Talk:Atintanians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of language section

Though Jaupaj does not mention the linguistic background of the group I wonder why this section was removed [[1]]. Current scholarship is in full agreement in terms of language. It would be childish to pretend that Kos isn't outdated in terms of current scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, is it possible to translate the following part (in bold), its from the source you provided:L’auteur défend l’appartenance ethnique épirote des Atintanes, en soutenant que les sources qui les appellent Illyriens, comme Appien, renvoient à la situation du IIIème siècle où une partie de ce territoire était rattachée au royaume illyrien d’Agrôn et de Teuta. Cette remarque doit e^tre prise ern considération.

and also this:Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire qui arrive jusqu’à Dodone et qui confine à celui d’Apollonia, de Byllis et d’Orikos. Il est probable qu’ils formaient un Koinon regroupant plusieurs tribus différentes, aussi bien illyriennes qu’épirotes, et que ce Koinon a pu se réduire selon les époques et la défection d’une partie de ses membres. Quant au problème de leur frontière méridionale visible depuis Dyrrhachion, il ne peut pas être résolu définitivement.. By the way I can't see in his conclusion the ethnonym 'Illyrian' after listing some theories, especially after taking into consideration Hatzopoulos' view. By the way in his map the label 'Atintanes' hmmmm... is not so closely located to Dodona. In fact this would mean domination over Molossis.Alexikoua (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I restored the Language section which was removed without consulting with the editors in the Talk page first to see if they disagree (I do). However another editor pointed to the multitude of sources on ethnicity of tribe to make an argument about there being no consensus on language even though identity and language are two completely separate things in the academic world. Wikipedia should respect this academic distinction of languages and ethnicities and keep the articles separate and not mix them to make a point. Editor's duty is to provide what sources say, not play with sources to make a narrative that isn't explicitly supported by them. I shall remind everyone that WP:VERIFIABILITY is not merely my position, but a core policy of Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's very weird to declare that from this quote the authors claims that the Atintanes were among the southern Illyrian tribes whose territory reached as far as the area of Dodona. @SilentResident: I believe you are correct when saying something about nationalist archaeology.Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Typo and dab-fix: please change "...the borderlands between Illyrian and Epirus..." to "...the borderlands between Illyria and Epirus...". The region is called Illyria without "n". –Austronesier (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is cause by a disputed edit: [2] which has no wp:consensus for it to stay. I suggest that the Lede is reverted back to last stable version prior to that edit and let the RfC decide about it (In the RfC's proposed options, the typos are already fixed). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • El C pulled the emergency brake on a train going wild, and it stops where it stops. The further direction will be a matter of discussion. Typo and dab-fixes (I ask for both in one) don't put pressure on admins to prematurely take side; the task of determining the "last stable version" does. –Austronesier (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: the protected version is a random pick. The protected version could just as easily have been the one which SR claims to be the "last stable" lede. The objective reality is that there is no "stable version" and nobody should put pressure on admins to take a side and pick the "stable" they prefer. The article got expanded from 11k to 50k in two weeks and that triggered many disputes which include the content of the new lede. All these disputes will be decided in wide community discussions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done fixed the link. Let me know when you have a consensus to revert to a particular version and I can implement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Iaof is (again) kindly request to use the talkpage. Protection ended however disruptive editing such as performing 3 or 4rvs in c. 1 hour without talkpage participation is not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

How did he make "3-4 rvs in c.1 hour" when the total number of his edits were 2[3]? Maybe admin oversight is needed to stop editors from putting forward the most baseless of accusations. The addition of the template about the Illyrians is correct and reflects the discussion in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That was on December 6 just before the page protection. As soon as protection expired the same editor performed controversial removals again. That's the epitomy of disruption not to mention no talkpage participation (endless reverting without slightest discussion: quite a disruptive pattern).Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I see two edits (including one revert). Now, stop trying to turn minor edits into a launchpad for groundless accusations. Claiming that someone made "3-4 reverts" when they've made a total of two edits is cause for WP:BOOMERANG in the case of admin oversight. And don't try to turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND the discussion because someone added the template Illyrians to a page which discusses its subject as a possibly/likely Illyrian tribe. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That's your personal view: reverting both before and after the page protection without tp participation is clearly not productive here. I suggest you stop defending this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and yes this pattern needs admin oversight.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

My "personal view" is that these are two edits (including one revert) by him and one revert by you. They are not "3-4 rvs in c.1 hour" by him. Of course, you can ask for admin oversight and claim that he made "3-4 rvs in c. 1 hour", but you should probably give it a rest - you both got your (very minor) edits included in the article after all.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In 6 Dec Iaof performed 4 reverts in just one hour -no trace of him in tp- and then the article was protected. As soon as protection expired there is the same pattern. If you believe that this can be considered productive editing and needs to be defended by you I suggest to follow wp:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT.Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, this edit is unconstructive because you removed part of the original quote adding an WP:OR interpretation of the source. – Βατο (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Maps and photos

The river valley. 2300 years ago, a people called Atintanes in historical sources probably lived there.

The map added by Alexikoua has been disputed and removed several times and it's based on an WP:OUTDATED (1984) reading of historiography. It created unnecessary confusion and disputes about questions which aren't asked in the same way in contemporary research as back then. Instead, I propose a photo of the Vjosa/Aous valley in a location which most theories about Atintania's location include.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty picture, but absolutely useless. On the other hand the map is the only map on wikipedia that actually mentions the tribe, and the location is in agreement with most of the literature. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a map that was removed because of its many inaccuracies in other articles. If someone wants to create a geographical map which presents the different theories about their location in the modern region, it would be useful.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

To be precise it's a map based on series of RS, which you personally dislike. It's the best we have and its disruptive to have it simply removed generally claiming that... there are inaccuracies.Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed it - it's not disruptive, it's a disagreement in which it has been established that the map has many inaccuracies and shouldn't be used. And I have removed it before in Dimale: Talk:Dimale#Removal of widely established map. If the reasons for its removal have been established, don't try to maintain/re-add it in other articles a month after the last discussion. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's very easy to nitpick and find excuses to remove useful maps over the tiniest of perceived "inaccuracies". In fact it's even easier to just manufacture inaccuracies. The map is useful to readers. It's also the only map on wikipedia that shows the Atintanians. The location of the Atintanians on that map was NOT inaccurate and you know it. Khirurg (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The location of the Atintanes in that map may be accurate for the proposal of one scholar, excluding all the others with WP:UNDUE weight. Anyway, the inaccuracies of that map are many, the content in Wikipedia should inform the readers, not misinform them. – Βατο (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, it's easy to nitpick and invent "inaccuracies" and then revert like mad. The location of the Atintanians on that map is actually not controversial and useful to readers. Much more so than a pretty picture. Khirurg (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: If someone wants to create a map about all the possible locations of the Atintanes, it's a 30-minute task. A very easy thing to do, if that is what we're trying to achieve.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The map reflects a specific view and this is accepted -or in worst case taken into consideration- by scholarship. I don't see a reason why this should be hidden. Removal clearly falls into wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Maps that offer information about the surrounding regions of Atintania are helpful for the reader, so both maps about the the 1-tribe and 2-tribe views are fine. On the other hand a map based on the territory of modern Albania seems almost completely empty. It should be replaced with a background map that displays the regions of Epirus&s.Illyris not just the later one. The reader should understand that Atintania is placed somewhere in there.Alexikoua (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexi, your personal map is incorrect, as already discussed. Kiepert's map (1902) is outdated. Furthermore, they are both WP:UNDUE into the section because they depict two views only. – Βατο (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A map based on Hammond's WP:OUTDATED gives undue weight to a discredited and abandoned theory. Side comment: Don't try to add it via revert-warring - you have no consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Βατο: good job on the wiki-map which presents all theories.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

wp:OWN can be quite disruptive in this case. Hammond presents one view, Chatzopoulos is another, removing them both is not constructive editing. By the way Hammond is accepted a one theory by various modern scholars. What's problematic is adding a map with a backgound of modern Albania while half of Epirus is excluded.Alexikoua (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is plenty of room in the article for multiple maps. No need to exclude. Khirurg (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This wp:OWN paranoia has reached enormous levels.Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Map or no map, a modern photo of the valley probably isn't the best to have. A mere 100 years ago, Myzeqe was a huge swamp.--Calthinus (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hammond's view is not "excluded" - it's on the wiki-map and is discussed like other theories. Alexikoua is asking for a theory which has been called "abandoned", "unnecessary", "unacceptable" to be discussed twice - that is WP:UNDUE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua's map is incorrect, and it can't be included if it is not fixed. Moreover it depicts just one of several scholar's proposals. Kiepert's map (1902) is obviously outdated. – Βατο (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

An unlabeled map of modern Albania masquerading as a map of antiquity is problematic. Either we include all maps, or else none.Side comment: Don't try to add it via revert-warring - you have no consensus.. Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Imo, zero maps, zero photos. Ugly article but the (few) people who actually read this aren't the sort to care about that. --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: couldn't have said it better myself. Looking at this wall of text, it’s gone down this road probably because some think 400BC is the reality of 2021. It doesn't take much to work out who is in that alternate headspace.Resnjari (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

For an unknown reason two maps that display their position in relation to the adjacent tribes are stubbornly removed. As the epitomy of disruption an unlabeled map of modern Albania per wp:OWN is placed as the one and only image.Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)