Talk:Molossians

message: This is a case where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies, because — despite Britannica and probably many other sources — the evidence is sparse and differing opinions among the scholars do not represent an insignificant minority. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Jimmy Wales: "The NPOV policy is absolute and non-negotiable." Alexander 007 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV applies

message: Any comment on Herodotus and the origin of some of the Athenians? talk to +MATIA 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my translation of Herodotus 1:146, he is describing the original tribes who later became part of the Ionian Greeks in Asia Minor and the Ionian islands. Molossians, Pelasgi, Dorians, and Dryopians are some of the tribes he mentions as adding to the population that emigrated with the Ionians. Because Herodotus includes Pelasgi in the same sentence, the quote cannot tell us much about the Molossians' ethnicity, though very likely they were a Greek tribe. Alexander 007 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herodotus etc 

message: Why there was a need to change the "Greek" to "Greek speaker"? All the sources use the language of the Mollosians as an evidence of their origin. (I am not aware of any none Greek but Greek speaking population in archaic Greece.) Also the above sources are enough about the origin of the Epirotans in general. Seleukosa (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason why there was a tussle between whether or not the Molossians were either "Greek" or "Greek-speaking" was because some Albanian users wanted to potentially portray the tribe as "Greek-speaking Illyrians". Then again, I could be wrong. Deucalionite (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh-huh. It's sooooo "nationalistic" to notice the painfully obvious fact that a bunch of Athenians were mocking the Greeks of Epirus by calling them "barbarians". Big whoop. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek or Greek speaker 

message: The map in this article uses blue to signify 'Thracian' tribes, and includes the Paeonians as such. Hammond in his 'Macedonian State' on page 40 makes it clear that the Paeonians had their own language and customs, while the Thracians were dominant east of Paeonia. I haven't edited the map out as it's the best available for the moment and the article is dealing more with the west than the east anyways, but it might be prudent to keep an eye out for something more accurate. Fimbria (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Map

message: I am placing the Albania TF tag and I hope no one will revert me. Since there is a lot of archaeological research in Albania about the Molossians (they lived in territories where Greeks and Albanians have coexisted, such as in the Gjin Bue Shpata state, or in the Pashalik of Janina state, or even now in some areas linked to the existence of Molossians. I think it's important to include this under the Albania TF. --sulmues (talk)  14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania TF 

message: I revert this edit which was made  by an anonymous user identified as vandalism; the anonymous user changed the word "ancient Greek" with the word "Illyrian" contrary to the sources that state the opposite. The same user has vandalised the page in the same way many times before, see article's history. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this edit which was made  by the same anonymous user identified as vandalism; the anonymous user changed the word "ancient Greek" with the word "Illyrian" contrary to the sources that state the opposite. The same user has vandalised the page in the same way many times before, see article's history. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert vandalism 

message: I've been moving through the article making minor grammatical and sentence-level changes.  I am not an expert, or even well acquainted with the topic.  I was considering removing the direct quote, the "inscription," mentioned in the section on "Molossian royalty."  To me the quote is nearly incomprehensible, and I think it adds very little.  However, I thought I would check to see if the editor who first added the quote could clarify it a little if he/she thought it appropriate.  I realize that we cannot simply add punctuation or change the syntax of a direct quote; perhaps a summary of the contents would be more beneficial in this situation than a direct quote.The people mentioned in the inscription (besides Alexander) are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The article's preceding explanation illuminates the terms in the first part of the quote (assuming the reader groups the words correctly without the aid of punctuation), but the reader would probably have no understanding of the last bit about the descent line of Kreston. --MattMauler (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in 4th Section 

message: I read that Molessians were greek?! What? Molossians were an Illyrian tribe. I have studied it a lot in Germany and what I am reading here is just wrong. I made some changes from greek to Illyrians.
I'm sorry but you need to explain your point and support it with wp:rs. As I can see the current version is well sourced, thus you need to provide strong arguments against a long established consensus.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the information is wrong! 

message: How about an etymolgy for the word "Molossian". ... > Molossós; "from Ancient Greek μολοσσός (molossós), properly "belonging to the Molossians", a people in the eastern part of Epirus." ... that it "belongs to the Molossians" is crystal clear. But simply not clear enough. What is the meaning of "Molossian"? LAGTON (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETYMOLOGY for "MOLOSSOI" 

message: It would be UNDUE to term their origin as a "disputed" since the works of Nilsson (1951) and Meyer (1893) who supported an Illyrian origin are severely outdated. Not to mention they had not access to archaeological material unearthed post-1950s.Alexikoua (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Their origin is a subject of debate. is what was added. Bibliography is outdated not based on when it was published, but based on what newer bibliography puts forward. Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) heavily cite Nilsson and we're not even debating Nilsson directly in this article, so none of your arguments are valid.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

text: In the available bibliography in the article's body: Winnifrith (1983), Davies (2002), Malkin, Nilsson, in Papadopoulos (2010) support various theories of hellenization. To argue that the lead should be written and based solely on Hammond is WP:UNDUE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Their origin is a subject of debate. Various theories which place them as either ancient Greeks, Illyrians or semi-Hellenized tribes which underwent a process of hellenization since the beginning of classical antiquity, have been argued. - the exact lead I wrote and Alex removed.  in order to not make this a long discussion in the talkpage, do you want to start a WP:DRN with just this one point and let external oversight solve it? Yes or no?--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not subject to debate. No serious recent scholar considers them "Illyrian". There is simply not a shred of evidence of that. In any case, the whole "Origin" section will be removed, since none of it is specific to the Molossians, but rather to Epirus as a whole. We can't have the same content copy pasted all over wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Papadopoulos, Winnifrith, Davies, Malkin, Nilsson refer to the Molossians. What is subject to debate is decided by bibliography. And you can't just remove content per WP:JDL. Now, does any of you want to go to WP:DRN as the other side and let external oversight deal with it? If you're so sure that no debate exists in bibliography, then you should have no problem highlighting that in a proper community process. It'll end the dispute in a definitive way and will act as a case study for future disputes among other editors in such areas. I've read all the past discussions in these articles and they're basically recycling the same arguments for years and years but nobody chose to trust in the procedures which the community provides for such disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from Hammond, all the available material from 1960 tends to present a version in favour of a hellenic identity (Chatzopoulos, Cabanes, Winnifrith by saying 'hellenized' does not necessary mean in terms of origin but of culture, etc.). But yes if we search about the origins of ancient people we don't know what language they exactly spoke in prehistoric times. Under this rationale all ancient origins appear disputed, but that's not a LEAD part.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not going to put forward our own interpretations of what "hellenized" means in that particular era. Bibliography decides that too in wikipedia.  or  you can argue for all of this in DRN, since you are so certain about your case. If the process allows it, you can both be participants and I will present the acculturation theory by myself. So, do you want file a discussion there? This is not going to be decided by edit-warring, but by community processes - which will have to be accepted by all editors involved.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If disagreements are of chronic nature that's the best solution. That's what I've proposed in Northern Epirus (or filling a case in the correspondent noticeboard). I assume in this case since this is a newly emerged disagreement we do some additional research and provide a summary during the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more minded to remove the whole "Origins" section, as it is not specific to the Molossians, but rather to Epirus as a whole. Haven't made up my mind yet. Khirurg (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  you can't remove anything because bibliography either specifically involves papaers about the Molossians or discusses the Molossians extensively.  so it'll be the two of us in DRN? --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes I can. Anything not explicitly related to the Molossians can and will be removed. By the way, you should really read read Filos, especially the footnote 18 on page 222. Regarding the Illyrian scenario: . Nilsson is from...1909 for crying out loud. Case closed. Khirurg (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff you would be removing is basically what you have added because everything I have added is from papers that deal directly with the Molossians. And then Filos goes on to explain which these epigraphic texts are and from what era which provides a nuanced view of the situation. Thus, if you remove anything, admin oversight will be required. You're already at 3RR, so if you do a fourth revert (by removing material) just outside the revert cycle that is a classical example of WP:GAMING and will be reported.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Khirurg: I'm sorry I've didn't notice that about Nilsson. Well seems modern bibliography lacks a single source about an Illyrian origin.Alexikoua (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) @Maleschreiber: I am minded to remove the whole section, because none of it specific to the Molossians, but rather applies to the Epirotes as a whole. But I haven't made up my mind yet. Keep your threats to yourself by the way. Unlike the tag-team on your side, I don't game anything. And you should really get on board with modern scholarship, instead of relying on sources from 1909 to push an outdated POV. Khirurg (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Alexikoua: Indeed. Part of the problem with this user is that he uses sources very selectively and "overlooks" important details that get in the way of pushing POV. It's a well known form of WP:CPUSH. It is a huge drain on on cimmunity time, because every edit needs to be carefully scrutinized and all sources checked. It needs to be documented so that if it continues, a case can be made at the appropriate venue. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I have used bibliography in the context their authors describe and about the eras they refer to. I am in favor of admin oversight even now so edits like Alexikoua's removal of the tag by claiming that he's making essential additions, while also changing Winnifrith (1983) term "semi-hellenized" to "initially not closely connected in terms of culture" a SYNTH change. If Winnifrith (1983) calls them "semi-hellenized" that is the term editors should also use. Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) write  - so no, you're not removing Nilsson in any way, shape or form. If modern bibliography chooses to discuss his later work in comparison to that of Hammond, wikipedia will do so too.
*But, here's how Khirurg changed the part about Malkin by claiming in the summary that he added bit that was mysteriously omitted:  That is not what the source says - so when I correct that I expect to not see any more revert-warring (you too have 5-6 reverts together in the past 24 hours) and I also expect from now on a closer reading of bibliography in order to not mess up references about different eras and make correction even more difficult afterwards.
*I've changed this article from a WP:FRINGE state about monoethnic, ahistorical, apolitical identities with fictional origin stories to the Trojan Cycle (presented as history in the article for the past 13 years!), to what modern bibliography discusses: fluid identities and an ever-changing historical context which shaped political-cultural responses. If some editors are against the change of time/evolution in research, it's ok - but wikipedia doesn't function in that way.
*I'll create an RfC because the community needs to be involved in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is misuse of bibliography (by quoting selectively, incorrectly paraphrasing, and other WP:CPUSH tactics) to try and push a "they may have been Illyrians" POV (or a "they were not Greek" POV). But as the bibliography shows, this is a heavily outdated POV. I suspect this is related to modern Balkan politics, whereby convincing the world that the Molossians were "Illyrian",  modern Albanian nationalists can claim to be the "rightful owners" of Epirus (since Albanian nationalist claim direct, unbroken descent from the Illyrians). I've seen this countless times play into these articles. In the distant past, historiography relied exclusively on ancient authors, who described the Epirotes as "barbarians", and took it at face value. And since the only non-Greeks anywhere near Epirus were Illyrian, these scholars assumed the Epirotes were Illyrian as well. This is also the reason why such maps were produced by scholars of the time . At the time, everything west of the Pindus was considered Illyrian (and by extension Albanian). But modern scholarship has moved away from this incorrect viewpoint. Ancient authors are fragmentary, inconsistent, unreliable, and contradictory. The meaning of the term "barbarian" has been re-examined and expanded, so it does not automatically mean non-Greek. Epigraphic evidence, which is far more reliable, points away from an Illyrian scenario (since all epigraphic evidence is Greek). For this reason, modern scholarship is moving slowly but steadily away from the Illyrian scenario, and is moving closer to the Greek scenario. The most recent sources, such as Filos categorically state that the Epirotes were Greek-speaking. No modern scholar advocates for an Illyrian origin. You can't find a single modern scholar that nowadays explicitly asserts Illyrian ancestry for the Epirotes. How could they? There is not a shred of evidence. It's a similar situation with the Macedonians: Older 20th century scholarship also argued that they were "Illyrian", but as the years have gone by, an increasing consensus is moving in the direction that they were Greek, or at least closely related. No one seriously considers the Macedonians an "Illyrian" people anymore. As you yourself have pointed out, the area considered "Illyrian" has been constantly shrinking, nowadays restricted to Albania, Montenegro, and southern coastal Bosnia. So this is a losing battle you are fighting here. You have made several valuable additions to the article, and for these I thank you. But pushing the "Illyrian" and "non-Greek" origin scenarios is not going to lead anywhere. If anything, it will backfire. You would be better served by applying your not inconsiderable talents elsewhere - here the case is closed. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'm more inclined towards a mixed pre-Greek/pre-Illyrian for some subtribes ( + Illyrian and Greek for others) origin that got then hellenized. The basis of a fluid identity, in other words. By the term "hellenization" - I don't mean to say that I consider them in the context of the Hellenistic era as "less Greek" than other states and I'm definitely not among those who think that legitimacy in living peacefully in a land comes from how old one's ancestral pedigree in that area is. I think that progress has been made in the article and despite the difficulties we managed to find some middle ground in quite a few areas. For this last one, I just opened the RfC and it can be decided there by the community - and we don't really have to repeate our arguments there, I understand that there are other topics we may want to get involved in. I kept it as short as possible and just to be transparent here: I will accept its outcome to the fullest.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

text: As a side comment about epigraphic evidence which Filos (2018) very carefully mentions, the earliest date - as in the article - given by Chatzopoulos (1990) is c. 400 BC - based on Cabanes (1983). We don't know about language they spoke, but we do know that epigraphic evidence is in NW Greek from that era. *But* since 2014 epigraphic evidence has been redated in Meyer (2014) The Inscriptions of Dodona and a New History of Molossia. Stuttgart:Franz Steiner,2013. ISBN:978-3-515-10311-4. From Nakas (2014) review:  --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not true. Filos clearly states on p. 221 that the epigraphic evidence is from at least the Archaic period, 6th-5th century BC). Khirurg (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the epigraphic evidence in general in Epirus - which comes from Corinthian colonies and thus is not "Epirote". See Chatzopoulos and Filos as they are described in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Filos (2018) p. 222: --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but even so, he uses that to buttress the claim that they spoke NW Greek. Note that he states they may not be representative of the whole of Epirus, but that does NOT mean they were not representative at all. Dodona certainly would be representative of Molossis, where it was located (the Doric colonies on the coast are another matter). There is also Chatzopoulos (1997) which shows that the NW Doric in Epirus was a local variety, and not borrowed. As for the "prestige language" claim, if that were the case, they would have used Attic, like the Macedonians did, and certainly not an "uncouth" and downright "barbarian" variety of NW Doric. Khirurg (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Molossians got control of Dodona in the 5th century BC when they defeated the Thesprotians until then it was their territory, hence the name "Thesprotian Zeus" [of Dodona]. But Dodona is not representative according to Filos because of its "international fame" as an oracle so it had inscriptions from all over the Balkans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thesprotians and Molossians were very similar, what goes for one goes for the other. Dodona would have had inscriptions from all over the Balkans in the late period, but this is doubtful in the Archaic period. And Filos does note that some of the Dodona tablets were related to Epirus, on page 233  . Besides scholars know to differentiate the various inscriptions. If they were Illyrians, Illyrian onomastics dating from the Archaic period would have surely been found. Instead, there is no such evidence. Dodona was through and through a Greek sanctuary, and in fact considered the oldest Greek oracle. And it lay smack in the middle of Epirus. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Thesprotians and Molossians were not similar tribes. The Thesprotians are actually a much older tribe (the only Epirote tribe to be mentioned in the Iliad). The Molossians on the other hand are a much more recent tribe that made its appearance and drove them out of Dodona.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And they both spoke closely related NW Doric dialects. So of course they were related. Khirurg (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

text: we're having an ongoing RfC about the lead. In the meantime, don't introduce WP:FRINGE concepts back to the article. Chatzopoulos (1997) mentions nowhere the Molossians and every source about the genealogies in the article agrees that they were fictional. So, there's a well-documented consensus in bibliography. If you want to contest it, you have to have bibliography that backs it up - and also do it openly, not with edits of irrelevant material that don't discuss the Molossians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this brings up a very interesting point: The Molossians were not only motivated, but able to construct a mythical genealogy, which was accepted by the other Greeks of the time. Clearly it shows the Molossians had good knowledge of the Trojan cycle, sufficient to construct a "credible" genealogy. On the other hand, truly non-Greek people such as the Illyrians never bothered to do so. Why would they after all? And even if they were so inclined, it is highly improbable they would even know how to construct one, especially to satisfy the Greeks.  Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) which I've frequently used in the article? None of his happened because of some knowledge the Molossian dynasty had but  So, what this Proxenos helped the Molossians do, was a very un-Greek thing (to the eyes of someone from Athens or Sparta). Actually, most of the people named Neoptolemos (after the Trojan figure) appear in the periphery of ancient Greece: from Neoptolemus I of Epirus to this Persian-Pontic figure, Neoptolemus (Pontic general). It's an evolution of Greekness, but it's not one single identity which maintained itself through ages. It became more inclusive. Just like, for example, the modern American identity is changing and becoming more inclusive. That is my "endgame": not to show that they were Illyrians or non-Greek per se, but to show the evolution of identity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You RfC proposal shows quite clearly what your "endgame" is. And you haven't addressed the question of why no real Illyrians ever attempted a Hellenic genealogy. Hint: Because they weren't remotely interested, because they weren't Greeks. Khirurg (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why didn't Illyrians attempt it" is a form of whataboutism. Your question was about the Molossians and we established why it happened. In the above small example, I hope to have showed you how essentialist explanations can't stand the scrutiny of serious bibliography. I'm sure though that if the Illyrians lived in the periphery Athenian hegemony and were surrounded by Corinthian colonies, they would establish state institutions and social stratification early on and the royal children would study in Athens and in turn would have equal responses to the Molossian ruling class in order to stand their ground against the big powers of the time. That is a plausible historical explanation - the opposite of essentialism.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer my question.  Now how's that for original research. And the Illyrians did have many contacts with Greeks from the coastal colonies. Many became Hellenized, but not in the way you claim the Molossians did. And you know this. Khirurg (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You made an unsubstantiated argument that Molossians used the myths because they knew them well (an implication about their origin) and I explained to you that this was not the case  and then you shifted the question towards "But why didn't the Illyrians do the same". That is an whataboutism which is not related at all to the first question. By this point, trying to argue about why the Molossians did so (we've got an answer) by asking "why didn't the Illyrians do" is irrelevant in relation to the original question. It's starting to get late here (my "here" at least), so we can continue tomorrow with papers from JSTOR.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't shift the question, I've been asking it for a while, and now you are dodging it. The real Illyrians had plenty of opportunity to establish such genealogies, but they never bothered. Khirurg (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not dodging it but you're asking a question that is irrelevant to the Molossians. These two questions are independent of each other. The question about the Illyrians is also part of alternative history because it asks why something didn't happen. All answers will be hypothetical in this particular case and no bibliography can exist that answers such a question, so any answer is a construction based on historical knowledge of the era. In the context of wikipedia, it's a very OR/FORUM thing to discuss.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a simple statement of fact. 1) The Illyrians had plenty of contacts with Greeks from the poleis, 2) they never developed a mythical Greek genealogy, 3) not just the Illyrians, but none of the other peoples the Greeks came in contact never bothered to do so, 4) the only ones that ever did were the Molossians and the Macedonians. It's actually something that could easily be added to the article. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained to you twice how the Molossians came to construct such a genealogy. It was . If you want to construct your personal narratives, it's ok - but it's not something that can work in the context of wikipedia and historiography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we are in WP:IDHT territory at this point. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

text: As a side comment, to have "good knowledge" of the Trojan cycle means to be taught the Iliad - which is something that happened in the ruling classes of Athens and Sparta. It was not oral/folk history - it was part of curriculum of the education of the landowners. The first Molossian who was taught about the Iliad was Tharrhypas - who grew up and was educated in Athens. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: It appears that E. Meyer's suggestion on re-evaluating the date of some inscriptions is not widely accepted among book reviews. Some conclusions: "Not  all  historians  will  be  convinced  by  the  interpretations  suggested  in  this  account." "yet remain many unanswered questions." and 'further investigation is needed;. []. If someone has access to this book it would be helpful to see Meyer's precise interpretation and which exactly inscriptions are re-dated according to her.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Book reviews aren't "controversial" - they highlight differences between past and recent research. It's how research develops - it doesn't apply certainties, where they don't exist. According to one of the two reviews used in the artice . The other also embraces the newer redating. In the article, I highlighted that as  Where's the controversy?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you insist on information from a specific book you don't even have access. Kindly asking: Have you access to this work? Relying on books you don't even have access is quite disruptive, especially if book reviews conclude that: "Not  all  historians  will  be  convinced  by  the  interpretations  suggested  in  this  account." "yet remain many unanswered questions." and 'further investigation is needed".Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "relying on the book" to make any sort of comment. I'm relying on academic papers to mention the fact that inscriptions have been redated. I don't need to have access to the book to do that because I'm not using the book as bibliography to argue for an interpretation by its author. From d'Alessandro (2015)  is what I've written in the article about Neoptolemus I & II. Also, don't quote bibliography in a selective manner. D'Allesandro doesn't disagree with Meyer (2014) about the dating of the inscriptions - her comments is about political interpretations that emerge from the redating - which is something that is not the in scope of my edits. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that you rely solely on book reviews without having access to the work that's reviewed & even better some reviews are quite critical on this specific book. If "further investigation is needed" that's something we should also respect before adding such controversial material that none has access.21:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the above, it's draining to explain to you the same thing for the n-th time about how bibliography functions. We use papers like reviews in order to highlight events in the development of research. Based on existing bibliography, I wrote that  It's not an endorsement, it's not a certainty - it's how bibliography has appraised so far the redating - and we ought to report that. D'Alessandro refers to other aspects of the book (which the wiki-article doesn't discuss because we would need the book to do that), it doesn't have to do with the redating of the inscriptions which d'Alessandro also supports  I will not explain this again - read the bibliography closely.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of controversial book reviews

message: The irrelevant material from Chatzopoulos (1997) has been removed. It has been explained that you can't include material that doesn't refer to the subject of the article - the WP:SYNTH introduction of which also creates contradictions in the content.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a discussion here Talk:Molossians#A_supposed_NW_Greek_koine you are already participating. Kindly saying you need to stop wp:IDHT.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua, IDHT means that when I explain to you that you can't cite bibliography that doesn't refer to the Molossians because it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and it introduces glaring contradictions (which the author doesn't put forward - namely, Chatzopoulos never places the Molossian dynasty as claimants of Achaean heroic ancestry), you can't reply to me "yes, he doesn't mention them - but this term here might mean that...". It's not how wikipedia functions and it's draining that I have to explain basic principles because you can't accept that you can't cite bibliography in this way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no harm in having Chatzopoulos in there; he provides valuable content for our readers. This is a generalist encyclopedia, not an elite academic venue, see WP:ELITE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. I will re-instate the material, and it should not be removed again. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossians - there's nothing to "re-instate" here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Epirote royalty=Molossian royalty. In fact there was no other royalty in Epirus than Molossian.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No narratives and equations that bibliography itself doesn't put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's pretty obvious we are dealing with a major case of WP:JDL here. Case closed. Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you've added this SYNTH material. I've tagged the article. If you remove them, there are appropriate noticeboards for SYNTH/OR - WP:NORN.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the usual tagging gimmicks. This time you avoided adding a POV tag, because that would count as a revert, which you already have quite a few. But there is no original research, so the tag will be removed. And feel free to go to WP:NORN or any noticeboard you see fit. Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I avoided a POV-tag because I started RfC about it. The OR/SYNTH tag is well-justified - you're placing citations in a misleading way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *I admit that I'm impressed with the claim that Achilles was not an Achaean. Greek literature labels him as  the greatest of all the Achaean warriors, Achilles.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua, Achilles was a Thessalian who fought in the Achaean army. Of course, Hatzopoulos (1997) doesn't discuss it and he doesn't mention the Molossians - so it's irrelevant in any way, shape, or form.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) The OR tag is absolutely not justified, and you know it. Practically every sentence is sourced. You are just tagging the article because of WP:JDL issues. And the reason you are using the OR tag is because you have already used to POV tag, so adding a POV tag would count as a revert. And tag-bombing (also known as tag-shaming) is a form of disruption. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the Molossians 1. Epirotes 2. ruled by a king? If the answer is 'yes' then everything about 'Epirote royalty' applies here.Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already provided sources that Achiles was an Achaen. There is nothing more to prove & we have nothing that contradicts this fact. Phthians were also Achaeans since Achaeans was a collective term. I assume you have sources that contradict this claim else you need to stop edit-warring.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't function on WP:SYNTH interpretation. If Chatzopoulos (1997), doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty, then we don't include him.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I added the tags because you re-institated material that doesn't address the subject. I've been explaining for two days that it doesn't address the subject and you've been stonewalling every explanation with all kinds of irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with wikipedia. You also added Filos (2017) just below Douzougli (2010) although he doesn't mention any of those authors. As a minimum, remove Chatzopoulos (1997) and I will remove the tags. You can't expect editing process in this article to function outside of the guidelines used in all other articles. Reinstating material that doesn't mention the subject, indicates WP:OWN-like disruption. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is astonishing. Molossian royalty is interwoven with the Epirote royalty. Every book and source you check out there can confirm this. If one speaks about Epirote royalty, can refer to no one other than the Molossians whose the kings were the ones who ruled Epirus. Please see List of the kings of Epirus. To imply that Epirote royalty is different than Molossian royalty, will require very very strong sources, which I am afraid do not exist and which means your position here is crossing the WP:OR borders, as the academic consensus is that the Molossians were the royalty of Epirus, none else. Someone better start reading books instead of adding tags. Speaking of tags, I have removed them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Maleschreiber: None of these are reasons to tag the article. There are ways to address that without tagging. But that's not the goal, here is it? This is WP:JDL and WP:IDHT disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention them - hence the tags which you removed. I've explained to you how the way you used Chatzopoulos (1997) is an example WP:SYNTH. This type of editing by the three of you sets a very serious precedent about how bibliography is used and how disputes are approached. So be it - it only validates the opinion that large scale and very strict admin oversight is needed in the Balkans topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Khirurg, Alexikoua, I admire your patience here but I am afraid this may need admin attention. The editor here clearly is not here to improve the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Maleschreiber: It is extremely disruptive and uncool of you to tag an entire article because of a minor disagreement. And yes, that's why close admin supervision of this topic space is needed. @SilentResident: Thank you, I couldn't agree more. Khirurg (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You've added material in such a way that doesn't correspond to bibliography - that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's not a minor disagreement, it's a violation of SYNTH/OR on your part. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you believe that 'Epirus royalty' is irrelevant here?Alexikoua (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant material from Chatzopoulos 

message: I believe the references to "Chatzopoulos" and "Chatzopoulos, 1997" are in regard to the following work:
:* Hatzopoulos, M. B., "The Boundries of Hellenism in Epirus During Antiquity" in Epirus, Four Thousand Years of Greek History and Civilization, edited by Sakellariou, M. (1997), Ekdotike Athenon, pp. 140–145. .
If so, then the mention of "Chatzopoulos" in the article, and the cites of "Chatzopoulos, 1997", need to be fixed. And the corresponding entry in the "Sources" section should be modified to read as given above. Paul August ☎ 12:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with thanks to . --T*U (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 14:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch.Alexikoua (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Maybe but the individual in question seems to prefer "H" (I have other works from him on hand). Of course others use "ch", some use "kh", some even use "x" though this is rare in formal publications and more a characteristic of "Greeklish".--Calthinus (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As Calthinus says: , . --T*U (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Chatzopoulos"?

message: To reply in this [] (posted in a wrong talkpage). There is an unexplained attempt to consider Georgiev as FRINGE. Nevertheless his conclusion about the Proto-Greek area is in agreement with Hammond and Crossland about the location of the Proto-Greek area. I assume that even wp:TERTIARY summaries should be targeted as FRINGE [] according to this (yet unexplained) view.Alexikoua (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgiev (1966) puts forward a fringe theory. It highlights that we shouldn't use ~80-year-old bibliography when it contradicts everything we know today in the course of knowledge accumulation in bibliography. It's not "in agreement with Hammond and Crossland". There's a more than 3,000-year difference between saying that proto-Greek existed in the Greek Dark Ages (c. 1100-800 BCE) and saying that proto-Greek existed in Neolithic Greece#Late Neolithic (LN) 5300-4500 BC (c.5300-4500 BCE) in the same area. It doesn't matter if you remove a part or if you change Epirus to NW Greece. Greek and other Indo-European languages existed nowhere in the Neolithic Balkans because IE-speakers didn't live in the Balkans and their languages hadn't even formed as differentiated languages from the common Proto-Indo-European language in their Urheimat far away from the Balkans. --Maleschreiber (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgiev's research is in agreement with the rest of the bibliography. The middle Helladic was c. 2,000 years earlier from the Late Neolithic and Crossman states that already from the Middle Helladice Greek speakers inhabited also modern central and southern Albania. So, nothing wrong about Georgiev. A similar movement is also known about the Illyrians from northern to western Balkans (who were also not authocthonous as the Greeks too by the way).Alexikoua (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way Georgiev defines as Late Neolithic: 4000-3000 B.C. [] and not 5300-4500.Alexikoua (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally accepted that Greek speakers reached the Aegean after 2500 BC [], so saying that in 4000-3000 they were already located in nw Greece is quite reasonable. Georgiev has conducted a very detailed research that proves this existence in terms of linguistics/toponyms/hydronyms/oronyms.Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no, no, no. Toponymy is not carbon dating. You can tell the relative chronology. Not the absolute chronology (for unattested eras). Hist Ling 101. --Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

text: It's a 2,000-year gap from the era IE-speakers arrived in the Balkans. There were no IE-speakers in the Balkans in the Neolithic era. It's one of the cultural features the separates it from the following eras. The Middle Helladic wasn't "2,000 years earlier from the Later Neolithic". The Helladic_chronology#Middle_Helladic_(MH was long after the Neolithic - 2,000 years after it. So, there's no "agreement" in bibliography. Crossland (1982) () rightfully mentions MH because it is in the era c.2000-1550 BC that IE appeared in the Balkans. No IE language existed in the Balkans in "4000-3000" BCE.  --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

text: No, as I've stated from 4000-3000 B.C (from nw Greece) to 2500 BC (Aegean) its a c. 500 year gap, and this is quite reasonable in terms of non-violent migration.Alexikoua (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I've removed this part since Georgiev doesn't link the Late Neolithic directly to Molossia but with nw Greece in general. There is also interesting that Hammond adopts the same view (Servia is in nw Greece) []: .Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Thus Hammond fully agrees with Georgiev. Borza states that proto-Greek speaking populations were already located in nw Greece in c. 2600 BC. So labelling Georgiev as fringe should be avoided. By the way Borza directly mentions the 'Molossians' as one of the tribes that originated from this proto-Greek core. Well this is a relevant information worth of addition here.Alexikoua (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tthe fact that you moved from an edit which placed Greek as "already formed" in Epirus - and then NW Greece - from 5.300-4.500 BCE to another OR about it being in Greece in 2.500 BCE in just a few hours indicates a very faulty methodology via which bibliography has been perceived. Nagle (1979) - who you cited about your 2500 BC theory - writes:  So, it's another SYNTH/OR to say that Greek was in the Aegean in 2500 BCE. A good oveview of modern bibliography is Drews (1994), The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, Princeton University Press. He writes (p.14):  So, sources and outdated theories that put forward WP:FRINGE ideas which - in our time - are popular only in nationalist sites are not what this article should be based on.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

text: It appears you can't read my comments above: from 2,500 there was a Greek presence in nw Greece. Nothing fringe.Alexikoua (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern bibliography and its existing theories don't confirm such a hypothesis as a plausible alternative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern bibliography indeed fully agrees on this (Hammond, Georgiev, Borza, Crosmann). Take a deep breath, nothing is fringe & get used to it.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Trudgill id also quite comfortable with Georgiev's Proto-Greek statement []: he also states that the Proto-Greek area also included Albania. I feel you need to fill an RSN case for your fringe claims.Alexikoua (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

text: @Calthinus: You are not serious by providing this as a claim of wp:FRINGE and removing well known linguists. Who is Madgearu? Actually Georgiev doesn't claim this stuff. To name a few: Hammond, Borza, Crosmann and Trudgill are very convenient by citing Georgiev.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he does, and Madgearu is a university Romanian historian. Not that he is the only source discussing Georgiev and his role in the Zhivkov regime's Thracomania... within linguistics, Georgiev's theories about "Pelasgians" are also embarrassing and by the way things I suspect you would not be a fan of :). --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I remember Madgearu was widely rejected by Albanian editors by claiming that the Malakasii, Boua etc tribes were Aromanians. Nevertheless Madgearu isn't well known as several western historians Borza, Hammond, Trudgill. They all accept this theory.Alexikoua (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not "accepted" that Proto-Greek existed in 5000 BCE. It is not even accepted (but it is a minority view) that its mutually unintelligible ancestor Proto-Indo-European existed so early. Sorry. Good thing I'm not a quote-unquote "Albanian editor".--Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never said that (and Georgiev does not claim this). Please don't put words in my mouth. This occurred much later. Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, 4000-3000 BCE, even though your original edit had . But guess what? It's still out of line with most theories about the spread of Indo-European. And also guess what? It's still multiple millennia out of scope because literally nobody claims the Molossians existed in 3000 BCE let alone 4000 BCE. How on earth are we even having this argument...? --Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you need to read the source carefully. Don't put words in my mouth (again): none said that Molossian existed that time (Borza says "originated"). Also Borza claims c. 2,600 while Georgiev 4000-3000 BC. A four centuries gap in terms of Prehistory is virtually nothing. No wonder Trudgill finds Georgiev RS. Something we should too.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, right, now you say this, yet your edit  clearly linked readers to a section titled Neolithic_Greece#Late_Neolithic_(LN)_5300-4500_BC. What a shame we can't go and edit the edit history, right? So what will it be? And no this is not four centuries, even if I take your word and Borza claims 2600 BCE, this remains out of scope by millenia not "four centuries". --Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit you enthusiastically removed multiple times does not contain this link []. Fortunately I wp:AGF, self revert and correct myself (about the so-called Neolithic link []) something I advise you too.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've been trying to AGF. But maybe I was too harsh. Sorry . Sometimes I can't make heads or tails and it looks bad. I'll take a break from this and maybe come back tomorrow. --Calthinus (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua has made three very quick reverts and has introduced FRINGE and SYNTH content because these two authors are not in support of the same theory and as modern bibliography establishes they both are far away even from the most minor of theories about proto-Greek. There's a large gap between them too - what they define as the proto-Greek period is not the same, but via editorializing the reader is led to think they are referring to the same thing. Admin oversight in AE is probably the best way to continue because right now the article is a FRINGE/SYNTH mix of content that is far away from what has been discussed in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy to notice that there were two editors involved on this. Calthinus explained the reason for this and I can fully understand it (headaches etc. are not uncommon even among wikipedians). What's disruptive in this is your typical POV view to pretend that only one editor reverted. For the nth time nothing is fringe and the so-called Neolithic claim is fixed. Either take it to RSN or you will be reported to an admin soon due persistent disruption. Alexikoua (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again trying to introduce to articles the idea that proto-Greek was spoken in Neolithic Greece.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In Georgiev (1981) which is a republishing of all his work from the 1960s, the author also claims that  (in southeastern Bulgaria). That is around 7000-6000 BCE.  highlights why it's impossible for any IE language to have been in the Balkans in the Neolithic, Drews (1994) above gives an overview of the modern consensus which is set between 2100 BCE and 1200 BCE and  writes about the consensus:  --Maleschreiber (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I wonder why those Proto-Thracian settlements are relevant with the Greek ones. It seems you are very confused about this issue. About Proto-Greeks [] (not Proto-Thracians):  Georgiev meets fully wp:RS, he's a very specialized on Balkan linguistics. The academic community cites him frequently, I suggest you can do the same.Alexikoua (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking in account Katicic (I expect you are quite familiar with this linguist) Georgiev appears to be placed among the top5 Balkan scholars. Katicic cites him frequently and without hesitation []. There is no reason to avoid his invaluable information he offers to us.Alexikoua (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm really sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. No, he is not. He was influential, yes, but a lot of his influence nowadays involves people overturning his ideas (or, better, facepalming, professionally).  has (quite impressively I might add) given a number of works that are much more representative of our understanding of Indo-European migrations into the Balkans. To be fair, there are theories, like the Paleolithic continuity theory, that would be consistent with such an old presence of Greek speakers somewhere in Europe, but this is a minority theory and the dominant one has been the Kurgan theory for quite awhile now. And you still are not engaging from the documented evidence of Georgiev's role in the emergence of pseudo-scientific Thracomania ideologies and his relationship with the Bulgarian communist regime -- that is why his protochronist views about Thracians are of utmost importance to this discussion. --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the kurgan hypothesis challenges the so-called 'authochtony' scenario and there is no way for a nationalist (both Albanian and Greek) to accept that Greek speakers once inhabited Albania. The proto-Indoeuropean theory is well established, so if you really try to turn Georgiev into fringe you need to initiate wp:RSN. By the way if Georgiev is FRINGE then you try to turn useless all those that accepted his research: Hammond, Borza, Katicic etc. Georgiev is a leader in the field by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgiev is the one proposing an "autochthonous" origin with nationalist implications - IE languages did not exist in the Balkans in 3200 BC and even earlier like he does with his theories about Thracian/Greek/Illyrian. Theories that push back IE-speakers to the to this time frame and even earlier in the Balkans are not part of any "Proto-Indo-European theory" because PIE is considered to have been a single language until 2500 BC outside of the Balkans - if you're going to claim that your argument is part of any "theory", the reading is required about what that theory puts forward based on years of accumulated research. Extensive bibliography has been put forward also at Proto-Greek language, so if you want to, you can definitely keep up the WP:STONEWALL but don't do it in the context of wikipedia. It's a great disservice to readers to put forward such theories. Readers have a right to read what bibliography is discussing so that later they can explore it themselves. Putting forward FRINGE theories that don't belong in the corpus of modern research merely confuses them and causes harm to the integrity of this project, because as soon as any reader engages with bibliography they will see that no matter the POV pushing in wikipedia, Georgiev's theories about Thracians/Greeks/Illyrians are not what is being discussed or considered plausible.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: MSchreiber it appears you initiated a large scale OR concert and:...  "Georgiev is the one proposing an "autochthonous" origin with nationalist implications".  Recycling the same unfounded argument against a top graded linguist can be easily considered disruptive TROLLING. By the way Georgiev supports the Kurgan hypothesis movement and thats the opposite of authocthony which Balkan nationalist typically claim. I assume there is a clear reason why you don't take it to RSN because there is no possibility for your "Georgiev conspiracy theories" to receive any attention.Alexikoua (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgiev

message: user:Khirurg how isn't this important piece of cultural shift toward hellenization of Epirus part of the culture? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misusing a WP:PRIMARY source to push the familiar POV that the "Molossians weren't Greek". Khirurg (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This Primary source was already in the articles. There seem to be a problem with that only when it doesnt suit your POV. Nobody mentioned the "Molossians werent Greek". As Plutarch wrote King Tharrypas introduced the Greek culture to the local population. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Khirurg do you have any argument to be discussed in the TP or simply just want to win via edit-war and hoping to not be blocked before me? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Molossians weren't originally Greek" is exactly what you are trying to imply with your addition, and you are misusing a WP:PRIMARY source to do it. No way. Khirurg (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument should be about the article and the source not about my personal implication or your subconscious subtle understanding of "what i might want to achieve" by this edit. The author wrote "X" thing just like with the rest we must write what the author wrote. Like it or not. What is the point of hiding it? Its clearly not a NPOV to complain about the pre existing confirmed source ONLY after precisincly rewording it to find out it doesnt suit your POV? This is exactly what censure looks like. The plausible part takes the green light the rest no. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I think it is a reliable source. But the old source is used in multiple articles so we must update those as well. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture