Talk:Liburnians

message: Zenanarh (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: ::I think this sentence covers both Appian and secondary sources/\
*Their pirates conquered what later became the ancient Greek city of Dyrrachion, but the defeated Taulantii asked the Korkyrians, Liburnian enemies, for a support to reconquer the cityMegistias (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my proposal is best as Dyrrachion could not be taken as it did not EXIST prior to been founded. Appian is just a primary source but we can cover both with my sentence above.Taulantii were not citizens of a city that did not exist.Megistias (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: diff, that is original research and frankly impossible, the city did not exist thus it could not be conquered, or be inhabited.Megistias (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The city did not exist, as it was founded at 627, thus its citizens did not exist, thus it could not be conquered.Actually the Romans changed the name when they took it as in Latin "Epidamnus" is like a curse.Megistias (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

text: 
*Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992, , page 96,"From Bouthoe to Epidamnus, a Greek city, the ..."
*An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation by Mogens Herman Hansen,2005,page 330,"Epidamnos was founded in either 627 or 625 (Hieron. Chron"
*Before this the city did not exist.Why are we even arguing about this? You know its OR and what i propose gets rid of the unhistorical anachronism from Appian.Megistias (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor has now reported themselves and I have blocked them for a week for disruption. I have no idea what this conflict is all about, but please don't anyone rise to the bait. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I have added Secondary sources to that bit. Appian is a primary source. And remember that since the city was not founded yet, it was not called Epidamnos,Dyrrachion or anything of the sort. Megistias (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprimise on Dirachion 

message: ::You write "By the archaeological remains, Pre-Liburnian ethnic development is defined as symbiosis of the Dinarians, autochthonous Pre-Indo-Europeans in the Dinaric Alps and the Levantine Mediterraneans,"
*Dinarians and the such are from The Races of Europe, a 19th century book and even after the 1939 edition, are outdated.
*From Dinarians,It is no longer considered scientifically useful, as genetics has become the main tool in classifying ethnic groups. Megistias (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century terms and theories 

message: ::Other than the tons of grammatical and syntax errors there are parts of the article that just make no sense.Even after i correct them it is evident that they are not salvageableMegistias (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar, syntax and making no sense 

message: ::This source is used for various positions, M. Zaninović, Liburnia Militaris, Opusc. Archeol. 13, 43-67 (1988),, it is dated 1989, Zagreb, Croatia, and its not in English. The Croatia Portalsite is not available in English(503 service unavailable) nor is the paper.Megistias (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian source 

message: There is a Liburnia article as well, many things have to be removed from Liburnians as the region already has one.Megistias (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the two articles should probably just be merged. In fact, the article has deteriorated so badly over recent months that we should consider a deep revert to November. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in some drastic solution as its in a very bad state.Megistias (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too agree! Sir Floyd (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liburnia & Liburnians 

message: Older maps made no distinction between the two, regardless of what Greeks wrote then or now. Historians, ancient and modern, more often than not grouped the Liburnians among the Illyrians peoples.
Liburnians, Dalmatians, Pannonians, Thracians, Dacians, Getes, Gepids (Japodii) may all be classified under the umbrella term "Illyrians."
It could be asserted that the distinction between Illyrians and Liburnians could be likened to that between Germans and Austrians -- only nominal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liburnians and Illyrians 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liburnians. 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/20070928071908/http://www.donat.com/arh/fadic.htm to http://www.donat.com/arh/fadic.htm
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) 09:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article seems a bit contradictory or unclear about the nature or identity of these people. In the beginning it unambiguously refers to them as an Illyrian tribe, but in the language section says the classification of the language is unclear aside from probably just Indo-European. Other articles refer to them as a distinct ethno-cultural area, and the Italic languages page even lists Liburnian as an Italic language. So it's a bit confusing. Word dewd544 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illyrians and language