Talk:List of settlements in Illyria

Epirus ,4000 years
You have repeated the same thing many times now.The book's title is this *Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization Megistias (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

you cant read the ref...?it says Hatzopoulos THIS CHAPTER (borders of hellenism) in THIS BOOK (epirus) by THIS PUBLISHER (ekdotike athenon)87.202.1.78 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The title is the one i mentioned and must be entered in that manner and those pages state,

"The situation at the land of the Parthinoi can be traced only at Dimale, which though never explicitly stated to be a city of the Parthinoi, is frequently linked with them at the sources.At this city, Greek inscriptions have been found, written in a north-west Greek or Doric dialect, the institutions mentioned in them are Greek (prytanis,phylarhos), and Greek monumental structures have come to light (a stoa).The onomasticon appears to be mixed, however, with Greek names typical of both Epirus and the Corinthian colonies, and with non-Greek personal names.The very late appearance of Greek elements combined with the fact that the city does not have a Greek name and there is no tradition ascribing its foundation to Greeks, gives the impression that Dimale did not have a Greek charakter from the beggining, but was rather a center or the Parthinoi that was hellenized under the influence of Apollonia on the one had and the kingdom of Epirus on the other." Megistias (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never a city of the Parthinoi explicitly just in their land
 * Gives the appearance of Hellenization not something else.

Dimale
The source Megistias had added is another example of source misrepresentation because it doesn't say anything about founders/colonists in Dimale unlike the other settlements.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Which one you mean? Hatzopoulos? I can confirm this. We can additionally use Hammond.22:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The city was Illyrian by the time historians started documenting it. It's name isn't Greek, but Hammond considers it Greek and the foundation dispute are issues that don't deal with the character of the city. You wouldn't say that as we speak X city in southern France is Greek because it may have been founded by colonists from Corinth for example or that Preveza is an Albanian city because Hammond believes that its founders were possibly Albanians.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Venetic/Ateste part of Illyria?
Were there Venetic cities part of Illyria? I changed the entry "Ateste, Istria" to Ateste, because this is the ancient town located at the site of modern Este, which is not in Istria. Although Pliny mentions Ateste among other cities "in the interior of the tenth region", he doesn't say these are in Istria. Why do we include these cities as Illyrian cities? Coastside (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Methodology
The article should be restructured in two directions:
 * 1)Settlements shouldn't be divided in terms of "ethnicity" of founders because that distinction is very blurry in many cases where different groups co-existed and grouping with ethnicity as the main criterion presupposes that, universally, ethnicity rather than social status was the most important criterion in classical antiquity - that isn't historically accurate. Instead, a geographic-period division is much better both in terms of methodology and for the readers who will get a sense of how the region developed and population centers expanded.
 * 2)The article should be retitled to List of settlements in Illyria. The term cities assumes that all settlements were cities, but no archaeological evidence exists in order to justify its use for most of these settlements. I'll move ahead towards these two directions if no objections are raised.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The move per #2 sounds ok, but a full restructure (#1) is a complicated issue. The current classification is based on geographic-ethnic-chronological features needs to be treated carefully and a detailed proposal is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current classification is confusing because it tries to ethnicize geographical entities, which can't be categorized as we would in the modern world. Now, my proposal is simple: A geographical categorization by country per section + a date of foundation/fl. column + a column about archaeological notes (date of excavation, site identification). The rest is too complex to be discussed in the few words of a list article and as a model it will remove the cause of all possible disputes which may arise in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article needs cleanup and expansion with new bibliography. – Βατο (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you guys think about to add a table in each section with maybe five columns, including "Name", "Established", "Location", "Informations" and "References"? I would say it could bring a clear and comprehensible structure in this article. Greetings :)--Lorik17 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking about something similar. And sections could be categorized by country: Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Slovenia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposed categorisation sounds good to me.--Lorik17 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way I wonder what makes "akrokeraunia" a settlement. I might be missing something here.Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was Bato I guess who put the settlement in the table; he also added a source.--Lorik17 (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a documented inhabited area, there are sources about it. – Βατο (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The provided sources mention the 'keraunian mountains': especially in Cabanes 2008, p. 159&164. There is no information about a settlement known as such on this mountain.Alexikoua (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it as an area settled by ancient peoples, there is also the attested ancient place Ad Acroceraunia near Llogara Pass . – Βατο (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * An "area" settled by ancient peoples does not necessary count as a settlement. By the way the list you provided is not limited to settlements [], there are also 'regions, rivers, etc, as well as mountains. Keraunia was not a settlement, and certainly not an identified one, at least per Cabanes and Wilkes.Alexikoua (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with Ad Acroceraunia. – Βατο (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there was indeed a Chaonian settlement there as stated by Strabo. By the way the same source (Wilkes) questions the identification of Palaeste with Palase.Alexikoua (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The area was inhabited by several peoples, it was a good region for naval harbours. Wilkes added Palaeste's precise coordinates in Pleiades (2012), and there are many sources that indicate its location in that area. Furthermore the modern toponym derived form of the ancient one (Ceka 2011). – Βατο (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the entire area in general that's for sure, though I can't see this information about Ad Acroceraunia specifically.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of widely used maps
Cases of removals of widely used maps should be part of a centralized discussion, especially if they represent identical copies of published works (taken from Cambridge Ancient History volumes). In case we have some sporadic disagreements (Lissus for example wihch can be easily corrected) this can't warrant instant exclusion but a constructive discussion can solve those minor issues.Alexikoua (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * List of the inaccuracies of the map created by Alexikoua:
 * Atintani: wrong location;
 * Dassaretae: are always considered an Illyrian tribe, by ancient authors and by modern scholars;
 * Lissus: Illyrian stronghold that became a Hellenistic Illyrian city;
 * Ardiaei: should be replaced by Labeatae;
 * Enchele: should not be included in the context of the Hellenistic and Roman period;
 * Antipatrea: not located because some identify Berat with Bargulum or with Partha. Furthermore: Antipatrea was first mentioned among the Illyrian Dassaretan strongholds; it later was annexed by Macedonians, Illyrians and Romans;
 * Amantia and Byllis are now considered Hellenized Illyrian cities by contemporary scholars;
 * Chelidones: is the Ancient Greek translation of Taulantioi, not a different tribe.
 * I am not commenting the part about Epirus because it is not related to this article, and the map depicts a very small number of settlements in Illyria. – Βατο (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct these maps and add them wherever it is agreed to add them, but we have all agreed to not discuss very complex issues of "ethnic demarcation" (a concept which didn't really exist in antiquity) here, so (low-quality, user-made) maps which do that shouldn't be added. Localization maps based on contemporary identification of sites are a much better feature for a geographical list article. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, about most of them. However it's weird since you never stated before that "Dasaretae were always considered an Illyrian tribe", in fact you declared that there were two seperate tribes and even created an article about a "seperate second tribe of the similar name" (per wp:AGF I assume you meant some other tribe else you need to propose a deletion request for the article you created).Alexikoua (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a question about the Atintani, though the map presented in Campridge Ancient History is in agreement with the current version: @Bato: can you point to the exact citation/page etc. of a map with the correct locations of those tribes?Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are referring always to Hammond. You should accept the fact that his hypotheses are outdated and begin using more recent publications.
 * Atintani: : "" For the most likely location of the Atintanes, see : "" This is compatible with and.
 * Dassaretae: the Illyrian Dassaretii/Dassaretae are attested since the 3rd century BC and mentioned many times in Roman era, while the Chaonian Dexaroi are attested only in this fragment by Stephanus of Byzantium citing Hecataeus: " But in his work Stephanus mentioned also the Illyrian Dassaretii, citing Polybius: "" The stem of both the tribal names is the Illyrian daksa dassa, "water, sea", but there are not historical data to relate the two tribes because the Dexaroi are attested only in the above fragment.
 * Also, a portion of your map is not related to the subject of this article, and the geographical map should be undeformed. – Βατο (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Iaof is kindly adviced to stop drive-by revert-only activity) Papadopoulos states that Atintates are Greek speakers and that there is a concensus in modern scholarship about this. I understand that various works place each tribe on slightest diferrent location. The specific map is identical with the one in Cambridge University Press, volume 6, p. 423-424. Is there any other map we can rely at least on this issue? You understand that collecting quote here and there isn't the best procedure for creating maps: we need a solid picture (as in the CAH case).


 * As for the non-related part it's certain that all maps in here have some unrelated parts.Alexikoua (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * About S. Kos a more recent publication (2007) Ethnic Manipulations with Veneti and Illyrians places the boundary of the Illyrian tribes in Damastium near lake Lichnidos. This means the Korce plateau (where the label Dassaretae is located in the map) lies out of the Illyrian area:

Alexikoua (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Atintanes wrote in Greek, thus being Greek speakers, but that does not exlude they also spoke other languages (as in the case of other southern Illyrian tribes, i.e. Bylliones, Amantes, Taulantian tribes in the vicinity of Apollonia and Epidamnos). From Pyrrhus' rule until the end of the Epirote State, the Atintanes were considered part of this kingdom, but in Roman times they are considered Illyrian. Their most accepted location have been discussed above. I'm not going to repeat it.
 * The location of Damastion has not yet been identified, and most likely it was in the north-western region of North Macedonia or southern Kosovo. Do you realize how much speculative is your claim? – Βατο (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These maps are the product of original research, outdated claims and extreme POV. They don't reflect what bibliography discusses, so rigth now I'll remove them as they reflect their authors' personal opinions - they don't reflect what is being discussed in bibliography. Bato and Alexikoua can discuss what they want to do with them, but article space is not the place to publish work-in-progress material. The community has already removed one such map on Dimale. The descriptions should also be removed because they increase the article size without providing any new information to the readers.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: It appears you haven't read the discussion so far. The specific map about southern Illyris is taken from the one published in Cambridge Ancient History (Volume 6). So it's far too extreme to say that such highly graded works are non-existent. I've asked Bato (that's the 3rd time) to present an alternative published map about the location of those tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The location of Atintani is not related to this article. I provided reliable sources about their most likely location accepted by the majority of current scholars, you keep ignoring them. Regards. – Βατο (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Just a simple question on geography, if the Illyrian border is located in Damastion (as you admitted is somewhere in nw N.Macedonia/s. Kosovo) how can the plateau of Korce be included in this Illyrian area? That's imposible at least per S. Kos. Unfortunately even Sasel Kos declared that there still a weird refusal among some Albanian scholar to acknoledge that northern Epirus was part of the Ancient Greek world.Alexikoua (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The location of Atintani is based on a published map by the Cambridge Ancient History. There is no need to blame me on this. The most important there is nothing OR on this and rfc (which you are stubbornly refusing) is always open.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is a single 35-year old chapter written by an author (Hammond) whose work has been revised and it's not even represented with any nuance. Such a map has been removed already on Dimale. The map which you have created according to Hammond doesn't reflect what the articles discuss and you haven't made a single change in any map yet. Do the changes (the ones agreed upon at the very least), add contemporary bibliography and we can discuss any map then on articles which discuss such topics. But 35-year-old, outdated, cherry-picked information doesn't belong in article space here. We have agreed that we won't discuss any "ethnicity" aspects on this article because they are too complex for a list article, so no maps which you have created that oversimplify the discussion should be added. We agreed that this will be a geographical article. Why is - a very crude and academically unsound - debate about ethnicity in classical antiquity even happening? Citizen science projects like wikipedia should be open to non-academic debate, but this whole thing is 19th century ethnic map-painting.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also: There were no borders in antiquity in the way you are discussing them. They didn't exist. You're projecting onto the distant past contemporary organization of geographical space.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm whose work has been revised and it's not even represented with any nuance. Sorry that's your personal opinion. We are not here to judge if the University of Campridge publishes OR (?) or POV. It's among the top material we have on the subject and its still widely used in scholarship. May I ask why you are refusing the rfc function? I would avoid accusing institutions such as this one to promote a POV. As S. Kos stated there is a stubborn refusal among some Albanian scholars to accept the southern borders of the Illyrian lands which is the line Acroceraunian - Damastium/near Ohrid. However, this is accepted in scholarship. Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: pardon me but of those maps you removed none of them was ever added in Dimale. I can not understand your accusations. Maybe you thought that you removed another map? Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The map removed in Dimale has the same bibliography and methodology of bibliography as this one and the same issues were raised about its removal. Borders in antiquity didn't exist in the way you are discussing them. Which settlements would you remove from the list? The underlying question here has to do with settlements which you don't consider to be usually included in Illyria. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean that everything that's based on the Campridge Ancient History volumes should be removed without consensus? It appears you need to be precise on why you don't like this specific academic publication. I fail to see where in sholarship this bibliography is "revised or turned obsolete". I'm surprised that Sasel Kos states that some Albanian scholars can not accept this general concensus (i.e. the Acroceraunian-Damastium line).Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked a specific question in relation to a possibly actionable edit. I don't have the time to get into what I consider WP:FORUM discussions. If you want to, you can propose settlements which you would remove from the list and I will reply after I do an overview of bibliography for each of them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the time to explain why you personally dislike Cambridge University publications then I'm sorry but that's not a constructive approach to discredit academic scholarship. The map depicted in Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 6, p. 423-424 meets all wikipedia standarts. I'm still waiting a desent argument how this can't meet wp:RS according to your POV.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, nobody is dicussing CAH, but some old hypotheses proposed by Hammond that have been dismissed or abandoned in mainstream scholarly views. Here is a recent paper by Marie-Pierre Dausse (2015), La Grèce du Nord aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C. : des États puissants aux frontières floues ?:
 * p. 27:
 * footnote 42:
 * footnote 44:
 * p. 28:
 * Your personal map is outdated and very inaccurate, you should accept it. Also don't put forward your personal opinion that the border of Illyria is Damastion, a city that has not yet been located (WP:OR, WP:FRINGE) – Βατο (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well (its the fourth time) I'm asking you to present a specific published map (publication, page etc.). Instead of that you present some very fragmentary quotes here and there. By the way you did not asnwer why a Cambridge Ancient History (I'm not among the authors of this work if you mean that this is my personal map) is WP:OR, WP:FRINGE. You don't believe that some quotes will do the job right? Unfortunately Sasel Kos is quite clear that the Acroceraunian-Damastion line is the southern boundary of the Illyrian tribes and its a quite recent work.Alexikoua (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way as I've imagined there is no clear dissagrement towards Hammond, just saying that bibliography is a bit complex. @Bato: I'm still waiting for a published map so we can challenge the one from CAH.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Why a discussion on maps about settlemtens in Illyria [] is off-topic in an article titled "L. of settlements in Illyria?"?Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bato. Translation:
 * At the start of every chapter, you can check the maps of: The difference with Hammond's methodology is radical. It highlights the great distance which archaeology has covered since his era. All editors now can probably understand why site localization maps are preferable in a list article of such complexity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Contemporary scholarship (of 2018) is very convenient to use Hammond's map of 1989 []. The atintani location is correct. On the other hand there is not an alternative (published) map presented so far. You understand that some fragmentary quotes can't do the job.10:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexi, whether you like it or not, your map is based on outdated hypotheses. If other editors object your personal creation, you have to accept it. Along with all the recent high quality maps included in the source Maleschreiber provided here, some other maps are:
 * fig. 1, p. 495 in
 * fig. 1 p. 6 in
 * fig. 16.1 p. 438 in
 * As you can see in all the maps (including the 2017 Martinez-Sève's one in p. 85), there is not a precise location of Atintani, however all them include the area reported by : "" For the location of Bylliones and Amantes, Ceka's map (2009) is accurate. – Βατο (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure but that's the case of the Greek Atintanes. No problem on this.Alexikoua (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's the case of Roman times Atintani mentioned explicitly as Illyrian in ancient sources (see above) despite the fact that they passed under the rule of the Epirote Kingdom, Illyrian Kingdom, Macedon and Rome . – Βατο (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kos' map does not contain a "Atintani" label. However, I can use Filos map who mentions the Greek Atintanes. Is that ok?Alexikoua (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No because "" is your original research. WP:OR should be avoided in talk pages (WP:NOTAFORUM). Sasel Kos' map does not contain Amantes and Bylliones too, but Ceka's one does. – Βατο (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos mentions: Atintania, Chaonia etc. That's not OR. There will be an indicator that those regions are named after the tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * About Sasel Kos, I remember also the map in "Camdmus and Harmonia" (1993) p. 113. Kos inflates the area of the Enchalea in both maps.Alexikoua (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also this map [] by Wilkes it appears very informative.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will do the appropriate adjustments for a Wilkes based map (we have all tribe names in it). Anyway there is not much to change.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * pp.17-20 - the full list of Wilkes's maps. He includes the entire Prespa region - extending into present-day Greece in what he terms the "Illyrian lands". It highlights the ambiguities which resulted in map-making because of the methodology of fixed borders instead of transboundary regions and the importance of maintaining articles with site localization maps.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This map excludes Palaiste from the Illyrian lands. Well yes there is a tiny part next to Prespa that's in Greece, its hard to notice though. Well I assume Wilkes map [] p. 19 is a good point it's almost ready for addition.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a map of the Illyrian Kingdom. If you want to prepare a map for the Illyrian Kingdom, you can add it there and use in your bibliography. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, I'll point out some things about the map of "The Kingdom of the Illyrians" by Wilkes (1992, Map 3): the Bylliones are now located by most sources on the right (north) bank of the Aoos, not south of Amantia; the area around Scodra was inhabited by Labeatae and not by Selepitani and Dassarenses; Chelidones were identical or part of the Taulantii (one name is the translation of the other, being reported by Stephanus citing Hecataeus, representing early accounts, not Roman times situation) and were not placed in the area at the east of Scodra; the Dassaretae are located more west, like in Sasel Kos (2004, fig. 1, p. 495) because their territory did not include the area around Prespa; the Taulantii stretched from the hinterland of Epidamnus to that of Apollonia like in Sasel Kos (2004, fig. 1, p. 495); the Enchele were an early people which most likely existed along with the Illyrians only until the 6th-5th centuries BC, they were a people which influenced the traditions of many Illyrian tribes in later times, this is the reason why Sasel Kos (2004, fig. 1, p. 495) represents them in that large area, which includes places that attests their presence. – Βατο (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that S. Kos includes the Dexari in her map while Encheclea were not included in her definition as Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * About Ceka and the greater Atintania wp:FRINGE which is taken from his ealier works of the Hoxha-era. I assume you are kidding.Alexikoua (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, if you have some knowledge on the subject, you would understand that Sasel Kos' map in "Cadmus and Harmonia in Illyria" (1993) p. 114 depicts mainly the situation of Hecataeus' era (6th century BC), a time when the Enchele constituted one of the main Kingdoms in southern Illyria. Nobody suggested "greater Atintania", where did you see it? I reported above many sources about the Atintani, because currently there is not consensus on their precise location. On the other hand, we have a widely accepted location for the Amantes and Bylliones, which is that depicted in . – Βατο (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (ignore trolling comments about my knowledge) It's ok I thought you had some objections about the Enchelea. A very informative map about this era by Kos. About Ceka, his Atintani label is complete fringe and is rejected outside Albania. The rest of the labels appear ok, tough are a reproduction of Wilkes.12:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest to use Ceka's loaction for the Atintani because there are many other current views that locate them in different places, no consensus has been reached among scholars. About your personal thought:, are you referring to the the map depicted in ? If yes, I suggest you to provide reliable sources that dismiss Ceka's view presented in his 2009 paper, hence supporting your claim. Otherwise, you must avoid labeling as "complete fringe" the view of a current expert on the subject, because you are an anonymous user, and your personal considerations are completely irrelevant here if not backed by sources. I'm reminding you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. – Βατο (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ceka (Neritan and his father Hasan) presented this theory in several works. This is rejected by scholarship (Hatzopoulos, Cabanes, Papazoglou, Hammond etc.). Let me remind you that "ideologically motivated" views by authors that are mainly politicians and promote Albania's "great Illyrian past" fall directly into wp:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT. Sure let me remind you too that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and works of authors that are primarily involved in politics (either PDIU nationalists or less extremist in ideology) should be used with heavy procaution.Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to discredit some academics because their views are contrary to your personal POV (an anonymous Wikipedia user), you should provide reliable sources that reject the specific views, in particular those of Ceka's 2009 paper. Neritan Ceka is one of the most renowned contemporary Albanian archeologists. I highly recommend you to read carefully all the Wikipedia policy: Reliable sources, because after all your experience in Wikipedia, it seems you have not yet understood the difference between reliability and unreliability, also already suggested you by other editors. This specific discussion can end here, because it falls within WP:NOTAFORUM. – Βατο (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you are fine with S.Kos' Hecateus map.Alexikoua (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fine in the context of the 6th century BC. – Βατο (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I created the Template:Southern Illyria Labeled Map, if you want you can make improvements there. – Βατο (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that the label 'Chaonians' should stretch from Kemara to river Thyamis.Alexikoua (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This. Also shouldn't Dyrrachium be called Epidamnos back then? Dyrrachium is the later roman name for that city. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Did I say unreliable? No, and please don't put again words in my mouth. I've stated that if there is one wp:fringe concept here that is of an inflated great illyrian Atintania stretching all the way down to Dodona. That is considered completely fictional in scholarship. Let me reming you that the one that propagates about unreliability is you about Cambridge Ancient History without even providing the slightest evidence citing decent scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident, I added both names. @Alexi, I did not propagate unreliability of CAH, it is one of the best academic publications, and I widely use it. I added Sasel Kos that considered one specific view of Hammond (two tribes called Atintan- ) less likely than that of considering only one tribe. Also the even more recent Marie-Pierre Dausse says that "This hypothesis seems to have to be abandoned" (thanks @Maleschreiber for the English translation). Cabanes and Papazoglou dismissed that theory years ago. Also Hammond dismissed Papazoglou's theory of a continous Illyrian kingdom from the times of Syrrhas/Bardylis to Gentius. Many scholars accepted Hammond in this case, hence we can't edit articles giving relevance to Papazoglu's theory. The same as the assumption of Bardylis Dardanian affiliation, which is now almost completely abandoned by current scholars. If we have the possibility to update the information in Wikipedia according to mainstream views and using more recent publications, we should do it. – Βατο (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion about the template which Bato created should move there.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Borders of Illyria
I have the feeling that some settlements are out of the wider geographic definition of Illyria so a citation is needed for inclusion for: Scupi, Naisus, Ad Ceraunia etc. Those locations are not included on Wilke's map of Illyria.Alexikoua (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the discrepancy about Naissus in different sources has to do with the difference between the definition of Illyria and the definition of Illyricum. Naissus was definitely in the latter, but not always included in the former. I'm thinking about another category about such sites - Scupi was definitely within Illyria geographically. I agree that settlements like Naissus should not be unambiguously included in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)