Talk:Lynkestis/Archive 1

From "Upper Macedonia" relocated to "near Upper Macedonia & at the borderland between Illyria and Macedonia
I wonder if there is any citation that can support this kind of change as proposed by Maleschr. So far there is no reference that can support this new description. Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of relevant sourced material
you removed relevant sourced material. It is not "off-topic". The events of the early 4th century BC are very important for the history of the topic of this article, and they are widely discussed in bibliography. You can't remove them without proper explanation. – Βατο (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The stuff you added has nothing to do with Lynkestis. This article is about Lynkestis, not Illyrians. See WP:COATRACK. You can't add material that is off-topic. Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The stuff I added is provided by reliable sources describing Lynkestian history. Whether you like it or not, scholars consider those events relevant, and they obviously can be included into the article. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing of what you added has anything to do with Lynkestis specifically. Repeating that it does, without explaining, doesn't change it. What does the stuff about Aeropus have to do with Lynkestis? The stuff about the invasion of 393 and Amyntaslosing his throne only to regain it later? What does that have to do with Lynkestis and the Lynkestians? The stuff about Eurydice being a sister of Bardylis is also nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Molossian tribe
Malkid is a specialist on the issue with endless bibliography on the matter of ethnicity and he points out Hecateus describes them as Molossians. Hammond and Hatzopoulos claim the same.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Roman-era geography about Dassaretis
This source [] states that Dassaretis formed part of Upper Macedonia according to modern research, although it belonged to Epirus. I can provide a full quote on this but the work is accessible (p. 95).Alexikoua (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dassaretis is not considered part of Upper Macedonia or Epirus. Epirus was limited by the Pindus mountains (and more precisely by Mount Qelqëz), while Upper Macedonia, after Philip's expansion was limited to the west by the Tsangon Pass, and in the following years Dassaretis was a dependent territory. On the other hand Dassaretis became part of the Roman administrative region of Epirus Nova, in Macedonia (Roman province), but again within the region of Illyris. This is agreed by almost all contemporary historians. It is similar to Lynkestis, which sometimes is considered Illyrian territory, but most scholars consider it part of Upper Macedonia. Also the selection of the wording "the latter living beyond those lakes" is not appropriate, because Illyrians inhabited around the Lakeland too, not just beyond it. Lynchnidus was an Illyrian center, and the area to the east of Prespa was inhabited by Illyrians too. – Βατο (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The link you gave proves the opposite. In p. 95: According to modern historical research, Upper Macedonia consisted of the regions of Elimiotis with Tymphaea, Lyncestis, Orestis, Pelagonia with Derriopus, Eordaea, Atintania and Dassaretis.. Hmm as clear as it can be. I can't understand why you claim something different. Can you provide the specific quote from the link above that proves that "Roman era Dassaretis was  in Illyria"?Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Means that the specific statement mentioning Dassaretis in passing is unreliable (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). See the large amount of sources in Dassaretii, among them:, which clearly contrast that statement. – Βατο (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how Illyrians inhabited around the shores of Prespa, in fact the source you provided (King) clarifies that Illyrian tribes inhabited a region from "beyond the lakelands to the Adriatic". Simply saying that Prespa area was Illyrian inhabited is too generic and falls into OR. King was careful to stress that in his following sentence.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See: . Obviously also Lychnidus. – Βατο (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are presenting another work, but what makes the previous collective work now obsolete [[[]]]? Anyway you understand that geographic labels are not clear. There is not agreement about where Dassaretis belonged if I can understand. Also, if Tsankon pass was in the Illyrian-Lynkestian border area then how Illyrians dominated both sides of the Prespes? There is a serious geographic discrepancy in this claim. As I can understant King describes them as living 'beyond' the lake-lands in the context of Macedonian geography.Alexikoua (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have full access to [], I'm sorry but there is nothing unreliable about Dassaretis being part of Epirus/Upper Macedonia, the quote is clear on describing modern historical research.Alexikoua (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Are you fine with Hatzopoulos about Dassaretis: "Dassaretis, the transitional area between Upper Macedonia, Epeiros and Illyria"?Alexikoua (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Karamitrou-Mentesidi (2011)' s statement clearly contradicts most scholars. In this article (Lynkestis) there is already included a large amount of recent sources about the regions that were part of Upper Macedonia, and Dassaretis is not among those regions. Not to mention ancient literature, which always consider Dassaretis an Illyrian area. I am not fine with Hatzopoulos: "Dassaretis, the transitional area between Upper Macedonia, Epeiros and Illyria", because it is in an old (20th century) publication that contradicts many of his own publications of the same period and many other scholars. His most updated publication is clear about that (Hatzopoulos 2020, p.214: ). See also the large amount of recently published sources included in the article Dassaretii. Dassaretis off course can't be part of the region of Epirus, because Epirus ended in the Pindus and Mount Qelqëz, while Illyris (including Dassaretis) began north of Pindus. Dassaretis was included in Roman Epirus Nova (and in western Roman Macedonia province), which corresponded to Illyris, it was not included in Epirus Vetus, which corresponded to Epirus. What occurred in historical events like the Illyrian expansion in Macedonia, Pyrrhus expansion in Illyris, Macedonian expansion in Illyris and Epirus, is irrelevant for the traditional definitions of the regions we are talking about. If  "geographic labels are not clear", let's use recently published reliable sources including Epirus and Upper Macedonians in Illyria as well, right? – Βατο (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean updated publication? You understand that this is a short footnote in this work, not a detailed analysis on the region, as it describes it as a "transitional area". The footnote of 2020 does mention the word Dassaretis only once, without any further information. Also, Maramitrou-Mentesidi is a top academic in the field, I wouldn't say that she claims nonsense, while this statement has been adopted in additional research as well. Simply saying that Dassaretis was Illyria is wp:OR. Nevertheless this article isn't about Dassaretis and since there is a serious disagreement in this in schollarship (I hope you agree on that), I suggest leaving it out of the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not "a serious disagreement in this in schollarship", Lynkestis bordered Illyria in the west. Lynkestis was the western-most region of Upper Macedonia. Epirus ended in Pindus, while Dassaretis started north of Pindus. Even Hammond considers Dassaretis an Illyrian canton. Also primary sources are very clear about it, no need for modern POV ahistorical speculations. That statement by Karamitrou-Mentesidi (2011) is WP:FRINGE, and it is proven by the whole huge bibliography in Dassaretii. I can find several top notch western scholars (not of the region) that include Molossians, Chanonians and Upper Macedonia among Illyrians or in Illyria. But it does not change consensus among mainstream western scholarship. I replaced Dassaretis with Illyria, more relevant for the scope of this article. – Βατο (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You still claim that Dassaretis was known as part of Illyria which is contradicted even by sources you provided: Karamitrou states that Dassaretis is part of Epirus/Macedonia, Hatzolpoulos states that it was a transitional area and he is very detailed on this. It's the second time you add a source (1st time Karamitrou's publication and then King) that do not support your point. But I really can't understand why you don't admit that there is not disagreement at all in scholarship. Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

IP edits
you restored POV content and outdated sources in the lede that have been added by an IP. I reverted your edits. This is not the first time you restore IP additions, if you repeat this kind of behavior, administrators will be informed. Also, WP:Trivial mentions is not a policy/guideline, it is an essay completely unrelated to this case. As for the "contradict itself" argument, it is not correct. No ancient author referred to them expressly as "Epirotes", and Vasilev (2011)'s statement is reliable about this. The fact that Hecataeus included them among "Molossians" is another thing, and it is already included into the article. As for Strabo, I checked the primary source and added the original quote provided by Jaupaj with his French translation. Strabo lists them among the Illyrians after the Enchelei, in perfect agreement with De Angelis 2020. Hammond's opinions are highly speculative and outdated, don't restore them. In older sholarship there are different descriptions of the Lyncestae, also contrasting with Hammond's, but we should not rely on older scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, first of all, I can restore whatever edits I see fit, IP or not not, and if you have a problem with that, you can inform as many administrators as you want. It's not the first time you threaten to do this, so go ahead. In fact, if there is a reason for admins to be informed, it's your incessant edit-warring, here and at other articles.The Molossians are Epirotes, and now the lede contradicts itself. This is completely unacceptable. There is simply no way this can stand. Don't bother edit-warring over it because you'll just be wasting everyone's time. And the quote from Strabo shows the IP editor has a point: Strabo does not explicitly mention them as Illyrians. Mentioning them next to the Enchelei does not automatically mean they are Illyrians. There is nothing wrong with Hammond's "opinions", unless you can find a source that explicitly contradicts them. If there was I'm sure you would have mentioned it 100 times in the article already how they spoke "Illyrian". Khirurg (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your restoration of IP edits to push a POV into the article can be seen as a case of bypassing the WP:3RR, if it will be repeated in another article be sure that administrators will be informed. As for the addition of language according to Hammond's opinion, Illyrians and Macedonians did not speak a "dialect of Greek". Hammond's opinion is based on his hypothesis of Lyncestae's Epirote ties, which is one of the three that are currently present into the lede, highlighting his suggestion is definetly WP:UNDUE. As for Strabo, his passage can well be interpreted as including the Lyncestae among Illyrians, and De Angelis (2020)'s publication is a recent reliable source. On the other hand it can't be interpreted as considering the Lyncestae an Epirote tribe as suggested by Hammond, and Vasilev (2011) is clear about it: . – Βατο (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary linguistic claims by non-linguists
Vickers & Petiffer are not linguists (the source they're citing Mikulcik is also a non-linguist). In fact they are not even specialists in ancient history since their field of focus is modern politics but that's not the case here: they present a possible linguist explanation in contradiction to specialized scholarship .Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed this addition, the source used is unreliable. As for the tag, Eichner (2004) is clear: "" Also De Angelis (2020): "". This has already been discussed in the past. – Βατο (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , before reverting, you should discuss your edits here. – Βατο (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't remove again something without explanation because you personally dislike it. Lyncus was designated as part of the middle Bronze Age area of proto-Greek speakers, see also Katona, Sakelaiou who are very detailed on that matter. I have also added Crossland which also names Lyncus as an area of Proto-Greek settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato: You are kindly requested to name those ancient sources that label Lycenstians as Illyrians. Abstract descriptions of 2004 and 2020 are not ancient sources. Also both Thucidides and Stravo don't label them among Illyrians. Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Page Publishing Inc is not a reputable publisher, don't reinsert it again. As for the area of Proto-Greek, you should use recent sources that specifically discuss Lynkestis in relation to it. Concerning the tag, Eichner is clear, and De Angelis' quote is in agreement. They are scholars specializing on this subject. I have not to search for ancient sources that mention Lynkestians to verify WP:reliable sources. If you find some that contradict their statement, report them and we can discuss. – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you again (since you avoid to answer) which 'later ancient sources describe them as Illyrians?' No answer means all of this needs to be removed. Modern authors make errors that's why we should correct them (see your response on removing Pliakou for example). Also Crossland is reliable (you'd added him in the past in various articles) don't removed him again.Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Eichner is correct about the Antitantes (they were later labelled Illyrians by Appian) but wrong about the Lyncestes. Perhaps Bato maybe find something in ancient literature to confirm that (Bato has excellent knowledge of ancient literature and I have to congratulate him, even correcting modern scholars when making errors as in the past about Pliakou interpreting fragments from Hecateus). Well modern authors aren't immune to errors.Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Crossland belongs to older sholarship, you can't use it if not discussed by current researchers. Since you stated that Katona support it as well, add that source. nope, the burden to search for ancient sources that contradict the scholar's information lies on you, I've already spent much time to correct many of your mistakes in the past, and at that time the burden was on me. – Βατο (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This addition belongs to the information provided by Thucydides, not the later authors. As you added it, it is original research and source misrepresentation. Eichner states: " – Βατο (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are making your own rules and that's not good (there is no rule to remove Crossland since newer scholarship agrees, you have used him in several articles and continue to use even older works). By the way it's good that you admit that no later ancient sources describe them as Illyrians. Don't edit war about something you can't support. I've asked precisely about that and you ... indirectly agree. Modern authors are making errors and in this case we need to correct those errors since there is not a single ancient author that describes this tribe as Illyrian. All ancient authors describe them as either Epirote (Molossian) or Macedonian not Illyrian. There is a mountain of specialized scholarship on the issue not that has knowledge of ancient authors.  Alexikoua (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * no, I am keeping one standard, and contrasting repetitive double standards by you. Since according to you Crossland is supported by recent scholarship, it will be easy to add those recent sources. Did you find ancient sources that contradict Eichner's statement? Without actual evidence of scholar's error, you can't remove it based on your personal opinion. The Macedonian and Molossian affiliation is according to Hecataeus and Thucydides, not later sources. – Βατο (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Unkownsolidier restored an unreliable source published by Page Publishing Inc, they should revert it because it is not an improvement. – Βατο (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay let's just put it like that for now. The same thing applies to you when you always cite sources by unknown historians written in foreign languages that go in favour with the history of the Illyrians. As I said before, this is Wikipedia which means that we have to be objective and neutral. Unkownsolidier (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The same thing applies to me, and I always cite sources published by reputable publishing houses mainly focusing on academic research. The language of the source is irrelevant for reliablility criteria. – Βατο (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lyncestea as Illyrian
Well there is an agreement that not a single ancient author claimed that. But even modern scholarship avoids this extraordinary claim. After all Upper Macedonia was a culturally compact region and certainly not 'Illyrian'. 1. Everett L. Wheeler mentions the name 'Lyncestae' only once in his bibliography so it's certainly a case of error (that work is focused on military tactics and history btw). 2. Petiffer and Vickers (who are not specialized in ancient history neither linguistics) claim that Thucydides (II 9.2) and Strabo (VII, 323) mention that Lyncestea were... Illyrian. Well there is nothing close to that in those ancient authors. V&P are prone to errors as in the case of the so-called Illyrian etymology. Objections?Alexikoua (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such agreement, no scholar support your opinion so far. yeah, sure, again according to Alexikoua's unfounded opinion. Upper Macedonia had been dominated by Illyrians for centuries before the Rise of Macedon, it certainly was under the influence of Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As for Pettifer and Vickers, it is a reliable source that analysed the current archaeological research of the region, and they do not, it is your source falsification, which is highly disruptive, even in talk page. You have already misrepresented Eichner, if you persist with this disruptive bahavior I will not take seriously any of your arguments. – Βατο (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vickers has also labeled Illyrian all tribes living in western Balkans (Thesprotians for exapmle and you name it both Strabo and Thucydides don't classify L. as Illyrian). I don't understand what makes you believe that this is historically correct. Authors are prone to errors and V&P in the case of ancient history provide several serious errors. Even the specific quote you are citing is completely wrong since it provides an etymology not based on linguistic research. Any further objection to remove that wp:FRINGE?Alexikoua (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You already removed the linguistic information. The rest is reliable information and you can't remove it, even if you would like it so you can push your specific POV. – Βατο (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This edit is not, the author states: "". You should restore the content as per the source. – Βατο (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thesprotians are not Illyrians so the same author (whose not specialized on ancient history) also terms L. as Illyrian in contrast to the rest of the scholarship. Also its dishonest to pretend that Strabo and Thuc. label them as Illyrian. They actually claim the opposite.
 * This edit is important to clarify that Illyrians were invaders in the region (its about military domination per context). The same authors is clear that the L. were not Illyrians. Also the expression 'for centuries' should be replaced to something more precise. Alexikoua (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They were not "invaders", they could have dominated the region with the agreement of the other population. This is your original research, the information should be provided as per the source. – Βατο (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Invading does not necessary mean that the natives have not agreed on this occupation. Fact is that the region was not Illyrian and this 'Illyrian dominated' description without appropriate context is wp:OR. The local tribes of Upper Macedonia witnessed Illyrian domination but implying something about 'Illyrian region' is unacceptable and falsification of the sourced material.Alexikoua (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I've just checked Strabo (7-7.8) it's not surprising that nothing connects L. to Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The so-called 'Illyrian domination' part is just a brief description of the following passage: As early as the 7th century BC Illyrian raids against Argead Macedonia inevitably also involved the Upper Macedonian regions of Lynkestis, Orestis, Eordaea, Elimea and Tymphaea, because they were located between Illyrian territory and the lands of the Argeads, who were based at Aegae. Well this needs merging.Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's again your original research, the source states: "" It uses "dominated", not "conquered". – Βατο (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * your original research and POV wording here is not an improvement and will be removed. There are several present-day scholars who consider the Lynkestae as an Illyrian tribe, but above all there is factual evidence that Illyrians had influence in this area before the Rise of Macedon. It is not excluded by the other information, and it is not an "unclear theory" at all. – Βατο (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato: There are several present-day scholars who consider the Lynkestae as an Illyrian tribe Ok go on. Vicker isn't focused on antiquity if you mean that (not to mention countless errors by interpretting Strabo and Thuc.). However, counting ancient scholars on that the is... zero.Alexikoua (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pettifer and Vickers are not historians, archeologists, or scholars of antiquity of any kind. They are unable to interpret ancient sources or archeological findings. A source Lakes and Empires in Macedonian History: Contesting the Waters tells the story of Psarades, a lakeside village in Macedonian Greece on the shores of the Prespa lake should not be used to make claims about the Lynkestians, especially when these claims are at odds with the rest of scholarship on the subject. Khirurg (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The information provided by Pettifer and Vickers is not at odds with the rest of scholarship on the subject. Lynkestis was a region under the dominion of Illyrians for centuries, and Lynkestians themselves are considered Illyrians by a number of present-day historians. Btw, why did you not state the same for George C. Papavizas's source: Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862-2004? I already know, because of double standards by you. – Βατο (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Under the dominion of Illyrians" does not mean that they were Illyrians themselves. Egypt was under the dominion of Greeks for centuries, but that does not make Egyptians Greeks. I did not add Papavizas anywhere, nor was I even aware of tat source's existence until you mentioned it. So tone down the WP:ASPERSIONS. We both know very well that if I used a source like vickers to claim that this or that tribe was "Epirote", you would revert instantly. The claim by vickers is not just that they were under the dominion of Illyrians, but that Lyncestis was an area of original Illyrian settlement. Btw, the same author claims the Thesprotians were "Illyrians" in one of her other works. No way. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The author is not only Vickers, but also Pettifer, the source provides detailed information in accordance with recent research, and it just display the obvious Illyrian influence on this region during their dominion in the Iron Age. As for the sources, it is not the first time you use double standards, a clear example was Stocker (2009). – Βατο (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And which source did you remove? Obviously only the one that you don't like . – Βατο (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like Vickers, Pettifer is a political analyst, not a linguist, historian, archeologist or scholar or antiquity of any kind. Suppose someone used a source like that to claim that "Amantia" was a "center of Epirote settlement" and a "stronghold of Epirote conservatism". We both know what would happen: You would revert within seconds. The "Illyrian influence" and "domination" are already mentioned in the article, and I did not remove them. In fact, I restored "Illyrian domination" as you requested (some gratitude would be nice). But, to claim that Lynkestis was a "center of Illyrian settlement" and a "stronghold of Illyrian conservatism" is a very different, and much stronger claim than just "domination". That would require high caliber sources, not two political analysts writing about a modern day village. Khirurg (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And which source did you remove? Well yes, I only removed Vickers and Pettifer because that it what we are discussing. I am not aware of any issues with any other sources. Khirurg (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The issues with other sources have been already highlighted, an unreliable publication by Page Publishing Inc (Luttenberger 2019) and a source by a non-historian (Papavizas 2015), claiming the region as a Proto-Greek area. They should be removed or at least replaced with better sources as well. – Βατο (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I will tag the relevant passages, and if better sources are not found, I will eventually remove them. Khirurg (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The original research wording "As such Illyrian raids were dominant on Upper Macedonia from the early Iron Age." is ridicoulous. Come on, you can do better. – Βατο (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I did not add that. But, it's an easy fix. Khirurg (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That obviously was not referred to you @Khirurg, you have not edited the article when I wrote it. – Βατο (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Roissman (2011) reads that Illyrian raids in Upper Macedonia occurred from an early period in Iron Age. The word 'raids' does not imply a domination of permanent character. Simply saying 'domination' one has in mind permanent political control but we know that the small local entities retain their status.Alexikoua (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Khirurg's wording is good enough, although it is a Wp:synthesis of two different sources. As for the inclusion of Lynkestes among Epirotes, Vasilev (2011) is clear about it: "Matters are different with the Lyncestae. On the one hand, there is no ancient author who considers them as Epirotae; on the other hand, Thucydides, in addition to numbering them among the Macedonians, even refers to them as Λυγκησταἰ Μακεδόνες." The inclusion among Molossians by Hecataeus does not necessarily indicate that Lynkestes were Epirotes, because they could have been under the authority of the Molossians in the 6th century BC. Indeed, Thucydides considers them Macedonians in the 5th century BC. – Βατο (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By second thought this 'domination' should be replaced with Roismanns detailed description: 'raids' and 'looting' are appropriate terms and can't be replaced with 'domination'.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Filos 2018, referring to the Epirote tribes Strabo (Geogr. 7.7.1, 7.7.8) who wrote on the basis of previous historians, such as Hecataeus, Theopompus and others, points to 14 tribes instead, since one must also take into account here three more tribes (Λυγκησταί, Πελαγόνες, Ἐλιμιῶται) which most classical
 * and contemporary authors considered Macedonian. From this, it is quite clear that Strabo considered them Epirotes. Khirurg (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Read Strabo and see that he never mentions Lynkestes near any of the secured Epirote tribes. On the other hand he clearly lists them near secured Illyrian tribes. Filos just makes a suggestion: "since one must also take into account here three more tribes (Λυγκησταί, Πελαγόνες, Ἐλιμιῶται)", indeed no ancient author considered them expressly as Epirotes, which has been already pointed out by Vasilev (2011). I reworded the content according to the sources. – Βατο (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I restored alternative views and added other sources, removed from lede undue suggestions developed from only one of the several theories, fixed unsourced editorial bias. If some editors persist in removing alternative scholarly views or presenting them with biased wording, and in providing disputed opinions as facts, a POV tag will follow, and the issue will be brought to the community's attention. – Βατο (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Filos clearly states that most later ancient sources consider them Macedonians, so that should stay. Feel free to bring it as much to the community's attention as you want, that ia an excellent idea. Khirurg (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Matt-painted pottery
There have been added content about matt-painted pottery presumably from Lynkestis, but the source does not directly support it. And above all, that information is used to push the POV narrative: It is inaccurate, because matt-painted pottery was widespread in the Balkans in that period, and it can't be exclusively associated with one or another of the neighboring ancient peoples: Sources should not be misused like that. – Βατο (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lima (2020):
 * Archibald 2012:.
 * You removed relevant material without any serious explanation. Also both sources you present refute nothing at all; they are simply irrelevant to western Macedonia (?) and the local Matt-painted varieties. I assume you owe a sincere apology and restore the removed parts. Please be careful.Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Provide the quotes here and we can see whether that source directly relates Matt-painted pottery to Lynkestis. As for the sources I cited, they are relevant to the whole Balkans, including Illyria, Macedonia and Epirus, as well as southeast Italy, and as per them, the POV narrative you added can't stay. – Βατο (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is online and the region defined is centered on Lyncestes. What you presented is irrelevant to Western Macedonia. I don't know why you insist on that unexplained pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether matt-painted pottery was found specifically in Lynkestis or another area. What I presented is relevant to the matt-painted pottery of the whole Balkans, and the narrative you added can't stay because it is inaccurate. – Βατο (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That edit is too weird: [] removing information that the Mollosians were Epirotes as... inaccurate. I suggest we restore the pre-12h version without further notice.Alexikoua (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That eddit is not weird at all, and I added Vasilev (2011) for clarification. – Βατο (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As per wp:AGF before restoring the cited text, I provide the full context:

This view is also supported by several historians old and new (Pliakou etc.) I believe that a more detailed text should be restored in order to avoid further doubts. There is also sad that top graded historians are removed (Karamitrou-Mentessidi) with the excuse that they simply don't meet a specific pro-Illyrian POV.Alexikoua (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source does not state that they have been found in Lynkestis. And matt-painted pottery did not spread only as far as Korçe, read the other sources above. This based on the quote you mentioned above is in contradiction with Lima (2020):  – Βατο (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it's stated at the very start and it's in bold (look above) and it's also defined in detail on next page of the publication (no need to over-repeat). So stop making personal assumptions about statements adopted by a huge number of mainstream scholars. Everything else is just POV and has no place here since Lima doesn't even mention a single place in Western Macedonia (the region which this pottery style is centered). I don't know why you present irrelevant comments that are hardly related here. Your argument is far too weak on this. Guess you can understand that.Alexikoua (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At the very start it is stated only that
 * Since that source speaks about the matt-painted pottery of Albania and the other regions, what is POV is the narrative you added. As per Lima so  is inaccurate. – Βατο (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lima and pottery centered in Albania is an irrelevant topic here and you know that. Different regions display different pottery styles; so simple: Lima doesn't mention a single place in West Macedonia which is the case here, so stick to the subject. By the way it's really weird to ague in favor of Petiffer-Vickers (who aren't event historians on ancient history) or for non-existent ancient authors about so-called Illyrian Lyncestae while at the same time expressing wp:OWN against a large number of scholars. Take in account that the above publication (Iordanidis, Garcia-Guinea, Karamitrou-Mentessidi (2018))_ is a collective work written by top-graded historians on western-Macedonian ancient history. Avoid adding any further irrelevant information please. Alexikoua (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, but the source does not even speak about matt-painted pottery in Lynkestis. Let alone providing the description into the article as you did. – Βατο (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lynkestis is linked with the appearance and spread of that kind of pottery.Alexikoua (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If no specific distinctions between all these areas: and specifically a clear description of the presumable findings in Lyncestis are provided by the source, you can't add  because it would directly contradict Lima 2020 and to some extent Archibald 2012. – Βατο (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That type of pottery is directly linked with the findings in Upper Macedonia and Lynestis: As such the features of the specific pottery type is relevant to Lyncestis (I fail to see any mention in Lima and Archibald about Upper Macedonia or Lyncestis).Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * which features?
 * That source refers to regions also referred by Lima 2020 and Archibald 2012 (read their quotes above, they are very clear), indeed the text that precedes "" is "". Also, the content you added makes a misleading exclusive ethnic identification of matt-painted pottery that was found throughout the Balkans and southeast Italy, ignoring the fact that it was actually a common style across different areas. If you wish to make exclusive connections for Lynkestis (if they exist), you have to provide sources specifically about a direct analysis of presumable matt-painted findings form this specific region by showing putative differences from the other regions and similarities to others. – Βατο (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies on you, but so far this collective work points to Upper Macedonia and names Lyncestis among the Greek kingdoms. Lima deals with a different kind of pottery and findings unearthed from different sites (not the north-western matt-painted ware or Doric ware, or Boubousti ware"). That simple. Alexikoua (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I proved that your addition is misleading by citing Lima 2020 and Archibald 2012, who discuss same regions as the one discussed by the source you used: "" Again: if you wish to make exclusive connections for Lynkestis (if they exist), you have to provide sources specifically about a direct analysis of presumable matt-painted findings form this specific region by showing putative differences from the other regions and similarities to others. – Βατο (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lima and Archibald describe a different kind of pottery and findings unearthed from different sites (not the one called north-western matt-painted ware or Doric ware, or Boubousti ware). Lima also deals with a different time period since Vitsa is a much later site. Lyncestis is included in the definition of Upper Macedonia, the author is clear on that. Cheers.Alexikoua (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what is this ""? – Βατο (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's from the source you want to remove (Iordanidis, Garcia-Guinea, Karamitrou-Mentessidi (2018)) it ain't Lima, Archibald (who don't mention that area). Alexikoua (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They do mention that area: Lima (2020): " Archibald 2012: "" You can't ignore them. The source you used mentions several regions before the claim: "" So that claim is very dubious in relation of the previously mentioned regions, unless you want to ignore the other sources. – Βατο (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is this "exact wording" in the source? Can you please provide the quote? – Βατο (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato take a deep breath and think that not all Balkan red-wares fall under the same definition. Lima & Archbald describe a different type, found in different sites throughout Balkans and deal with a different period (from early 1st millennium BC). Name me one site from western Macedonia they mention? They are not idiots not to mention a single site while this era showed the highest concentration of that type.Alexikoua (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regions and periods of all those sources clearly overlap, I added several times the quotes above, but you keep ignoring them, read here: ". Btw, you have not provided yet the quote I requested to verify the "exact wording". – Βατο (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * " Scholars both earlier and modern believe it was manufactured by the northwestern Greek tribes" can't be degraded as "hypothesis". Scholarship uses modern scientific methods to draw precise conclusions and this conclusion here is not a hypothesis. Such an interpretation is at disruptive and turns scholarship completely useless. Don't do that again Bato.Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you are POV pushing dubious hypotheses as widely accepted facts, I will restore the dubious tag. Btw, why did you remove the information about Herodotus? It is integral to the statement of the source: "Scholars both earlier and modern believe it was manufactured by the northwestern Greek tribes, Herodotus's 'widely roaming nation' (1.56)." You can't exclude part of it. – Βατο (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored the part about Herodotus, if it is excluded again, the paragraph will be entirely removed to avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING. The tag dubious remains until a more appropriate wording is provided to readers, in light of the sources provided above. – Βατο (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Non specialist source and fringe addition
I wonder why a publication called "The appellation of the Albanians in the High Middle Ages" can be considered a specialist work on antiquity. Needles to say that non-specialist sources should be treated with high precaution especially if they provide wp:FRIDGE and contradict the entire scholarship on ancient history. Alexikoua (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree, that source should not be used here. Khirurg (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"Inaccurate and untrue source"
User:Unkownsolidier labelled a top notch source like Lippert&Matzinger (2021) as an "inaccurate and untrue source", without even understanding what that source actually says:  "" The source talks about which ancient authors have attested the names of tribes regarded by those modern scholars as Illyrians. The user also removed Vasilev (2011)'s accurate information: "" The content will be restored, and if the user persist unbalanced editing by removing alternative scholarly views or presenting them with biased wording breaching the Neutral point of view, he will be reported to the community's attention. – Βατο (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes because this is completely untrue. The source explicitly states that "there is NO ancient author who considers them as Epirotae". What about Hecateus of Miletus, huh? He clearly classifies them as Molossians, so does, by most accounts, Strabo. Please show a bit of understanding. Unkownsolidier (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the other one falsely quotes Thucydides as describing them as "Illyrians". Thucydides considered them Macedonians. Unkownsolidier (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lippert&Matzinger (2021) did not state that "Thucydides considered them Macedonians", but Thucyrides mentioned some of the tribes that those scholars consider Illyrian. And you should know, before labelling their scholarly publication "inaccurate and untrue source", that Andreas Lippert and Joachim Matzinger are among the most renowned experts. As for Vasilev (2011), another expert, he clearly states "no ancient author who considers them as Epirotae". Hecateus of Miletus describes them as Molossians, not expressly "Epirotae". Vasilev's information still remains accurate. As for Strabo, he lists a series of tribes, and he does not describe Lynkestes as "Epirotes" or "Molossians", he does not even mention Lynkestes near any of the secured Epirote tribes. On the other hand he clearly lists them near secured Illyrian tribes. But Filos' suggestion that they must be taken into account in Strabo's list has already been included with its due weight. – Βατο (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, at the start of that section of his book he states "The Amphilochians are Epeirotes; and so are the peoples who are situated above them and border on the Illyrian mountains, inhabiting a rugged country — I mean the Molossi, the Athamanes, the Aethices, the Tymphaei, the Orestae, and also the Paroraei and the Atintanes, some of them being nearer to the Macedonians and others to the Ionian Gulf."￼ Link. Thereafter, he points out "These people, I say, were not ruled by men of native stock; and the Lyncestae became subject to Arrabaeus, who was of the stock of the Bacchiads (Eurydice, the mother of Philip, Amyntas' son, was Arrabaeus' daughter's daughter and Sirra was his daughter)." Understood? Unkownsolidier (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you not cite the whole passage of that translation? Leave the scholars the work to interpret it, Wikipedia editors should not make WP:original research by cropping some parts of the whole primary source and making their own conclusions about them in contrast to reliable secondary sources. As per WP:PST: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." And since there are different and with equal weight academic opinions on the matter, as per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Understood? – Βατο (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lippert&Matzinger (2021) was removed again by User:Unkownsolidier with this explanation: . As already stated, Lippert and Matzinger are not someone who "do not know the basis of the topic", they are renowned scholars specifically focusing on the subject. Their book is one of the fiew academic monographies entirely dedicated on Illyrians. Furthermore, the information they provide is not what the removing editor thinks. As already explained, they are reporting the ancient authors who documented the names of ancient tribes that are regarded Illyrian by Lippert and Matzinger. The source is used into the article to support which modern scholar regard Lynkestes as Illyrians, and Lippert and Matzinger are among them. If the removing editor keeps thinking that it is not a reliable source even after those explanations, he has to take it to WP:RSN. – Βατο (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato you need to brush up your German: the source you provided does not claim that Lyncestae were Illyrian (Matzinger simply states they Illyrians were mentioned in the context of Lyncestae but that's a different story). No wonder Thucydides names the Lyncestae 'Macedonians'. I ask you again: provide one primary text that claims that Lyncestae were Illyrians. No wonder you avoid that (though you have very good knowledge and access on the primary material) because the result is zero. For future reference  Thucydides' Atintanians were also non-Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't "need to brush up my German", you need to read the whole source to understand it. I have not to provide you primary sources, I have provided several reliable secondary publications who consider that Strabo, Livy, Pliny, etc. consider them Illyrians. You may not like it, but it is what those modern scholars state. Thucydides' Atintanians were also non-Illyrians, but they were also non-Greeks. – Βατο (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Illyrerbegriff ist zu finden" can you translate this part? In case you don't understand the language of the source avoid using it in a disruptive manner. For future reference Matzinger doesn't say they were Illyrians. You can also read Thucydides since there is nowhere such claim to be find.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also from this quote: "era una principessa della stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" we can not be conclude that Lyncestaens were Illyrians. Am I missing something? Princesses don't necessary share a common ancestry with the local population especially when they intermarry with foreign nobility. It appears that a major clean up is needed in the so-called Illyrian origin.Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That part refers to Herodotus: If you read the whole source, it is talking about the attestation of Illyrian tribes. So yes, Lynkestes are considered Illyrians by Lippert and Matzinger, and that source will be restored. – Βατο (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The description "stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" means Illyrian lineage of Lynkestes, so Rossignoli too considers Lynkestes Illyrians. If you are considering to remove reliable sources just because you don't like some scholars' views, know that you can't do it. – Βατο (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It states about the mention of the term Illyrians (Illyrianbegriff?). Please avoid this unprovoked misuse of sourced material. No wonder Thucidides never claims they were Illyrians. Rossignoli also refers to the specific princess' lineage (not the tribe). Be carefull on that.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also about this source: Silberman, Alain; Zehnacker, Hubert (2015). Pline L'Ancien. Histoire naturelle. Livre IV. Collection des universités de France (in French). Vol. 409. A full citation of this collective (tertiary) work is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Silberman & Zehnacker 2015, p. 190: is not a tertiary. Your attempt to discredit reliable sources that you don't like is unacceptable. You have to open a WP:RSN request before removing them. – Βατο (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've though it's a brief summary of Pliny's work by the editors (and non- historians_. Bato: why you use 3rd grade sources on such topics? Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wheeler 2017, a work focused on military history mentions the name Lyncestae just once. But fact is that all the presented sources here are either mispresented or the author is just passing by that name. I assume that we need specialist sources on the matter. Objections?Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are literally discrediting all the sources that don't suit your POV, but you have to take them to the WP:RSN. – Βατο (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you refer to WP:RSN why don't begin with specialist sources on the subject? Matzinger and Rossignoli don't mention anything about Illyrian Lyncestae. They are both very specific on their descriptions (the former point on the context on use of the term Illyrian (hence lllyrianbegriff) and later point to the lineage of a princess).

They couldn't have been too stupid to falsify the primary material in such obvious case.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we believe that Matzinger interpreted also those tribes as Illyrians then I admit you have a severe problem of understanding the specific quote. Bato try to translate this quote carefully word by word. Matzinger is a very experienced scholar and unfortunately he doesn't mean that all those tribes were Illyrian. 22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would avoid such description of scholars as per WP:BLP. They are all reliable specialist sources on the subject. Lippert&Matzinger could be not so direct in their statement, but Rossignoli directly states "Illyrian lineage of Lynkestes", and cannot be subject to any interpretation. Now, as already stated, if you think that all those sources that don't suit your POV are unrelible, take them to the WP:RSN. The discussion is going round in circles and falling into FORUM. – Βατο (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are actually in deep confusion by heavily misinterpreting scholarly material: on the one hand you claim that: Matzinger claims that Lyncestae were ... Illyrians based on Thucydides, while one the other you present Eichner 2004 who claims that ... Lyncestae were Illyrians because Thukydides nennt noch andere Stämme, die in späterer Quelle als illyrisch gelten, wie die Lynkester. That's not consistent editing. Stick to the source. FORUM applies to you here.Alexikoua (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The full quote reads "era una principessa della stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" but for an unknown reason Bato insists to present only "stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" as a quote in order to present a different meaning. That ain't gonna work. Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What different meaning? Doesn't that source describe the Lynkestes as Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Theopompus
Theopompus is not documented to have mentioned the Lynkestes, why did you add the original research "Theopompus (4th century BC) included them among the Molossians"? – Βατο (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Strabo, quotes, unexplained removals

 * There is uncertainty about Strabo, and a note clarifies it: Why are you adding "while Strabo included them among the Epirotes"? It is an addition that breaches WP:NPOV.
 * As for the quotes, Worthington states: p. 6: p.13:  On the other hand I failed verification in google books about the mention of Lynkestis/Lyncus in this source Timothy, Reames & Carol 2008, pp. 5–6. Hence a quote is needed to see if the source is appropriate for inclusion in this article or not.
 * An explanation should be provided for the removal of the well sourced text "Lynkus had also Illyrian elements." – Βατο (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's from Billows, which you have added elsewhere. The explanation is needed why you are adding the same material twice in the article. Regarding Strabo, it's sourced not just to Hammond, but also Templar. Khirurg (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Billows is added where it is needed to secure balanced content, because the material added by Alexikoua is misleading if not mentioning what Billows states. Whether the information about Strabo is sourced with Templar or not is irrelevant, because that source is one among many mentioned in the note, and the statement "while Strabo included them among the Epirotes" obviously breaches WP:NPOV. Why should the sources supporting that Srabo includes them among Epirotes prevail over those that support that Strabo includes them among Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But the note you have added is unbalanced because it gives undue emphasis to Vasiliev's claim, without attribution. There are now multiple sources that state Strabo included them among the Epirotes, versus only Vasiliev. Vasiliev's claim is that there is no ancient author who considers them as Epirotae is now directly contradicted by two sources, as well as Hecateus himself. Is there another source that backs Vasiliev? Because it's starting to look increasingly likely that Vasiliev is incorrect. Regarding Billows, you can't add the same material twice ("Early period" section and "Lynkestian kingdom" section). Pick one. Otherwise others can do the same and the article will become an ureadable mess. Khirurg (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Better an "ureadable mess" than breaching WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable. As for Strabo, he does not directly describe Lynkestes as an Epirote tribe, read the primary reported above if you want to verify yourself. And even Hecataeus includes them among Molossians, but not directly describing them as "Epirotes". Vasilev's claim remains accurate. Also, this recent addition "however the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians viewed Illyrians as a common enemy." is undue out of context material in the lede, added to allegedly balance the previous statement: "The few existing primary sources show that it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads", which however, is a fact within a specific context and could be further clarified "before the rise of Macedon". – Βατο (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding the same material from the same source multiple times is not NPOV, it is the exact opposite. The are far more sources that connect the Lynkestians with Macedonia, and I could easily do the same thing, but I don't for the sake of encyclopedicity. The Molossians are Epirotes, everyone knows this. We can't have the article contradict itself with things like "Hecateus describes them as Molossians but no ancient author describes them as Epirotes". That would be unencyclopedic and confuse the readers, and that is non-negotiable. In spite of this, I left your note in there, even though I shouldn't. The addition to the lede is essential, otherwise it is unbalanced and POV. The alternative would be to remove that sentence entirely, which would be ok with me. Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Vaislev does not provide much, we can agree in removing his statement from the note and including in it only that . As for the rest you reverted in this edit, you should restore it. – Βατο (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem restoring the Roisman quote, but regarding Billows, you have to decide where that should be included: Early Period or Lynkestian Kingdom. I can't agree to have the same material appear twice. Khirurg (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Templar states: . Please don't remove cited information. Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, explain what is unbalanced and POV, please? The addition "however the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians viewed Illyrians as a common enemy." is an out of context erroneous comment because we know that Lynkestes allied with Illyrians to fight Argead Macedonians before the rise of Macedon, it is not a POV opinion, it is a historical, undisputable fact. – Βατο (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, Strabo did not directly report:, that's Templar's interpretatoin reading the primary source. – Βατο (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, Billows has not been repeated, because in one section the source is used for the reason why Lynkestians were in hostilities against Argeads in early times, and in another section to clarify that there were Illyrian elements in the region. – Βατο (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Templar cites Strabo, Geographies, 7, VII, 8 (on the Epirote Lyncestians). Since we are talking about interpretations of ancient authors let's repeat the question: is there any ancient author saying that they were Illyrians? Ok, we can remove Templar because Strabo may say something different, but in case you can't provide a precise ancient source about your Illyrian hypothesis then Templar stays in the same fashion the Illyrian (anonymous author) claim is still there. And scholars claiming that they were 'not' Illyrians are many. Alexikoua (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Existence of 'Illyrian element' doesn't mean there are Illyrians. Those are two different claims.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Billows is repeated because it's the same material, "Illyrian elements". The sentence in the lede is unbalanced and POV because it is clearly intended to influence the reader into thinking that the Lynkestians are Illyrians, albeit indirectly. The addition is sourced, so I'm not sure how it is out of context of erroneous. Regarding Templar's interpretation of Strabo, that is exactly how sourcing is intended to work: Primary sources interpreted by secondary sources. We should not interpret Strabo ourselves, but rely on interpretation of Strabo by experts. WP:PSTS. Khirurg (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And Illyrian elements can be used in every context it is required, one in the section that states "Though the populations of both Upper and Lower Macedonia shared a common language and a common way of life contrary to the those inhabiting Illyria and Thrace who belonged to a different branch of the Indo-European linguistic family." and one in the section about the Lynkestian kingdom: "Lynkestis' lack of loyalty to the Argeads and their Macedonian kingdom was due in part to the Illyrian non-Macedonian elements of that region, and in part to the rivalities of its ruling families towards the Argeads." It is relevant for both. The out of context misleading material in the lede can't stay. You can't justify the inclusion of erroneous material to balance a historical fact, because it is a fact, not an opinion. – Βατο (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I tagged the parts that are not neutral, they can be easly fixed if you include all the views, and then the tags can be removed. The tag added by Alexikoua for Worthington can be removed by adding the quotes I provided above. – Βατο (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing erroneous about the lede material. It is well-sourced. If you insist we can remove the entire sentence. But trying to give undue weight to the Illyrian hypothesis is not going to fly, especially in the lede. And no, "Illyrian elements" cannot be added twice, that is a violation of NPOV, and I can easily do the same with the (more numerous) sources that say they were Macedonian. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lede material now states erroneously, with an original research conclusion that "however the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians viewed Illyrians as a common enemy." The specific out of context information is unrelated to Lynkestis because Lynkestis was among the regions of Upper Macedonia that did not "view Illyrians as a common enemy" before the rise of Macedon. There cannot be erroneous information by original research in the article. – Βατο (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Concerning the "undue weight", a previous statment in the lede is: According to your reasoning It gives undue weight to the Greek hypothesis. No historical fact gives due weight to one hypothesis or the other, because historical facts are independent from the modern hypotheses. – Βατο (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * POV pushing editing by some users is even leading to ahistorical content presented to readers in the lead section, it is unacceptable. – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So why isn't it that Upper and Lower Macedonia viewed the Illyrians as a common enemy not a historical fact? It's every bit a historical fact. Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We can add "...viewed the Illyrians as a common enemy from the rise of Macedon onwards". Khirurg (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's WP:original research unrelated to the subject of this article, and obviously has no space here. False arguments as "balancing one hypothesis" when there is not a hypothesis at all but historical fact, can't be taken into consideration. I just checked the source, and verified that User:Alexikoua WP:CHERRYPICKED it to insert an undue orginal research in the lead section. – Βατο (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What's unrelated to the article is this WP:CHERRYPICKED WP:COATRACK section, which is mistranslated to begin with. The source does not back the claim shown in particular by the dynastic non-Greek Lynkestian anthroponyms that rised at the top of Macedon's social hierarchy. That is nowhere to be found. Khirurg (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source Timothy, Reames & Carol has been used in both sections Early period and Lynkestian kingdom . Hence there is absolutely no reason to exclude Billows' information in the section Early period  and in Lynkestian kingdom . Billow's exclusion implies double standards and POV editing, which must be avoided. – Βατο (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Unkownsolidier is requested not to remove tags when discussion is ongoing in talk page. – Βατο (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Unkownsolidier keeps removing all the tags that had the scope to inform readers of the article's issues, without even participating here. I tagged the entire article. If the editor removes even that tag I'll report them to WP:ANI. – Βατο (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tagging the entire article is completely over the top. These are minor issues, tagging the entire article is unwarranted. Khirurg (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are serious issues that should be addressed, and removing the tags from the relevant parts is not the appropriate whay to solve them. – Βατο (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Carol Thomas

 * The author deals with Lyncestis as an integral part of Upper Macedonia. In fact there is no scholars that objects the cultural uniformity (in terms of language, culture etc as in the case of Epirus) of the region: .Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the source mentions the subject of this article it is ok. – Βατο (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * your revert is definetly not an improvement. – Βατο (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is nitpicking to exclude unwanted material. You know full well that Lynkestis was the heartland of Upper Macedonia, hence what applies to Upper Macedonia applies to Lynkestis as well. Khirurg (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as a standard in our disputes, if a source does not mention the subject of an article it can't be used, otherwise I could have added directly in the article the sources Lima 2020 and Archibald 2012 to immediately solve the issue about Talk:Lynkestis/Archive 1, but I used them only for arguments in talk page to see whether the claims of some sources are accurate or less. Anyway, fortunately Timothy, Reames & Carol 2008 mention Lynkestis, and the quotes Alexikoua provided above helped for that matter. But you edit remains unconstructive and you should revert yourself. – Βατο (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thomas mentions the Lyncestae (quote provided) as an integral part of Upper Macedonian kindgoms. The same happens with the 'Doric' ware. That kind of removals should be avoided. Bato you also use sources (Roissman etc.) the same fashion and it's too naive to selectively (selectively) remove sourced content because the author doesn't mentions all Upper Macedonian tribes at each line.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Alexikoua (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Every source I cited into the article mentions the subject of the article, even Roisman. And it is a standard that should be always mantained, otherwise we fall within WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the disputes would become endless. – Βατο (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the quote above from Thomas clarifies that Lyncestis was an integral part of Upper Macedonia and then he describes the identity of this culturally and linguistically compact area.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand you are interpreting this [] as 'Illyrian domination of Lyncestis'. You understand that you are disruptive by selectively misinterpreting scholarly material.Alexikoua (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Carol Thomas p. 5-6: As such when this authors says something about the peoples or kingdoms of 'Upper Macedonia' Lynkestae are also included.Alexikoua (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, after you quoted that source I stated: . There are no issues with sources that mention the subject of the article. This specific dispute can be considered solved. – Βατο (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well after the full context and explanations I've kindly provided your answer is quite bad: []. How about you consider to self revert this disruptive tagging? I consider you need to take a deep breath before we expand the article together. Alexikoua (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not disruptive tagging, it is informing the readers of the article that one editor made an original research conclusion that contradicts historical facts. Lynkestes were not among "the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians" that "viewed Illyrians as a common enemy", it is your own out of context conclusion. Before the rise of Macedon Lynkestes were close allies with the Illyrians, and it is documented. – Βατο (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked the source myself, and you have disruptively WP:CHERRYPICKED it. The content it provides can't be used as you did, to reach original research conclusions and not include the whole context of the information. – Βατο (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The content is very carefully added and based on the full context I've kindly provided here. I don't know what your are talking about. Don't remove that content again please (The author is very detailed that Lyncestea& Macedonians considered . What about you apologize and self revert?Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not have to apologize for removing miselading WP:OR from lede. It obviously is historically inaccurate as it does not directly concern Lynkestis. – Βατο (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You understand how childish your argument appear here I assume. Lynkestis is directly mentioned as an integral part of Upper Macedonia and it's 100% historically accurate.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Pov intro part
This part "The few existing primary sources show that before the rise of Macedon it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads" is pov and portrays only one tiny historic part of the Peloponnesian war. C. Thomas providing a general picture actually points the opposite: that the population of Lyncestae was a traditional ally of Macedon (they were also Macedonians per contemporary literature) and Illyrians were viewed as a common enemy. Obviously that part needs to be rephrased or to go. Illyrian were occasional invaders in LyncestaeAlexikoua (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Illyrians had dominated Upper Macedonia for centuries, a well sourced fact that you removed from the article and that obviously is to be restored, and Illyrians allied with Lynkestians and defeated Ancient Macedonians in battle. So no, there is no historical evidence that Lynkestes and Illyrians were enemies, and there actually is historical evidence that Lynkestians were in hostilities and fought several times against the Argeads. – Βατο (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a cherry-picked oversimplification. There were also periods of cooperation between Lynkestis and lower Macedonia: Given these physical circumstances we can see that interaction occurred and could foster cooperation between neighboring areas. Recognition of a common way of life, fostered by similar physical conditions, that combined sedentary agriculture with transhumant pasturing – likely combined with concern regarding more distant neighbors – helped to create a nominal confederacy of Elimeia, Orestis, Lyncestis and Pelagonia with Lower Macedonia (Pieria and Bottiaea) in the first half of the fifth century during the reign of Alexander I (about 495–454). Carol Thomas, The Physical Kingdom, in A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, 2010. Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * is not a fact, and I don't know whether that confederacy is a modern conjecture or fact, but it is irrelevant to the historical fact that Lynkestes cooperated with Illyrians and were in hostilities with the Argeads. I see you want to eradicate that main historical information, but you can't. – Βατο (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lynkestae were forced to cooperate for a very tiny period with their Illyrian enemies but that's not something worth for the intro. Saying that: Lynkestes cooperated with Illyrians and were in hostilities with the Argeads is unhistorical. Upper Macedonia was hostile territory since Illyrians were also portrayed as invaders and a continuous threat in Upper Macedonia.  Alexikoua (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't remove WP:STABLE well sourced content that has been into the lede for years now. That's not unhistorical, that's what bibliography support. Upper Macedonia was composed of different tribes, each of them with different historical affiliations, mixing all of them actually is ahistorical. And don't remove Worthington's information by replacing it with WP:SYNTH/WP:OR material. – Βατο (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Brixhe & Panayotou

 * User:Khirurg removed this content:
 * "The name of the Lynkestian king Αρραβαῖος Arrhabaios is non-Greek. The rising of non-Greek names at the top of Macedon's social hierarchy indicates that non-Greek peoples undoubtedly played a significant role in the genesis of the Macedonian historical entity. Illyrians, Thracians and Phrygians were not always expelled but remained in place or only displaced, being gradually absorbed, without segregation, and perhaps having sometimes contributed to the constitution of the kingdom's aristocracy. The latter probably was achieved, notably, through mixed marriages. The Greek language of Macedonia must have expanded following the expansion of the Macedonian Kingdom, therefore incorporating non-Greek names into the Greek onomastic heritage. Even when Koiné Greek became the common language of the region, these non-Greek names were regarded by the Macedonians as a distinct mark of an identity."


 * The source used is Brixhe&Panayotou (2020):
 * Translation:
 * The source is talking about the non-Greek influences on the Ancient Macedonian language, and uses–as a main example–the name of the Lynkestian king Αρραβαῖος Arrhabaios. The editor removed it with the explanation: "Regarding Arrhabaios, the Bacchiadae were Doric Greeks from Corinth, the rest of the additions are off-topic." They should explain why that content is off-topic. – Βατο (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per your own arguments, the source does not explicitly mention Lynkestis (it only mentions the name Arrhabaios), so this addition of yours is off-topic. This is what you have stated yourself. Also, in your haste to inform the world that the Lynkestians were "Illyrians" (they weren't), you have caused the article to contradict itself. First you claim that the Lynkestians were in hostilities to the Argeads (to imply that they were "Illyrian"), and now you claim that they contributed significantly to Macedon. This is unencyclopedic, the article cannot contradict itself. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole source, which expressly mentions Lynkestes (now I bolded the word in the quotes above), you will realize that it is talking about the expansion of Macedon and the influence the people it incorporated had on the language. The fact that Lynkestians were ostile to the Argeads before the rise of Macedon does not contradict it in any way. – Βατο (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per your own arguments, the source does not explicitly mention Lynkestis (it only mentions the name Arrhabaios), so this addition of yours is off-topic. This is what you have stated yourself. Also, in your haste to inform the world that the Lynkestians were "Illyrians" (they weren't), you have caused the article to contradict itself. First you claim that the Lynkestians were in hostilities to the Argeads (to imply that they were "Illyrian"), and now you claim that they contributed significantly to Macedon. This is unencyclopedic, the article cannot contradict itself. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole source, which expressly mentions Lynkestes (now I bolded the word in the quotes above), you will realize that it is talking about the expansion of Macedon and the influence the people it incorporated had on the language. The fact that Lynkestians were ostile to the Argeads before the rise of Macedon does not contradict it in any way. – Βατο (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I did read it (and read it when you have mistranslated it previously), it only mentions the name Arrhabaios as a single example of Lynkestian name, among several other non-Lynkestian names. It does not refer to Lyncestis at all otherwise. You have previously stated that No, as a standard in our disputes, if a source does not mention the subject of an article it can't be used, but now it seems that went out the window. It's impossible to assume good faith from someone who doesn't honor their own rules. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That source expressly mentions Lynkestes / Lyncestes, and the information discussed is directly related to the subject of the article. If you remove it again, this time I assure you that it will be brought to the WP:DRN. It will be a waste of time, but at the end we all know it deserves inclusion. – Βατο (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It only mentions the name of a single king of the Lynkestes, among several others that were not Lynkestians. Not Lynkestis as a whole. What do Thracians and Phrygians have to do with Lynkestis? Nothing at all. It's a perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Feel free to bring it up to DRN or anywhere else you see fit. Khirurg (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Strabo
The main text of the lede includes the sentence However, an explanatory note has been included to clarify the uncertanity about Strabo's information:  Those below are two possibilities for presenting the information without POV issues and repetitions: I think the explanatory note could be better for the fluency of the main text. – Βατο (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) including in the main text: and removing the explanatory note;
 * 2) rewording the explanatory note: and removing  from the main text.


 * I think the amended explanatory note is better as well. However, the sentence before the note should then be amended to Most contemporary authors to Strabo considered them Macedonians, while others included them among the Illyrians or Epirotes. Khirurg (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Others included them among the [...] Epirotes" is not correct. And the sentence before the note should use Eichner's wording "later ancient sources" not "contemporary authors to Strabo" because Eichner is referring to the sources after Thucydides, not exclusively in relation to Strabo; contemporary to Strabo would be less inclusive. – Βατο (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * while others included them among the Illyrians or possibly the Epirotes. since Strabo included them either among the Illyrians or the Epirotes. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's original research also giving undue weight. If the explanatory note is to be included, then Strabo appears there. Otherwise we could consider the option 1. – Βατο (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not at all original research, there are two high quality sources that state Strabo included them among the Epirotes. Option 1 is a no-go anyway, Strabo only mentions them in passing, there is no reason he should be accorded a whole sentence in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's original research, there is no reliable source that directly state that other sources probably included them among Epirotes, only that Strabo probably included them among Epirotes. – Βατο (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hecateus of Miletus explicitly describes them as Epirotes (Molossians). This characterization is considered an original one and it is noted that later authors derived their belief from him. Unkownsolidier (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hecataeus of Miletus is already included into the main text. No later author describes them expressly as Epirotes. If you are referring to Strabo, you have already checked the primary source yourself and in no way his description of Lynkestes can be interpreted as explicit identification with Epirotes. And Filos is clear about it, providing a suggestion, not a fact: . It seems you want to include the narrative that later sources to Thucydides included them among the Epirotes, but it is original research. Strabo's account would be presented to readers in the note, but if you insist, then the option 1 will be necessary. – Βατο (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there's also not a single ancient source which describes them as 'Illyrians'. You keep noting only the things you want to believe, because you're considered an expert editor of everything has to do with the Illyrians. But now we're editing articles that are essentially part of the history of Ancient Greece. So please stop that biased thinking.￼ Unkownsolidier (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At least a Lynkestian princess is expressly identified as an Illyrian by several ancient sources. Other sources such as Pliny, Livy, and also Ptolemy, could have been interpreted by modern scholars as including Lynkestes among Illyrians. But as Filos states that several sources describe them as Maceodonians, also Eichner states that several soures describe them as Illyrians. I am an experienced editor, and I am actually opposing biased editing and original research. Btw, this topic concerns both Illyrians and Ancient Greece. – Βατο (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Other sources such as Pliny, Livy, and also Ptolemy, could have been interpreted by modern scholars as including Lynkestes among Illyrians. Now that is original research. So far not a single ancient author can be produced that unambiguously describes them as Illyrian. The authors you describe can be easily verified, but so far all I see is that single note in Eichner, who does not elaborate which later authors describe them as Illyrians. So again, which ancient authors do so? Khirurg (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither Filos does elaborate which authors describe them as Macedonians. You are free to take Eichner to WP:RSN. The discussion here is about how to include Strabos' information, not to include original research unsupported by any WP:RS, and even rejected by Vasilev. The rest falls within WP:NOTFORUM. – Βατο (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From your answer you admit that you can't find a single ancient author that calls them "Illyrian". If you had, you would have posted it. But because you can't, you're trying to change the subject. Two reliable sources state clearly that Strabo includes the Lynkestians among the Epirotes, you have to accept that. Khirurg (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As already stated, there is no need to find ancient authors when there is a top reliable secondary source that support it. And this specific discussion is not about it, you are just derailing the issue. Now returning to the issue of this discussion – Strabo – for which there are some reliable sources that support his inclusion of Lynkestes among Epirotes, and some reliable sources that support his inclusion of Lynkestes among Illyrians. From your answers I understand that you prefer the option 1. – Βατο (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The word "Illyrian" already appears 6 times in the lede, as much as the word "Macedonian" and "Epirote" combined, even though it is a minority view. WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:BALASP are fundamental. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Anson p. 235 : However, it was also claimed that the tribes that came to inhabit Upper Macedonia were not Macedonian at all, but Epirote. Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The author provides as citation for that tradition We've already analyzed Strabo, he does not claim such thing for Lyncestae, but for other Upper Macedonian tribes (it can be seen also in Vasilev 2011, who provides a deep analysis of the primary sources on the matter). As per bibliography, older and newer, several Indo-European speaking people settled, remained or departed from the different cantons of Upper Macedonia, including Bryges, Illyrians, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Epirotes. For instance, as shown by their historical affiliations, Orestians had Molossian (Epirote) non-Macedonian elements, Lynkestians had Illyrian non-Macedonian elements. – Βατο (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of repeating myself, but there are multiple sources that state that Strabo (a "later" author) included the Lynkestai among the Epirotes. WP:IDHT and edit-warring is not going to work. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, yet you seem completely unwilling to accept even the slightest compromise. Khirurg (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired too dealing with POV pushing editing by a group of editors who add ahistorical original research into the lede. Strabo did not include Lynkestes in the statement he made about the Epirotes and Upper Macedonian tribes, Vasilev (2011) is clear about it. You can't add sources about other Upper Macedonian tribes because it is WP:OR. Strabo's information will be included in its entirety in the main text, excluding every WP:OR or WP:POV content. – Βατο (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vasiliev is contradicted by multiple other sources. There is no WP:OR whatsoever. Mentioning that later authors considered them Illyrians but not Epirotes is POV and not going to fly. Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, there is no relation between the info about the Illyrians and that about Epirotes, your original research addition and this comment above clarifies that you are just disruptively editing the article to make less "Illyrian" the content, despite going against RS. No ancient source is discussed other than Strabo about the Epirote affiliation, as per current bibliography. Vasilev is not contradicted by any source, because some of his statements go against mere modern speculations, not historical facts direcly supported by primary material. Vasilev is the most in depth reliable source about the matter, he does not just mention the Lyncestae in passing. And the article's content is to be provided without any WP:OR or WP:POV. So Strabo's information will be separated by the rest and analysed independently according to the different scholars, because for a group of editors, the explanatory note about an uncertain primary source is not enough. – Βατο (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I haven't participated or watched the discussion very actively. I thought that the term Epirote was included in the lead because it was also in the note. Piccco (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposals I have provided were the two above. Vasilev (2011), when analysing the primary info about the tribes of Upper Macedonia, states: Except Hecataeus' fragment which includes them among the Molossians, there are no other ancient sources that directly included Lyncestae among Epirotes. Strabo considers other Upper Macedonian tribes as Epirotes, but not directly the Lyncestae (it can easly verified in the primary source). There are modern scholars that interpret Strabo's account as listing them among Epirotes, and others as listing them among Illyrians. I added the explanatory note about the matter, but some editors want to "balance" the info about the Illyrians (note: not that about the Macedonians, although being included it too!), mixing it with the addition of original research not directly supported by any WP:RS. – Βατο (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vasiliev's On the one hand, there is no ancient author who considers them as Epirotae is clearly incorrect and contradicted by the fact the Hecataeus includes them among the Epirotes. This is doubtless why you yourself removed Vasiliev from the note. I didn't make the article less "Illyrian" (although I easily could if I wanted to), I just added that some authors consider them Epirotes. But it's interesting you think in such zero-sum terms. You want to mention that later authors include them among the Illyrians but not Epirotes. That is POV. You have repeatedly stated your intention to seek outside mediation, but you haven't so far. It's not hard to see why. Any neutral user would agree with my line of reasoning. Your claim that Strabo considers other Upper Macedonian tribes as Epirotes, but not directly the Lyncestae (it can easly verified in the primary source). is original research, and your interpretation of Strabo is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Khirurg (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable secondary sources that directly state that "others mentioned Lynkestes as Epirotes", but only that "Strabo mentioned Lyncestes as Epirotes", which is a conjectural view with its counterpart "Strabo mentioned Lyncestes as Illyrians". I don't want to remove Strabo' presumable relation, that's why I added the note. But since for you it is not sufficient, the explanation will be provided in the main text. There is no place for WP:OR and WP:POV. is not original research, it is supported by top notch source Vasilev (2011). – Βατο (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vasilev also states that On the one hand, there is no ancient author who considers them as Epirotae which is glaringly factually incorrect and you keep evading. You will of course notice that I added "possibly" before the "Epirotes", which takes into account the fact that it's not certain Strabo includes them among the Epirotes. That takes care of the "conjectural view" you speak of, but you are unwilling to accept even that. Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So with which version would you be satisfied? I think, Vasiliev is only right, if what he means by that part is that noone expressly refers to them using the word 'Epirote', because as we know Hecateus lists them with Molossians. Strabo's account appears a bit ambiguous for some, as you mention in the note. Some scholars have interpreted this as meaning that Strabo lists them among the Epirotes, that's why I added the *possibly Epirotes, because after all, noone directly calls them 'Illyrian' either, and it seemed to me that it made sense to have both. Piccco (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to include the explanatory note, with this one : "" and explanatory note 1:
 * If the explanatory note about Strabo is not enough, then this one: – Βατο (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. No one is forced to choose between the two options you have created, neither of which is acceptable. A third option is possible such as the one I have edited into the lede. Khirurg (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are free to propose another option, the one that you added is WP:OR and WP:POV, and obviously can't stay. – Βατο (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with what I have proposed and entered into the article. On the other hand, the sentence you are proposing ("option 2") makes no mention of the Epirotes, but the note at the end of the sentence does? That makes no sense whatsoever. Khirurg (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Epirotes didn't exist as an actual grouping in any way, shape or form. Molossians originated in western Macedonia and Chaonians weren't even part of any Greek-speaking grouping until the late Classical period. Hence the Lyncestae could be Molossians without ever being part of any "Epirotic" grouping because no such grouping ever existed beyond the Hellenistic kingdom which used as a name a toponym used by Corinthian colonists. The other point is that there was probably no single Lyncestian grouping. There were probably many clans of different origins in this area, some Illyrian, some Macedonian, some Molossian, some Brygian. This is what the ambiguity in sources highlights. As such, if this is accepted as the starting point of the debate, the rest can be resolved without much disputing.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Strabo is clear that they were one of the 14 Epirote tribes (see Filos). I'd prefer to avoid extreme fringe that Epirotes were not an 'actual group' in fact they were mentioned by several ancient and contemporary sources. So, let's stick to the sources and avoid abstract declarations of that kind.Alexikoua (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Borza
Borza doesn't discuss the Lyncestae in the way discussed in the article. Side comment: There will be a new SPI for the recent activity in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of Butler
Butler reads: "The region witnessed occasional raids and became a constant threat by Illyrian invasions from the early years of the Argead dynasty until the reign of Philip II of Macedon." This detailed part is replaced with a brief abstract descriptions about "Illyrian domination" that lasted "for centuries" so removing the necessary context. Objections to restore the neutral, detailed and non-abstract version?Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * and are not in contradiciton with each other, and above all, are both statements provided by two independent reliable sources and not directly related to each other. So both statements are to be included, independently. – Βατο (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Domination since centuries needs to be replaced with a more detailed description. Even children can understand that 'since centuries' is a very generic and problematic expression that needs to further explanation. Also in this case 'domination' has the meaning of occupation of non-Illyrian territory, threat and constant raids.Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's problematic for you who don't like that historical fact. There is no more detailed description than an Illyrian dominant power in the region for centuries. Even the Argeads, according to traditoin, before going to Macedon went among Illyrians. The fact that Illyrians were the dominant power before the rise of Macedon is unrelated to any other speculative opinion by modern scholars. You have to understand and accept it. – Βατο (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Expressions like 'for centuries' are not scientifically correct: they fit only to children's books. The Illyrian dominant power has been interpreted as 'constant threat' and 'occasional raids'. Illyrians as enemy invaders first appeared after the withdrawal of the Bryges.Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling Worthington's publication a children's books is ridiculous. There is no evidence that Illyrians "firstly appeared as enemy invaders after the withdrawal of the Bryges". They could well have settled peacefully the area, like many other peoples who passed through Upper Macedonia, or could have controlled it from the outside, but it is irrelevant to the fact that Illyrians dominated the region for centuries and launched attacks against Argead Macedonia from there, which was the crucial factor why the Argeads desperately tried several times in history to annex it to Macedon, finally succeeding only with Philip II. – Βατο (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

POV on lede
This part is contradicting the history section: "The few existing primary sources show that before the rise of Macedon it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads". In fact Carol Thomas claims exactly the opposite (they were allied with the Argeads while Illyrians were their common enemy) and also Butler is clear that the Illyrians were a constant threat to Upper Macedonia due to occasional invasions. So either we provide the full picture or this goes entirely out from lede. Alexikoua (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Carol Thomas does not discuss specifically the Lynkestae, otherwise it would be an inaccuracy. "The few existing primary sources show that before the rise of Macedon it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads" is what a reliable source states specifically about Lynkestis, and it is a historically accurate fact. – Βατο (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Lynkestian dynasty maintained connections with the Illyrians against Macedonians. Then it was conquered by Macedonia and Illyrians who were enemies of Macedonia continued to be a threat to Macedonia which had incorporated Lynkestia (Upper Macedonia). They are two separate eras.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me summarize: The Lynkestian dynasty maintained connections with the Illyrians against Macedonians is wp:OR and wp:POV when summarizing the relations to adjacent territories. As such is refuted by the entire scholarship. Worthington (2008) a work which Bato uses extensively here uses the word 'unification' with Lower Macedonia (not conquest). I'll proceed as said. Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Heckel, Heinrichs & Müller 2020, p. 138: It is explicitly discussed in bibliography. The article will be tagged if there is an edit-war to remove it from lead section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Said what? Alexikoua, it seems you did not understand what Maleschreiber pointed out. The info by Heckel et al. is historically accurate within its proper context and in accordance with bibliography. The incorporation of Lynkestis into Mecedon by Philip II is already mentioned in the lede. – Βατο (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just one non-representative piece of information that concern a tiny time period can't be at lead: Butler& Carol should be added as they provide a general picture on this (Illyrians as an enemy due to their constant attacks in the area).Alexikoua (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Butler&Carol don't contradict Heckel, Heinrichs & Müller. Illyrians did constantly attack the region in their conflict with Macedonians who had conquered it and they were previously allied with the independent Lynkestian dynasty. Where is the contradiction? This concerns the pre-Macedonian period before 358 BCE, it's not a limited era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato desperately wants Butler&Carol out of the intro but since they don't contradict anything they are nice to have in order to secure balance and neutrality in intro.Alexikoua (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to balance historical facts. – Βατο (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Beekes (2009)
Beekes (2009), p.875 doesn't discuss Lynkestis in relation to any etymology which involves the term "lynx". It should be not be added again as it's WP:SYNTH.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I added an additional source which further discusses it. Unkownsolidier (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beekes (2009) doesn't mention Lynkestis. The toponym doesn't exist in Beekes (2009) and Georgiev is not a reliable source.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Georgiev is outdated and should not be used, Beekes' information was initially added by me, he talks about the placenames starting with Lynk-, 'Lynkestis' could well be one of them. – Βατο (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Outdated source" is nonsense to me on this occasion, since we're simply talking about the etymology of an ancient geographical name. In this instance, the scholarship that's cited, whether it is old or not, doesn't mean anything as long as it is verified (both of the linguists are considered reliable and have their own articles in Wikipedia). Interpretations on linguistic evidence do not rapidly change like that. Unkownsolidier (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just rewrited some aspects of that section as they are exactly displayed in the corresponding source. Unkownsolidier (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You rewrote it with your own original resaearch. Beekes (2009) does not support . Concerning Georgiev's publication, a source can be considered outdated when current mainstream scholarship contrasts it, in this case it should not be used. And don't remove tags added by other editors when discussion is ongoing, because it does not benefit consensus building and content quality. – Βατο (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent removal of source
The source removed by User:Alexikoua has no reason to be excluded from those modern sources that describe Lynkestes as Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua can't remove as irrelevant sources which explicitly discuss the Lyncestae as Illyrians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (has been already discussed above) It's a partially presented quote which discusses a specific princess' lineage and not that of the entire population (which Bato hides in the quote in a childish manner).Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is the full quote which contradicts the partial quote: stirpe illirica dei Lincesti?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * answer the question please: doesn't that source describe the Lynkestes as Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato has already mistranslated various sources and this needs to stop era. Here: una principessa di stirpe illirica dei Lincesti [] (if the Lyncestae were Illyrian based on a princess' lineage that's a matter of speculation). If that's the best to present about the so-called Illyrian Lyncestae then we should consider to remove that part altogether. The word Lyncestea is never to be seen again in this work by the way.

Alexikoua (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The quote you brought forth doesn't change the meaning of the partial quote.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Minority view presented as having the same weight
The vast majority (nearly entirety) in scholarship describe the Lyncestae either as Epirote or Macedonian or both (northwestern Greek). On the other hand 3 non-specialist works (Wheeler; a tertiary Encyclopia, D'Ercole, Silberman; a non-historian & editor in Livy's work) that simply mention once that name (+Rosignoli which mentions an Illyrian heritage of a Lincestian princess) can't be considered as a strong argument of equal weight. Scholarship agrees that Lyncestis bordered Illyrian population to the W-NW since they were not Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This usual disruptive and unexplained pattern has to stop []. No wonder the editor still doesn't show in tp though received a warm welcome to participate. Also the language data we have should have their place in lede also. It would be childish to remove any data on that field.Alexikoua (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Cherry picking again
It was desperately claimed that no ancient author regarded them as Epirotes, nevertheless on the same page of that work we read: 'there are no reliable sources of regarding them as Illyrians or Epirotes instead of Macedonians'. Scholarship dismisses any link of them being Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 February 2024
Footnote pointing to Champion 2016 should be changed to Champion 2014 to get the page off the Harv no-target errors list. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 18:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Content removal

 * User:Khirurg removed content from the article with the false edit summary "rm source that is quoted in misleading fashion, and doesn't even mention Lynkestis anyway." The removed article's content is:
 * "In the archaic period it seems that the Illyrians even occupied much of Macedonia."
 * The source used is:.
 * The source is not "quoted in misleading fashion" as User:Khirurg claims, and their statement "doesn't even mention Lynkestis anyway" reveals that User:Khirurg did not event read the source. I am adding the whole information provided by the source so User:Khirurg could no longer provide unacceptable false arguments:
 * The well sourced material should be restored, and User:Khirurg should avoid false edit summaries when removing content. – Βατο (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The part about the "Illyrian elements in Lynkos" is already included in the article in appropriate fashion. The part you added now (doubtless to make the article "more Illyrian" as you have said in the past) is quoted out of context and is not directly related to Lynkestis. It is also misleadingly worded, to imply that the Illyrians were the inhabitants of "much of Macedonia". The aspect of Illyrian pressure on Macedonia through Lynkestis is already mentioned throughout the article, multiple times. There will be no repetition and no POV-pushing in the article. Enough is enough. And if you're thinking of imposing your way by brute force as usual, think again. The fact that you racked up 3 reverts so quickly after the page protection expired is already enough for a block, don't push it. Khirurg (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You made two reverts as well, don't use those irrelevant arguments. As for "repetition", you use it just for parts that do not suit your POV, Howe et al. and other sources have been used throughout the article several times, but you do not use the argument of "repetition" in those cases. Double standards again. "Brute force" tactics are those used by you who removed several times content about the Illyrian component in the region, starting from Vickers&Pettifer, and Talk:Lynkestis/Archive 1 as well. Bowden's information "In the archaic period it seems that the Illyrians even occupied much of Macedonia.", which the author provides specifically in reference to Lynkos and Upper Macedonia, cannot be found in any part of the article, hence it is to be restored, whether you like it or not, and whether you consider it relevant to the subject of this article or not, because the author specifically mentions Lynkos, Upper Macedonia, and Macedonia. And your excuse that a source cannot be used for different content in different parts of the article is really absurd for Wikipedia, and cannot be taken into consideration as a reasonable argument. – Βατο (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Illyrian elements in Lynkos" is already included with due weight in the article. There is nothing else in the source regarding Lynkestis. Trying to mislead readers with "Illyrians occupying much of Macedonia since the archaic period" with truncated quotes is out of the question. The author is clearly referring to unstable frontiers, but your passage is intended to make the readers the readers think that Macedonia was part of Illyria since the archaic period. It has nothing to do with Lynkestis anyway. You need to be reasonable. I accepted all your other edits, even though I could easily have reverted them. But this is a step too far. Khirurg (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Alexikoua even removed Worthington's information: "Before the rise of Macedon Upper Macedonia had been dominated by the Illyrians for centuries." with even more absurd arguments such as "they fit only for children's book". No, they fit for a free encyclopaedia which provides historically accurate content, sourced with top academic publications. – Βατο (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the whole notion of "no repetition" on the article is quite an inappropriate reason to remove sourced content. You cannot pick and choose what you want repeated and what you don't want repeated - everything must be given it's WP:DUE weight. I've been monitoring this article for a while and have seen quite a lot of edit-warring and back and forth, but I've decided to intervene in this case as sourced content was unjustly removed.
 * I also second Βατο's point that ; it's quite clear from the quote pasted above by Βατο that the author is discussing the region inclusive of Lynkos. I see no reason as to why this content does not belong on this article. I also caution Khirurg against engaging in edit wars over content and sources that they haven't actually looked at properly - Khirurg should spend more time actually looking at sources before getting involved in disputes, as this is not the first time where they've exhibited such behaviour. Botushali (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you avoid edit-warring and casting aspersions, unless you want your 3 month block at Battle of Kosovo to become wikipedia-wide. Khirurg (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is funny coming from the same editor who complains about people bringing up their previous blocks when it comes to victimising themselves in front of the admins. Your reply includes absolutely 0 rebuttals as to why you should be allowed to remove well-sourced content.
 * I haven't engaged in an edit war (unlike yourself on this very article) and am not casting aspersions, because there are now multiple diffs of you reverting edits without actually look at the sources. It's concrete proof, therefore it does not fall under WP:ASPERSIONS. So who's going to give me a Wikipedia-wide block? You? Didn't think so. Botushali (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato's wp:POV and wp:OR removals have reached disruptive proportions. If there is an editor removing content that's Bato who keep adding the usual Illyrian maximalist wp:OR. Its quite weird that someone stubbornly insist to add childish expressions like 'Illyrian domination for centuries' when there is enough detail of what this abstract expression means (for centuries = from rise of the Argeads to Phillip II). This kind of ultranationalistic editing claiming an Illyrian presence by using children's book expressions needs to stop. There is historical data that provides the precise time range of the Illyrian raids and looting against the region.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything WP:OR about the content Bato is adding as it is all sourced. The usage of the word 'domination' here literally comes from an actual quote from Worthington (p.13) -.
 * You have also removed the following well-sourced information yet again, even though as indicated by the quotes pasted above by Bato, the original author is talking about Macedonia in reference to Lynkos and other territories: There is no legitimate reason for its removal; I also don't understand how anyone here is misinterpreting this passage to mean that, in the words of Khirurg, . Macedonia in ancient times was a melting pot between both Illyrians and ancient Greeks as well as other Paleo-Balkanic peoples - I don't think anyone here believes otherwise.
 * As a side note, I don't know what kind of children's books Alexikoua is reading. None of the books I read as a child were all about domination... Botushali (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of any kind of permanent Illyrian presence in acrhaic-era Upper Macedonia. The addition that Bato keeps adding provides a wrong picture on the subject. Literary evidence describes this kind of Illyrian activity as 'threat', 'pillage', 'raids', 'attacks', while 'domination' or 'occupation' reflect a more permanent presence which is not the case here.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's a very selective use of sources (WP:CHERRY) while ignoring other sources, and even the cherry-picked sources are quoted in a misleading fashion so as to make the reader think that "Macedonia was Illyrian for centuries". I have been willing to assume good faith up until now, but this latest addition makes it really hard to do so. There is a clear POV being pushed. Khirurg (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As you can see, User:Alexikoua again removed Worthington's information while adding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, it is not acceptable. Alexikoua stated: . They should explain which "literary sources" describe the archaic period to which those academic sources (not children's book, as Alexikoua claims!) are referring. Those academic sources base their statements on archaeological research, because there is factual evidence that Illyrians penetrated into Macedonia in the early Iron Age-Archaic Era (this is also supported by your favourite author: Hammond). The statement is also unreasonable argumentation, what is the case here is established by reliable sources, not by Alexikoua's personal POV opinions. The well sourced content based on academic publications specifically focusing on the subject of this article is to be restored. – Βατο (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any personal opinions added by Alexikoua, only well-sourced material which contradicts the "domination" and "occupation" narrative you are trying to push. Billows 2018: The Illyrians normally constituted more of a threat to raid and pillage upper Macedonia, rather than to occupy and dominate the realm. This directly contradicts the "domination" and "occupation" narrative you are so intent on pushing. No way. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the sources you use are ok, and the sources I use are "children's book" or "no way"? Is it because they do not fit your POV? – Βατο (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any such characterizations. But it is abundantly clear that this "domination" and "occupation" narrative is directly contradicted by Billows. Something to which, it seems, you have no answer. Khirurg (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And it is directly supported by Worthington (domination) and Bowden (occupation). Why should we consider only one of the scholars? Is Billows' view more important than the other ones? No. We should be impartial in providing the information, as per WP:NPOV. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Both POVs have now been removed, in case you haven't noticed. Worthington, Bowden, and Billows. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Alexikoua's edits, which pushed the ahistorical narrative that before the rise of Macedon the region of Lynkestis experienced only constant attacks and raids by Illyrians, when we know that it was not the case. Like many other local peoples, Illyrians have also settled that region, and since the archaic period, they have launched attacks against Argead Macedonia precisely from Lynkestis. Either occupied or controlled, it is certain that Lynkestis had been the starting point of Illyrian attacks against the Macedonian Kingdom, which occurred from the 7th century until the 4th century BCE, when Philip managed to subdue the Illyrians, eventually. Lynkestis was not part of Argead Macedonia before Philip, and Upper Macedonia was not a united realm in that period. The narratives that treat those completely different cantons as the same block constantly attacked by Illyrians are not accurate. Lynkestis was an independent kingdom which mantained close ties with the Illyrians throughout all its history as an independent entity. – Βατο (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Alexikoua's edits, which pushed the ahistorical narrative that before the rise of Macedon the region of Lynkestis experienced only constant attacks and raids by Illyrians, when we know that it was not the case. Like many other local peoples, Illyrians have also settled that region, and since the archaic period, they have launched attacks against Argead Macedonia precisely from Lynkestis. Either occupied or controlled, it is certain that Lynkestis had been the starting point of Illyrian attacks against the Macedonian Kingdom, which occurred from the 7th century until the 4th century BCE, when Philip managed to subdue the Illyrians, eventually. Lynkestis was not part of Argead Macedonia before Philip, and Upper Macedonia was not a united realm in that period. The narratives that treat those completely different cantons as the same block constantly attacked by Illyrians are not accurate. Lynkestis was an independent kingdom which mantained close ties with the Illyrians throughout all its history as an independent entity. – Βατο (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * May I add both the views of Worthington/Bowden and Billows and let readers of this obscure article judge by themselves? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, however there is an error in the citations, I accidentally added instead of, so the statement "Bowden notes that in the archaic period it seems that the Illyrians even occupied much of Macedonia" is to be attributed to Billows. But , as cited by Alexikoua (I have no access to that source), has made a more recent claim that contradicts it, so that statement is to be removed. On the other hand, Worthington is ok. – Βατο (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did I do the right thing there ? Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the information provided by is unrelated to that provided by  which was added by Alexikoua in an original research manner. ' quote added by Alexikoua is talking about the time of Bardylis, not the archaic era, and in those specific pages it does not mention Lyncus or Lynkestis. On the other hand, Billows 2018 mentions Lyncus but at the time of Perdiccas' defeat in these terms:  Also:  So  and  describe completely different historical periods. Hence, which is discussing the classical era, should be removed from the early period section, and , which is discussing the archaic era, should be kept. Your removal  should be restored, it just needs to replace  with . Sorry to bother you, but those clarifications are necessary for the accuracy of the content. – Βατο (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To which part of the article, specifially paragraph, should Billows 2018 moved to? Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , as added by Alexikoua, is original research for this article because it does not specifically discuss Lynkestis. ' quotes I provided above can be used in the article after the statement: – Βατο (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If Billows 2018 is removed becuase "it does not specifically discuss Lynkestis" (we're back to that now?), so will Worthington and and Billows 1995. No double standards. Khirurg (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem very logical - if Billows 2018 does not discuss Lynkestis in a particular passage and is therefore removed from one section of the article because the editor who added it utilised it anyways (even though the pages don't discuss Lynkestis in context or directly, nor do they even refer to the correct timeframe: WP:OR), why then should Billows 1995 and Worthington be removed when they do actually discuss Lynkestis? Your proposal is disruptive - this shouldn't be a petty tit-for-tat edit war. If certain sources do not discuss Lynkestis in the passages utilised on this article, then they should go. If they do discuss Lynkestis, then they should stay. If there are differing views, then they should be included and given due weight in the article. Botushali (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Poor argumentation again by User:Khirurg, we are not "back to that now", because talks about Lynkestis and Upper Macedonia of the classical era, at the time of Bardylis, so adding it into the archaic era ("Early period" section) is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. On the other hand,  explicitly talks about the archic era. Also, those informations are obviously unrelated to each other, because in the early Iron Age (even before the Argeads, who initally went to the Illyrians before settling Macedonia) Illyrians actually penetrated Macedonia (documented in archaeological remains, also as per Hammond, Borza, etc.). On the other hand, we don't know nothing about the "raids" and "pillagings" of Illyrians in the early Iron Age. Only sourced content can be kept, original research cannot be included. 's content should be added into the relevant section (Classical period), and expanded with the information provided by the quotes I added above from that source. It has nothing to do with Lynkos and Macedonia of the archaic era, probably at a time when the Argead realm was not even founded. Btw, Billows 1995 should be added before "As early as the 7th century BC occasional Illyrian invasions against Argead Macedonia", because he is not talking about the times of the Argeads. – Βατο (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is another description of the period of the early Illyrian settlement in Macedonia: Zini 2021 p. 798: Billow (1995)'s information pertains to the early archaic era, before the Argeads. – Βατο (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lynkestis is not even mentioned until Hecateus in the 6th century BC. There was no "Lynkestis" in the archaic era. The area was inhabited by the Bryges in the archaic era. Anything not directly related to Lynkestis will be removed. Khirurg (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So why don't we remove the whole content before Hecataeus? Unreasonable argumentation again. Billows 1995 is talking about the archaic era of the whole region of Macedonia, and he discusses Lynkos in the same page, so yes, it is "directly related" to Lynkos. Bryges most probably were already gone in the archaic era, but even if that wasn't the case, it does not contradict also Illyrian occupation in the archaic era, which is clearly documented by archaeological finds. But your comment about Bryges is original research contradicted by reliable sources. I've heard enough of these false arguments, read Billows 1995 again, and then comment. – Βατο (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * in the same page is very very weak argumentation. Not even close. The part from Billows that discusses Lynkestis specifically This disloyalty stemmed partly from the presence of non-Macedonian elements in the populations of these cantons— Epeirotic (Molossian) elements in Tymphaia and Orestis, Illyrian elements in Lynkos and Pelagonia—and partly from the rivalry of local dynastic families towards the Argeads. is already included in the article. Khirurg (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with someone who removes only scholarly views that contrasts with their POV as "repeated" or "directly unrelated", while defending scholarly views that suits their POV although being likewise "repeated" and "directly unrelated", because that is the epitome of double standards. It is impossible to argue and seek consensus with double standards. – Βατο (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually agree, it is impossible to find consensus with double standards. It's also impossible to find consensus when articles are thought of in terms of "more Illyrian" or "less Illyrian", and material is added for no other reason than to make the article "more Illyrian", until we get to the point that the article mentions the "Illyrians" more often that the subject of the article itself. This article is already deep into WP:COATRACK, and it keeps getting worse. That Illyrians controlled Lynkestis in the centuries prior to the rise of Macedon is already mentioned. That there were Illyrian elements in Lynkestis is already mentioned. What then is the purpose of adding on top of all that "The Illyrians occupied Macedonia"? How does it improve the article? How does it help readers get a better understanding of Lynkestis? It doesn't. Everything relevant about Lynkestis and Illyria was already there. No, the only purpose that it serves is to "make the article more Illyrian". The same thing, repeated over and over, in slightly different form, to impress "Illyrians" upon the reader. How much is enough, I wonder? Where does this end? There is one way to end it though: When neutral, non-Balkan readers edit the article, as we saw in Sirras. That's how it will end, and end it will. Because it can't go on like this. Khirurg (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato, the text from Billows 2018 used by Alexikoua, "The Illyrians normally constituted more of a threat to raid and pillage upper Macedonia, rather than to occupy and dominate the realm", to which period does it refer to? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * to the period of "THE REIGN OF AMYNTAS III", hence to Lynkestis, where Bardylis is mentioned. But the quote provided by Alexikoua is not expressly referring to Lynkestis, but in general to Upper Macedonia, on the other hand the quotes I added above are expressly about Lynkestis (Lyncus). Hence it should be moved (and expanded) to the last paragraph of the Lynkestis section. – Βατο (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you write a few sentences based on Billows 2018 that I can add to that part of the article? Something to contain ""The Illyrians normally constituted more of a threat to raid and pillage upper Macedonia, rather than to occupy and dominate the realm"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be moved into the paragraph (bolded Billows (2018)'s information): I also replaced "Macedonia territory" with "Macedonian Kingdom", and added "usually", as per the source. – Βατο (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I will move it, but lets see if has anything to say. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong it doesn't refer to the period of Amyntas, it refers to the period which begins from the archaic age since when Illyrians were first mentioned by Greek sources (I'm not using childish expressions such as 'for centuries' to define historical periods). Bowden is clarifying that: The above proposal to move Billows' statement to a later period is definitely wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What is actually wrong is adding information provided by a source for the classical era into the article's section about the archaic era, because it constitutes WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. User:Alexikoua forgot to include the information that precedes the above quote, Billows 2018: So that information cannot be included into another historical context other than the period of "THE REIGN OF AMYNTAS III" (as per the title of the book's section) or during Argaeus II (more precisely as per the quote). There is no way to include it anywhere else because it would violate WP:No original research. obviously User:Alexikoua doesn't accept it, because in the "Early period" section it fits well the POV narrative this user is trying to include although being original reasearch. – Βατο (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato forgot that the first part concerns a different paragraph and subject: "The Illyrians normally... " is a separated and new paragraph where the author begins a new topic. We should be more careful when presenting sources here and if the author's switching to a new paragraph and subject that should be reflected in the quote presented here. Obviously the author wants to provide a general introduction of the Illyrians from the time where they were first recorded by ancient Greek literature. WP:No original research obviously applies to Bato's persistent argument to mis-present that work in order to place that part to a later historic period, but this part shouldn't be moved stay as it concerns Archaic-era information as well. Alexikoua (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)