Talk:Vlorë County

message: this is an albanian teritorry, not a greek teritorry.  whoever wrote this page should consult the history books and not those written by greeks.
I'm from Vlora and I am indeed very infuriated with these wiki artcles that try to feed us with immaginary substantial greek communities. At most we can speak of some greek-speaking ethnic Albanians, but in any case they are very few.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdreni (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On 21:10, 6 December 2010 (10 years ago!)  added:  without ever providing a verifiable link for the source they used.
*Now, as soon as I read this bit, I was certain that the source would never support such a claim because to go from an archaeological survey of a site to the identification of that site with a particular culture is something that involves a series of yearly excavations in the context of a dedicated project. In Himara, of course, no site has ever been properly identified as a site, nor has there ever been even a pre-excavation survey. 
*The source: 
*The fact that certain editors have been using bibliography in this way - apparently for many consecutive years - really highlights the value of the recent stricter admin oversight.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You will of course note that it's in a chapter discussing the Epirote poleis, and which extensively mentions the Chaonians. The source thus can certainly be used to make the case that there was an ancient Epirote settlement. We also know the approximate territory of the Chaonians, which many sources describe as extending as far north as the Ceraunian mountains. So, yeah, it stays. Khirurg (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

text: You also seem to have missed the part where the source says . The Chaonians were the northernmost Epirote tribe. Khirurg (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're doing is called WP:SYNTH - you're trying to extrapolate from the source something that it never puts forward. What you're saying is that because one line of content is placed within a chapter of sites in Epirus, we should put forward on wikipedia that . No - if you tried to that on a paper, it would get rejected. There's nothing about any Chaonian settlement and its "foundation" in that source. Casual editorializing degrades the quality of the project. In archaeological research, to go on to say that a settlement was "founded" by a specific cultural group is the result of hard work - many years of excavations and interdisciplinary research. Oxford's inventory has chosen a very specific wording - precisely because its authors understand what every term means. Now, don't spread around theories that the authors of said sources never put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're doing is called sophistry. Anyway, it's very easy to find sources regarding this. Khirurg (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You found 1952 material  which has been reproduced in 2017, but it's WP:OUTDATED because no "capital of the Chaonians" ever existed there - that would be Phoenice.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is not from 1952, and The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites is a top notch academic source. If you feel it is not, there is always WP:RSN. Good luck! Khirurg (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with heavily relying on google search is that it strips research of its qualitative aspects. The source is from that era, not 2017. How exactly do you think that NGL Hammond, a figure dead since 2001 managed to write in a 2017 publication? And the publication itself was not published in 2017, it's a republication of a 1976 version. Now, since then research has progressed beyond identifying sites based on rudimentary linguistic criteria. Phoenice has been excavated intensely, so in contemporary research (Oxford's inventory) nobody puts forward that there is a site in Himara that was the "capital of the Chaonians". Now, can you accept that much or is there a necessity for broader community involvement for it to be established?--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The southernmost limit of Illyrian presence was the mouth of Aoos. I assume this might be a good addition in reference of the Illyrians, though the mouth of Aoos is nearly on the northern border of this region.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

text: @Maleschreiber: WP:RSN is that way. Feel free to seek all the "broader community involvement" you want. Khirurg (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

text: As I see Aoos is located on the northern border of Vlore County. This means that Illyrians were not located in this County in antiquity.Alexikoua (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chaonian settlement that never was 

message: Hello  why did you removed the sourced content  by  just because you think its irrelevant for this region, which in fact is relevant for this region.--Lorik17 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As you were informed by my edit summaries those newly added parts are not connected with this specific region (Greek-Illyrian contact area is a very wide and obscure term) and no wonder this geographically irrelevant information was removed. Friendly advice: You need to focus on comment and not on editors. Filos doesn not point to Vlore County or in settlements in this region. Moreover, I can't confirm any Byliones presence in here.Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ????