Talk:Phoenice

OR
Alexikoua shouldn't make or deductions because Ugolini's claims were about connections with Italy and those were the archaeological claims used politically by the Italia government, not about the Illyrian artifacts: The ‘Illyrian’ finds were few, but parallels could be made with better-known materials from northern Albania. Moreover, Ugolini recognised that the material culture recovered had affinities with the Iron Age of southern Adriatic Italy. To the Italian government this was an opportunity to be exploited.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can people finally remove that silly piece of made-up private jargon, "or deduction", from their vocabularies? Please pretty please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "npa vio" is another all-time favorite. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ignore trolling). Actually you were the one that claimed that Phoenice isn't part of the Illyrian territory (per Wilkes map), something that should be stated. So it's better to reword the sentence since you (accidentally) reverted my version instantly.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does a city have to be part of a territory for artifacts of other tribes to be found in it? Please don't make or deductions. Btw the whole region was since 230 BC under the suzerainty of the Ardiaean kindgom.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Please avoid expression like 'or deduction'). This means that you disagree with Wilkes' map, something that weakens your arguments even more.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the current Italian mission [] the city was one of the capitals of Epirus (the other was Dodona). I can't see a word about Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read what suzerainty is.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "suzerainty" didn't last more than a year. I am going to fix that. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've corrected some 'or' that was recently added like that "until 230 BC when it became a dominion of the Illyrian Ardiaean kingdom.". In fact Illyrian troops withdraw just after the region was ravaged and a peace treaty was signed. Wilkes is also very clear on that (see Teuta).Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A note: "parallels could be made with better-known materials from northern Albania" is just speculation, it doesn't mean that "parallels should be made with better-known materials from northern Albania". Also note that Illyrian is in quotes. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive corrected Zjarri's latest 'or' in this article where he claimed that the city was a centre of the Chaonians until 3rd cent. BC. [], while in fact it was until 168 BC. Unfortunately I feel that specific members of this project deny any kind of discussion, something that in this case reveals a hostile profile.Alexikoua (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There were was no Chaonian entity in 167 BC in Phoenice i.e or and btw please don't make blind reverts since Luigi Ugolini isn't the archaeologist, who died before 1938. Even if you had sourced your about 167 BC, for the next 6-7 centuries this would be a Roman city so why do you want to label a site, whose most preserved material are from the Roman era as Chaonian?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To sum up: There 'was' a Chaonian entity until 168 B.C., feel free to read the article. Also notice that 'whose most preserved material are from the Roman era' is just 'or'. You also need to explain what 'Illyrian' means, because Ugolini's mission had just propaganda objectives.

About Luigi Ugolini, I'm sorry but it seems you are in wp:trolling territory since you accuse me by ignoring that I've restored it immediately [] (I was expanding the article at the same time).Alexikoua (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenice is not a "Roman city" and no source describes it as such. This is incredibly tendentious and needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've expected this 1924-28 mission was just for propaganda purposes [][[[]]] and Ugolini is termed as young fascist prehistorian.Alexikoua (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You thought that Ugolini died in the 1980s and that he was a painter before I told you who he was. Btw what does that have to do with the Illyrian material? Btw if any other edits like this one occur I'll ask for immediate admin intervention, so please stick to the sources and don't make WP:IDONTLIKEIT edits.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He was a member of the Italian fascist party and fascist archeologist with a clear objective to exploit Albanian nationalist sentiment. In general we should avoid such views, unless we clearly term them as 'propaganda'. You can read What Wikipedia is notAlexikoua (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources say that the Illyrian material were fake or that Ugolini presented non-Illyrian material as such. Ugolini's motives are unrelated to the results of the excavations. In fact Ugolini's view is accredited to him and not labeled as a fact, so please read WP:SYNTH. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and none of them says that there were Illyrian material indeed. You need to find a non fascist source about that. There is no sync at all, please stick to the sources. In general if a source says that a fascist archeologist finds "X" (in quotes) material you should become more sceptical.Alexikoua (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua adding fascist propaganda on the section title is pov and a prehistorian is an archaeologist who specializes in prehistory. Btw are you saying that the UNESCO Butrint project publications are fascist ones? Please stick to the sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To sum up: 1. a mission sponsored by a fascist government in order to exploit Albanian nationalist sentiment is a propaganda mission. 2. Ugolini is a fascist prehistorian. 3. I'm not saying that UNESCO Butrint project publications are fascist. Also, please become less agreesive without insisting that fascist propaganda is history.Alexikoua (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua please don't attribute motives to my edits. The Butrint project source refers to Illyrian material and the other sources don't refute that. Ugolini's political views are unrelated to the excavations themselves.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again wrong: Butrint foundation says that a fascist mission found "Illyrian" (in quotes) artifacts. The quotes are always usefull please don't forget them.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phoenice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225043245/http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue10/gilkes.htm to http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue10/gilkes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028140625/http://www.phoinike.com/ to http://www.phoinike.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Phoinike Inscription
[Ἀγαθᾶι] τύχα[ι Στρα-]

[ταγοῦ]ντος Ἀπ[ειρω-]

[τᾶν] Μενάνδρο[υ]

[..]οκάτου, προστα-

[τεύοντος Χαόνων]

(seis líneas borradas)

ἀνέθηκε ἱερὸν τῶι Πο-

τειδᾶνι ἀνέφαπτον

[Δ]άζον τὸν {ΤΙΟΝ} δοῦ-

λον Νίκαρχος Νικομά-

χου· Ἀρβαῖος καὶ Νικόμα-

χος καὶ Μνασαρέτα

καὶ Παμφίλα καὶ Ξενο-

τίμα κατὰ τὸν νόμον·

μάρτυρες τῶν ἀρ-

χόντων. vacat.

A la buena fortuna, siendo estratego de los epirotas Menandro, ocato, siendo magistradoepónimo de los caones (seis líneas borradas) consagró con carácter sagrado para Poseidón,como intocable, a Dazo el {DION} el esclavo, Nicarco, hijo de Nicómaco: Arbeo, Nicómaco, Mnasareta, Pánfila y Jenotima, de acuerdo con la ley. Siendo testigos los del arcontado (…)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mbishkrimi i Finiqit.jpg

Toponyms and the impact of IPs
More than a year ago I added Beekes (2004). New accounts and IPs messed it up beyond repair. Yesterday wrote that  which  removed and warned Iaof2017 that he will report him to AE because according to Khirurg
 * Beekes (2004), p.182: Iaof2017 didn't "make up" the citation  but new accounts and IPs for over a year have changed what Beekes (2004) discusses into something which he doesn't discuss.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but if it is definitively non-IE, then the speculation that it may have been Illyrian is outdated, since Illyrian is IE. Beekes clearly implies this when he writes Chantraine mentions that Bonfante assumes that Phoinike in Chaonia (in Albania) may be from a foreign language, perhaps Illyrian. I think that this Phoinike is not different from the other places in Greece, and must rather be a Pre-Greek form. Khirurg (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And it's fine if we mention that it's just pre-IE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, agreed. Khirurg (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal
The recent;y removed part [] is supported by the correspondent inline citation p. 181: We know that Phoinīkes is the Greek name for the people, who called themselves Canaanites.... Here we find names with Phoinik- sixteen times, four times as a river, twice for a mountain, thrice as a ‘water’ (once noted as ‘gulf’, sinus); the other nine occurrences are towns.. Please read the online source carefully before proceeding to selected removals.Alexikoua (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The reference failed to list this, therefore I didn't check the source. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I see the quote is already huge, but it doesn't cover the full part (p. 181-183) though. I'll try to make some arrangements.Alexikoua (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)