Talk:Tomorr

Amyron
Amyron was recorded only by Stephanus of Byzantium, citing Hecataeus, and it was not directly linked with Tomorr. The link is a modern hypothesis, and as such it should be included in this article, not as a fact. The content about the ultimate origin of the Dexari and the etymology of Dassaretis is WP:UNDUE and does not belong to this article. There are respective Wikipedia articles that deal with them in abundance. – Βατο (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here, if it's a hypothesis it should be mentioned as such. N.Hoxha (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement cited by Hammond and Griffith doesn't sound like a "hypothesis" at all, in fact it is a clear statement, it reads: . Moreover, Cambridge Ancient History, vol 6, reads: . It appears that Bato needs a better explanation about:

1. the removal of Chaonians/Dexari as a Greek tribe, 2. how something that "it is clear" can be interpreted as an.... hypothesis.Alexikoua (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yet another problematic edit is about the claim of British journalist and writer Jeseph Swire, cited by Elsie. Bato presented it as fact nevertheless the source (Elsie) is quite clear that that's Swire's account. About this 'account' I fail to see any Greek Army presence that north, Tomorr was located much to the north from the area of military operations that time.Alexikoua (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those statements remain modern speculations, not historical facts. Moreover, all that content does not belong to this article. The mentioning that the Dexari are a Chaonian tribe and that they inhabited under mount Amyron is enough for the scope of this article. The information that the Chaonains were Greek speakers because they were part of Epiotic tribes goes beyond the scope of this article. The article is not about the language spoken by Epirotic tribes, it is about a mountain. The etymology of Roman times Dassaretis, whether it was related to the Dexari or not, does not belong to this article. The only thing that can be included is that the mountain was probably located in this territory. Probably because there is not evidence from ancient sources or archeological material that can attest it. – Βατο (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is actually essential for the understanding of the article that Dexari/Chaones belonged to the nw Greek group. You don't believe that its neutral for the Illyrian presence to stay while ancient Greeks are removed. Also it is nowhere claimed that the specific statements are.... speculation. The authors declare that "this is clear", this means that we have no reason to degrade them. You can off course take it to the correspondent noticeboard for further input.Alexikoua (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already stated that the Dexari were a Chaonian group, this is enough for the scope of the article. The author (Hammond) declares that "this is clear" but he does not give any further evidence, so "this is clear" for him, but it still remains a modern hypothesis because the two oronyms—Tomaros and Amyron—are never equated in ancient sources. – Βατο (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed that Chaonians/Dexari belonged to the nw Greek group with the explanation that this is ....UNDUE. Additionally when an author states that this is clear it's not for us to judge him. Nevertheless you still emphasize about the Illyrian presence and how the Illyrians called the mountain in antiquity (ancient sources about that?). You understand that this is POV-pushing.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about Mount Tomorr, which perhaps was ancient Amyron, under which inhabited the Dexari. There is already the information that the Dexari belonged to the Chaonians. The oronym Tomaros is attested in ancient sources; while Amyron is attested only in Stephanus of Byzantium, it is never equated with Tomaros. – Βατο (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the given citation is quite clear and seems to contradict you: 1. the source (Hammond-Griffith) is quite clear (we should too), 2. not a single source how the Illyrians called it, 3. The Dexari/Chaonians belonged to the nw Greek group, something you stubbornly refuse to accept. So wp:BRD I assume leaves as no choice here- back to previous version then.Alexikoua (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous version is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE for the scope of this article. – Βατο (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mount Tomorr is located in what was called "Illyria" by ancient authors, and the modern oronym Tomor(r) derives form the Illyrian name Tomaros, it is sourced. – Βατο (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to your reasoning, the part concerning the Enchelei and the content about the full etymology of Dassaretia should also be added, but it is WP:UNDUE. Therefore, what must remain in this article is only what directly concerns it. The part is precisely in accordance with Hammond. – Βατο (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The correspondent sources about Tomorr/ Amyron should be restored in the article. Your POV & Illyrian-only version should be avoided. I suggest you fill a case in the correspondent noticeboard in order to recieve further input about history section. ., is what Hammond-Griffith declare. A fact that should be restored in the history section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, which are the ancient sources that mention the Illyrian name of the mountain?Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "Illyrian-only version", there is also the detailed part about the Dexari inhabiting there. The etymology of Dassaretis does not concern this article, especially because the location of Tomor in this region is not completely proven, and because it is not the correct analysis of the origin of the name, which goes beyond the scope of this article. Tomor deriving from the Illyrian Tomaros is widely accepted by scholars. – Βατο (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't address which ancient author /source claims that the Illyrians called this mountain as such.Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is mentioned by different ancient authors, but I have not to add them here, since there are many secondary reliable sources that support it. This WP:SYNTH addition is WP:OFFTOPIC. – Βατο (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This source reads that the Chaonians were a Greek tribe [] i.e. who was inhabiting this mountain. Would you be so kind not to remove it again?Alexikoua (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I don't expect you to provide any ancient author that mentions how the Illyrians called the mountain. It appears that only Amyron is a possible solution in terms of ancient literature.Alexikoua (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The name Tomaros was recorded in ancient literature. The name is Illyrian, the mountain is located in southern Illyria (it is north of the Aoos), and in a territory inhabited by Illyrians (again, the territory north of the Aoos is attested to have been inhabited by Illyrians, especially the hinterland of Apollonia). It is well sourced by modern scholars. Do not insist. Your addition is synthesis and unrelated to this article. – Βατο (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep calling Chaonians a "Greek tribe", which is your own WP:OR. There are even many scholars that disagree also on the language originally spoken by them, there are even those who support an Illyrian affiliation or origin, or a totally different one. The only certain thing is that they or some of them spoke Greek in Hellenistic times. Anyway, it is not related to this article, it is related to the wikilinked article Chaonians. The information related to this article is only that the Dexari inhabited under Amyron, which is speculated to have been Tomor. The attested information that Dexari were a Chaonian tribe is enough for the scope of this article. Your disruptive addition of irrelevant content, synthesizing different parts from Hammond's publications without taking into account the claims of other authors, should stop. – Βατο (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing OR, but it's well established. Please avoid this kind of FRINDGE and stick to the sources. Cambridge Ancient History states: . Any further wp:BRD disruption of this kind will be reported.Alexikoua (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) "Greek tribe" is original research. 2) Dassaretis/Dassaretii is disputed and only a speculation for this article. 3) Your addition of un unbalanced narrative in an unrelated article is disruptive. – Βατο (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Greek tribe is well established in bibliography as noted above. 2) It's about the Dexari not Dassareti. 3) What's original research is the so-called Illyrian name. We don't know how the Illyrians (if the spoke a single language) called this place.Alexikoua (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An example of authors that have a completely different opinion is This article must contain only information related to it, not assumptions concerning other articles. Regarding the Illyrian name of the mountain, it is well sourced. – Βατο (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you pointed that there is a general consensus that Chaonians were a nw Greek tribe. That's a good step. Remind me also who ancient author states that this was the Illyrian name of the place? Alexikoua (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, you need seriously to read and understand the Wikipedia policies WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE. – Βατο (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that recent removals have not been addresed per BRD the initial version needs to be restored.  I would say say that SYNTHESIS and UNDUE applies to the recent edits.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , your WP:NINJA in this article should stop. This edit is original research because it says At the opposite of the synthesized POV narrative you are pushing here, the relevant ancient authors (Stephanus citing Hecataeus) did not say that Chaonians were "of the northwestern Greek group". Anyway that part is irrelevant for Mount Tomorr. Moreover the equation of the two oronyms Tomorr and Amyron is only a modern speculation, and exploiting this hypothesis to push an off-topic certain POV is disruptive for Wikipedia. The specific articles that deal with the problem of the ultimate origin of the Chaonians are linked, and that is enough for the scope of this article. – Βατο (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I could say the same thing about the "Illyrian" origin of "Palaeste" and Palasa. The origin of the name Palaeste is irrelevant for Palasa. Moreover the equation of the two toponyms Palaeste and Palasa is only a modern speculation, and exploiting this hypothesis to push an off-topic certain POV is disruptive for Wikipedia. The specific articles that deal with the problem of the ultimate origin of the name Palaeste is linked, and that is enough for the scope of that article. See how that works now? Khirurg (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, all the content about the ancient history in Palasë belongs to Palaeste. A wikilink to the article that deals with the ancient town is enough. I think this version was indeed more balanced. Regarding the origin of the modern toponym, if a reliable source provides the etymology Palasa < Palaeste, this information could be added. But for now I fail to see such a source. – Βατο (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how about you go ahead and restore that version, as a sign of good faith? Khirurg (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [] I wonder who are the several editors that agree with Bato as claimed in his latest rv. @Bato, kindly saying you have reached a total of 9 reverts in 3 days. Try to take a deep breath and follow wp:BRD. Wikipedia isn't kind of battlefield.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's have a look at the part that should be removed. The quote reads:

Honestly, this can't work. This part can stay entirely inside the article. No need to selectively remove any part of the above quote.Alexikoua (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Khirurg above agreed that the information concerning the ultimate origins of the Chaonians does not belong to this article. Firstly, you added your original research that the Chaones where of the "northwestern Greek group", while Hammond claims that they were a Greek-speaking tribe. Secondly, there are many renowned modern scholars like Cabanes and Stipčević that consider the Chaonians to have been originally Illyrian, and others that consider them a completely different people both from Illyrians and from Greeks, but we should not introduce those theories in this asrticle, it is off-topic, especially because the equation of Tomorr with Amyron, where the Dexari lived, is a modern speculation. Thus, the information that some modern scholars equate Tomorr with Amyron, that the Dexari are attested to inhabit under Amyron and to have been a Chaonian tribe is enough for this article. The rest belongs to the wikilinked article Chaonians. – Βατο (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again wrong and without even a single concrete argument (just falsifying a number of authors isn't a productive way of communication). 1. You dislike the fact that the Chaonians were Greek-speaking though there is a [] widely established consensus on that (Hammond, Cabanes, Stipcevic, Wilkes, Papazoglu, Winnifrith, Filos etc. etc.). 3. Hammond also clearly states that they belonged to the northwestern Greek group something you also removed in some of your recent reverts, 4. Yet you imagine that we know how the Illyrians called this mountains without even the slightest ancient account. Unfortunately this kind of suborn wp:OWN is something that a encyclopedia doesn't need: 9 reverts in 3 days is a record breaking activity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * there are many renowned modern scholars like Cabanes and Stipčević that consider the Chaonians to have been originally Illyrian Who is WP:SYNTHing now? Khirurg (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is Stipčević, (1977). The Illyrians: History and Culture, p. 31: The analysis of the ultimate origin of ancient tribes that are not directly related to this article, especially because the equation between Tomorr and Amyron is a modern speculation, is clearly off-topic.
 * Finally, to clarify it once and for all and to conclude this circular discussion, the tribal name Dexaroi – which appears only once in historical records (Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnica) – is Illyrian, based on an Illyrian root meaning "water", "sea". This etymology is now accepted by all linguists, including Kunstmann & Thiergen 1987, pp. 110–112, and Tzitzilis. "Greek and Illyrian", pp 66-59. It fits perfectly with what many scholars suggest: some tribes labeled as Epirotan, and especially attested to have been barbarian, were of Illyrian origin. Cheers! – Βατο (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a modern speculation according to your personal POV. Nevertheless Hammond&Griffith declare that "it is clear" and they are not only ones. I'm afraid you need to offer solid arguments otherwise this will sooner of later be restored to the initial version per BRD.Alexikoua (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What "this" will be restored, your WP:SYNTH and WP:POV narrative? And what about Stipčević? It seems that you consider him less important than Hammond because you don't like his claims. Anyway, as already explained several times, it is off-topic for this article, you should understand it. – Βατο (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any direct mention so far from Stipcevic that contradicts the "widely established consensus in scholarship" (Filos, 2019) that Chaonians belonged to the nw Greek group. You need to be precise to provide concrete evidence else this can be considered excessive trolling.Alexikoua (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Filos' claim is not related to this article: . Tomorr was not in Epirus, but southern Illyria. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH should be avoided in Wikipedia. – Βατο (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dexaroi are already included, and Chaones are wikilinked, it is enough for for this article. –Βατο (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sasel Kos states that they were part of the Greek world, Wilkes states that there is a widespread view that they spoke Greek. Yet there is nothing that states something opposite. No reason for this kind of strict censorship.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not something that concerns this article. – Βατο (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that we have resolved all open issues so maybe it's time for the tag to be removed. Everyone made the edits they felt necessary to make after all.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, as soon as the above source is not partially presented in the article. The erased part by Bato should be restored. The present version offers the wrong impression that those ancient peoples were Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, it seems you haven't read Stipčević and Toynbee yet, I am reporting their quotes here:
 * Stipčević, (1977). The Illyrians: History and Culture, p. 31: "The following are the names of some of the larger tribes belonging to the Illyrian ethnic group, starting in the south and working northwards: In the extreme south there were those tribes inhabiting Epirus (Atintani, Chaones, Molossi, etc.), which in historical times no longer belonged to the Illyrians because they had since, to a great extent, become Hellenized, but were considered to be of Illyrian origin."
 * You still haven't explained why are you pushing to insert only your preferred WP:POV version. I am waiting...
 * @Maleschreiber, as explained above several times, the ultimate origins of some ancient tribes that are not directly related to this article, are off-topic. The aerticle of the Chaones is already wikilinked, and it is enough for this article that deals with Mount Tomorr. I agree to remove the tag, everything directly related to this article was included. It seems that now only Alexikoua wants to insert WP:UNDUE content. – Βατο (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, are those the most recent sources you could find? It appears that research was still working after 1960s. Nevertheless even those outdated quotes do not refute the fact that they were Greek speakers in historical times (that's the widespread consensus in scholarship). By the way I don't see how these quote are related to Tomorr. You need to stick to sources on the subject (see Hammond for example) Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that this needs wp:FRINGE to stop and yet there is no argument presented for this kind of BRD breach.Alexikoua (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. It's one sentence of an expanding article. You can of course continue the discussion on the talkpage, but such a tag for an issue which doesn't even concern this article is WP:UNDUE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are discussing for something that doesn't definetly concern this article. – Βατο (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing the pov tag while discussion in ongoing is quite disruptive and not cool at all. You understand that.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that it is a pov tag added for something that is not related to this article? – Βατο (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The people that lived in this location is a related topic. There is no doubt on this.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dexaroi are mentioned to have lived under Amyron, not Tomorr. The modern theory that Tomorr is the same as Amyron has been included in the article, also the part that the Dexari lived under it, and the part that they were a Chaonian tribe. The rest that you want to include concerns the disputed origins and languages of Chaonian tribes, which are informations concerning the article Chaones. It clearly goes beyond the scope of the article dedicated to a mountain hypothetically related to those peoples. If you want to push a specific POV narrative that suits you, you can't do it in articles unrelated to the subjects in question as per WP:NOPOV and WP:UNDUE. – Βατο (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bato removed a whole section from Palasë because of an agreement on this talkpage with Khirurg that articles won't discuss topics which are not of immediate value to that particular topic. Tomorr is one of the most important Albanian mountains, it can't remained tagged because there's a dispute about something that is unrelated to this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you are into deep wp:POV by selectively refusing inclusion of part of the quoted text. The Dexarxoi and Chaones were part of a specific group and this group were not the Illyrians, per quote:
 * Actually you are into deep wp:POV by selectively refusing inclusion of part of the quoted text. The Dexarxoi and Chaones were part of a specific group and this group were not the Illyrians, per quote:

This needs to be addresed. Else it offers a false impression.Alexikoua (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No reader would assume that the Dexari were Illyrians - that suggestion doesn't appear in the article. What makes you think of that?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Section begins with...Tomor the most prominent mountain in southern Illyria inhabited by people that we don't know where they belonged. Since the correspodent source is convenient to declare this piece of info about the tribes that was located in Tomor/Amyron we should do.Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The region of Tomorr was inhabited by Illyrians, like all the territory north of the Aoos. It is supported by ancient sources and archaeological finds. Though, some of these southern Illyrians became bilingual through contacts with their Greek neighbours. Yes, the Dexaroi were part of a specific group of peoples, the Chaones, an information that is already included in the article. The Chaonian peoples were a separate group of tribes inhabiting Epirus, whose origins and languages are debated. The only thing we know is that  epigraphic material of Epirus from the 4th century BC indicates that peoples in Epirus spoke North-Western Greek (Filos). Cabanes suggests that northern tribes of Epirus were Illyrian-speakers, while southern tribes were Greek speakers. Stipčević suggests that many tribes in Epirus were originally Illyrian. Toynbee suggests that Chaonians (including the Dexaroi) were originally Illyrian-speakers. As you can see, the topic cannot be treated in an unbalanced way simply adding "", which is as well an original research not supported even by Hammond. Anyway, we are now discussing for something that is off-topic for an article dedicated to Mount Tomorr, you should have figured it out, as it has already been told by several editors. – Βατο (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again the usual national rhetoric about the Chaonians. Unfortunately for you there is a widespread consensus in scholarship that they belonged to the northwestern group of Greek speakers. As such POV aplies to you and wp:OWN isn't a solution. By the way Wilkes' statement is very interesting in this case declaring that outside Albania there is a general agreement about the Chaonians. This stubborn refusal & BRD breach can be easily considered wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Alexikoua (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabanes, Stipčević and Toynbee are scholars "outside Albania". Wilkes' statement that you are discussing is off-topic. The general consensus is about the epigraphic matetial from the 4th century BC found in Epirus that belongs to North-Western Greek (Filos). But it is not an information that concerns this article. – Βατο (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: not just generally, but also increasingly in favor of this view as well. Either the POV tag remains until the other editor's concerns about the POV-pushing removal are addressed, or the full sentence which complies with the general consensus, is restored. When the geographical locations feature tribes of different origins and cultures, the common practice in Wikipedia is to clarify them. I can't see how a clarification which in this case is minimal and takes not even half line, can be such a problem for you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question: is original research, unbalanced and not related to this article. – Βατο (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have every right to believe whatever you want. However do not try to impose your personal POV on the articles please. Not everyone agrees with you and more importantly, your position is ignoring the general consensus. Either work out for a solution with the editors above who expressed their concerns instead of dismissing -or ignoring- their concerns, or restore the paragraph to its full. Do I have to be more simple than this? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The content directly related to Mount Tomorr is already included in the article. The analysis of the origins and languages of these tribes is irrelevant for it's scope. Moreover, labeling the Dexaroi Greek-speakers in this article concerning Tomorr is not correct: a tribe that appears only once in historical records inhabiting under mount Amyron—suggested by modern scholars to have been Tomorr, and in that case in southern Illyria —in the times of Hecataeus of Miletus (6th century BC), and which disappear in later times can't be labeled Greek-speaker, without a second speculation (see  ) because the name Dexaroi is of Illyrian origin  and because the first epigraphic material in Greek appears in Epirus after the 4th century BC . It cannot be assumed as the "widespread consensus in scholarship", it is only an off-topic POV sentence in an unrelated article. – Βατο (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to continue this discussion you can open a WP:RFC, but adding the POV tag in the whole article, for a sentence unrelated to it, is unconstructive for Wikipedia. – Βατο (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per wp:BRD the initial version will be restored and it's up to you to take it to rfc. Stop falsifying Filos since he clearly declares that there is a widespread concensus about the Chaonians. The same is stated by Wilkes Winnifrith Hammomd and everything published since 1990.Alexikoua (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that too many incosistencies by an editor can hardly make him conveince the community. For future reference Filos (2017) states: . Bato needs to take it to RFC but a doubt if his arguments can be considered decent ones. For future reference Tonybee relied on older research, but nevertheless the "ultimate" origin is something completely irelevant here.Alexikoua (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the "widespread consensus". In addition to those scholars already reported above, here is David Hernandez (2017). Bouthrotos (Butrint) in the Archaic and Classical Periods: The Acropolis and Temple of Athena Polias:.
 * The initial version of the article is this one, and it cannot be restored as per the following Wikipedia policies: WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:OFFTOPIC. – Βατο (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No wonder the above quote is completely irrelevant with modern scholarly opinion (none cares about opinions by ancient people). For future refernece: . In case you feel dissapointed I suggest to avoid this kind of extreme WP:OR, WP:POV, wp:SYNTH and WP:OWN, wp:IDONTLIKEIT and take it to RSN. Saying that Tomor was an Illyrian area is unacceptable based on Hammond and Griffith.Alexikoua (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Very interesting source. It's a recent publication (2017) just like Filios (2017) and both are WP:RS - I don't know why Alexikoua is listing irrelevant policies and claiming "extreme OR". Hernandez and Filios aren't contradicting each other - read the entire chapter, don't create your own quotes in order to simplify and fit somebody's hard work into other narratives. Present-day discussions in bibiliography are much more complex than the discussion held 60 years ago and the binary questions which were asked then. That's how present-day bibliography functions - it's non-binary, it asks complex questions about identity and doesn't try to fit the concept of ethnicity into modern state narratives. Now, Alexikoua you can't hold the article in a tagged state in relation to an issue which is both off-topic and disputed. The ethnicity of the Chaonians and its evolution can't be discussed here. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Hernandez is unrelated and does not mention anything about how current scholarship considers this issue. On the other hand Filos is one of many authors declaring that Chaones fall withing the nw Greek group based on current scholarship (to name some more: Wilkes, Winnifrith, Hammond, Griffith, Sasel Kos). By the way Bato owes an explanation about his unproductive edit summaries which can be easily considered trolling activity: here pretending [] that "several editors" support his version, and here [] saying that I'm the only editor against his version. Those are not cool comments but reveal a battleground mentality. As for the pov tag, I'm ok with it being removed as soon as the previous version is restored per wp:BRD. Any BRD breach is unacceptable and will be reported.Alexikoua (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that you didn't quite understand what I'm trying to get at about bibliography. I'll get some oversight because the back-and-forth isn't working.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexi, this is the initial version you want to restore. Do you realize that it has issues of original research, neutrality and undue weight. I said "several editors" because also Khirurg agreed here and here that it was WP:UNDUE for this article. I appreciated that good faith agreement. You were the only one to object it. – Βατο (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: for the nth time it's extremely weird that you insist to get rid of a specific part of the quoted text. Let me help what needs to be restored (in bold the text you are stubbornly against): . The quoted text needs to be entirely presented in the article. On the other hand your version offers the wronf impression that during antiquity this was an Illyrian area. This kind of refusal falls clearly within IDONTLIKEIT considering that the classification of the Chaonians is in agreement in current sholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting to quote something from S. Kos based on Cabanes: there is hardly any doubt that northern Epirus (in present day Albania) and southern Epirus (in present day Greece) were part of the Greek world, but possessing their own ethnic identity (Cabanes 1988)... although they were of Greek stock their way of life differed greatly from that of the other Greeks. Well I assume Cabanes accepts the mainsteam view too. As I've said Hammond's quote doesn't need to be partially presented in the article: Chaones were Greek speakers. Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't give that impression. Chaonians are a particular group of tribes, and the Dexaroi are not considered Illyrians in this article, but Chaonians. Claiming in this article that the Dexari—who in the 6th century BC inhabited under Mount Amyron (suggested to have been Tomorr) and later disappeared—were Greek-speakers, on the basis of 4th century epigraphic material in Epirus (not Illyria), without taking into account their Illyrian etymology and origins, is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE for the scope of this article. By the way, here is Malkin that talks about Cabanes: p. 143: Now, we are here discussing of the epigraphic material of peoples in Epirus, while Tomorr was actually located in central Illyris, inhabited by Parthini, Dassaretii and Taulantii, and to the south by Bylliones and Atintani, all conidered Illyrian tribes by ancient authors and modern scholars. This  is your WP:POV and WP:FRINGE claim. It was definetly an Illyrian area, it is north of the Aoos, and inland of central Illyris. Both ancient authors and archeological finds prove it.
 * The initial version of this article can't be restored per the problems already shown. In the current state the article includes all the relevant informations concerning Mount Tomorr, the unrelated content can be found in the wikilinked articles Dexaroi and Chaones. This discussion is becoming pointless. You can open a WP:RFC if you want to continue it. – Βατο (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now wp:OR has taken a new dimension. All the above statements are in urgent need of citation. For now WP:POV and WP:FRINGE applies perfectly to you. The formal procedure per BRD is: 1. back to previous version, 2. civilised discussion (backed by reference) and if needed RFC by the part that feels unsutisfied with the previous version. Manipulating BRD as part of battleground mentality leads nowhere. No wonder the above quote of Cabanes refutes nothing. For future reference Atintani were Molossian.Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagrement
In this edit, adds the text In 1337 it was raided by Albanian tribes at the time they first appeared in Epirus.. The exact quote in the source, provided by Alexikoua, is In 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova invaded the area of Berat and appeared for the first time in Epirus, seizing the fortresses of Skrepario, Timoro and Klisoura. This is entirely removed by Maleschreiber under the guise of "cleanup", where he replaces the text with In 1337, the Albanian tribes which lived in the areas of Belegrita (the region of Mt. Tomorr) and Kanina rose in rebellion and raided the fortress.. Here is the source Maleschreiber is using, and as you can see, the meaning is entirely changed, and you can probably guess why. The source does not equate "Belegrita" with "the region of Mt. Tomorr". This is original research intended to make the Albanians appear "indigenous" to the area. No explanation is provided for the removal; it is simply hidden within the edit. Not only that, but Fine clearly states the Albanians "raided" Thessaly, Maleschreiber makes that "moved into" Thessaly. Khirurg (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Check the sources, Nicol, p.108: and in the footnote he explains  and Fine . Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But Kaninë is clearly not in the region of Tomorr, so "invaded" stands. Why did you remove it? You keep removing the quote from Osswald almost obsessively, despite the fact it's a high quality source and relevant. And you keep changing "Epirus" to "Despotate of Epirus" even though Osswald clearly says the former and not the latter. And you keep changing "raided Thessaly" into "moved into Thessaly", despite the fact that Fine clearly says "raided" and not "moved into". Anyway I removed the whole Thessaly thing as it has absolutely no relevance here. Khirurg (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This: : is completely different from this:  that you added in the article. Also, the territory where Tomorr is located was in Epirus Nova. The area of Tomorr was already inhabited by Albanians as Nicol directly claims: :  Nicol deals directly with the information of the Albanian presence in the region of Mount Tomorr, Osswald does not becouse he refers to the area of Berat, two completely different things. Do not misuse bibliography interpreting sources, see WP:SECONDARY for that. – Βατο (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I believe Maleschreiber needs to be somewhat more careful before making this kind of changes. Moreover, the expressions Tmoros and Timoro(n) needs to be included in the name section.Alexikoua (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You tried to insert a particular talking point, I expanded it into a subsection and now it deals with a subject, not a talking point which is not what bibliography discusses. I'm fine with this version of the article - it's 100% what I wrote and was aiming at in relation to bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)