Talk:Pelion (Illyria)

Not in Chaonia
Bibliography doesn't mention this settlement as being in Chaonia. The title should be changed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in Hammond (1994): As the fighting among Illyrians was at or near Pelium, we have to put Pelium in Illyria both on the references cited above and also on later statements that it was in Illyria (St. Byz. using Asinius Quadratus), in Dassaretis (Livy 31.40.4).--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. I looked on page 295 of Roisman, and it says "located west of the Pindus crest, which separates Macedonia from Illyria". This is no way excludes it from Chaonia. Furthermore, all sources agree that this was a settlement of the Dexaroi, which were a Chaonian tribe, hence Chaonia. Also, there is nothing in the sources currently in the article about the settlement changing hands between Macedonians and Illyrians, that addition was unsourced. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Chaonia is placed by scholars in the coastal Epirus, not beyond Pindus, which also is not in the terriotry of ancient Epirus (the eastern border of ancient Epirus is Pindus, while the northern border is Aous, Acrocerauni or Vlora bay). – Βατο (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The hence in Chaonia part is your OR, bibliography doesn't place it in Chaonia or Epirus in general. If I were to be exact about the quote located west of the Pindus crest, which separates Macedonia from Illyria I would only write in Illyria. You won't find a source that places this settlement in Epirus, but I'll add just one more in good faith but if you revert again without a source that places this in Epirus, I'll be engaging in community procedures. Having a content dispute is a perfectly acceptable thing, reverting without having a single citation to back up your claim is another one. And I didn't add a new source about the events preceding the siege of Pelium because those events are described in that article, I'll do a bit of rephrasing about that part.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This map [] points that this settlement is in Chaonia indeed. But we can't exclude also that this can be also somewhere between the Illyris - Macedonia buffer zone. Such regions never have precise borders.22:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That map points to nothing about this settlement. Nobody places this is in Epirus. I can only discuss on the basis of competing bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again disruptive wp:OWN. As I've stated this map [] clearly points that Pelium is found near the border between southern Illyris and Epirus. Any further editwarring will have to be reported. Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the Dexari were Epirotes. This is already sourced.22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The map says nothing about Pelium being in the borderlands of Illyria and Epirus, that is your original research and synthesis. A tribe being clustered in a particular group doesn't mean anything about the area itself. Also, I'm willing to discuss this in a community procedure. You can maybe explain why you have been removing the existing bibliography while being unable to produce a single citation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Side comment: This edit by Alexikoua is a revert and that editor now stands at 2R.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (ignore false alarm) By the way I noticed that the article doesn't state that this is located in Chaonia or Epirus, right? I've already re-arranged some categories. Nevertheless the settlement being a Dexari town needs to be stated from introduction, OWN tendency needs to stop.Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ....the city of Pelion of Dassaretia, bingo we have to be precise.Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dassaretia was in Illyris, and Dassareti were Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: In this edit you added then passed hands between Illyrian tribes and the Macedonian kingdom until the 2nd century BCE when the expanding Roman Republic gained control of the region. right in front of refs 2, 3, and 4, making it seem like this statement is sourced to refs 2, 3 and 4. Yet, none of the three sources back what you added. This is WP:HIJACK. I will AGF this time, but please don't do that again. Khirurg (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the location, no one knows where this place was located. It's remains haven't been found. The only thing we know was that it was a settlement of the Chaonians, hence Chaonia. That's it. Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR – Βατο (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, the final version of what I wrote was ... became a region of conflict between Illyrian tribes and the Macedonian kingdom which came to use it as border fort while in the early 2nd century BCE, the expanding Roman Republic gained control of the region and was backed up by bibliography & full quotes. When Alexikoua removed it - for some reason - he kept a version of the first part, removed the sources and also removed the second part about the Roman era.


 * There are competing hypotheses about its location but none place it in Epirus. I placed full quotes from sources which place this fort on the border between Illyria and Macedonia, you removed them but you can't provide a single citation which locates it in Epirus. You've also removed the OR-tag which was placed specifically because you have refused to produce a single source.


 * This is was a border fort between Illyria and Macedonia and since at least 198 BCE was firmly in Roman control; yet, the article places it wrongly in Epirus in a timeline which presents it as a small Chaonian settlement, although this was a short period relative to its full history.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are mixing information about Illyrian Dassaretai and Chaonian Dexaroi. Dexaroi are mentioned by Hecataeus in the 6th century, later no ancient historian records them. While the Dassaretai, which inhabited the region of central Albania were called Illyrian by later historians. – Βατο (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pelion is dated to the 4th century BC, in the territory of a powerful Illyrian Kingdom ruled by Bardhyllis. – Βατο (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you about the clarification, Bato. Kern (1999) also writes about Clitus's era: Alexander had pursued Clitus, a local Illyrian ruler who was in a state of rebellion, into the fortress of Pellium which Arrian, the second-century A.D. historian who is the most reliable source on Alexander described as "the strongest in the country".--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, here is also Wilkes (1992, The Illyrians, p.130): and Hammond, CAH (1994) vol VI, p. 429:  – Βατο (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. The article should clarify that the fortification at the time of Alexander's campaign had probably been built by Bardylis.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, something about that could be inserted. – Βατο (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose to rename the article Pelion (Dassaretis), as a great number of sources agree on that, see Hammond and Walbank (1988), Ceka (1990), Wilkes (1992). Thoughts? – Βατο (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about a renaming of the article too. I think that "Pelium" is used by more sources comparative to "Pelion" so "Pelium" might be a better title. You probably have a better overview of bibliography than I so maybe you should start a move discussion with whichever option seems to be used more frequently.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the introduction was changed and the Dexari settlement vanished... for an unexplained reason now "it is thought to be a Dexari settlement"..... IDONTLIKEIT again? Both Wilkes and CAH are certain about this.Alexikoua (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with a move to Pelium (Dassaretia). There is a disambiguation page since the name Pelium/Pelion is quite typical among Greek toponyms.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Alexikoua with your revert you've again introduced mistakes about the hard facts. This fort went through different phases, one of whom possibly or probably was Chaonian, but then it got built as a walled site by Bardyllis, Macedon controlled it, then Cleitus retook it, Alexander conquered it and as early as 198 BCE it was under firm Roman control. Then in the 6th century AD it is mentioned as one of the forts rebuilt by Justinian. Why do you think that only its less known initial phase should be used to identify this site?--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All phases you mention are located in the first paragraph: it was for certain one of the main settlements of the Dexari but then various occupations occured (in 220BC it was still inhabited by the Dexari). As part of AGF I dont insist against your non-Chaonian obsession, though initially a Chaonian site. You understand that you are inti deep POV in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A Dexari population was present even during early Roman rule. I have a strong feeling that this Dexari presence isn't just about the initial phase of the site.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about the Dexari because we know almost nothing about them. Winnifrith (2002) says that control to the Dexari was restored and the population was "ejected" from the city. I haven't written anything beyond what Winnifrith (2002) mentions, but that strongly implies that the population of Pelium and the Dexari weren't part of the same community. Still, I'm ok with the version that came out of this editing process.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As suggested by Hammond (1966): Also:  it seems that the Dexari disappeared and were replaced by Illyrian peoples which took the name of Dassaretai after they occupied the region, therefore those people were labeled in later times as Illyrian. However we should see other suggestions in more recent publications on the subject. – Βατο (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In Hammond, 1968, p. 19: "The distinction between Illyrians and Dassaretii is seen also in Livy 42. 36. 9 (following Polybius), 'ad occupanda Dassaretiorum et Illyriorum castella".Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dassareti/Dassaretae/Dassaretai were labeled as an Illyrian tribe, there cannot be doubt about it, like there cannot be doubt about the Dexaroi, which were labeled as a Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why Live seperates them from the Illyrians? Hammond seems convinced with this approach and agrees that there were two tribes of similar spelling.Alexikoua (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any source that supports the statement: ? If yes, can you please provide the relative quotes? – Βατο (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a whole bunch that describe it as a settlement of the Dassaretae, which are the same thing. You are going to have to do a LOT better than "not an improvement". Khirurg (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are a lot that supports provide them, otherwise it should be removed as per WP:OR. – Βατο (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a city of the Dessaretae (As Livy indicated, the Malik-Korce-Poloske plain was part of Dassaretis and Pelion was a Dassaretian city ), see inline. Also per BRD pre disruption lead version is restored. By the way there is not a single source with the term "Illyrian kingdom". I assume this is a coalition of Illyrian tribes under a single chieftain, not a kingdom. Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead section already reports that information: You have to provide a source that supports, otherwise it is WP:OR. About the Illyrian kingdom see Hammond (1966), Wikipedia does not need your original assumptions. – Βατο (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As you have repeatedly been told, the Dexaroi are sometimes referred to as "Dassaretae" . Khirurg (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is a WP:SYNTH as we don't know if the Dassareti that inhabited Pelion were the Chaonian or the Illyrian tribe. As suggested by Wilkes (1992, The Illyrians, p.130):  Hammond, CAH (1994) vol VI, p. 429:  and Hammond (1966):  Pelion was likely established by Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this recent publication: (Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), p. 342) makes it even more evident, but you WP:JDL. – Βατο (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are using riddles... I cant see the word Pelion in this passage.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I can't see Pelion as a "a fortified settlement of the Chaonian tribe of the Dexaroi" in no source. Provide some quote please, as for now it is WP:OR, also WP:POV beacuse you refuse the suggestions by other recent reliable sources. – Βατο (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is again unreadable because it offers conflicting accounts on the lead. Bato is right here. Bibliography doesn't support this being a settlement of the Dexari after Bardylis's control. Also, Alexikoua now stands at 3R. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that Bato also stands at 3R, or no? The article is perfectly readable, it seems the problem is WP:JDL, as usual. Khirurg (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Illyrian Dassaretae were described by the ancient author Mela as one of the southern Illyrian tribes in proximity to Parthini, see Hammond (1966): According to Hammond the fortified walls were probably established by Bardylis, see Hammond, CAH (1994) vol VI, p. 429:  and Wilkes (1992, The Illyrians, p.130):  We don't know if it was a Dexari settlement when the fortifications were built, especially when this source Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), p. 342:  states that Bardylis' kingdom were the territory of Dassaretis. You are ignoring evidence by reliable sources with personal assuptions and adding WP:SYNTH content. Currently, the article is WP:POV and should be fixed. – Βατο (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the report of new research on the field, which make Hammond's assumptions outdated, Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), pp. 387–388: You can not ignore them. – Βατο (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see an entity called 'Illyrian kingdom'. All available sources point to a group of tribes under one chieftain. As I see Bardylis was a Dardanian not Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato is pointing out that newer on-the-ground research (he's citing Robin Lane Fox) identifies it with an Illyrian site in Zvezdë. I've tried to reflect that evolution of research in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Winnifrith states about an "Illyrian wall" in Pelium.Alexikoua (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pelion was an Illyrian site there, not a former settlement of Philip's, and "if Alexander had taken the wrong turning in southern Albania", as Winnifrith well points out, he would have been destroyed, so "Pelion is important for the history of the world. I don't think that we should be putting forward our own research about which parts of Winnifrith's research, Robin Lane Fox in Brill's companion referred to.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Winnifirth simply states that there was an Illyrian wall no wonder you avoid to provide this piece of info. Your are again into OR and misusing BRD. You understand that extensive disruption maty lead to blocks.Alexikoua (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Labelling this an Illyrian site because of a short term Illyrian occupation is the weirdest example of OR. Imagine saying that "Paris was a Nazi stronghold" simply based on the events of WWII occupation.Alexikoua (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Alex, "Illyrian site" is the exact wording bibliography uses. The why comments are yours and I respect them, but it's your original research. The quote has been provided twice. Also, this was just made availabe, it hadn't been added to the article before. You need to tone it down, too. Adding Robin Lane Fox isn't "extensive disruption" by any stretch of policy. Thank you for another great addition to bibliography --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, it was not occupied for a short term, it's your own WP:OR. The information that the settlement was established as an Illyrian site has a great importance to the history of Pelion, especially because the later Illyrian uprisng against Alexander was organized there. You are reverting ignoring recent sources and new scholarly research on the field. The statement: is yet unsourced, since Roman times historians refer only that it was in Dassaretis, a wide region encompassing many Illyrian tribes. You are reverting the article to your preferred version misusing the sources and giving no proper reasons. – Βατο (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * BRILL is reliable. Don't add conflicting accounts in the lead of an article, it's disruptive.--Fa alk (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that this a settlement by the Dexari is oversourced (see Wilkes, CAH, Hammond, for a weird reason you reject). By the way the shot term Illyrian occupation ende with the Illyrian burning the settlement. Too bad any Illyrian trace of culture (if existed) vanished. As I've said source falsification is quite disruptive it's like saying that Paris was a Nazi garrison.Alexikoua (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hammond wrote that chapter in CAH. Hammond represents older research, which modern research is disputing. Without removing your edits about the Chaonians I wrote about evolution in research- it retained your claim and it added modern bibliography quoted by Bato. You then reverted back that this was a Chaonian settlement without any doubt, although in the following sentences of the lead that dispute is described. That revert is below the 4R mark for about half a day.


 * Bato gave a full quote from Robin Lane Fox: and your reply was a revert and a comment that calling it an Illyrian site is "source falsification ", "quite disruptive", "like saying that Paris was a Nazi garrison". Your reply to Bato here is that him quoting R.L. Fox (an Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford) that this was an Illyrian site is "like saying that Paris was a Nazi garrison". I feel that I can't contribute much to a discussion that is moving forward in such terms.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears you still ignore Winnifrith, let me enlighten you: A fortification and a short term occupation (Dardanian Cleitus burnt the site during his withdrawal) can't justify lead change: it's like saying that Normandy is a Nazi Germany site because of the bunkers built there... Alexikoua (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you replying with a quote from Winnifrith's book where he mentions the walls of the settlement? We are not discussing that and you're getting into WP:SYNTH territory by trying to make the discussion into something else by avoiding to discuss bibliography as it is quoted.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that Pelion was in Illyrian hands at the time of Philip and Alexander, but Fox does not make assertions regarding who founded it originally. On the other hamd, there is a world of sources that says it was a settlement of the Dassaretae. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that 'more recent' research states that the site was already a fortified settlement the time of Cleitus' occupation:

.

Does this make it an Illyrian settlement? As I've said this was a short-term occupation not an Illyrian settlement. Illyrians may have built a wall there during their very short presence, nothing lead-worthy.Alexikoua (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's honestly exhausting in terms of moving ahead to have to quote the same material over and over again because one editor refuses to acknowledge what they're saying and reply to that --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, yes it does, indeed R. L. Fox states just that. If we take in account even Hammond's suggestion (Hammond 1995, CAH, vol VI, p. 429), it was a fortified settlement of Bardylis before Philip II annexed it. Then Cleitus occupied it during the Illyran uprising against Alexander. – Βατο (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hammond says: possibly, probably... he isnt certain about it. Illyrian uprising? you have to be kidding, yet another OR.Alexikoua (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a more detailed report about Bardylis' probable foundation of the fortifications of Pelion (Hammonrd, 1972):

To sum up: 1. Pelium already existed there. 2. It was probably fortified by Bardylis.Alexikoua (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * is your WP:SYNTH. In this case, Hammond's statements (1972, 1994) about Bardylian fortification of Lychnidus and Pelion are in agreement with other scholars of Illyrian history. About the "uprising", it is not my OR because the siege of Pelium is considered an "Illyrian revolt" (also "rising" etc.), you can find an example here: Hornblower, Simon (2013) [1983]. The Greek World 479-323 BC pp. 261–262. Unlike you, I base my claims on reliable sources that I have previously read. – Βατο (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC):
 * You still avoid the word "probably" about the fortifications built on the already existent settlement. This stays in accordance with the rest of the bibliography since the town was prior to that a Dexarian center.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * again WP:OR, provide a quote please. – Βατο (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with you interpreting a so-called "Illyrian revolt in Pelium" in this work? The Greek World 479-323 BC pp. 261–262? Yet again disruptive OR.Alexikoua (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not interpret nothing, that source says exactly "Illyrian revolt". Among others, there is also Hammond (1966) The Kingdoms in Illyria circa 400-167 BC, p. 245: . Pelium was a fortified settlement on the border of Illyria and Macedonia, after Philip II expanded his dominion, he took the lakeland (which includes Pelion) from the Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you said it: Pelion was occupied by Cleitus. As I've said this town didn't rebel, it just suffered short-term occupation from an Illyrian attack.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed Robin Lane Fox again and the reference to it being an Illyrian site. Until we agree on how that is reinstated the article has been tagged. Readers ought to know that the version being pushed is not representative of academic discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Robin Lane Fox was not removed. Besides he merely says it was an Illyrian site at the time of Philip. Fox's paper is about Philip and Alexander, he does not concern himself with who originally founded the site. Not only are you making false claims, but your continuous misuse of tags as a blackmail tactic is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fox wasn't removed. On the contrary he was expanded together with Winnifrith. I can't understand what you mean. It's still in the article like the rest of the bibliography. Alexikoua (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * People here are WP:POV pushing without the proper literature that support them. The mention of Pelion of "Dassaretae" happens in Roman times. If you are not informed about that, competence is required. No source mention Pelion as a fortified settlement of the Chaonian tribe before Bardylis, Philip and Alexander. You have to find the proper sources about it, otherwise that content should be removed. : you removed the tags without participating here in talk. I suggest you a self revert, because you are WP:GAMING the WP:3RR. – Βατο (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: the issues you address have been already fixed: as a Chaonian/Dexari settlement it was just a settlement (without fortifications mentioned), fortification came later possibly during Bardilis. Take a deep breath everything is fixed.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they are not, you are POV pushing without proper references and deliberately ignoring ancient and modern sources. The information that Pelion was in Dassaretis is attested only in Roman times. From ancient sources we don't know what kind of people settled the site of Pelium firstly. Fox states that they were Illyrian, but you keep ignoring him. You have to give a source about the Chaonian settlement. WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:POV are not allowed on Wikipedia. – Βατο (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly you mean. All information is carefully taken from the correspondent reference: 1. I fail to see somewhere written which "kind of people settled first". 2. You have to give a source about the Chaonian settlement: answer: Wilkes (it's stated). 3. Fox' research that he agrees with Winnifrith is given in detail. I've provided additional detail from Winnifrith. Alexikoua (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have quoted Alexikoua on my revert of the tags. I think this is self-explanatory. I fully stand by and support Alexikoua's and Khirurg's excellent points. Now, if you just forget about the annoying pinging and your baseless demands that I revert my edit, hint: it ain't gonna happen, I can leave and live in peace. Cheers. Dr.   K.  13:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, you added this quote from Wilkes (1992), page 98: deliberately exluding that it was an information that comes to us from Polybius, a historian of Roman times, here is the full quote from Wilkes:  Pelion as a town of the Dassaretae is attested only in Roman times, you can not use that information for the sentence:  which is followed by the WP:OR . You are misusing sources with WP:SYNTH and OR. @Dr.K., I did not expect from an experienced editor like you to ignore all the issues presented in this talk page. Cheers. – Βατο (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Polybius lived during the Roman Republic era and as historian he writes about his past. Ok I'm going to specify that this is based on Polybius account. About Bardylis this is exactly taken from the provided reference: the area which came under his control included two urban centers (Lychnidos and Pelion) and he probably built walls on this sites. Nothing OR nothing SYNTH, all necessary quotes have been provided.Alexikoua (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The SYNTH is that "Pelion came under the control of Bardylis", as no primary sources report that, also secondary sources do not support this information. – Βατο (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * But you can't have in the lead a primary account in that way. It creates an undue problem. If this is debatable then it should be discussed but not in the lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It may sound weird not to use this: Pelium was among the settlements inhabited by the Chaonian tribe of Dassaretae, while Wilkes states: the Chaones, the Epirote people of whom the Dexari or Dassaretae were the most northerly and bordered the Illyrian Enchelei, ...the Dassaretae possessed several towns, though none has yet been definitely located, including Pclion, It can't be more clear: A Chaonian tribe was located in Pelion.Alexikoua (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wilkes is a secondary account fits per wp:SECONDARY.Alexikoua (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, in this case we have to include the information that 'according to Polybius Pelion was a town of "Dassaretae"'. What these Dassaretae were is a matter of current discussion among scholars, because Polybius did not reports that they were Chaonian. – Βατο (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

While Robin Lane Fox states that Pelion was an Illyrian site. You can not insert WP:OR like in a Wikipedia article. – Βατο (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Scholars like Fanula Papazoglu, Pierre Cabanes and others disagree with Hammond's theory about the identification of Roman times Dassaretae with Chaonian Dexaroi. There is a current debate among scholars about the Roman times people named Dassaretae/Dassaretii/Dassareti/Dassarenses etc. and about the southern Ilyrian region of Dassaretis. Even Hammond admitted that the Dexari disappeared at the time of Philip II and Bardylis: Hammond (1966): "The Dexari lay to the south of the Enchelees and were thus in Dassaretis, an area to which it seems they gave their name. It is likely that Illyrian tribes occupied Dassaretis before the time of Philip II, because the Dexari disappeared and Alexander's campaign at Pelium was described as a campaign in Illyria."
 * You are into deep OR if you want to remove Wilkes and Hammond (Wilkes' publication is more recent compared both to Papazoglou & Cabanes by the way, which you avoid to present) . Also I didn't mention the Dexari during Alexander's campaign: as I've said I was very carefully adding the text.Alexikoua (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What deep OR, I added only quotes, are quotes OR now? Also the Dassaretae before Alexander's campaign can not be added if not supported by a source. – Βατο (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deep OR is the way you interpret those quotes & by the intention to vanish various sources you personally don't like (Wilkes for example). For future reference Fox cites Winnifrith's view, who states that the site can be possibly identified with an Illyrian wall near Zvezde. It's everything there. Nevertheless even Winnifrith concludes that he isn't completely certain about the precise location. Also yes the siege of Pelium was a anti-Illyrian campaign. Again I'm correct by interpreting the reference.Alexikoua (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean this quote: It is likely that Illyrian tribes occupied Dassaretis before the time of Philip II, because the Dexari disappeared and Alexander's campaign at Pelium was described as a campaign in Illyria. It's already in the article: Dexari weren't part of Alexander's campaign. This can't be interpreted that they never existed. Alexikoua (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said previously, unlike you I do not interpret or WP:SYNTH nothing, I base my claims on reliable sources that I have previously read. – Βατο (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And Cabanes himself agrees about the Illyrian Dassaretis and Dassareti. – Βατο (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is Hatzopoulos suggestion about the Illyrian Dassareti and Dassaretia, reported by Cabanes' in his recent 2002 book: ILIRI: od Bardileja do Gencia (in Croatian), pp. 50–51, in agrement with the even more recent Fox (2011): "Naposljetku, dodajem da dvije novije studije predstavljene na međunarodnom kolokviju o j užnoj Iliriji i Epiru u antici, koji je održan u Clermont-Ferrandu u listopadu 1984, (9) daju vrlo koristan doprinos boljem rasvjetljavanju problema ilirske države i kraljevstava koja su se smjenjivala u južnoj Iliriji od IV. do II. stoljeća prije Krista. P. Carlier je održao izlaganje pod nazivom "Ilirski kraljevi i kralj Ilira" (10) koje pruža jasnu sliku različitih dinastija i sugerira da je "kralj ilira naprosto onaj od ilirskih kraljeva koji ima hegemoniju nad svim Ilirima, ili točnije, nad južnim Ilirima". M. Hatzopoulos je pak odredio "Granice makedonske ekspanzije u Iliriji pod Filipom II.". On ostaje vrlo blizak stajalištima N. G. L. Hammonda, odnosno sklon mnogostrukim ilirskim državama, pa dijeli i njegovo mišljenje da je Sira pripadao linkestidskoj kraljevskoj obitelji, ali i predlaže, čini se s razlogom, da se Bardileja ne smatra kraljem Dardanaca kao što je to želio Hammond, nego kraljem Dasareta, što stavlja područje njegove vlasti u izravni dodir s Linkestidom i Orestidom te, budući da su ti krajevi uže povezani s argeadskim kraljevstvom, sa samom Makedonijom (11)."
 * How about you stick to English-language sources, and stop trying to ram your edits through by force. You made major changes and are now edit-warring to have your way by force. No way. Khirurg (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about all the bibliography we discussed here, and you keep ignoring them by no reason, only POV pushing with WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CHERRYPICKING? – Βατο (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CHERRYPICKING? Are you referring to yourself. You've been edit-warring A LOT lately, I strongly suggest you slow down. You racked up 3 reverts in a matter of minutes today. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Side comment: A source written in English isn't better than a non-English one just because more people will probably be able to read it. A narrative that places this as a Dexari settlement unambiguisly cannot stand in the LEAD, there are many sources that dispute it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilkes clearly says a "settlement of the Dassaretae", which is what the lede days, Bato is falsifying that to a "settlement in Dassaretis". This is because Dassaretae is currently described as a Greek tribe, and he doesn't want that. Khirurg (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not falsifying nothing, don't WP:PERSONALATTACK. Here is the quote from Wilkes already inline: . If you don't know who Polybius was, you can read his Wikipedia article. – Βατο (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you did you change "a settlement of the Dassaretae", to a "settlement in Dassaretis"? Yes, you are falsifying. And you don't know which period Polybius was referring to, you are just making that up. Khirurg (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With source falsification like this, I have a feeling we will soon be having "discussions" like this at Dodona. Call it a hunch. Khirurg (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still not discussing all the arguments and bibliography presented here in talk, keeping only edit war. – Βατο (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my question: Why did you change "a settlement of the Dassaretae", to a "settlement in Dassaretis"? Khirurg (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't explain Bato's strong obsession to remove the Chaonian/Dexari information []. No serious argument provided to eliminate the Dexari presence & it's clear that when the Romans arrived it was already a Dexari settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag
The reason for adding the tag does not appear to have been resolved, so why was the tag removed? El_C 23:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for participating here. I don't know why it was removed, the issues remain, and as you can see, there have been a long discussion about them. I provided the proper bibliography about the subject and all the views by scholars, but other editors do not consider them. The tag was added by Maleschreiber, but Khirurg and Dr.K. removed them without a proper explanation. The issues need to be fixed. Thank you for restoring the tag. All the best! – Βατο (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the tag because Robin Lane Fox, who was cited as disputing the narrative of the article, had been removed: the source as a citation was there, but the content it was used to support ( was removed by Khirurg. After that I placed the tag and explained in my edit summary:POV tags, the result of removing Robin Lane Fox in favor of a very disputed narrative. Then, Dr.K. reverted the tag I placed by saying that Fox wasn't removed. On the contrary he was expanded together with Winnifrith. I can't understand what you mean. It's still in the article like the rest of the bibliography. But as you can see El C, the content was indeed removed and me tagging it and my edit summary obviously had nothing to do with me mistakenly believing that Fox as a citation was removed. In the past days, I have placed on the talkpage the quote by Fox which disputes the narrative many times and tried to initiate a dispute resolution but that didn't happen because I was constantly not getting any replies about the bibliography that was being presented (Fox). After that as you'll notice in the edit history I decided to not engage myself any further. Thank you for restoring a framework under which the discussion can occur. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the citation was moved, but the text preceding it was removed. Hopefully, that removal can be substantiated further by the other participants. I think what's key here is to divide the contested edits into more digestible bits under separate section headers. The discussion above is rather difficult to follow. I found. El_C 00:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I stayed away from this article/talkpage for less than 24 hours and it became difficult to follow - so I perfectly understand your point. I'll try to sum it up as best as I can. The dispute - as I understand it from the content of the reverts and the discussion - has to do with the following: Should the lead sentence say unambiguously that this was a settlement of the Dexari/Dessaretae? One viewpoint says that it should based on Hammond-Wilkes, the other says a)the identification with the Dexari is ambiguous and there's evidence (Fox-Winnifrith) of it being an Illyrian site (Bato) b)it had many phases so why should one particular (disputed or not disputed) era take precedence? (my argument). --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the summary. I suppose, then, that this is a matter of which premise represents due weight. If, however, academic consensus on the matter is more-or-less evenly split, then the lead can reflect that, instead. El_C 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, due weight is important. Regardless of whether this was Chaonian or Illyrian initially (~390-380BCE), it became a border conflict area between Illyrians and Macedonians until Alexander firmly controlled it in 335BCE and the Romans got the site in 199BCE. After that, there is a debate about whether this site was in use as a Roman/Byzantine fort up to the era of Justinian 6th century CE. So in terms of chronology, it wouldn't make sense for such a long period of time (up to 9 centuries) to pick one particular era and highlight just that in the lead sentence. My proposition was to highlight none of them in the lead sentence and have only a geographical description as well as a mention of its "life span".--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, that seems like it could possibly be a sensible compromise to avoid either WP:UNDUE mention. Of course, other participants are free to argue that either (or both) are, in fact, due for the lead. I look forward to their arguments, in any case. El_C 01:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Additions such as: "Past research pointed out to it as a settlement of Chaonian tribe of the Dexaroi, modern research has identified it with an Illyrian site" are confusing for the reader and should have been avoided not to mention that "X outweights Y" or even "X is more recent than Y" is just a personal conclusion (not supported by any citation). In fact several views have been repeated and recycled over time. @El_C: each view has been presented in a separate paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The statement Past research pointed out to it as a settlement of Chaonian tribe of the Dexaroi, modern research has identified it with an Illyrian site is a misuse of Robin Lane Fox and an example of subtle POV pushing using the loaded word "modern". Allow me to explain. The remains of Pelion have not been found. Our only knowledge of this place comes from ancient sources. It's only claim to fame, and probably the only reason anyone has ever heard of it, is that it was the site of a battle between Alexander and the Illyrians. No one disputes that it was held by Illyrians at the time of the battle with Alexander. And this is what Robin Lane Fox states. But he draws no conclusions about the initial founders. The experts in this topic area (Ancient NW Greece/Southern Albania) are John Wilkes (expert on the Illyrians), Nicholas Hammond, and Tom Winnifrith (both experts on the region of Epirus). Both Wilkes and Hammond state categorically that this was a settlement of the Dassaretae. RL Fox's focus on the other hand, is not Pelion itself or the Illyrians, but rather Alexander - he only mentions Pelion because Alexander fought an important battle there. Yes, it was held by the Illyrians at the time, but Fox himself is agnostic as to who founded it. So it is dishonest to state that modern research has identified it with an Illyrian site using Fox. Fox makes no claim regarding who founded it, and the wording "modern" is WP:WEASEL intended to poison the well against Hammond and Wilkes (who wrote in the 90s, so they are "modern" as well). Lastly, I am also concerned that the POV tag is used as a blackmail tactic by this group of users, as a bargaining chip to give in to their demands. At Northern Epirus, they tagged the article, but since then abandoned the discussion and the tag is still there. If their demands are not met, they leave the tag and show no intention of making further efforts to remove it. I am worried the same thing will happen here. Contrast with what happened at Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars, where Dr.K and I made a conscientious effort to have the tag which Dr. K. had added, removed. Khirurg (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that research from the 1990s could still be deemed modern, but also, may be subject to becoming dated as a result of newer archaeological, etc., research — if these play a role at all. Myself, I'm not sure whether it does or doesn't. Anyway, let's give the NPOV dispute a chance to resolve itself with a fresh perspective. I think you've advanced some compelling arguments, so I'm looking forward to other participants' substantive response to these. El_C 08:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The disputes on N. Epirus have not moved towards dispute resolution because you have reverted or haven't accepted or haven't even replied to dispute resolution attempts. Hammond wrote in the 60s and 70s, and Winnifrith who R.L.Fox is citing got published in 2002. The full quote by R.L Fox (2011) is so making a comparison between older and newer research here is not OR because it follows the author's comparison of bibliography and research to come to the conclusion that .  Also, there is confusion in Hammond's writings as well because Hammond (1966) writes:  All of this means that there cannot be an unambiguous lead sentence which says that it was a fortified settlement/fort of the Chaonian Dexari. It is also wrong to pick one particular (disputed) era from a possible period of up to nine centuries, the best known of which doesn't even involve that particular one. On N.Epirus I almost never got a reply to resolution attempts, the same happened on this article before El C protected it. The dispute resolution attempt here on my part is: A lead sentence with only geographical location and historical time ("classical and Roman antiquity up to possibly the late Roman era"). What do you have to say about that? --Maleschreiber (talk)
 * Thanks for the substantive reply, . As mentioned above, that is what I had hoped for above. I think the discussion is progressing well here so far, which hopefully, will end up leading to a resolution or compromise. El_C 08:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fox cites Winnifrith and the later provides some additional detail: . So he ends up that this site isn't definitely located. This info is already mentioned and I still wonder why this should eliminate some other authors.Alexikoua (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

, the main issue here is about the name Dassaretae, which was attested in Roman times to describe a tribe that inhabited "Pelion" and the region of Dassaretis, and related mainly to the Second Macedonian War. About the 60s and 70s the historian N.G.L. Hammond supposed that those Dassaretae were related to a Chaonian tribe called Dexari attested in the 6th century BC by Hecataeus (although Hammond stated that the Dexari disappeared before the time of Philip II). Hammond's suggestion derived by the fact that the two names are similar, and that the ancient authors often used similar names to describe the peoples of southern Illyria. For instance, there are attested Dassaretii/Dassaretae/Dassarenses etc. So he distinguished between the Chaonian Dassaretae inhabiting the region of Dassaretis and the Illyrian Dassareti, inhabiting further north. There is a current discussion among scholars about the ethne and position of those Dassaret- mentioned in Roman times, and many authors gave a great number of suggestions, like a relation with Sesarethi, Taulanti, Enchelei, Daesitiates, Pirustae etc. In more recent research, like M. B. Hatzopoulos, Pierre Cabanes and Robin Lane Fox, the territory of Dassaretis is considered as the realm of the Illyrian king Bardylis, disputing Hammond's suggestion, that considered Dardania his realm. Hammond's suggestion to exclude Dassaretis as a realm of Bardylis is derived by his assumption that the region was economically poor, but this is contrasted by archaeological finds (see for instance Trebenista and Royal Tombs of Selca e Poshtme, all located in the region of Dassaretis and considered Illyrian sites). There is an agreement among historians that Bardylis clashed with Philip II in the lakeland area, but Hammond considered it an expansion of the Dardanians southwards, while Hatzopoulos, Cabanes and Fox debated him considering that Bardylis' realm was in Dassaretis, including the lakeland area and being in direct contact with Lynkestis and Orestis. According to them this territory is more in proximity for the events that happened at the time of Bardylis and subsequently with his son Cleitus ("Siege of Pelion"), and Dardania is too far north and makes a southward advance unlikely. Now, because there are all those uncertainties, I replaced in the lead paragraph the sentence with  adding also this information  (without wikilinking "Dassaretae" as their ethne is debated), because those statements are the only one agreed by a great number of sources and attested in ancient times (which makes them little affected by modern debated hypotheses). Also in the history section I left only that because also this is a statement commonly agreed by Hammond, Cabanes and the others, and removed  because is debated. – Βατο (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , how would you summarize this debate in the lead, though? That would be quite a feat. Perhaps it would be best to only touch on the academic dispute in the lead (if at all), and leave the substance for the body. Overall, these lengthy notes from several of you are not easy to follow — mainly because I lack the background to parse what constitutes the scholarly consensus (due weight), which to me appears unclear at the moment. I'm not sure how useful my input is when it comes to the actual material being contested (both here and in academia). But I recommend you continue discussing to iron out the all the details. El_C 09:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An additional piece of info about the short-term Dardanian occupation of Pelion might be helpful, in 335 B.C(Hammond, 1972): . It clearly shows that there was a Dassaretae population in this site that time (and 335 B.C is pre-Roman). So there is yet another source that points to this.Alexikoua (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , we could leave in the lead the information regarding the geographical position and historical events directly related to this city, i.e. the Battle of Pelion between the Illyrians under Cleitus and the Macedonians under Alexander, and the Second Macedonian War in the territory of Dassaretis between the Romans under Publius Sulpicius and the Macedonians under Philip V. The various suggestions about the Dassaretae can be analyzed in the "History" section, where this tribe is mentioned to have been restored in that city after the Romans conquered it. – Βατο (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if other participants are amenable to that — sure. El_C 10:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , we could also insert at the beginnig of the history section, as proposed by Alexikoua, the informations regarding the Dassaretae/Dassaretii that lived there before the Siege of Pelion, but these are only hypotheses because the ancient authors did not mention them when describing that battle. There is Hammond's suggestion that considers these Dassaretae/Dassareti the same as the Chaonian Dexari, and there is the suggestion of Cabanes and Fox that considers these Dassaretae/Dassaretii as the people of Bardylis and Cleitus. – Βατο (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well so far Cabanes Fox&Winnifrith mention the Illyrian fortification as a possible site, I fail to see where the claim that they were "the people of Bardylis and Cleitus".Alexikoua (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have not read Cabanes you cannot make these considerations. – Βατο (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but so far you have not added something about Cabanes in the article, but Fox&Winnifrith say nothing about the 'people of Cleitus'.Alexikoua (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it just sounds too nuanced for the lead, but if you can still make it happen, by all means: make a concrete proposal with sample text. El_C 11:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I misread your proposal. Yes, history section could be a solution and resolution. Again, I encourage you submit a concrete proposal text. El_C 13:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato has replied that he would be ok with geographical+timeline lead sentence -if I read that correcly. you have not replied yet. There needs to be concrete reply to that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm more than happy to unprotect early (which is to say, immediately) if everyone is in general agreement on that plan. If, however, there is still strong disagreement about what it should say, then I continue to advise on submitting a concrete proposal text+sources first. El_C 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not at all ok with just "a geographical+timeline lead sentence". This settlement was initially a settlement founded by someone, and this someone is none other than the Dassaretae. As far as I can tell, that is very solidly sourced (Wilkes and Hammond), and there is no source disputing that. What the Dassaretae were is another matter, to be settled elsewhere. But as far as this article is concerned, I don't see any issue with saying that was initially a settlement of the Dassaretae. Khirurg (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Though I have a number of concerns I fully agree with El_C: You are welcome to submit a concrete proposal here in tp (with citation).Alexikoua (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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


 * pp. 387–388: "In 1974 Hammond sited Pelion at Gorice just south of the smaller Lake Prespa, but Sarantes criticized his choise and proposed a site north of Zemblak, slightly to the north-west of Hammond's location. Since 2003, after renewed autopsy, Winnifrith has made a decisive case for Zvezde, even further to the north-west, and has related it convincingly to Arrian's text. Pelion was an Illyrian site there, not a former settlement of Philip's..."

We can use some of these statements with Hammond in the history section. – Βατο (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato: You need to provide full context for p. 49-50 since the text between the Illyrian tribe Dassaretae and Pelium is broken between. But from the provided quote it's obvious that you confuse the Chaonian tribe of the same name (which is the case here) with the Illyrian one (see Dassaretae). Even more less weaker arguments are presented in: p. 64-65 you need to specify which tribe (the Chaonian or the Illyrian) is the one described there. Same with pages 133 and 90. Geographically located 'in Illyria' or to be precise on the borderland between Illyria-Macedonia doesn't make you Illyrian, especially when Pelium witnessed a short-term Illyrian occupation and then destruction from the Illyrian raiders (and that's even more recent research compared to Fox). I'm afraid that you need to provide concrete evidence not just geographical definitions about Illyria or the situation about the Illyrian Dassaretii that lived further north (central-north Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but El_C suggested you make a concrete proposal. So far we have a selection of broken quotes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) In this very thread, Bato tried to dismiss Hammond as "outdated" Here is the report of new research on the field, which make Hammond's assumptions outdated, yet does not seem to share that concern about Cabanes, from 1988. Am I missing something here? AnywayCabanes only states that Pelion was Illyrian in the 4th century BC, which no one here contests. And Cabanes also clearly supports that Pelion was a settlement of the Dassaretae. In contrast to Hammond, he considers the Dassaretae Illyrians instead of Greeks, but as I've said, that can and should be decided elsewhere, not here. As far as I can see, no one disputes that Pelion was a a settlement of the Dassaretae (regardless of whether they were Greek of Illyrian). Khirurg (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, at least one recent source (Filos) explicitly states Hammond is outdated. Have not seen the like for Cabanes. Apologies if I misunderstood something though as I have not -- and will not -- read this entire talk page. --Calthinus (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If whether the tribe was Greek or Illyrian should be decided elsewhere, then why does this article more than once describe the tribe as Chaonian? For example: "Pelium was among the settlements inhabited by the Chaonian tribe of Dassaretae."? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's stated once in the main body. As far I can understand Bato does not object that the Dexari were initially a Chaonian tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is in the lede too: "It passed different phases of control: the Chaonian tribe of Dexaroi", with the Dexaroi having a link to the Dassaretae article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is this bad? Pelium was listed among the Dexari/Dassaretae settlements and Hammond states that they were likely not friendly towards Cleitus' occupation.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Either you are not carefully reading what I, and maybe others too, write or you are trying to redirect the discussion from one issue to another. You are, deliberately or not, blocking any way to a solution to the dispute by making clueless comments. I asked about why the issue of the tribe's identity/ethnicity is touched on the article in a way that it presents a view only, and you start talking about Cleitus! It is now clear why other editors added a POV tag to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't understand your point here: the information about the Chaonian tribe is stated only once. The correct question here should be: why should we remove this? By the way some editors here kindly requested a concrete proposal text etc. but nothing yet.Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is twice, not once. Well, discuss the proposal with those who will make it. I came here to ask a question to an editor, and you gave an unhelpful answer instead of them. If sources are in disagreement over whether the tribe was Chaonian or Illyrian, it is a waste of time to claim that the article should describe them as Chaonian only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but the lead mentions both Chaonian and Illyrian presence: It passed different phases of control: the Chaonian tribe of Dexaroi, a coalition of Illyrian tribes, and as far I can understand in this tp: Bato agrees that the Dexari were Chaonian.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi: would you be so kind to create a sub-section for this precise issue you raised []? Preventing another huge amount of text under one header can be helpful for all participants. Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato has said (countless times) that it is disputed to which Dessaretae this refers to. He even gave a quote that presents Bardylis as Dessaretian and not a Dardanian king. The proposal is "geographical location+timeline". Nothing about Chaonians on the lead, the dispute can be discussed below. If you don't agree to that, then it's your turn to make a concrete proposal.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, I added also the English translation of Cabanes, if you have difficulties to read even that, I can suggest a translator. Cabanes is clear to support that the Dassaretes in southern Illyria were Illyrian and that Bardylis was a Dassaretian king. Also Fox supports that. If you don't like it is another matter. Now we should move on considering the informations that are important to the scope of this article. I think the proposal for the lead section to include only the geographical location of the city and the historical accounts directly linked to it is reasonable. If there is an agreement, we can start with this. – Βατο (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C kindly asked you to provide a precise text proposal+sources. There can't be an agreement if there is no precise text to propose. There is nothing concrete from a limited selection of fragmentary quotes.Alexikoua (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

– Βατο (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He provided sources and you replied to them yesterday. Proposal for lead sentence: Pelion (alternatively, Pellion, Pelium or Pellium) (Πήλιον, Πέλλιον or Πήλεον, ) was a fortified settlement located on the borderlands between southern Illyria and Macedonia in classical and Roman antiquity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely trimmed lead version. However, Bato's arguments actually do not disagree with the 'Dassaratae' addition. We have confirmed Dessaretae presence during Classical, Hellenistic and Roman period.16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber's proposal sounds good. If we also want to add something about the main historical events of the city, the lead could therefore be something like this: "Pelion (alternatively, Pellion, Pelium or Pellium) (Πήλιον, Πέλλιον or Πήλεον, ) was a fortified settlement located on the borderlands between southern Illyria and Macedonia in classical and Roman antiquity. In the site of Pelion a remarkable battle was undertaken by Alexander the Great against Cleitus, son of Bardylis in 335 BC. The city was also involved in a military operation undertaken by Publius Sulpicius Galba Maximus against Philip V of Macedon at the beginning of the 2nd century BC."
 * That would be an introduction for a fortress but not for a settlement. We had battles but there were also civilians that lived in this settlement. The 'Dessaretae' presence is over-sourced no reason to be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we don't know with certainty in what periods they lived there. – Βατο (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have at least 3 precise periods of Dessaretae presence: 1. Before Bardylis, 2. In 335 BC, 3. The time of the Roman conquest.Alexikoua (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, we know with certainty only that Pelion was a Dassaretian city at the beginning of the 2nd century. Also, I think my proposal may avoid WP:UNDUE in the lead. If other editors don't agree with it, they can make their proposals. – Βατο (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is POV since it fully ignores everything which is out of the scope of military history. As I've said we know with certainty that Dassaretae inhabited the settlement at least 1. before Bardylis, 2. when the Illyrians burnt it in 335BC 3. when Romans occupied it. A town widely known as a Dassaretae settlement should be mentioned as such.Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the author of this quote is quite certain about the inhabitants of this town in 335BC. As I've said there is no strong argument to get rid of this part.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a question: why do not you write in the lede that "throughout its history the settlement was controlled by the tribe of Dassaretae, a coalition of Illyrian tribes, the Macedonian kingdom and Rome"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if we include Dassaretae "regardless of whether they were Greek or Illyrian" as mentioned previously by Khirurg, I agree with this addition. – Βατο (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All sources describe it as a settlement of the Dassaretae, so that should stay. I'm glad you agree on this point. But, both Hammond and Wilkes describe is a settlement of the Chaonian Dassaretae, not the Illyrian Dassaretae. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We keep going around in circles. In recent sources there is a great number of theories about the "Dassaretae" mentioned in Roman times, not only the Chaonian or Illyrian affiliation (there is also a recent interpretation of an Enchelean/Sessarethian relation, considered either as Illyrian or Brygian). I think only a mention of Dassaretae is enough for the scope of the lead of this article, without analyzing all the views about them, in accordance with what you have said previously: "that can and should be decided elsewhere". – Βατο (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure we are repeating ourselves: Pelion was a settlement of the Dessaretae located in... is a neutral way to begin with. The various periods of control: (Dexari/Chaonian-Illyrian/Dardanian-Macedon-Illyrian/Dardanian-Macedon-Rome) can stay at the end of the lead. Sourced and neural.Alexikoua (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But the core of the dispute here has to do with which of the two Dessareti we're dealing with. A lead that begins with "was a settlement of the Dessaretae" is also wrong because for most of its existence this wasn't the area of any Dessareti tribe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is very well sourced that this was initially a settlement of the Dassaretae. So the opening sentence of the lede was a fortified settlement of the Dassaretae located on the borderlands between southern Illyria and Macedonia in classical and Roman antiquity. should stay as is. I believe we are all in agreement on this much, at least. Khirurg (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg, your proposal creates undue weight for the lead as the site has not been inhabited by Dassaretae in all its history, I think Ktrimi991's proposal can be a more appropriate solution. – Βατο (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So far there is no source that claims that the Dassaretae were 'not' inhabiting Pelium (from 6th - 2nb BC). All time periods: pre-Philip II (Hammond, 1966), 335 BC (Hammond, Griffith, 1972), c. 200 BC (Deroux, 1979, Felix 1978, Hammond(. are certain about a Dassaretae presence there. This isn't a valid reason for removal. In fact it would be UNDUE weight to remove them.Alexikoua (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Khirurg, the POV dispute began specifically because you wanted to keep this lead sentence (fortified settlement of the Dessaretae), so a dispute resolution/compromise requires you to take a step back. Who these Dessaretae were, in which period etc. are all disputed. IMO the lead should be neutral with just geographical information+timeline. Now, if there can't be had a dispute resolution, there's the next step: RfC. Do we want to go there though because of exactly five words in a lead sentence? Do you have an alternative compromise solution?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Concrete proposals have been made explaining also why the first sentence "was a fortified settlement of the Dassaretae located on the borderlands between southern Illyria and Macedonia in classical and Roman antiquity." is undue. Ktrimi's proposal includes the Dassaretae in the sentence "throughout its history the settlement was controlled by the tribe of Dassaretae, a coalition of Illyrian tribes, the Macedonian kingdom and Rome". which I think gives due weight to the subject in the lead. Some editors keep WP:STONEWALLING and accusing others of bad faith. Now it is evidently evaluable which is the more balanced proposal. – Βατο (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: even under Macedonian & Roman control it was still known as a Dassaretae settlement (see above Hammond, Griffith, 1972 & Deroux, 1979 & Felix 1978). You also forgot to add that Dassaretae was a Chaonian tribe, which obviously needs to be mentioned. Bato: There is a mountain of bibliography some of which was even provided by yourself.Alexikoua (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Impossible to discuss with people who do so in bad faith
Just two posts ago, Bato said I think only a mention of Dassaretae is enough for the scope of the lead, but as soon as I propose keeping the Dassaretae in the lede, in his next post, all of a sudden it's your proposal creates undue weight for the lead. Then, we have Maleschreiber saying that the POV dispute...requires you to take a step back. In other words, "because I added a POV tag, you have to take a step back". To me, this proves the tag was added in bad faith, as a pressure tactic. It is simply impossible to have a meaningful discussion with people who do so in bad faith, who say one thing in one post and then the opposite in the next, endlessly filibuster, and who use pressure and shaming tactics instead of rational arguments and concrete proposals. As for an RfC, we all know exactly what will happen: Multiple Albanian accounts, some of whom are hardly active, will appear out of nowhere and spam the RfC with !votes and filibuster, as happens in every vote in this topic area (e.g. Talk:Religion in Albania). Khirurg (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This kind of tactics appears really disruptive. I've also checked the sources provided by Bato and all of the sudden they are eliminating his own arguments. For example a source reads that "the Dexari likely disappeared for a short period" but this is wrongly interpreted that the "Dexari never existed before": under this excuse there is an unexplained obsession to remove any Dexari/Dassaratea addition in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Khirurg&Alex, the page got protected specifically because the lead sentence "was a fortified settlement of the Dessaretae" was disputed. From that start point, a dispute resolution requires you and others to move their position towards a new one, which doesn't just repeat the one which resulted in a POV tag and a full protection of the article. I have consistently proposed a lead sentence which only has geographical information+timeline. You don't have to agree with that, but you haven't put forward any alternative either - despite being asked to. If you don't feel that you want to move towards a "compromise" position (according to bibliography), it's ok - the next logical step which we can seek dispute resolution though is RfC. am I wrong here about RfC being the next step? Also, arguments matter, not just !votes, but I also think that it is very wrong to presume that in a discussion about a site in Albania, arguments which can be made by editors who are of Albanian origin can just be seen as !vote. In all discussions, in which I have asked for third-party, community input everything was better because new perspectives were eventually put forward. Collectivity always generates better results than individual input.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh no, it doesn't work like that. The problem with your side's proposal is that it omits vital information that is solidly sourced. And you are using the NPOV tag as a pressure tactic to force removing this information. But it doesn't work like that. Wikipedia is not some kind of bazaar where one can use pressure tactics to haggle in favor of a favorable outcome. The information you are trying to hide from our readers is very solidly sourced, and there is simply no way around that. Suppose I went to some Illyrian settlement, say, belonging to the Taulantii and said "muh location and timeline only in the lede". Yeah, exactly. As for an RfC, we both know what will happen: Roughly a dozen sq.wiki and other marginally active accounts will magically turn up to this most obscure of articles, exactly as they did at Religion in Albania, where they successfully managed to spam the RfC. Khirurg (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that the first sentence: "was a fortified settlement of the Dassaretae located on the borderlands between southern Illyria and Macedonia in classical and Roman antiquity." is historically erroneous? The site was located in a border area and was in possession of different political entities throughout its history. Also its inhabitants were not the same in the different periods: as Polybius recorded, after the Romans occupied the region, it was "restored" to the Dassaretae. We don't know who built its fortifications (Hammond suggests Bardylis, Cabanes suggests Philip II, Fox suggests Illyrians, etc.). The region came under the dominion of Macedonians and Illyrians (considered Dassaretae by Papazoglu, Cabanes, Šašel Kos, Fox and others, Dardanians by Hammond). In the period after Alexander, we have not informations about its inhabitants, because the first that recorded this city was Polybius in the 2nd century BC describing the Second Macedonian War. So, if we want to make the article historically correct, without undue weight into the lead, the sentence more in accordance with what the sources report is "throughout its history the settlement was controlled by the tribe of Dassaretae, a coalition of Illyrian tribes, the Macedonian kingdom and Rome". As some have said above "Wikipedia is not some kind of bazaar", indeed editors can not add informations as they wish without taking into account the studies of various specialized scholars. – Βατο (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato: Do you realize the El_c kindly asked you to provide a concrete text+sources proposal since May 15? I suggest you begin adding concrete sources (pages quotes etc.) in your proposed text (inline reference, not just fragmentary quotes here and there). By the way, you understand that falsifying and misusing sources equals disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already provided my proposal. If we add also Ktrimi's suggestion, the lead would become the following:
 * "Pelion (alternatively, Pellion, Pelium or Pellium) (Πήλιον, Πέλλιον or Πήλεον, ) was a fortified settlement located on the borderlands between southern Illyria and Macedonia in classical and Roman antiquity. Throughout its history the settlement was controlled by the tribe of Dassaretae, a coalition of Illyrian tribes, the Macedonian kingdom and Rome. In the site of Pelion a remarkable battle was fought by Alexander the Great against Cleitus, son of Bardylis in 335 BC. The city was also involved in a military operation undertaken by Publius Sulpicius Galba Maximus against Philip V of Macedon at the beginning of the 2nd century BC."


 * , I am ignoring the false accusations of "bad faith" and "falsifying and misusing sources" because we must focus on a solution, but this kind of unconstructive behavior does not help. – Βατο (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a serious issue that you insist to neglect: even during Macedonian (inline: []) as well as Roman rule ([]) Pelion was known as a settlement of the Dassaretae. Even you admitted that in Roman times this was a Dassaretae settlement. You understand that your proposal has serious POV issues by just stating that Dassaretae presence vanished as soon as it was occupied by the Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, in the above proposal there is no specific periodization for its inhabitants (which is very difficult to determine), therefore it can not imply that "Dassaretae presence vanished as soon as it was occupied by the Illyrians". As you may have noticed, I consider the information that the Dassaretae (whatever their affiliation was) inhabited this city in Roman times to be fundamental (because well attested in ancient sources), so I would not accept a proposal that could exclude this information. – Βατο (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I really don't think making a talkpage section with an attack title like this is constructive. --Calthinus (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As noticed this proposal ignores essential features related to Pelion. However, we should be careful about the historic period: simply saying that Dassaratae vanished is OR. A neutral description of the settlement's history will be the following:

"Throughout its history the settlement was controlled by the Chaonian tribe of the Dassaretae, then it possibly became a walled site during the Illyrian/Dardanian expansion under Bardylis, and then a Macedonian outpost during the reign of Philip II. At 335 B.C. during the Balkan campaign of Alexander the Great it was temporarily occupied by Cleitus son of Bardylis. The later burnt Pelion possibly because its Dasarretae inhabitants were not friendly against the Dardanian raiders. During the Second Macedonian War (c. 198 B.C) the city was captured by the Roman forces of Publius Sulpicius Galba Maximus."

It wasn't finally that difficult to provide a concrete text+sources proposal. The Dassaretae presense in Pelion is confirmed by RS, no need to ignore thatAlexikoua (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ancient cities changed hands all the time. Tyre was ruled by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, but it was always a Phoenician city. Same here. Illyrians, Macedonians and Romans all held this place at various times, but it was a settlement of the Dassaretae. This is very solidly sourced, and it should be mentioned in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If, as described by ancient sources, Pelion was restored to the Dassaretae after the Roman occupation of the region, it means that the city was inhabited for a period by different peoples until that time. Also the building of the fortification walls are not assured as Dassaretian, since scholars consider them constructed by Bardylis or Philip II. – Βατο (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Winnifrith (2002) says that control to the Dexari was restored and the population was "ejected" from the city. This strongly implies that the population of Pelium and the Dexari weren't part of the same community. I'm not saying that we should be making an SYNTH/OR claim based on that but it's not less SYNTH/OR than the claim that says that because it was "restored" the Dessareti, it means that it was "their" settlement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Restored" proves it was originally a Dassaretae city. The population that was ejected would likely have been the Illyrian occupiers. If you're going to play semantic games over words such as "restored", you're not debating in good faith. As for who built the walls, that is again a very weak argument. Occupiers often fortify cities they conquer, that means nothing as far as whose city it was originally. Khirurg (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Restored=originally a Dessaretae settlement and population=occupies is just your reading Winnifrith (2002). We shouldn't be even be getting into interpreting the source but your reading is not even a plausible one. Who would possibly read "the population was ejected and the city was restored to the Dessaretae" and assume that population refers to "occupiers"? The solution here is RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Illyrian settlement in Zvezde?
Though more recent research (of 2012) disagrees with the Zvezde location it's interesting that Winnifrith isn't sure about the identity of ancient Zvezde. Apart from an 'Illyrian wall' there is nothing that makes the settlement Illyrian (from Winnifrith 2002):

Question: Was Zvezde an Illyrian settlement? At least Winnifrith concludes that 'more research is needed'. So, for now we have plenty of sources that point to the Dessaretae option.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology
Vujčić (2021) says that the name of the settlement is Greek, however he does not provide an etymology. Hammond & Griffith (1972) say that the name is Illyrian, but without giving an etymology, and I am not adding their information because the source is old. The name is probably related to the root of the name Pella. A reliable source with a full etymology is needed in this case. – Βατο (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There were other places in ancient Greece named Pelion, so the toponym indeed should  be Greek rather than Illyrian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The attested variant Pellion used by Arrian in the description of the earliest events concerning Alexander could also relate it to the word pella, which in Ancient Greek or Macedonian means 'stone', either of Proto-Indo-European origin or Pre-Greek. The connection with 'stone' is very likely as it would refer to the fortifications of this site. However so far I have not found any source about this etymology. – Βατο (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)