or Δεξάροι), were an ancient Chaonian tribe, living under Mount Amyron. In ancient literature the Dexari are mentioned only by the ancient Greek writer Hecataeus of Miletus (6th century BC), cited by Stephanus of Byzantium (6th century AD). The Dexaroi were the northernmost tribe that belonged to the Chaonian group, one of the three major North-Western Greek-speaking tribes of Epirus. Mount Amyron has been identified by some modern scholars with Mount Tomorr, in present-day Albania. The mountain was probably located in a region that in Roman times was called Dassaretis. The Dexaroi have been supposedly equated with the Dassaretii. However, all these hypothetical connections remain uncertain. As you can see, the article is about the Dexaroi, and the Dessareti are mentioned only due to possibly being the same as the Dexaroi. -- Bes-ART Talk  16:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many top notch sources (e.g. Hammong) refer to this tribe as the "Dassaretae". OP has not made the case that "Dexaroi" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this tribe. Khirurg (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Bes-ART nailed it. The article is a mess, might need to be rewritten from scratch. The term "Dassaretae" is used by some scholars when referring to the other, Illyrian tribe, so the current name of this article is both misleading and POV. Which is the most common English name for the Greek tribe - the subject of this article - is unclear since "Dassaretae" is used for both the Greek and Illyrian tribes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the article presents the reader with the Dexaroi. Gives the information we have on them. Then it says that maybe the Dexaroi were later called "Dassaretae" and gives whatever imaginary scenario that has been (re)constructed about that tribe name. The article is about the Dexaroi. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.