Talk:Illyrians/Archive 6

Further information
I was just wondering whether it would be appropriate to add Albanian to the Further Information template in the beginning of the Indentities and linguistics section, on the basis that Albanian is a contender for a linguistical continuation of the Illyrian language(s)? The corresponding article (i.e. Albanian language) delves deeper into the theory, so it would extend the article through this one (could we then also add it to the See Also section?). ArbDardh (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh


 * This could be hairy, but as long as you don't say in wiki voice that Albanian(s) descends form Illyrian(s) you won't violate anything. Wherever possible say "(proposed)". --Calthinus (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , you seem to have reverted my edit. It's understandable, but could you slightly elaborate? ArbDardh (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh


 * Because it's nothing more than a hypothesis. And that is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in this manner. Khirurg (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather it's the null hypothesis and the majority of relevant scholars support it in some form. See also Wikipedia's classification of the Minoan culture as "Ancient Greece". That's an anachronism (did "Greece" exist in 2700 BCE? No. 1200 BCE? Possibly if we have a reading of Homer that I and Greek nationalists both support but the good chunk of scholarship does not.), and also ignores the fact that identifying the Minoans and their language as "Greek" is deeply controversial. See also: Eteocretan language, which is not Greek. Double standards aside,  this isn't worth it. We will just have 20 pages worth of fairly interesting but not remotely productive arguments with a heavy spicing of civility violations :). Time is better spent creating and expanding material and the Albanian topic area could use a lot. Which I should get back to myself. --Calthinus (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see a similar link in 'Eteocretan language', 'Minoan language' and 'Minoan civilization' articles. In general the 'further information' template is controversial.Alexikoua (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In Minoan civilization there is History of Greece infobox, which lists the topic as part of the "Greek Bronze Age" :). Minoans may or may not have been Greeks but they clearly contributed to the emergence of Greeks as a group; ditto Illyrians and Albanians as even proponents of other major theories (Dacian, Thracian) don't really dispute Illyrian contribution (some fringe views not from scholarship : yes, but these don't matter). Alas, this is not productive.--Calthinus (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Calthinus, interesting point about the Minoans and modern Greeks as i hadn't thought about that. It becomes more problematic in making those links too as a sizable proportion of modern day Greeks come from different ethnic origins (i.e Aromanians, Arvanites, Slavs up north, some even from Romani etc.) Connecting the Minoans to these groups of people would be pseudo science even if a few generations now have come to think of themselves as Greek post 1821.Resnjari (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Resnjari this is all very interesting, but I think the two of us, Alexikoua, Khirurg, and SR and Ktrimi if they wanna join, should get a room where we can do nothing but chat, as we all clearly love to, but I don't think anyone else wants this on talk pages haha. --Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok. lolResnjari (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I have never been interested in Minoans, Atlantis and their Turkish/Slavic/Arvanite "descendants", though of course that chat would be funny ;) As you know, my interests are is modern stuff, not in ancient stuff and related traumas. After all, the dispute over Alexander's horse seems to be over. One party kept the head, and the other kept the tail. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point Calthinus: Illyrians are part of the history of Albania/Montenegro/Dalmatia/Croatia etc. etc.. I won't object inclusion of such templates. By the way the history of Albania template already offers a link to Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it is very funny how certain editors here are so enthousiast to go into talks about ethnicities and the first thing to do is always to de-Greekify the Greeks. Please don't forget you are in Wikipedia and you should keep your opinions for yourself (not even mention them in talk pages if can you!) and do not get me involved in all of this because this is what exactly ruins my mood. The more I am hearing you talking with such passion against foreign nationalities, the more sick I am becoming (no offense). I have repeated myself many times but it seems none of you is ever listening to my calls: I am not interested nor I will participate in such nationalist discussions with people who may bear islamist or fascist sentiments. Needless to say for the rest: I am sorry for the commonsfolk Albanians to feel such insecurities for their own origins but it isn't Greece's fault and Wikipedia shouldn't be paying the price for this. Albanians should be proud of their history, be it with Illyrians or not. They shouldnt be jealous of Greeks at all, since Greeks are just normal people with their own problems and daily lives, just like they do.
 * I suggest you get over it before you bring needless trouble to yourself. Respect the people regardless of country origin, for who they are, their self-determination and idendity, nationality and religion and leave them alone. They aren't your problem and you wont overcome your own national insecurity by challenging the history and origins of other nations. Here, you should focuse only on the Wikipedic content and not deviate from it.
 * I am really frustrated and disappointed I had to come and respond at all, and even more now that my name is mentioned in this awful discussion, I don't want to be rude, but the sooner certain editors here abandon their nationalist or religious bias and realize that Wikipedia isn't the place for promoting personal views or bragging about beliefs, nor are using the origins of people as arguments in these discussions, the better for us all and the easier it will be for us to cooperate on articles of common interest. The next time someone ever does that, they will not only fall low, I will bring this to the attention of Admins even if I know they probably will do nothing about that. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've collapsed this as, in a large part by my own fault (I must stop doing this) we deviated far from constructive discussion. If anyone objects, feel free to revert, though I really don't advise continuing that eyesore. Also, for the record, I must admit that was entirely right. --Calthinus (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving an article (2014) on ancient historiography on Illyrian peoples: Dzino Danijel. ‘Illyrians’ in ancient ethnographic discourse. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 40, n°2, 2014. pp. 45-65. [www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_2014_num_40_2_3944]02:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.218.212.120 (talk)

Article size
Artice size has increased by 7K in one day. If recent expansion continues, it will be larger than 70K within a few days. Maybe some parts should be moved into separate article. Ideas? --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Reaching 70k isn't a reason to (re)move parts from this article. We may begin such duscussion when it reaches c. 100k.Alexikoua (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexi. The article can reach approx 100k, parts of it can be moved into other articles if it is further expanded. – Βατο (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Terminology
Appian (1st-2nd century AD) and Apollodorus are historians who present mythological constructions as many authors of their era do. Their works are not part of the corpus of "ancient Greek mythology" which is a well-defined corpus of material of which Khirurg is probably not aware of in terms of definitions used in classical studies. Hesiod's work belongs in the corpus of "ancient Greek mythology", Appian was a historian of the Greco-Roman era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Appian was a Greek writer with Roman citizenship. I don't see any Roman writers in the section. And this had better be the last snide comment you make. Future personal attacks will be reported without warning. You are on final notice. Khirurg (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do what you feel to be the best course of action for you. In terms of content, we've established that we're referring to historical literature. "Ancient Greek and Roman" covers the subsection neatly because authors like Appian are part of the Greco-Roman corpus and many of the later works that will naturally be added belong just to the Roman Latin literature.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Epirus
I have this source and information: ''"Appian, (Chaones, Thesprotians) njegovo mišljenje se može smatrati najkompetentnijim za utvrđivanje granica ilira... Rumunjski filolog Ion I. Russu u svojoj sintezi "Illirii – istoria, limba si onomastica, romanizarea«, 1969, kaže da su Iliri živjeli na području što ga zatvara Epir na jugu. Do sličnog su zaključka došli i drugi suvremeni stručnjaci na osnovi proučavanja arheoloških i lingvističkih materijala, ali se svi ipak ne slažu sa tako povučenim granicama i iznose dokaze kojima žele pomicati te granice bilo izvan tih okvira bilo unutar njih...Appian, (Chaones, Thesprotians) his opinion may be considered the most competent for determining the boundaries of the Illyrians... Romanian philologist Ion I. Russu in his synthesis "Illirii - istoria, limba si onomastica, romanizarea", 1969, says that the Illyrians lived in the area enclosed by Epirus in the south. A similar conclusion was reached by other contemporary experts on the basis of the study of archaeological and linguistic materials, but not all of them agree with such drawn of boundaries and present evidence by which they want to move these boundaries either outside of this frame or within them".'' Mikola22 (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a map in the work of Wilkes on the approximate boundaries (and there are plenty of maps in wikipedia based on this map). Thesprotia is a quite abstract and broad geographical term considered that the entire southern Ionian coast is named as such sometimes. Mouth of Aoous is a more precise term considered that south of this river the Illyrian presence was non-existent. Both Primary and Tertiary material (as in this case) should be treated with precaution. Secondary sources are in full agreement in our case.Alexikoua (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just Wilkes but also Hammond, Filos, all draw the border between Epirus and Illyria at the Ceraunian mountains or Aoos. Khirurg (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos, The Dialectal Variety of Epirus, pp216-217: . To be clear, I don't think this quote can be used to say Illyrians lived south of the Acroceraunian mts (there were non-Illyrian and also non-Greek populations in the area too), just that it's not so simple.--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He obviously means that the Ambracian Gulf was the southern boundary (as it is today). South of the Ambracian Gulf lay Aetolia and Acarnania. If the Ambracian Gulf were the northern boundary, there would be no such thing as Epirus. It's like saying Olympus is the northern boundary of Macedonia. Khirurg (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ambracian Gulf for south boundary, not north. Nobody said that. That's not the important part of the quote. You know that.--Calthinus (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos (2017), p.256, --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilkes states about a possible Greek-Illyrian coexistence in Zeta plain but later the Illyrian region was expanded southwards (to Aous).Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg: Apart from Filos, Hammond, Wilkes there is also Sasel Kos that agrees on this. There is no need to rely on a wp:TERTIARY as long as we have full agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Greek-Illyrian Bronze Age contact
Apart from this part [], which is stubbornly removed as irrelevant to the Illyrians, I wonder if the following sentence is relevant to this article: [] Central Albania contained both Illyrian - speaking chieftains and Greek - speaking chieftains in the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age .Alexikoua (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote is I would be against the introduction in any article of an idea that its own author presents in such a weak manner. I would do the same if I made a comment about the 17th to 13th century BCE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Compared to Crossman's suggestion I would say Hammonds opinion is definitely much more stronger. On the other hand expressions such as  [] "it has been thought to indicate" and "it seems that" are very weak, they are not even endorsed by the author. On the other hand "a personal opinion of a historian" sounds much stronger.Alexikoua (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When a historian-archaeologist doesn't put forward a theory but merely makes a comment which he clarifies that it's not a theory in any way, shape or form - it can't be introduced in an article as a possibility.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume according to your rationale something that "has been though to indicate something" [] doesn't even meet the "historian's personal opinion". Crossland does not agree with that opinion on the other hand at least Hammond accepts it.Alexikoua (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the same CAH that you've tagged here as "outdated", "POV" - is the same CAH which at Molossians because the chapter is written by Hammond with whom you agree - you've used in many sections.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see an outdated claim and pov tag by myself. I've placed dubious & by whom tags based on your rationale that those opinions are extremely weak.Alexikoua (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another source removed with the excuse that its irrelevant to Illyrians:

. Though the editor that removed this part claims that this is not about Illyrians, the current article offers the wrong impression that in 2000 BC Illyrians had settled in their classic era territory (Illyria, which includes central&north Albania). However, Crossman's work does not agree on this last and per quote above that's not just a personal opinion or something that has been thought to indicate something as in other cases.Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You should slow down your editing and read the bibliography closely. You have been putting forward WP:FRINGE theories like at Molossians with your edits about a supposed 5000-year presence of the Greek language in Epirus like other editors have noticed. In the citation you quoted you should read more closely what is being put forward and how and if that relates to this article. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why you don't initiate a topic in the relevant talkpage. As for Crossman's quote above I assume it's ok for this article since this is related to the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of prehistoric archaeology modern historians can't be certain about the identity of the populations that left their traces. Only indirect conclusions can be made. The full paper [] of Hammond offers some insight on why the prehistoric tumuli can't belong to an proto-Illyrian population.Alexikoua (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hammond is already considered outdated by recent publications: . Wikipedia articles should be edited with content from more recent publications because research has been going on and new evidence has emerged and continues to emerge. – Βατο (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It appears you intentionally put an end to the quote. Disapproved by whom? Maybe inside the P.R. of Albania? Something follows about M. Korkuti and F. Prendi. If there is a POV in the current article that's the so-called Illyrian presence from 2000 B.C. which is based exclusively in one TERTIARY. I wonder why Wilkes states that the 'historic Illyrians' first emerged in 1000 B.C..Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't make WP:ASPERSIONs against living academics with whom you disagree I'll ask for the comments to be striked and I'll report you in BLP if you imply again that any academic is related with particular governments and states.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

POV issues
In recent days there has been a very determined push by a well-organized team of editors to push POV based on sources from the 1980s that the Illyrians inhabited an area far to the south of where they are generally placed. Modern scholarship, such as John Wilkes, perhaps the foremost source on this subject, generally places the southernmost Illyrians in Central/Southern Albania, at the mouth of the Aous river. This is also backed by the most recent sources, e.b. Filos (2018). But there is a determined push, as evidenced by particularly ferocious edit-warring by a team of editors, to push the Illyrian area far to the south, to even central Greece. Because modern sources do not back this, the editors doing this are relying on outdated sources from the 1980s. The POV-pushing started out by a by a user who has named himself after an Illyrian chieftain with stuff like this. I was content to let it slide as a one-off, but then it escalated to more extreme stuff like this. Now it has become even more extreme with edits such as these. For context, the reason Albanian nationalists are so hell-bent on pushing this POV is so as to claim they are "the rightful owners" of Epirus, Macedonia, and in fact most of the Balkans, since they claim to be direct descent frm the Illyrians (in their imagination, at least). This is primordialist POV of the crudest kind, based on old, cherry-picked sources quoted out of context. If this continues, I will place a POV tag on the article and admin intervention will be requested. Khirurg (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with bibliography here. If Stipcevic, Crossland and others support certain theories, then we should discuss them in the article. What we shouldn't do is remove something because you consider it something "Albanian nationalists say" You have to explain why something is "POV-pushing" based on bibliography If you place POV tag over a 70k article because of what looks to me like WP:JDL because no argument in bibliography has been given, I will remove it. You have edit-warred along with other editors in the article and now because you can't get your POV to be introduced, you're using WP:OWN attempts. Yes, I will ask admin oversight myself for the disruption you're trying to cause along with other editors who edit-warred in the same exact pattern a few days ago along with you. Bato has greatly expanded and improved this article as shown in the editing history - all you have been doing is to frame academic discussions into typical Balkan ones. Now, in your comment it seems to me that you're making some heavy WP:ASPERSIONs, so admin oversight will be asked for that too. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I have presented a case based on bibliography. All this is outdated and contradicted by more modern bibliography . You are just WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALLING. And you tried to push the same POV at Molossians (quite unsuccessfully, I might add). How's that RfC going by the way? Khirurg (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Significant informations from RS and from expert for Illyrians. If there is a problem exist RSN and FTN. We are here to improve the article and not to block or hide informations. Mikola22 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All the "informations" you are adding is outdated and contradicted by more recent scholarship. Please read this, it is the most recent scholarship on the issue. Khirurg (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt if there is any scholar that accepts barbarians=Illyrians, by the way Stipcevic offers a very detailed view and concludes that the inhabitants of Epirus were either regarded as barbarians or Hellenes by ancient scholars. It seems we have a typical case of mispresenting the sourced material.Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos (2017) Perfectly compatible with everything Stipcevic writes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that. Source say this "posebno za  Epirane  koji  su  za antičke  pisce  najprije  barbari što govore  njima  nerazumljivim  jezikom,  a  onda  postaju Heleni...especially for the Epirans, who for the ancient writers first they are barbarians who speak a language they do not understand, and then become Helens. Obviously you read it differently. First they are barbarians and then become Helens. Mikola22 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Let me help you on the quote: " (p. 27)To ancient writers they at first represented barbarians speaking an incomprehensible language, and later on they were regarded as Hellenes". There is a certain difference between "later regarded" and "later became" (regarded does not necessary mean that an ethnic transformation occurred). By the way I can't see the word Illyrians in this conclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No regarded, postati-become. Mikola22 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The English version of this book: []Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We first look at the Croatian source. This information is from 1989, and historian says postaju-become. Regarded does not mean become. Mikola22 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) Since WP:STONEWALL in the form of WP:IDHT, WP:CHERRY and other forms of intellectual dishonesty is becoming a recurring feature of these discussions, and since it is becoming tiresome to keep repeating the same arguments, I'm just going to put this out here, and leave it at that. The sources below clearly contradict the outdated POV of Stipcevic, and in an intellectually honest discussion, would put an end to this discussion about the border between Epirus and Illyria. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * John Wilkes, "The Illyrians", 1992.
 * p. 92: Appian's description of the Illyrian territories records a southern boundary with Chaonia and Thesprotia where Epirus began south of the river Aous.
 * p. 96: Yet this first authentic accoun of the Adriatic lists the names of several Illyrian peoples on the east coast down as far as the river Aous.


 * N.G.L. Hammond, "Illyris", in Cambridge Ancient History, Boardman & Hammond (eds)., 1982.
 * p. 261 : Illyris, a geographical term with the Greeks applied to a territory neighboring their own, covers more or less the territory of modern northern and central Albania, down to the mouth of the river Aous.


 * Panayotis Filos, "The dialectical variety of Epirus", in "Studies in Ancient Greek dialects: from central Greece to the Black Sea", 2018
 * p. 216-217 : Nonetheless one may say with some degree of certainty that from the 4th century BC onwards the geographic boundaries of Epirus were by and large set as follows: the so-called Keraunia or Akrokeraunia mountain range to the north...
 * p. 241 : The northern parts of Epirus, e.g. Chaonia, bordered on S. Illyrian territory
 * There is also Sasel Kos that draws a straight line from the Acroceraunians to Damastion stating that "northern&southern Epirus were part of the Greek world".Alexikoua (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, do not cast aspersions and focus on content, please. You labeled Crossland (1982) as outdated in the article without a proper source (WP:OR). Also you removed Carlo de Simone (2017) because according to you he is a "dubious source" or a "tertiary" source, but content in Wikipedia articles can be added from tertiary sources if they are reliable, and De Simone is reliable, not "dubious"; indeed, as pointed out: "De Simone represents a mainstream view. He is a very well-regarded linguist". There are more recent bibliography that support those statements, one is Filos (pp. 221–222) reported here by @Maleschreiber, another is Malkin p. 143:  If you want to consider 80s works by Aleksandar Stipčević, Radoslav  Katičić, N. G. L. Hammond and CAH as outdated, I agree, but you have to accept more recent scholarship about the subject. @Alexikoua, there cannot be a definition based on "a straight line from the Acroceraunians to Damastion" because Damastion's location has not yet been determined, and most likely it was in Dardania or in the borders with Paionia. – Βατο (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) De Simone is a respected linguist and one of the leading experts on the Messapic language, along with Matzinger (also a reliable source). (2) A source is not regarded as outdated because of its age, but because it is not cited in modern scholarship any longer (e.g. Einstein's Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity, published in 1917, is not outdated). Stipčević and Katičić are among the founders of modern Illyrian scholarship and are still frequently cited in recent studies; Krahe's work is outdated, not their. 92.184.104.48 (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, moreover Stipčević (1989) and Wilkes (1992) are only 3 years apart, one cannot be regarded as outdated and the other as recent. – Βατο (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabanes considers for example the Biliones as bilingual. In strict geographic terms if Epirus stretches as far as the Shkubin, it's obvious that the northernmost part spoke some Illyrian. However, in terms of Ancient Greek geography Epirus stretched north to the mouth of the Aoos i.e. is limited to the Greek-speaking region. See Sasel Kos: "northern Epirus is part of the Ancient Greek world" (Acroceraunian -Damastion line).Alexikoua (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Epirus Nova is a much later term. The Epirus which we are discussing here is the ancient Epirus as Filos (2017) explains and southern Illyria begins at the mouth of Aous after the 4th century BC. That doesn't exclude bilingualism as a reality in the northern parts of ancient Epirus south of the Aous.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved to the following expansion which is really modest in terms of how everything is phrased. (good to see you back first of all!) if you get the time, do a quick scan for anything I might have missed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said this area of bilingualism stretched further north. And as Filos noted bilingualism on the southern Illyrian side was more intense while Illyrians were more willing to adopt Greek (as more prestigious language).Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You see, one is L2. And the other, is L1. Bilingualism is usually not this symmetrical thing. Modern Greeks are more willing to adopt English than the reverse, obviously. If one is the prestige language, it expands into the original territory of the less prestigious language.--Calthinus (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Stipčević has book from 1989 and we must respect RS. Therefore there are no problems here, and the fact that someone doesn’t like information from this source is another thing which has nothing to do with the source. We are here to improve Wikipedia and not to hide information which exist. Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Structural issues
The article suffers severely due to bad structure. 1.There is a subsection about "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" (erroneously as a subsection of 'origins'), and all of the sudden after a couple of sections below there is also another titled "Language" (under the section 'culture). 2. A "middle ages" section lies forgotten in the 'archaeology' section instead of 'history'. Alexikoua (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't explain this kind of edit summary []. Even that 'word' origin is absent there.Alexikoua (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The subsection "In ancient Greek and Roman literature" includes the origins of Illyrian peoples as described by ancient authors, while the subsection "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" includes the three main subgroupings by onomastics which reflects the differentiations in the region. – Βατο (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As Bato said the subsection "In ancient Greek and Roman literature" is about the origins of the Illyrians in ancient literature, it is not a subsection about every reference to Illyrians in ancient literature.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the subsection "Middle Ages", I agree with Alexi, it should be moved in the "History" section. – Βατο (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be moved to that section. I didn't even notice that - I always thought that it was in the "History" section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, does "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" that includes the three main subgroupings by onomastics which reflects the differentiations in the region. mean that this is about origins? I fail to see anything close to Illyrian origins in this subsection & a move to culture next to 'language' subsection is justified. Both subsections are dealing with various issues about Illyrian language(s). Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Frazee (1997)
Does this edit need any special treatment, when obviously the quote by Frazee (1997) doesn't represent a summary of the article's content and goes against WP:MOSLEAD? The segment, "They constituted one of the three main groups of Indo-European populations in the Balkans prior to 2000 BC" clearly is not an appropriate summary, since the arrival date of Illyrians has disputed hypotheses that are presented in the article. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (Iaof stop blind reverting) Indeed this part is highly problematic, even the main text contradicts this statements.Alexikoua (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Slavic theory
Hello Dan! I am sad that you undid the paragraph that I wrote, I understood that you want to discuss the topic, what kind of material do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicodemusov (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be better to hold this discussion on Talk:Illyrian, so I'll copy this discussion there. Your addition appears to be based on pre-20th century scholarship that has largely been rejected in favor of more modern, better-researched information. The existing material already mentions, and discards, the theory of equating Illyrians to modern-day Slavs, so your material runs directly counter to the rest of the material in the article. Your claim that the change in scholarship regarding the Slav-Illyrian identity was due to Austro-Hungarian politics is unsourced. Further, your claim that this claim of identity is being revived in the academia of Slavic countries is also unsourced. If you're going to make this claim, you'll need better sourcing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Paul August &#9742; 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with . I see a lot of IP activity. The article should probably go through temporary semi-protection.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating the references to "balkan" and "balkan peninsula"
Tu reain consistent with other articles, which discuss the pejorative meaning of the word "balkan", the fact that there was never a European region/country with such name, hte word being turkish, not Slavic or German, and that there is no such thing as a "peninsula" where Southern Europe is, I have made a few corrections in the text to reflect the actual name of the region: Southern Europe.

For reference see "Southern Europe article, where the pejorative meaning of the turkish word "balkan" and its use is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.61.170 (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion about the pejorative nature of the word "Balkan" at Talk:Southern Europe or in the Southern Europe article. Can you be more specific? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He meant the Balkans article, where it is mentioned in the last sentence of the lede. Similar edits were performed by the same IP on Prehistory of Southeastern Europe that i follow, but in that case Southeast Europe was used instead, which is more precise than Southern Europe. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism subsection, POV or consensus?
My recent edit has been reverted by what appears to be a well coordinated WP:TAGTEAM. This behavior mirrors previous editing on this same page discussed in 2020. The edit centers on the following addition I made The Koman culture representing evidence of a continuity of the Illyrian-Albanian population manifested in Albania during the reign of Enver Hoxha, in turn serving as the main focus of Albanian nationalism. This is extracted from the following sentence: "In Albania, for a long time, the fibulae with bent stem have been regarded as the foremost element linking the Koman(i) culture to the Iron-Age civilization of the Illyrians, the main focus of Albanian nationalism during the Communist period" The first editor in question reverted this addition as it is quote not simply a figment of Communist imagination. A second editor reverted it as apparently the statement is not related to Komani culture. As outlined, artifacts representing Komani-Kruja culture including the dress attire known as the "fibulae with bent stem" are according to Curta, a core tenet of Albanian nationalism in justifying a continued linage of Illyrians. My question is, does anybody object to my addition. If no, good, if so, please provide a justification and suggestions for corrections if you believe a mistake has been made. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For further evidence, under the subsection "Byzantine Empire", the following statement is made: The Komani-Kruja culture, dated to the 7th-9th centuries AD, attempts to prove the Illyrian-Albanian continuation, with artifacts found that are very similar to archaeological artifacts found in the 4th-6th centuries AD in Illyrian sites. This statement mirrors what is being mentioned by Curta, albeit Curta discusses this phenomenon receiving prominence during the reign of Enver Hoxha. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should update your bibliography. A lot has changed after the sites were excavated. Nallbani (2017) --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this changes the fact that Albanian nationalists are still trying to use Komani-Kruja to "prove" continuity with the Illyrians. Khirurg (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is increasingly becoming the prevalent theory because the excavations don't indicate something different. "Albanian nationalists" may believe whatever they want to believe about Komani-Kruja but all recent studies indicate that: (Winnifrith 2020): If a theory is supported by Albanian nationalists and is WP:FRINGE, we can remove it. If a theory is becoming more and more acceptable because excavations confirm it, discussing about what nationalists believe is besides the point and is closer to WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, except that it's not all studies. You are just citing a single out of context snippet in Winnifrith that is speculative in nature. That is very far from this is increasingly becoming the prevalent theory. Misusing the literature to present an "air of inevitability" is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the general direction in recent studies. I sound confident in these discussions because I'm aware of the trend in research. The problem with wikipedia is that people who aren't involved in a specific field cite opinions which have changed over time without having the knowledge that Curta (2004) is not Curta (2012) or Curta (2013). They should read the bibliography and then make a judgment about what is being discussed. Side comment:, --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in Curta (2012) or Curta (2013) that even remotely implies continuity. There is only that single sentence from Winnifrith (2021). Khirurg (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored that sentence, since it seems well well supported by the cited source. Paul August &#9742; 21:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. I also restored this sentence which is also well supported by the sources, yet keeps getting removed by certain users. Please keep an eye on the article, it is a target of major disruption. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote is outdated.  These are citations published long before the excavations of Komani-Kruja. Curta (2012) writes  By overlaying publications which cite older bibliography next to newer ones, the article becomes confusing and self-contradictory. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not outdated. The source is from 2017, and while the author cites older work, it is clear that he endorses this view as he uses his own voice. The "outdated" trick is not going to work. Btw, if the section is enormous and cluttered to the point of being unreadable, it is largely because of your additions. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * My edits focused on presenting the sources in a timeline. A Popovic 1975 citation is older than most other sources. It belongs to the early era of K-K information. It can't be placed between Nallbani (2017) and Winnifrith (2020).--Botushali (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Try again. It is from 2017. Read my comment above and stop pretending you didn't hear that. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Curta (2021): In archaeology, opinions based on zero excavations (Komani-Kruja excavation began after 2009) are never discussed as contemporaneous to contemporary bibliography which follows excavations.
 * The author doesn't adopt it as his view. They write:  It refers to Popovic 1975/1984, Bowden 2003, Curta 2006. Popovic 1975/1984 is outdated and I've removed Anamali 2002 (Albanian author) as outdated as well. Bowden is discussed in the article and Curta has released 3 papers which discuss Komani-Kruja since 2006. The placement of the quote inserts Popovic 1975 in an equal position to contemporary bibliography. Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * He certainly doesn't criticize it or dismiss it as outdated. WP:NPOV requires that all significant POVs be given due weight. You can't use "outdated" to exclude every POV except the one favored by you. Khirurg (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Nallbani (2017), I have written that This is what contemporary archaeology discusses - because this what excavations has shown - and what "regionalized Roman context" means. The comment about "foreign elements" refers to Popovic (1975) and the hypothesis of Yugoslav archaeology that in western Macedonia the inhabitants of the relevant sites were also Slavs. It is rejected by contemporary sources. The quote from Curta (2012) in the article is a direct reply --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If this is cited accurately, it will become because Bowden and Curta have been cited in the article and have multiple recent publications which reflect their opinions which have changed. And then it can be moved to the section about early hypotheses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I did not know who the source was referring to so I put "certain scholars". In this case, since opinions have changed and these are indeed dated sources (70's-80's Komani-Kruja research is very different to contemporary research), it would be appropriate to refer to these theories as 'previous' and/or 'outdated' - especially in the case of Curta who has changed his beliefs on the matter - because that is indeed what they are in the face of modern archaeological excavations and studies on the matter. Botushali (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just Popovich 1975. What's going on here is you can't find a source that says this POV is outdated so you are trying to substitute it with your own opinion, and present that as fact. You can ping each other and agree with each other all you want, it doesn't change anything. Khirurg (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bowden 2003 is discussed in the article - so is Curta 2006. They don't have to be quoted again via another source, which refers explicitly to pre-2009 debates. It will be moved to the section which discusses the era before recent excavations (WP:DUE). It has been used twice both in the pre-2009 and the post-2009 period, although it refers only to the era of limited excavations. This author has no opinion about the excavations because the results and this book were published in the same year.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The POV you are arguing for is not a viewpoint personally held by the author; it is simply a review of previous views and ideas. The views and ideas themselves precede the excavations of 2009 which led to the collection of new information and more recent views based on said excavations, therefore the aforementioned viewpoints and ideas of that pre-2009 era are outdated and should be labelled as such. Botushali (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing has to be labeled or even removed, but it has to be placed in the correct section. A review of opinions which were published 10 to 40 years before the excavations by authors who have radically changed their opinions because of the excavations should be placed in the pre-2009 section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What's outdated/obsolete/fringe or not should be supported by RS. There is for example 40 years old research that's still mainstream and RS, while quite recent views have received very limited recognition (such as the Komani - Illyrian connection in this case).Alexikoua (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * and --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in the correct section, as it is from 2017. Khirurg (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is about the discussion after the excavations were published. This source doesn't discuss the excavations because they were published in the same year. If a source has no knowledge of the excavations of a site but cites hypotheses which date to 1975, it should be moved to a section which discusses pre-excavation theories. --Maleschreiber (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Side comment: I read the chapter. Joanita Vroom - not John Moreland - argues that pottery in Saranda shouldn't be seen as "Slavic" and radically different than Komani-Kruja but should be placed in a broader "Romano-Byzantine context". The author is not discussing Komani-Kruja in the specific narrative which the half quote implies: next sections. I expanded and placed it at the section before full excavation results (Nallbani 2017).--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * People, you all are discussing things that you do not understand. The Komani-Kruja culture was the place where some people of the Roman Empire and culture survived the barbarian (including Slavic) invasions. The problem with those Albanian "historians" is that they insist that the Komani-Kruja culture was an Albanian culture. It was not an Albanian culture. It was a culture of local people - Romanized people/Vlachs, proto-Albanians/early Albanians with some influence from Avar and maybe Slavic elements. No western scholar who has studied the issue says that early Albanians did not live somewhere in that culture's area. They certainly lived there. Early Albanians survived the Slavs, lived near Vlachs and stayed Christian. Apart from Durres and Raguza, the only place where they could do that was the Komani-Kruja area up to the Albania-North Macedonia border area. And that area is where Albanians enter the history records. The dispute between Western scholars and Albanian "historians" is the identity of the culture, not the Albanian presence there. Indeed, it was a multidentity culture rather than an Albanian or "Arberor" one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A sentence on the usage of the Komani-Kruja culture by Albanian nationalist historians can be added to the Komani-Kruja section. Next to the sentences that discuss views held by Albanian and Yugoslav historians. It should clarify that the issue of Albanian "historians" is that they see it as an Albanian culture, it should not indicate that western scholars say that there is evidence that early Albanians did not live there. One should write a clear sentence, as the one added a few days ago is hard, if not impossible, to understand. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence on the usage of Illyrian-Albanian links in Albanian nationalism between sentences that discuss the stance of Albanian historians on the Komani-Kruja culture. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the source was never removed. It had been added as a duplicate in multiple sections of the article. I expanded it beyond the cropped quote to its full extent and corrected the citation. You're adding wrong bibliographical information. This is an article by Joanita Vroom, not John Moreland. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * - The expanded quote highlights what Vroom (2017) discusses. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the Komani-Kruja part has some repetitive content. For example, "the population of Komani-Kruja was framed as a group which descended from the local Illyrians who "re-asserted their independence" from the Roman Empire after many centuries and formed the core of the later historical region of Arbanon" is said twice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder why William Bowden, a top graded scholar on the subject with invaluable contribution in the field of local archaeology [] can be considered "patent POV". I'm astonished by hearing that.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bowden is not POV, but Bowden (2003) and Wilkes (1992) were written before the excavations and are discussed in other sections of the article. And we shouldn't add half quotes which don't represent their authors. Bowden's conclusion at the time (2004) is that 14 years later the excavations tackled the questions. The archaeological argument in Bowden and Wilkes was not that Komani didn't represent a local population, but that the lack of excavations was such that Albanian archaeologists of the 1970s couldn't claim continuity within a historical narrative (Illyrians who reasserted their independence). We should read bibliography carefully before editing. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific work by Bowden that's removed as POV (?) was written in 2019. Off course the entire context can be added of this quite recent work which takes into consideration archaeology and scholarship both inside and outside Albania in 2000s and 2010s and strongly dismisses the Illyrian-Komani (material) link as non-historical. Also note that the Komani-Kruja is a -so-called material- culture[][], without literary evidence. Conclusion is that 14 years latter this nationalist narrative (per Bowden 2019) has been dismissed as nonsense.Alexikoua (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way W. Bowden is one of the leading archaeologist working in Albania. Comments such as this [][] are clearly disruptive and unacceptable for building an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that as anonymous editors we should refrain from personalized discussions about sources. W. Bowden is an archaeologist who has worked in the past in late Roman/early Christian archaeology in Albania. He's working in other fields now. He's a reliable source for his field. He's not "one of the leading archaeologists working in Albania" and archaeological work isn't ranked. Every archaeologist works in a specific site for a few years and then moves on to the next in the context of his specific sub-field. The specific comment by Bowden about Pelasgians was not written in his capacity as an archaeologist but as a wider political comment - he writes about Brexit in the same section. The quote is . It's a reference to De Rapper (2009) which discusses how for some Albanian migrants in Greece the "Pelasgian theory" is a strategy to create a narrative about common links with Greeks by presenting the Pelasgians as ancestors of both Illyrians and Greeks. Bowden's comment is related to his politics - it's not archaeological. And it misses the point by De Rapper (2009) as in nationalist thinking the two theories don't contradict each other. If De Rapper (2009) is directly cited, in the "Pelasgian" narrative he describes it's clear that he refers to the experiences of migrants and their strategies of social integration. The comment is political WP:EXTRAORDINARY and shouldn't be added. I don't think that such a sentence can gain consensus. Ktrimi's reaction is justified in this respect because what Bowden believed that De Rapper (2009) wrote doesn't exist as a popular idea in contemporary Albania. If any editor believes that this personal comment about a 2009 ethnographic study should be added, they can start a wider community discussion at RfC. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a good thing that that claim by Bowden was pointed out by Khirurg. I read what Bowden says. He says that not only among Albanian immigrants in Greece, but in Albania too the Pelasgian fantasy is gaining popularity over the Illyrian theory. The claim is very far away from reality. The Pelasgian stuff is in a rapid decline in Albania, while the Illyrian theory is as popular as it has always been. Furthermore, as you said, the Pelasgian stuff and the Illyrian theory have never been seen as two competing alternatives in Albania. The narrative about the Pelasgians has been that the ancestors of the Albanians were Pelasgians who gradually adopted a new name, Illyrians. It is very surprising that someone who writes a book expected to be of academic value writes such things. Now on every claim made by Bowden should be evaluated with extra care before being added to an article. Bowden mentions Wilkes in his argument on the Komani-Kruja culture and notes that Wilkes criticizes Albanian nationalist historians. What Bowden, for a reason or another, does not mention is that while Wilkes, correctly, disagrees with the naive stance of those Albanian historians that the Komani-Kruja was an ethnic Illyrian/Albanian culture, he agrees with them on something. Wilkes says that medieval documents from Shkodra show that the area of the Komani-Kruja culture was a place of interaction between Romanized Christians, proto-Albanians and their Slavic neighbors. The main point of Albanian historians, or at least of serious ones, is that proto-Albanians were present in the area of Komani-Kruja, and Wilkes agrees with this. This is an interesting detail that deserves much more attention by scholars. It could shed light on the context of the Albanian ethnogenesis, and maybe could, at least partially, explain the presence of both Western and Eastern Romance influence in the Albanian language. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Maleshr. I'm afraid you are again into OR territory since W. Bowden is one of the leading archaeologist in Albania, as also pointed out in a 2017 Georg-Eckert-Institut publication:

We should be very careful when screaming in edit summaries: Ridiculous non-sense by the author or Bowden is patent POV. Ktrimi owes a sincere apology for such unacceptable comments, he crossed the line and should self rv per wp:AGF. Bowden is highly respected scholar and he is still writing works about Albania's past.Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that Bowden (2019) is talking about the direct link between the Ancient Illyrians and the Medieval Albanians, he seems not to reject explicitly the possibility of Albanian presence in Komani-Kruja area. He also reports recent research by Nallbani and others, which he considers "relatively uncontroversial". The part about Pelasgians was added by Khirug out of context, since Bowden is referring to the situation of Albanians in relation to Greeks, however the Albanian widespread popular interpretation Pelasgian > Illyrian makes the statement "In Albania the idea of Illyrian ancestry is apparently falling out of favor at a popular level, and is being overtaken by the idea of Pelasgian ancestry" not so reliable. @Alexikoua, Bowden (2019)'s consideration about Komani-Kruja appears not to have been removed. – Βατο (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)