Talk:Lynkestis

message: I wonder if there is any citation that can support this kind of change as proposed by Maleschr. So far there is no reference that can support this new description. Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: From "Upper Macedonia" relocated to "near Upper Macedonia & at the borderland between Illyria and Macedonia

message: you removed relevant sourced material. It is not "off-topic". The events of the early 4th century BC are very important for the history of the topic of this article, and they are widely discussed in bibliography. You can't remove them without proper explanation. – Βατο (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff you added has nothing to do with Lynkestis. This article is about Lynkestis, not Illyrians. See WP:COATRACK. You can't add material that is off-topic. Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff I added is provided by reliable sources describing Lynkestian history. Whether you like it or not, scholars consider those events relevant, and they obviously can be included into the article. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing of what you added has anything to do with Lynkestis specifically. Repeating that it does, without explaining, doesn't change it. What does the stuff about Aeropus have to do with Lynkestis? The stuff about the invasion of 393 and Amyntaslosing his throne only to regain it later? What does that have to do with Lynkestis and the Lynkestians? The stuff about Eurydice being a sister of Bardylis is also nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of relevant sourced material 

message: Malkid is a specialist on the issue with endless bibliography on the matter of ethnicity and he points out Hecateus describes them as Molossians. Hammond and Hatzopoulos claim the same.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Molossian tribe

message: This source [] states that Dassaretis formed part of Upper Macedonia according to modern research, although it belonged to Epirus. I can provide a full quote on this but the work is accessible (p. 95).Alexikoua (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Dassaretis is not considered part of Upper Macedonia or Epirus. Epirus was limited by the Pindus mountains (and more precisely by Mount Qelqëz), while Upper Macedonia, after Philip's expansion was limited to the west by the Tsangon Pass, and in the following years Dassaretis was a dependent territory. On the other hand Dassaretis became part of the Roman administrative region of Epirus Nova, in Macedonia (Roman province), but again within the region of Illyris. This is agreed by almost all contemporary historians. It is similar to Lynkestis, which sometimes is considered Illyrian territory, but most scholars consider it part of Upper Macedonia. Also the selection of the wording "the latter living beyond those lakes" is not appropriate, because Illyrians inhabited around the Lakeland too, not just beyond it. Lynchnidus was an Illyrian center, and the area to the east of Prespa was inhabited by Illyrians too. – Βατο (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you gave proves the opposite. In p. 95:  According to modern historical research, Upper Macedonia consisted of the regions of Elimiotis with Tymphaea, Lyncestis, Orestis, Pelagonia with Derriopus, Eordaea, Atintania and Dassaretis.. Hmm as clear as it can be. I can't understand why you claim something different. Can you provide the specific quote from the link above that proves that "Roman era Dassaretis was  in Illyria"?Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Means that the specific statement mentioning Dassaretis in passing is unreliable (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). See the large amount of sources in Dassaretii, among them: , which clearly contrast that statement. – Βατο (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I fail to see how Illyrians inhabited around the shores of Prespa, in fact the source you provided (King) clarifies that Illyrian tribes inhabited a region from "beyond the lakelands to the Adriatic". Simply saying that Prespa area was Illyrian inhabited is too generic and falls into OR. King was careful to stress that in his following sentence.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See: . Obviously also Lychnidus. – Βατο (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are presenting another work, but what makes the previous collective work now obsolete [[[]]]? Anyway you understand that geographic labels are not clear. There is not agreement about where Dassaretis  belonged if I can understand. Also, if Tsankon pass was in the Illyrian-Lynkestian border area then how Illyrians dominated both sides of the Prespes? There is a serious geographic discrepancy in this claim. As I can understant King describes them as living 'beyond' the lake-lands in the context of Macedonian geography.Alexikoua (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I have full access to [], I'm sorry but there is nothing unreliable about Dassaretis being part of Epirus/Upper Macedonia, the quote is clear on describing modern historical research.Alexikoua (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bato: Are you fine with Hatzopoulos about Dassaretis: "Dassaretis, the transitional area between Upper Macedonia, Epeiros and Illyria"?Alexikoua (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Karamitrou-Mentesidi (2011)' s statement  clearly contradicts most scholars. In this article (Lynkestis) there is already included a large amount of recent sources about the regions that were part of Upper Macedonia, and Dassaretis is not among those regions. Not to mention ancient literature, which always consider Dassaretis an Illyrian area. I am not fine with Hatzopoulos: "Dassaretis, the transitional area between Upper Macedonia, Epeiros and Illyria", because it is in an old (20th century) publication that contradicts many of his own publications of the same period and many other scholars. His most updated publication is clear about that (Hatzopoulos 2020, p.214: ). See also the large amount of recently published sources included in the article Dassaretii. Dassaretis off course can't be part of the region of Epirus, because Epirus ended in the Pindus and Mount Qelqëz, while Illyris (including Dassaretis) began north of Pindus. Dassaretis was included in Roman Epirus Nova (and in western Roman Macedonia province), which corresponded to Illyris, it was not included in Epirus Vetus, which corresponded to Epirus. What occurred in historical events like the Illyrian expansion in Macedonia, Pyrrhus expansion in Illyris, Macedonian expansion in Illyris and Epirus, is irrelevant for the traditional definitions of the regions we are talking about. If  "geographic labels are not clear", let's use recently published reliable sources including Epirus and Upper Macedonians in Illyria as well, right? – Βατο (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean updated publication? You understand that this is a short footnote in this work, not a detailed analysis on the region, as it describes it as a "transitional area". The footnote of 2020 does mention the word Dassaretis only once, without any further information. Also, Maramitrou-Mentesidi is a top academic in the field, I wouldn't say that she claims nonsense, while this statement has been adopted in additional research as well. Simply saying that Dassaretis was Illyria is wp:OR. Nevertheless this article isn't about Dassaretis and since there is a serious disagreement in this in schollarship (I hope you agree on that), I suggest leaving it out of the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not "a serious disagreement in this in schollarship", Lynkestis bordered Illyria in the west. Lynkestis was the western-most region of Upper Macedonia. Epirus ended in Pindus, while Dassaretis started north of Pindus. Even Hammond considers Dassaretis an Illyrian canton. Also primary sources are very clear about it, no need for modern POV ahistorical speculations. That statement by Karamitrou-Mentesidi (2011) is WP:FRINGE, and it is proven by the whole huge bibliography in Dassaretii. I can find several top notch western scholars (not of the region) that include Molossians, Chanonians and Upper Macedonia among Illyrians or in Illyria. But it does not change consensus among mainstream western scholarship. I replaced Dassaretis with Illyria, more relevant for the scope of this article. – Βατο (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You still claim that Dassaretis was known as part of Illyria which is contradicted even by sources you provided: Karamitrou states that Dassaretis is part of Epirus/Macedonia, Hatzolpoulos states that it was a transitional area and he is very detailed on this. It's the second time you add a source (1st time Karamitrou's publication and then King) that do not support your point. But I really can't understand why you don't admit that there is not disagreement at all in scholarship. Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman-era geography about Dassaretis

message: you restored POV content and outdated sources in the lede that have been added by an IP. I reverted your edits. This is not the first time you restore IP additions, if you repeat this kind of behavior, administrators will be informed. Also, WP:Trivial mentions is not a policy/guideline, it is an essay completely unrelated to this case. As for the "contradict itself" argument, it is not correct. No ancient author referred to them expressly as "Epirotes", and Vasilev (2011)'s statement is reliable about this. The fact that Hecataeus included them among "Molossians" is another thing, and it is already included into the article. As for Strabo, I checked the primary source and added the original quote provided by Jaupaj with his French translation. Strabo lists them among the Illyrians after the Enchelei, in perfect agreement with De Angelis 2020 . Hammond's opinions are highly speculative and outdated, don't restore them. In older sholarship there are different descriptions of the Lyncestae, also contrasting with Hammond's, but we should not rely on older scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, first of all, I can restore whatever edits I see fit, IP or not not, and if you have a problem with that, you can inform as many administrators as you want. It's not the first time you threaten to do this, so go ahead. In fact, if there is a reason for admins to be informed, it's your incessant edit-warring, here and at other articles.The Molossians are Epirotes, and now the lede contradicts itself. This is completely unacceptable. There is simply no way this can stand. Don't bother edit-warring over it because you'll just be wasting everyone's time. And the quote from Strabo shows the IP editor has a point: Strabo does not explicitly mention them as Illyrians. Mentioning them next to the Enchelei does not automatically mean they are Illyrians. There is nothing wrong with Hammond's "opinions", unless you can find a source that explicitly contradicts them. If there was I'm sure you would have mentioned it 100 times in the article already how they spoke "Illyrian". Khirurg (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your restoration of IP edits to push a POV into the article can be seen as a case of bypassing the WP:3RR, if it will be repeated in another article be sure that administrators will be informed. As for the addition of language according to Hammond's opinion, Illyrians and Macedonians did not speak a "dialect of Greek". Hammond's opinion is based on his hypothesis of Lyncestae's Epirote ties, which is one of the three that are currently present into the lede, highlighting his suggestion is definetly WP:UNDUE. As for Strabo, his passage can well be interpreted as including the Lyncestae among Illyrians, and De Angelis (2020)'s publication is a recent reliable source. On the other hand it can't be interpreted as considering the Lyncestae an Epirote tribe as suggested by Hammond, and Vasilev (2011) is clear about it: . – Βατο (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: IP edits

message: Vickers & Petiffer are not linguists (the source they're citing Mikulcik is also a non-linguist). In fact they are not even specialists in ancient history since their field of focus is modern politics but that's not the case here: they present a possible linguist explanation in contradiction to specialized scholarship .Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this addition, the source used is unreliable. As for the tag, Eichner (2004) is clear: "" Also De Angelis (2020): "". This has already been discussed in the past. – Βατο (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

text: , before reverting, you should discuss your edits here. – Βατο (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove again something without explanation because you personally dislike it. Lyncus was designated as part of the middle Bronze Age area of proto-Greek speakers, see also Katona, Sakelaiou who are very detailed on that matter. I have also added Crossland which also names Lyncus as an area of Proto-Greek settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato: You are kindly requested to name those ancient sources that label Lycenstians as Illyrians. Abstract descriptions of 2004 and 2020 are not ancient sources. Also both Thucidides and Stravo don't label them among Illyrians. Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Page Publishing Inc is not a reputable publisher, don't reinsert it again. As for the area of Proto-Greek, you should use recent sources that specifically discuss Lynkestis in relation to it. Concerning the tag, Eichner is clear, and De Angelis' quote is in agreement. They are scholars specializing on this subject. I have not to search for ancient sources that mention Lynkestians to verify WP:reliable sources. If you find some that contradict their statement, report them and we can discuss. – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking you again (since you avoid to answer) which 'later ancient sources describe them as Illyrians?' No answer means all of this needs to be removed. Modern authors make errors that's why we should correct them (see your response on removing Pliakou for example). Also Crossland is reliable (you'd added him in the past in various articles) don't removed him again.Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Eichner is correct about the Antitantes (they were later labelled Illyrians by Appian) but wrong about the Lyncestes. Perhaps Bato maybe find something in ancient literature to confirm that (Bato has excellent knowledge of ancient literature and I have to congratulate him, even correcting modern scholars when making errors as in the past about Pliakou interpreting fragments from Hecateus). Well modern authors aren't immune to errors.Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Crossland belongs to older sholarship, you can't use it if not discussed by current researchers. Since you stated that Katona support it as well, add that source.  nope, the burden to search for ancient sources that contradict the scholar's information lies on you, I've already spent much time to correct many of your mistakes in the past, and at that time the burden was on me. – Βατο (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This addition  belongs to the information provided by Thucydides, not the later authors. As you added it, it is original research and source misrepresentation. Eichner states: " – Βατο (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making your own rules and that's not good (there is no rule to remove Crossland since newer scholarship agrees, you have used him in several articles and continue to use even older works). By the way it's good that you admit that  no later ancient sources describe them as Illyrians. Don't edit war about something you can't support. I've asked precisely about that and you ... indirectly agree. Modern authors are making errors and in this case we need to correct those errors since there is not a single ancient author that describes this tribe as Illyrian. All ancient authors describe them as either Epirote (Molossian) or Macedonian not Illyrian. There is a mountain of specialized scholarship on the issue not that has knowledge of ancient authors.  Alexikoua (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, I am keeping one standard, and contrasting repetitive double standards by you. Since according to you Crossland is supported by recent scholarship, it will be easy to add those recent sources. Did you find ancient sources that contradict Eichner's statement? Without actual evidence of scholar's error, you can't remove it based on your personal opinion. The Macedonian and Molossian affiliation is according to Hecataeus and Thucydides, not later sources. – Βατο (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

text: User:Unkownsolidier restored an unreliable source published by Page Publishing Inc, they should revert it because it is not an improvement. – Βατο (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay let's just put it like that for now. The same thing applies to you when you always cite sources by unknown historians written in foreign languages that go in favour with the history of the Illyrians. As I said before, this is Wikipedia which means that we have to be objective and neutral. Unkownsolidier (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing applies to me, and I always cite sources published by reputable publishing houses mainly focusing on academic research. The language of the source is irrelevant for reliablility criteria. – Βατο (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraordinary linguistic claims by non-linguists

message: I wonder why a publication called "The appellation of the Albanians in the High Middle Ages" can be considered a specialist work on antiquity. Needles to say that non-specialist sources should be treated with high precaution especially if they provide wp:FRIDGE and contradict the entire scholarship on ancient history. Alexikoua (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, that source should not be used here. Khirurg (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Non specialist source and fringe addition

message: User:Unkownsolidier labelled () a top notch source like Lippert&Matzinger (2021) as an "inaccurate and untrue source", without even understanding what that source actually says:  "" The source talks about which ancient authors have attested the names of tribes regarded by those modern scholars as Illyrians. The user also removed Vasilev (2011)'s accurate information: "" The content will be restored, and if the user persist unbalanced editing by removing alternative scholarly views or presenting them with biased wording breaching the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, he will be reported to the community's attention. – Βατο (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes because this is completely untrue. The source explicitly states that "there is NO ancient author who considers them as Epirotae". What about Hecateus of Miletus, huh? He clearly classifies them as Molossians, so does, by most accounts, Strabo. Please show a bit of understanding. Unkownsolidier (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the other one falsely quotes Thucydides as describing them as "Illyrians". Thucydides considered them Macedonians. Unkownsolidier (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lippert&Matzinger (2021) did not state that "Thucydides considered them Macedonians", but Thucyrides mentioned some of the tribes that those scholars consider Illyrian. And you should know, before labelling their scholarly publication "inaccurate and untrue source", that Andreas Lippert and Joachim Matzinger are among the most renowned experts. As for Vasilev (2011), another expert, he clearly states "no ancient author who considers them as Epirotae". Hecateus of Miletus describes them as Molossians, not expressly "Epirotae". Vasilev's information still remains accurate. As for Strabo, he lists a series of tribes, and he does not describe Lynkestes as "Epirotes" or "Molossians", he does not even mention Lynkestes near any of the secured Epirote tribes. On the other hand he clearly lists them near secured Illyrian tribes. But Filos' suggestion that they must be taken into account in Strabo's list has already been included with its due weight. – Βατο (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the start of that section of his book he states "The Amphilochians are Epeirotes; and so are the peoples who are situated above them and border on the Illyrian mountains, inhabiting a rugged country — I mean the Molossi, the Athamanes, the Aethices, the Tymphaei, the Orestae, and also the Paroraei and the Atintanes, some of them being nearer to the Macedonians and others to the Ionian Gulf."￼ Link. Thereafter, he points out "These people, I say, were not ruled by men of native stock; and the Lyncestae became subject to Arrabaeus, who was of the stock of the Bacchiads (Eurydice, the mother of Philip, Amyntas' son, was Arrabaeus' daughter's daughter and Sirra was his daughter)." Understood? Unkownsolidier (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you not cite the whole passage of that translation?  Leave the scholars the work to interpret it, Wikipedia editors should not make WP:original research by cropping some parts of the whole primary source and making their own conclusions about them in contrast to reliable secondary sources. As per WP:PST: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." And since there are different and with equal weight academic opinions on the matter, as per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Understood? – Βατο (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lippert&Matzinger (2021) was removed again by User:Unkownsolidier with this explanation: . As already stated, Lippert and Matzinger are not someone who "do not know the basis of the topic", they are renowned scholars specifically focusing on the subject. Their book is one of the fiew academic monographies entirely dedicated on Illyrians. Furthermore, the information they provide is not what the removing editor thinks. As already explained, they are reporting the ancient authors who documented the names of ancient tribes that are regarded Illyrian by Lippert and Matzinger. The source is used into the article to support which modern scholar regard Lynkestes as Illyrians, and Lippert and Matzinger are among them. If the removing editor keeps thinking that it is not a reliable source even after those explanations, he has to take it to WP:RSN. – Βατο (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Bato you need to brush up your German: the source you provided does not claim that Lyncestae were Illyrian (Matzinger simply states they Illyrians were mentioned in the context of Lyncestae but that's a different story). No wonder Thucydides names the Lyncestae 'Macedonians'. I ask you again: provide one primary text that claims that Lyncestae were Illyrians. No wonder you avoid that (though you have  very good knowledge and access on the primary material) because the result is zero. For future reference  Thucydides' Atintanians were also non-Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't "need to brush up my German", you need to read the whole source to understand it. I have not to provide you primary sources, I have provided several reliable secondary publications who consider that Strabo, Livy, Pliny, etc. consider them Illyrians. You may not like it, but it is what those modern scholars state. Thucydides' Atintanians were also non-Illyrians, but they were also non-Greeks. – Βατο (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Illyrerbegriff ist zu finden" can you translate this part? In case you don't understand the language of the source avoid using it in a disruptive manner. For future reference Matzinger doesn't say they were Illyrians. You can also read Thucydides since there is nowhere such claim to be find.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Also from this quote: "era una principessa della stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" we can not be conclude that Lyncestaens were Illyrians. Am I missing something? Princesses don't necessary share a common ancestry with the local population especially when they intermarry with foreign nobility. It appears that a major clean up is needed in the so-called Illyrian origin.Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That part refers to Herodotus:  If you read the whole source, it is talking about the attestation of Illyrian tribes. So yes, Lynkestes are considered Illyrians by Lippert and Matzinger, and that source will be restored. – Βατο (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The description "stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" means Illyrian lineage of Lynkestes, so Rossignoli too considers Lynkestes Illyrians. If you are considering to remove reliable sources just because you don't like some scholars' views, know that you can't do it. – Βατο (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It states about the mention of the term Illyrians (Illyrianbegriff?). Please avoid this unprovoked misuse of sourced material. No wonder Thucidides never claims they were Illyrians. Rossignoli also refers to the specific princess' lineage (not the tribe). Be carefull on that.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also about this source: Silberman, Alain; Zehnacker, Hubert (2015). Pline L'Ancien. Histoire naturelle. Livre IV. Collection des universités de France (in French). Vol. 409. A full citation of this collective (tertiary) work is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Silberman & Zehnacker 2015, p. 190:  is not a tertiary. Your attempt to discredit reliable sources that you don't like is unacceptable. You have to open a WP:RSN request before removing them. – Βατο (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've though it's a brief summary of Pliny's work by the editors (and non- historians_. Bato: why you use 3rd grade sources on such topics? Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheeler 2017, a work focused on military history mentions the name Lyncestae just once. But fact is that all the presented sources here are either mispresented or the author is just passing by that name. I assume that we need specialist sources on the matter. Objections?Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are literally discrediting all the sources that don't suit your POV, but you have to take them to the WP:RSN. – Βατο (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you refer to WP:RSN why don't begin with specialist sources on the subject? Matzinger and Rossignoli don't mention anything about Illyrian Lyncestae. They are both very specific on their descriptions (the former point on the context on use of the term Illyrian (hence lllyrianbegriff) and later point to the lineage of a princess).  
They couldn't have been too stupid to falsify the primary material in such obvious case.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If we believe that Matzinger interpreted also those tribes as Illyrians then I admit you have a severe problem of understanding the specific quote. Bato try to translate this quote carefully word by word. Matzinger is a very experienced scholar and unfortunately he doesn't mean that all those tribes were Illyrian. 22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would avoid such description of scholars as per WP:BLP. They are all reliable specialist sources on the subject. Lippert&Matzinger could be not so direct in their statement, but Rossignoli directly states "Illyrian lineage of Lynkestes", and cannot be subject to any interpretation. Now, as already stated, if you think that all those sources that don't suit your POV are unrelible, take them to the WP:RSN. The discussion is going round in circles and falling into FORUM. – Βατο (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are actually in deep confusion by heavily misinterpreting scholarly material: on the one hand you claim that: Matzinger claims that Lyncestae were ... Illyrians based on Thucydides, while one the other you present Eichner 2004 who claims that ... Lyncestae were Illyrians because Thukydides nennt noch andere Stämme, die in späterer Quelle als illyrisch gelten, wie die Lynkester. That's not consistent editing. Stick to the source. FORUM applies to you here.Alexikoua (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The full quote reads "era una principessa della stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" but for an unknown reason Bato insists to present only "stirpe illirica dei Lincesti" as a quote in order to present a different meaning. That ain't gonna work. Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What different meaning? Doesn't that source describe the Lynkestes as Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "Inaccurate and untrue source"

message: Theopompus is not documented to have mentioned the Lynkestes, why did you add the original research "Theopompus (4th century BC) included them among the Molossians"? – Βατο (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Theopompus

message: :There is uncertainty about Strabo, and a note clarifies it:  Why are you adding "while Strabo included them among the Epirotes"? It is an addition that breaches WP:NPOV.
:As for the quotes, Worthington states: p. 6:  p.13:  On the other hand I failed verification in google books about the mention of Lynkestis/Lyncus in this source Timothy, Reames & Carol 2008, pp. 5–6. Hence a quote is needed to see if the source is appropriate for inclusion in this article or not.
:An explanation should be provided for the removal of the well sourced text "Lynkus had also Illyrian elements." – Βατο (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from Billows, which you have added elsewhere. The explanation is needed why you are adding the same material twice in the article. Regarding Strabo, it's sourced not just to Hammond, but also Templar. Khirurg (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Billows is added where it is needed to secure balanced content, because the material added by Alexikoua is misleading if not mentioning what Billows states. Whether the information about Strabo is sourced with Templar or not is irrelevant, because that source is one among many mentioned in the note, and the statement "while Strabo included them among the Epirotes" obviously breaches WP:NPOV. Why should the sources supporting that Srabo includes them among Epirotes prevail over those that support that Strabo includes them among Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But the note you have added is unbalanced because it gives undue emphasis to Vasiliev's claim, without attribution. There are now multiple sources that state Strabo included them among the Epirotes, versus only Vasiliev. Vasiliev's claim is that  is now directly contradicted by two sources, as well as Hecateus himself. Is there another source that backs Vasiliev? Because it's starting to look increasingly likely that Vasiliev is incorrect. Regarding Billows, you can't add the same material twice ("Early period" section and "Lynkestian kingdom" section). Pick one. Otherwise others can do the same and the article will become an ureadable mess. Khirurg (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Better an "ureadable mess" than breaching WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable. As for Strabo, he does not directly describe Lynkestes as an Epirote tribe, read the primary reported above if you want to verify yourself. And even Hecataeus includes them among Molossians, but not directly describing them as "Epirotes". Vasilev's claim remains accurate. Also, this recent addition "however the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians viewed Illyrians as a common enemy." is undue out of context material in the lede, added to allegedly balance the previous statement: "The few existing primary sources show that it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads", which however, is a fact within a specific context and could be further clarified "before the rise of Macedon". – Βατο (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the same material from the same source multiple times is not NPOV, it is the exact opposite. The are far more sources that connect the Lynkestians with Macedonia, and I could easily do the same thing, but I don't for the sake of encyclopedicity. The Molossians are Epirotes, everyone knows this. We can't have the article contradict itself with things like "Hecateus describes them as Molossians but no ancient author describes them as Epirotes". That would be unencyclopedic and confuse the readers, and that is non-negotiable. In spite of this, I left your note in there, even though I shouldn't. The addition to the lede is essential, otherwise it is unbalanced and POV. The alternative would be to remove that sentence entirely, which would be ok with me. Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Since Vaislev does not provide much, we can agree in removing his statement from the note and including in it only that . As for the rest you reverted in this edit , you should restore it. – Βατο (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem restoring the Roisman quote, but regarding Billows, you have to decide where that should be included: Early Period or Lynkestian Kingdom. I can't agree to have the same material appear twice. Khirurg (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Templar states: . Please don't remove cited information. Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Khirurg, explain what is unbalanced and POV, please? The addition "however the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians viewed Illyrians as a common enemy." is an out of context erroneous comment because we know that Lynkestes allied with Illyrians to fight Argead Macedonians before the rise of Macedon, it is not a POV opinion, it is a historical, undisputable fact. – Βατο (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: @Alexi, Strabo did not directly report: , that's Templar's interpretatoin reading the primary source. – Βατο (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Btw, Billows has not been repeated, because in one section the source is used for the reason why Lynkestians were in hostilities against Argeads in early times, and in another section to clarify that there were Illyrian elements in the region. – Βατο (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Templar cites Strabo, Geographies, 7, VII, 8 (on the Epirote Lyncestians). Since we are talking about interpretations of ancient authors let's repeat the question: is there any ancient author saying that they were Illyrians? Ok, we can remove Templar because Strabo may say something different, but in case you can't provide a precise ancient source about your Illyrian hypothesis then Templar stays in the same fashion the Illyrian (anonymous author) claim is still there. And scholars claiming that they were 'not' Illyrians are many. Alexikoua (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Existence of 'Illyrian element' doesn't mean there are Illyrians. Those are two different claims.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Billows is repeated because it's the same material, "Illyrian elements". The sentence in the lede is unbalanced and POV because it is clearly intended to influence the reader into thinking that the Lynkestians are Illyrians, albeit indirectly. The addition is sourced, so I'm not sure how it is out of context of erroneous. Regarding Templar's interpretation of Strabo, that is exactly how sourcing is intended to work: Primary sources interpreted by secondary sources. We should not interpret Strabo ourselves, but rely on interpretation of Strabo by experts. WP:PSTS. Khirurg (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And Illyrian elements can be used in every context it is required, one in the section that states "Though the populations of both Upper and Lower Macedonia shared a common language and a common way of life contrary to the those inhabiting Illyria and Thrace who belonged to a different branch of the Indo-European linguistic family." and one in the section about the Lynkestian kingdom: "Lynkestis' lack of loyalty to the Argeads and their Macedonian kingdom was due in part to the Illyrian non-Macedonian elements of that region, and in part to the rivalities of its ruling families towards the Argeads." It is relevant for both. The out of context misleading material in the lede can't stay. You can't justify the inclusion of erroneous material to balance a historical fact, because it is a fact, not an opinion. – Βατο (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I tagged the parts that are not neutral, they can be easly fixed if you include all the views, and then the tags can be removed. The tag added by Alexikoua for Worthington can be removed by adding the quotes I provided above. – Βατο (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing erroneous about the lede material. It is well-sourced. If you insist we can remove the entire sentence. But trying to give undue weight to the Illyrian hypothesis is not going to fly, especially in the lede. And no, "Illyrian elements" cannot be added twice, that is a violation of NPOV, and I can easily do the same with the (more numerous) sources that say they were Macedonian. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede material now states erroneously, with an original research conclusion that "however the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians viewed Illyrians as a common enemy." The specific out of context information is unrelated to Lynkestis because Lynkestis was among the regions of Upper Macedonia that did not "view Illyrians as a common enemy" before the rise of Macedon. There cannot be erroneous information by original research in the article. – Βατο (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Concerning the "undue weight", a previous statment in the lede is:  According to your reasoning It gives undue weight to the Greek hypothesis. No historical fact gives due weight to one hypothesis or the other, because historical facts are independent from the modern hypotheses. – Βατο (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: POV pushing editing by some users is even leading to ahistorical content presented to readers in the lead section, it is unacceptable. – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So why isn't it that Upper and Lower Macedonia viewed the Illyrians as a common enemy not a historical fact? It's every bit a historical fact. Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add "...viewed the Illyrians as a common enemy from the rise of Macedon onwards". Khirurg (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's WP:original research unrelated to the subject of this article, and obviously has no space here. False arguments as "balancing one hypothesis" when there is not a hypothesis at all but historical fact, can't be taken into consideration. I just checked the source, and verified that User:Alexikoua WP:CHERRYPICKED it to insert an undue orginal research in the lead section. – Βατο (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's unrelated to the article is this WP:CHERRYPICKED WP:COATRACK section , which is mistranslated to begin with. The source does not back the claim . That is nowhere to be found. Khirurg (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The source Timothy, Reames & Carol has been used in both sections Early period  and Lynkestian kingdom . Hence there is absolutely no reason to exclude Billows' information in the section Early period  and in Lynkestian kingdom . Billow's exclusion implies double standards and POV editing, which must be avoided. – Βατο (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Unkownsolidier is requested not to remove tags when discussion is ongoing in talk page. – Βατο (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: User:Unkownsolidier keeps removing all the tags that had the scope to inform readers of the article's issues, without even participating here. I tagged the entire article. If the editor removes even that tag I'll report them to WP:ANI. – Βατο (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging the entire article is completely over the top. These are minor issues, tagging the entire article is unwarranted. Khirurg (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They are serious issues that should be addressed, and removing the tags from the relevant parts is not the appropriate whay to solve them. – Βατο (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Strabo, quotes, unexplained removals

message: ::The author deals with Lyncestis as an integral part of Upper Macedonia. In fact there is no scholars that objects the cultural uniformity (in terms of language, culture etc as in the case of Epirus) of the region: .Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source mentions the subject of this article it is ok. – Βατο (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  your revert is definetly not an improvement. – Βατο (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nitpicking to exclude unwanted material. You know full well that Lynkestis was the heartland of Upper Macedonia, hence what applies to Upper Macedonia applies to Lynkestis as well. Khirurg (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as a standard in our disputes, if a source does not mention the subject of an article it can't be used, otherwise I could have added directly in the article the sources Lima 2020 and Archibald 2012 to immediately solve the issue about Talk:Lynkestis#Matt-painted pottery, but I used them only for arguments in talk page to see whether the claims of some sources are accurate or less. Anyway, fortunately Timothy, Reames & Carol 2008 mention Lynkestis, and the quotes Alexikoua provided above helped for that matter. But you edit remains unconstructive and you should revert yourself. – Βατο (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas mentions the Lyncestae (quote provided) as an integral part of Upper Macedonian kindgoms. The same happens with the 'Doric' ware. That kind of removals should be avoided. Bato you also use sources (Roissman etc.) the same fashion and it's too naive to selectively (selectively) remove sourced content because the author doesn't mentions all Upper Macedonian tribes at each line.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Every source I cited into the article mentions the subject of the article, even Roisman. And it is a standard that should be always mantained, otherwise we fall within WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the disputes would become endless. – Βατο (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the quote above from Thomas clarifies that Lyncestis was an integral part of Upper Macedonia and then he describes the identity of this culturally and linguistically compact area.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand you are interpreting this [] as 'Illyrian domination of Lyncestis'. You understand that you are disruptive by selectively misinterpreting scholarly material.Alexikoua (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol Thomas p. 5-6:  As such when this authors says something about the peoples or kingdoms of 'Upper Macedonia' Lynkestae are also included.Alexikoua (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Alexi, after you quoted that source I stated: . There are no issues with sources that mention the subject of the article. This specific dispute can be considered solved. – Βατο (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well after the full context and explanations I've kindly provided your answer is quite bad: []. How about you consider to self revert this disruptive tagging? I consider you need to take a deep breath before we expand the article together. Alexikoua (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not disruptive tagging, it is informing the readers of the article that one editor made an original research conclusion that contradicts historical facts. Lynkestes were not among "the populations of both Lower and Upper Macedonians" that "viewed Illyrians as a common enemy", it is your own out of context conclusion. Before the rise of Macedon Lynkestes were close allies with the Illyrians, and it is documented. – Βατο (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I checked the source myself, and you have disruptively WP:CHERRYPICKED it. The content it provides can't be used as you did, to reach original research conclusions and not include the whole context of the information. – Βατο (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is very carefully added and based on the full context I've kindly provided here. I don't know what your are talking about. Don't remove that content again please (The author is very detailed that Lyncestea& Macedonians considered . What about you apologize and self revert?Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have to apologize for removing miselading WP:OR from lede. It obviously is historically inaccurate as it does not directly concern Lynkestis. – Βατο (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand how childish your argument appear here I assume. Lynkestis is directly mentioned as an integral part of Upper Macedonia and it's 100% historically accurate.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Carol Thomas

message: This part "The few existing primary sources show that before the rise of Macedon it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads" is pov and portrays only one tiny historic part of the Peloponnesian war. C. Thomas providing a general picture actually points the opposite: that the population of Lyncestae was a traditional ally of Macedon (they were also Macedonians per contemporary literature) and Illyrians were viewed as a common enemy. Obviously that part needs to be rephrased or to go. Illyrian were occasional invaders in LyncestaeAlexikoua (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Illyrians had dominated Upper Macedonia for centuries, a well sourced fact that you removed from the article and that obviously is to be restored, and Illyrians allied with Lynkestians and defeated Ancient Macedonians in battle. So no, there is no historical evidence that Lynkestes and Illyrians were enemies, and there actually is historical evidence that Lynkestians were in hostilities and fought several times against the Argeads. – Βατο (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a cherry-picked oversimplification. There were also periods of cooperation between Lynkestis and lower Macedonia:  Carol Thomas, The Physical Kingdom, in A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, 2010. Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  is not a fact, and I don't know whether that confederacy is a modern conjecture or fact, but it is irrelevant to the historical fact that Lynkestes cooperated with Illyrians and were in hostilities with the Argeads. I see you want to eradicate that main historical information, but you can't. – Βατο (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lynkestae were forced to cooperate for a very tiny period with their Illyrian enemies but that's not something worth for the intro. Saying that:  Lynkestes cooperated with Illyrians and were in hostilities with the Argeads is unhistorical. Upper Macedonia was hostile territory since Illyrians were also portrayed as invaders and a continuous threat in Upper Macedonia.  Alexikoua (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove WP:STABLE well sourced content that has been into the lede for years now. That's not unhistorical, that's what bibliography support. Upper Macedonia was composed of different tribes, each of them with different historical affiliations, mixing all of them actually is ahistorical. And don't remove Worthington's information by replacing it with WP:SYNTH/WP:OR material. – Βατο (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pov intro part

message: :User:Khirurg removed this content:
:
:The source used is Brixhe&Panayotou (2020):
:
:Translation:
:
:The source is talking about the non-Greek influences on the Ancient Macedonian language, and uses–as a main example–the name of the Lynkestian king Αρραβαῖος Arrhabaios. The editor removed it with the explanation: "Regarding Arrhabaios, the Bacchiadae were Doric Greeks from Corinth, the rest of the additions are off-topic." They should explain why that content is off-topic. – Βατο (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your own arguments, the source does not explicitly mention Lynkestis (it only mentions the name Arrhabaios), so this addition of yours is off-topic. This is what you have stated yourself. Also, in your haste to inform the world that the Lynkestians were "Illyrians" (they weren't), you have caused the article to contradict itself. First you claim that the Lynkestians were in hostilities to the Argeads (to imply that they were "Illyrian"), and now you claim that they contributed significantly to Macedon. This is unencyclopedic, the article cannot contradict itself. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the whole source, which expressly mentions Lynkestes (now I bolded the word in the quotes above), you will realize that it is talking about the expansion of Macedon and the influence the people it incorporated had on the language. The fact that Lynkestians were ostile to the Argeads before the rise of Macedon does not contradict it in any way. – Βατο (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it (and read it when you have mistranslated it previously), it only mentions the name Arrhabaios as a single example of Lynkestian name, among several other non-Lynkestian names. It does not refer to Lyncestis at all otherwise. You have previously stated that , but now it seems that went out the window. It's impossible to assume good faith from someone who doesn't honor their own rules. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That source expressly mentions Lynkestes / Lyncestes, and the information discussed is directly related to the subject of the article. If you remove it again, this time I assure you that it will be brought to the WP:DRN. It will be a waste of time, but at the end we all know it deserves inclusion. – Βατο (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It only mentions the name of a single king of the Lynkestes, among several others that were not Lynkestians. Not Lynkestis as a whole. What do Thracians and Phrygians have to do with Lynkestis? Nothing at all. It's a perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Feel free to bring it up to DRN or anywhere else you see fit. Khirurg (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Brixhe & Panayotou

message: Borza doesn't discuss the Lyncestae in the way discussed in the article. Side comment: There will be a new SPI for the recent activity in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borza 

message: Butler reads: "The region witnessed occasional raids and became a constant threat by Illyrian invasions from the early years of the Argead dynasty until the reign of Philip II of Macedon." This detailed part is replaced with a brief abstract descriptions about "Illyrian domination" that lasted "for centuries" so removing the necessary context. Objections to restore the neutral, detailed and non-abstract version?Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: and  are not in contradiciton with each other, and above all, are both statements provided by two independent reliable sources and not directly related to each other. So both statements are to be included, independently. – Βατο (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Domination since centuries needs to be replaced with a more detailed description. Even children can understand that 'since centuries' is a very generic and problematic expression that needs to further explanation. Also in this case 'domination' has the meaning of occupation of non-Illyrian territory, threat and constant raids.Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's problematic for you who don't like that historical fact. There is no more detailed description than an Illyrian dominant power in the region for centuries. Even the Argeads, according to traditoin, before going to Macedon went among Illyrians. The fact that Illyrians were the dominant power before the rise of Macedon is unrelated to any other speculative opinion by modern scholars. You have to understand and accept it. – Βατο (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Expressions like 'for centuries' are not scientifically correct: they fit only to children's books. The Illyrian dominant power has been interpreted as 'constant threat' and 'occasional raids'. Illyrians as enemy invaders first appeared after the withdrawal of the Bryges.Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling Worthington's publication a children's books is ridiculous. There is no evidence that Illyrians "firstly appeared as enemy invaders after the withdrawal of the Bryges". They could well have settled peacefully the area, like many other peoples who passed through Upper Macedonia, or could have controlled it from the outside, but it is irrelevant to the fact that Illyrians dominated the region for centuries and launched attacks against Argead Macedonia from there, which was the crucial factor why the Argeads desperately tried several times in history to annex it to Macedon, finally succeeding only with Philip II. – Βατο (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive removal of Butler

message: This part is contradicting the history section: "The few existing primary sources show that before the rise of Macedon it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads". In fact Carol Thomas claims exactly the opposite (they were allied with the Argeads while Illyrians were their common enemy) and also Butler is clear that the Illyrians were a constant threat to Upper Macedonia due to occasional invasions. So either we provide the full picture or this goes entirely out from lede. Alexikoua (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol Thomas does not discuss specifically the Lynkestae, otherwise it would be an inaccuracy. "The few existing primary sources show that before the rise of Macedon it maintained connections with the Illyrians and was frequently in hostilities with the Argeads" is what a reliable source states specifically about Lynkestis, and it is a historically accurate fact. – Βατο (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lynkestian dynasty maintained connections with the Illyrians against Macedonians. Then it was conquered by Macedonia and Illyrians who were enemies of Macedonia continued to be a threat to Macedonia which had incorporated Lynkestia (Upper Macedonia). They are two separate eras.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me summarize: The Lynkestian dynasty maintained connections with the Illyrians against Macedonians is wp:OR and wp:POV when summarizing the relations to adjacent territories. As such is refuted by the entire scholarship. Worthington (2008) a work which Bato uses extensively here uses the word 'unification' with Lower Macedonia (not conquest). I'll proceed as said. Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Heckel, Heinrichs & Müller 2020, p. 138:  It is explicitly discussed in bibliography. The article will be tagged if there is an edit-war to remove it from lead section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text:  Said what? Alexikoua, it seems you did not understand what Maleschreiber pointed out. The info by Heckel et al. is historically accurate within its proper context and in accordance with bibliography. The incorporation of Lynkestis into Mecedon by Philip II is already mentioned in the lede. – Βατο (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one non-representative piece of information that concern a tiny time period can't be at lead: Butler& Carol should be added as they provide a general picture on this (Illyrians as an enemy due to their constant attacks in the area).Alexikoua (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Butler&Carol don't contradict Heckel, Heinrichs & Müller. Illyrians did constantly attack the region in their conflict with Macedonians who had conquered it and they were previously allied with the independent Lynkestian dynasty. Where is the contradiction? This concerns the pre-Macedonian period before 358 BCE, it's not a limited era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato desperately wants Butler&Carol out of the intro but since they don't contradict anything they are nice to have in order to secure balance and neutrality in intro.Alexikoua (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to balance historical facts. – Βατο (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: POV on lede

message: Beekes (2009), p.875 doesn't discuss Lynkestis in relation to any etymology which involves the term "lynx". It should be not be added again as it's WP:SYNTH.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an additional source which further discusses it. Unkownsolidier (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Beekes (2009) doesn't mention Lynkestis. The toponym doesn't exist in Beekes (2009) and Georgiev is not a reliable source.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   Georgiev is outdated and should not be used, Beekes' information was initially added by me, he talks about the placenames starting with Lynk-, 'Lynkestis' could well be one of them. – Βατο (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Outdated source" is nonsense to me on this occasion, since we're simply talking about the etymology of an ancient geographical name. In this instance, the scholarship that's cited, whether it is old or not, doesn't mean anything as long as it is verified (both of the linguists are considered reliable and have their own articles in Wikipedia). Interpretations on linguistic evidence do not rapidly change like that. Unkownsolidier (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I just rewrited some aspects of that section as they are exactly displayed in the corresponding source. Unkownsolidier (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You  rewrote it with your own original resaearch. Beekes (2009) does not support . Concerning Georgiev's publication, a source can be considered outdated when current mainstream scholarship contrasts it, in this case it should not be used. And don't remove tags added by other editors when discussion is ongoing, because it does not benefit consensus building and content quality. – Βατο (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beekes (2009) 

message: The source removed by User:Alexikoua has no reason to be excluded from those modern sources that describe Lynkestes as Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua can't remove as irrelevant sources which explicitly discuss the Lyncestae as Illyrians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: (has been already discussed above) It's a partially presented quote which discusses a specific princess' lineage and not that of the entire population (which Bato hides in the quote in a childish manner).Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the full quote which contradicts the partial quote: stirpe illirica dei Lincesti?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  answer the question please: doesn't that source describe the Lynkestes as Illyrians? – Βατο (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato has already mistranslated various sources and this needs to stop era. Here: una principessa di stirpe illirica dei Lincesti [] (if the Lyncestae were Illyrian based on a princess' lineage that's a matter of speculation). If that's the best to present about the so-called Illyrian Lyncestae then we should consider to remove that part altogether. The word Lyncestea is never to be seen again in this work by the way.
Alexikoua (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote you brought forth doesn't change the meaning of the partial quote.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent removal of source

message: The vast majority (nearly entirety) in scholarship describe the Lyncestae either as Epirote or Macedonian or both (northwestern Greek). On the other hand 3 non-specialist works (Wheeler; a tertiary Encyclopia, D'Ercole, Silberman; a non-historian & editor in Livy's work) that simply mention once that name  (+Rosignoli which mentions an Illyrian heritage of a Lincestian princess) can't be considered as a strong argument of equal weight. Scholarship agrees that Lyncestis bordered Illyrian population to the W-NW since they were not Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Minority view presented as having the same weight

message: It was desperately claimed that no ancient author regarded them as Epirotes, nevertheless on the same page of that work we read: 'there are no reliable sources of regarding them as Illyrians or Epirotes instead of Macedonians'. Scholarship dismisses any link of them being Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherry picking again

message: Footnote pointing to Champion 2016 should be changed to Champion 2014 to get the page off the Harv no-target errors list. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 18:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 9 February 2024 

message: The Illyrian theory is not "alternatively" supported, and those who support an Illyrian identity are not saying they spoke Greek. Either this will stop immediately or admin intervention will be sought. Time is precious to waste with such nonsense. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Illyrian identity is not supported at all in scholarship, just 2-3 non-specialist works that simply happen to mention that name 'Lynkestae' just once. All specialist works that provide in depth analysis should stay in lede and no wonder 'all' sources that provide analysis about the language (theρε are many) simply ignore that kind of wp:FRINGE. As such removing sourced information about the language of that population (which happen to be non-Illyrian) in favor to wp:FRINGE constitutes disruption. Long story short: those 2-3 who just mention something about an Illyrian identity are not saying something else and off course nothing about language. As such that's not an excuse to remove everything about the language spoken in Lynkestes.Alexikoua (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also proposing to add the rest of Vasilev's statement in lead (Bato forgot to mention the part about the Illyrians ): . Well, Bato repeated several times that Vasilev should be used in lede and its time to add the (non)Illyrian part. Objections?Alexikoua (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE proposals by User:Alexikoua, which ignore many reliable sources, just for POV-pushing purposes. – Βατο (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato is simply into an extreme wp:cherry campaign here by adding partial material. The so-called Illyrian link should be removed as it is not supported by 'reliable sources'. This is cited by Vasilev a source that Bato is desperately propagating in favor in this TP (though he insists on the partial inclusion of this work: no reliable sources available on the Lyncestea being considered Illyrians or Epirotes instead of Macedonians it would be childish to insists that only the Epirote link should be included in link). Objections? (please provided concrete arguments why a partial inclusion of Vasilev is warranted)Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-pushing in the lede 

message: Please add  to the source in the "Further reading" section (Errington 1990) to suppress the harv/sfn multiple target error. Wham2001 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: * Pppery * it has begun... 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 18 February 2024