Talk:Sirras

Illyrian, Lynkestian whatever....
According to the references used in the article before the intervention he was an Illyrian and son in law of Arrhabeus. If there are other sources on this issue please discuss them first on talk page and later maybe we can use them in the article. Right now the recent edits have removed the references without being based on anything other that personal assumptions. Reverting to the previous based and referenced version. Aigest (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/Sirras.pdf basically everything you need, or really can, know about Sirrhas 87.202.32.1 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see but these authors claim him Illyrian in well known books (not essays) which had peer reviews adn are used as references worldwide:
 * 1) The Illyrians: history and culture By Aleksandar Stipčević Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1977 ISBN 0815550529, 9780815550525 Length	291 pages p48
 * 2) In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon Princeton Paperbacks Classics/Ancient history Author Eugene N. Borza Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher Princeton University Press, 1992 ISBN 0691008809, 9780691008806 Length 352 pages p191
 * 3) Greek influence along the East Adriatic Coast Volume 26 of Knjiga Mediterana Volume 26 of Biblioteka Knjiga mediterana Author	Nenad Cambi Editors	Nenad Cambi, Slobodan Čače, Branko Kirigin Publisher Kniževni Krug, 2002 Original from	the University of Michigan ISBN 9531631549, 9789531631549 Length 591 pages p112
 * 4) The Greek world in the fourth century: from the fall of the Athenian Empire to the successors of Alexander by Lawrence A. Tritle, Editor Lawrence A. Tritle, Edition illustrated Publisher Routledge, 1997 ISBN 041510582X, 9780415105828 Length 296 pages. p. 172
 * 5) Ancient languages of the Balkans, Volume 1 Ancient Languages of the Balkans, Radoslav Katičić Authors	Radoslav Katičić, Mate Križman Publisher	Mouton, 1976 p.155
 * 6) Cleopatras Author John Edwin George Whitehorne Edition	illustrated Publisher Routledge, 1994 ISBN 0415058066, 9780415058063 Length 243 pages p.27

Moreover all old Greek and Latin authors claim Eurydice I of Macedon as Illyrian and barbarian which was not the case for her grandfather Arrhabaeus and Lyncestians. Aigest (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

did you really read the article? it describes the illyrian vs lyncestian "debate" BTW only Borza is a specialist on ancient macedonian history among the people you quoted and his view is mentioned in the article. 87.202.12.122 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

oh also its a published article in the Ancient World (http://www.arespublishers.com/ANCW.html) journal, not an "essay"87.202.12.122 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you pretend and I can agree that among those sources only Borza is a specialist on Macedonians (remember that Stipcevic is also a specialist on Illyrians) his full citation in his own book published on 1992 is as follows "Euridice, however, emerges as a person in her own right, strong and indipendent if apparently improper. Her mother was the daughter of Lyncestian king Arrhabaeus, (against whom Perdiccas II and Brasidas have fought) and her father was the Illyrian chieftain Sirrhas, who may have been a Lyncestian ally of Arrhabaeus or his son. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon Princeton Paperbacks Classics/Ancient history Author Eugene N. Borza Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher Princeton University Press, 1992 ISBN 0691008809, 9780691008806 Length 352 pages p.191 Sirrhas. Reassuming "Macedonian Specialist" claim one thing and at least other 5 published books and more authors support him. In the other side I see only magazines and not specialists in either Illyrians or Macedonians. Do we agree on that? Aigest (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

but Borza's view is mentioned in the article i linked you to and i agreed with you...also Edson, Errington and Hammond whom Kapetanopoulos cites for the Lyncestian view are/were all specialists in our subject. the article is fine as it is and mentions both views so im not sure what youre disputing...? did i ask for the illyrian view to be removed or something?87.202.54.199 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

and ill repeat that AncW is NOT a 'magazine'87.202.54.199 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access on Hammond, Errington and Edson works. Regarding Macedonian issues I prefer Borza which I find very NPOV, regarding Illyrian issues Stipcevic and that was my point. Since those two specialists on respective fields maintain the same view than most probably is like that. Another thing, according to linguists prevocalic S ---> H in Greek. So the name Sirrhas could have not been a Macedonian name if Macedonian was a Greek dialect, or Sirrhas could have been a Macedonian name and Macedonian could have not been a Greek dialect but smth close to Illyrian and Thracian. That was the position of Katicic Aigest (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

why didnt you read the article...? it summarizes the views of the historians i mentioned (except for hammond who i cant verify ATM the other two dont mention any illyrian origins or even outright call him lyncestian unlike borza -and other historians- whose opinion is included in the article already)...anyway its true about prevocalic s->h in greek (but see also sus/hus for pig) and i agree that the name is most likely not greek but that doesnt mean that the name didnt belong eg to a substratum in macedonia, it could also be thracian or paionian (sirropaiones) or or...does Sirrhas appear as a -specifically- illyrian name anywhere? but you didnt tell me why are you against mentioning "illyrian or lyncestian origins" (as supported by the sources, illyrian is even mentioned first...) instead of just "illyrian origins"?87.202.59.235 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW heres another good source that mentions the whole uncertainty, Elizabeth Donnelly Carney - Women and monarchy in Macedonia, p. 41: "Although we now know that her (Eurydice's) father was Sirras, we do not know who Sirras was or where he came from. Sirras has been identified as either a Lyncestian or an Illyrian". can we agree that the historians' (non)consensus is "uncertain, Illyrian or Lyncestian" as the article already says?87.202.59.235 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

January 2024
Eve if his origin is sometimes considered Illyrian this is not an excuse to degrade the fact that he was primarily a leader of Lyncestes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He is not attested to have been a 'leader of Lyncestes', nor that he was an 'Illyrian chieftain', those are both modern hypotheses. – Βατο (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to not have them in the lede then. Khirurg (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lede should summarise the article's content, and should explain what Sirrhas' was notable for, according to current scholarship. That he was an Illyrian chieftain or ruler is supported by many present-day scholars. Btw, why did you remove the information that he fought against Macedon in the Peloponnesian War? – Βατο (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lede should be neutral and not promote one narrative over another. That he was an "Illyrian chieftain" is just one hypothesis. There are others as well. By making "Illyrian" the seventh word in the article, you are promoting one narrative over another. That is the very definition of POV-pushing. Btw, He participated in the Pelopponesian War in the Illyrian-Lynkestian coalition against Sparta and Macedon
 * sistill in the article, so...yeah. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you know very well that the well sourced content is to be restored. I suggest not to waste time as in many articles now. – Βατο (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And you know very well that what you are doing is POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm adding here the most recent publication on the matter to immediatly clarify how the subject of this article is described by current scholars, but I'll expand the article with many sources: King, Karol J. (2024) "Macedonia" in The Cambridge Companion to Alexander the Great " Now I have enough experience to realize your contribution in Wikipedia is just disruptive editing. And I will not waste more time with you here. I'll expand the article and summarize later its content in the lede. And your disruption, as always, will be trivial. Cheers. – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A single Though Sirras is nowhere identified as such, it is certainly possible that he was an Illyrian ally of Arrhabaeus. does not change anything and doesn't mean what you think it means. And personal attacks and insult will get you nowhere except maybe a block. Reported at ANI. Cheers. Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Every source on the topic hedges on the ancestry of Sirras. Even those sources that lean towards an Illyrian ancestry always qualify it with either "possibly", "probably", or something similar. There is an equal number of sources that describes him as "Lynkestian" (Kapetanopoulos, Worthington, Greenwalt, just to name a few), all of them top notch scholars. The lede and the article cannot unequivocally state he was Illyrian. That would be POV and UNDUE. Khirurg (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, Heckel, Carney and King are among many scholars who consider Sirras an Illyrian chieftain. That's not related to his ancestry, but to what Sirras was notable for. You removed the Illyrian description and kept the Lynkestian one, breaking the WP:Neutral point of view of the lead sentence. – Βατο (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have full access to Hackel, and he begins the discussion with The identity (or, rather, the ethnicity) of Sirrhas is a matter of interest and debate.. Carney states Sirrhas has been identified as either a Lyncestian or an Illyrian. King always uses "probably" and "possibly" to describe Sirras. The "Lynkestian" description has nothing to do with his ancestry. He was a affiliated with Lynkestis by being Arrhabaeus son-in-law, regardless of what his ancestry was. There is no disagreement on that. Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He became "affiliated with Lynkestis" after becoming Arrhabaeus' son-in-law, he was not a "prince, royal member and perhaps prince-regent of Lynkestis", which is only one of the two academic views about Sirras, the other one being that he was an Illyrian chieftain (some even claim king) that married Arrhabaeus's daughter for an alliance. – Βατο (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many scholars who consider him a member of the house of Lynkestis, but I see your point. I will re-add it. Khirurg (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , otdated scholarship like Hammond, Borza, etc. should be avoided and not used like in this edit to make a WP:false balance. We should add what current scholarship support, with WP:DUE WEIGHT. – Βατο (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I believe we should also take into consideration older scholarship. N. G. L. Hammond is considered the "expert" of everything has to do with the ancient Macedon and the corresponding places. Unkownsolidier (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's also not forget that many of these modern historians' books you add in turn cite these older scholars as sources. Unkownsolidier (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hammond has been regarded as an "expert" about Macedon, but he has made several erroneous assumptions based on erroneous and far too speculative scholarly methods, which have also negatively affected research, such as, notably, the case of Bardylis' Dardanian affiliation: :
 * Hammond's 20th century scholarly methods are outdated, and his views should be added only through the analyses of present-day reliable publications, always with WP:DUE WEIGHT. – Βατο (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed you even added 19th century early 20th century scholarhip . Their views can stay only with citations from current historians, as per WP:AGE MATTERS. – Βατο (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * King (2017) provides many more recent views on the matter: "
 * He mantains the Illyrian affiliation also in King 2024: ""
 * Most scholars today, including King, Carney, Roisman, Heckel, Heinrichs and Müller, explicitly consider Sirras an Illyrian. Relying on OUTDATED 20th and even 19th century scholarship to make a WP:false balance is not appropriate editing. – Βατο (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Most scholars today" is completely false. Worthington, Greenwalt, Errington, Kaptenopoulos, and Hatzopoulos all consider Sirras Lynkestian and are recent. Kapetanopoulos is furthermore the only one whose publication focuses exclusively on Sirras. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Most scholars today" is completely false. Worthington, Greenwalt, Errington, Kaptenopoulos, and Hatzopoulos all consider Sirras Lynkestian and are recent. Kapetanopoulos is furthermore the only one whose publication focuses exclusively on Sirras. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Section heading
Khirurg reworded one section heading. As argument for that edit he provided: After I explained him that it is not about ethnicity, but about the identification of Sirras with the chieftain of the Illyrian army who participated in the Peloponnesian war, he changed his argument:  That section is about the hypothesis according to which Sirrhas was the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian War. That section is not about Sirras' participation in the Peloponnesian War for its own sake, which has no historical basis. I have already explained it to Khirurg, but he fails to see my point. A possible balanced heading summarising the sections' content could be: "Sirras as the presumable chieftain of Illyrians in the Peloponnesian War". Suggestions by other editors on this matter would be appreciated. – Βατο (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Section headings need to be succinct, neutral, and on point. Possible participation in Pelopennesian War is succinct and encyclopedic. There is no need to repeat everything in the first sentence in the section heading. Khirurg (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Already explained, your proposal is incomplete and selects only one part of the hypothesis, and it is even misleading because there is no historical basis that Sirras participated in that war as a chieftain of an army other than Illyrian. – Βατο (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sirras, if not Illyrian, could not have participated in that war. So yes, Illyrian is indeed relevant to the heading. This is a unqiue case and can't be compared to other articles. I find Batos version short and easy to understand. Another proposal would be: "Presumable participation as the Illyrian chieftain in the Peloponnesian War". AlexBachmann (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Overly long, clunky, and unencyclopedic. This is not how section headings are supposed to be. Khirurg (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War" strikes me as unnecessarily wordy; simply "Peloponnesian War" would be sufficient.  We don't need to cover every detail of a section in the header! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Name
In this addition, Heckel (2016) was WP:CHERRYPICKED to include unbalanced information. Heckel and Carney report: If some editors want to add content, they should not cherrypick the sources to make a POV narrative. – Βατο (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If that's so, we also have to delete the part from Eurydice I's article where it states "Other modern historians regard this characterization as historically accurate and believe that Sirras, Eurydice's father, was Illyrian, and in particular probably a son of the Illyrian chieftain of the Taulantii, Grabos", since they're both from the exact same source. Unkownsolidier (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you did not see my point, the source Heckel (2016) has been WP:CHERRYPICKED only in some parts to include unbalanced content, although the source itself elaborates much more on it. It's not the appropriate way to add content into the article, even more when the scholar himself (Heckel) criticizes some views. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In this edit you removed one view that you don't like while keeping the view that you like. Don't do that again. – Βατο (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With this edit you,, are deliberately ignoring reliable sources quoted above that even you have alread used, this is another clear example of biased editing in order to present readers only one POV and misleading narrative, which Wikipedia editors must avoid as far as possible as dictated by Neutral point of view policy. – Βατο (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source I cited is reliable and current, and is one of the few sources which includes speculation as to the etymology of the name
 * 'Sirras'. It adds more insight to the context which we need since the section clearly needs expansion. Also, you wanna talk about 'biased editing'? Don't accuse me of that, take a look at my editing history and you'll find out that I try to be objective and neutral as possible as well as encyclopaedic. It may be apparent that I add content which goes in "favour" with the Greek history; you do exactly the same with the Illyrians. Unkownsolidier (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not deliberately push a single POV by WP:CHERRYPICKING the sources and ignoring them when it suits a specific POV. Furthermore, the source you used is not an academic, peer reviewed publication, and the author is not a linguist nor an expert on the matter. I don't even know if he has a PhD in history. If a link about the academic career of this author is not provided, that source will be completely removed. – Βατο (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentece
The info that Sirras was Illyrian is indirectly supported by the description of his daughter expressly as Illyrian by several ancient sources. The info that Sirras was Lynkestian is mere modern speculation. But above all, the alphabetical order secures neutrality. Editors should provide reasonable arguments before reverting again. – Βατο (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Βατο you're not wrong with what you're saying. But we must also not forget that there's no ancient author who expressly describes Sirras as 'Illyrian'. One of the few that mention him is Aristotle who doesn't say anything about the supposed 'Illyrian' descent. As for her daughter, yes, there were sources which describes her as 'Illyrian' (Plutarch, Libanius, Suda etc). Strabo however, who preceded all the aforementioned authors, clearly stated that Eurydice was a member of the Doric Greek Bacchiadae family. Also, we must not forget that the claim about Eurydice being "Illyrian", (according to some modern scholars) may have been a slander from Athens that had purpose to 'defame' Philip's (Eurydice's son) family as being partly non-Greek. Unkownsolidier (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Bacchiadae link provided by Strabo concerns Eurydice's maternal grandfather Arrhabaeus, it has nothing to do with Sirrhas. The slander thing is a modern speculation that should be treated as such. The arguments I provided still remain valid, on the other hand, there is no arguement to support the change made by some editors. – Βατο (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That "slander" theory remains speculation. Both theories are heavily sourced, and include new sources (2023/2024!) as well. Therefore, I suggest keeping it in alphabetical order. Reverting and arguing "wp:stable" is not an appropriate excuse. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Khirurg's concerns about the term "Illyrian" being mentioned as the "seventh word in the article" (see section above) misteriuosly disappeared when the word "Lynkestian" was added instead . This is a typical case of double standards. The wording by User:AlexBachmann is better as it avoids POV or potentially misleading descriptions. – Βατο (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Having the word "Lynkestian" in the first sentence is extremely misleading regarding the dispute that occurred just now. "rv in[s]ane petty POV-pushing, stop this petty nonsense": I'll just warn you at this point for assuming bad faith as well as accusing without any evidence whatsoever. I think the user got used to it because I'm not Bato or Maleschreiber.
 * I cannot see the alleged "insane [...] POV pushing" just becaused I changed "Lynkestian king" to "king of Lynkestis" while trying to uphold neutrality. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit was inane (not "insane"), because Arrhabaeus was 100% Lynkestian, so there is no issue with "Lynkestian king", same as saying "Macedonian king" or "Illyrian king" (which I'm sure you wouldn't mind). You're just lucky I consider the issue minor and am letting it slide. But don't make personal comments like I think the user got used to it because I'm not Bato or Maleschreiber. again. Any such comments in future will be referred to admins. Khirurg (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody's questioning whether Arrhabaeus was Lynkestian or not. Bato and I already explained everything that needed to be said. And btw, inane is not in any way better than insane. Any such comments in future will be referred to admins Likewise. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)