No edit summary |
|||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
*{{ping|Botushali}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illyrians&diff=1054259785&oldid=1054258475] If this is cited accurately, it will become {{tquote|According Popovic 1975/84...}} because Bowden and Curta have been cited in the article and have multiple recent publications which reflect their opinions which have changed. And then it can be moved to the section about early hypotheses.--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk:Maleschreiber|talk]]) 01:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
*{{ping|Botushali}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illyrians&diff=1054259785&oldid=1054258475] If this is cited accurately, it will become {{tquote|According Popovic 1975/84...}} because Bowden and Curta have been cited in the article and have multiple recent publications which reflect their opinions which have changed. And then it can be moved to the section about early hypotheses.--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk:Maleschreiber|talk]]) 01:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
**{{ping|Maleschreiber}} Agreed - I did not know who the source was referring to so I put "certain scholars". In this case, since opinions have changed and these are indeed dated sources (70's-80's Komani-Kruja research is very different to contemporary research), it would be appropriate to refer to these theories as 'previous' and/or 'outdated' - especially in the case of Curta who has changed his beliefs on the matter - because that is indeed what they are in the face of modern archaeological excavations and studies on the matter. [[User:Botushali|Botushali]] ([[User talk:Botushali|talk]]) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
**{{ping|Maleschreiber}} Agreed - I did not know who the source was referring to so I put "certain scholars". In this case, since opinions have changed and these are indeed dated sources (70's-80's Komani-Kruja research is very different to contemporary research), it would be appropriate to refer to these theories as 'previous' and/or 'outdated' - especially in the case of Curta who has changed his beliefs on the matter - because that is indeed what they are in the face of modern archaeological excavations and studies on the matter. [[User:Botushali|Botushali]] ([[User talk:Botushali|talk]]) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::No, it's not just Popovich 1975. What's going on here is you can't find a source that says this POV is outdated so you are trying to substitute it with your own opinion, and present that as fact. You can ping each other and agree with each other all you want, it doesn't change anything. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:05, 9 November 2021
![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||
Sections older than 3 months may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
POV issues
In recent days there has been a very determined push by a well-organized team of editors to push POV based on sources from the 1980s that the Illyrians inhabited an area far to the south of where they are generally placed. Modern scholarship, such as John Wilkes, perhaps the foremost source on this subject, generally places the southernmost Illyrians in Central/Southern Albania, at the mouth of the Aous river. This is also backed by the most recent sources, e.b. Filos (2018) [1]. But there is a determined push, as evidenced by particularly ferocious edit-warring by a team of editors, to push the Illyrian area far to the south, to even central Greece. Because modern sources do not back this, the editors doing this are relying on outdated sources from the 1980s. The POV-pushing started out by a by a user who has named himself after an Illyrian chieftain with stuff like this [2]. I was content to let it slide as a one-off, but then it escalated to more extreme stuff like this [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Now it has become even more extreme with edits such as these [9] [10]. For context, the reason Albanian nationalists are so hell-bent on pushing this POV is so as to claim they are "the rightful owners" of Epirus, Macedonia, and in fact most of the Balkans, since they claim to be direct descent frm the Illyrians (in their imagination, at least). This is primordialist POV of the crudest kind, based on old, cherry-picked sources quoted out of context. If this continues, I will place a POV tag on the article and admin intervention will be requested. Khirurg (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with bibliography here. If Stipcevic, Crossland and others support certain theories, then we should discuss them in the article. What we shouldn't do is remove something because you consider it something "Albanian nationalists say" You have to explain why something is "POV-pushing" based on bibliography If you place POV tag over a 70k article because of what looks to me like WP:JDL because no argument in bibliography has been given, I will remove it. You have edit-warred along with other editors in the article and now because you can't get your POV to be introduced, you're using WP:OWN attempts. Yes, I will ask admin oversight myself for the disruption you're trying to cause along with other editors who edit-warred in the same exact pattern a few days ago along with you. Bato has greatly expanded and improved this article as shown in the editing history - all you have been doing is to frame academic discussions into typical Balkan ones. Now, in your comment it seems to me that you're making some heavy WP:ASPERSIONs, so admin oversight will be asked for that too. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Unlike you, I have presented a case based on bibliography. All this is outdated and contradicted by more modern bibliography [11]. You are just WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALLING. And you tried to push the same POV at Molossians [12] (quite unsuccessfully, I might add). How's that RfC going by the way? Khirurg (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt if there is any scholar that accepts barbarians=Illyrians, by the way Stipcevic offers a very detailed view and concludes that the inhabitants of Epirus were either regarded as barbarians or Hellenes by ancient scholars. It seems we have a typical case of mispresenting the sourced material.Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Filos (2017)
Our current knowledge of the Greek-Illyrian contacts in the area of S. Illyria and N. Epirus is rather limited due to the paucity of the available evidence; onomastics, namely anthroponyms, tribal names and toponyms, is the most favorable, if not the only available source of information at the moment. Nonetheless, the ongoing research on old and new evidence may offer some fresh insights (cf. Cabanes 1988b, 102–103; Cabanes 1993b; Lhôte 2011).16 In that respect, any assumptions about an extensive linguistic and/or ethnic-cultural ‘assimilation’ trend, especially in the early periods, ensuing from political-military advances in one or the opposite direction are tantamount to plain guesswork.17 In general, one may assume with reason that a certain degree of bilingualism did exist,18 although it is difficult to know what the precise linguistic impact of one language on another was like (Illyrian normally serving as a substrate/adstrate language to Greek (?); cf. the short discussion about onomastics in (4.2.3, 4.2.4) in particular).19 Nonetheless, as it becomes clear from the epigraphic texts, however late in date, the geographic range of use for the Greek language gradually expanded northwards making significant inroads into Illyrian territory.2
Perfectly compatible with everything Stipcevic writes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)inhabitants of Epirus were either regarded as barbarians or Hellenes by ancient scholars. It seems we have a typical case of mispresenting the sourced material
The source does not say that. Source say this "posebno za Epirane koji su za antičke pisce najprije barbari što govore njima nerazumljivim jezikom, a onda postaju Heleni...especially for the Epirans, who for the ancient writers first they are barbarians who speak a language they do not understand, and then become Helens. Obviously you read it differently. First they are barbarians and then become Helens. Mikola22 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)- Are you sure? Let me help you on the quote: " (p. 27)To ancient writers they at first represented barbarians speaking an incomprehensible language, and later on they were regarded as Hellenes". There is a certain difference between "later regarded" and "later became" (regarded does not necessary mean that an ethnic transformation occurred). By the way I can't see the word Illyrians in this conclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Filos (2017)
- I don't see an issue with bibliography here. If Stipcevic, Crossland and others support certain theories, then we should discuss them in the article. What we shouldn't do is remove something because you consider it something "Albanian nationalists say" You have to explain why something is "POV-pushing" based on bibliography If you place POV tag over a 70k article because of what looks to me like WP:JDL because no argument in bibliography has been given, I will remove it. You have edit-warred along with other editors in the article and now because you can't get your POV to be introduced, you're using WP:OWN attempts. Yes, I will ask admin oversight myself for the disruption you're trying to cause along with other editors who edit-warred in the same exact pattern a few days ago along with you. Bato has greatly expanded and improved this article as shown in the editing history - all you have been doing is to frame academic discussions into typical Balkan ones. Now, in your comment it seems to me that you're making some heavy WP:ASPERSIONs, so admin oversight will be asked for that too. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- The English version of this book: [[14]]Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
(unindent) Since WP:STONEWALL in the form of WP:IDHT, WP:CHERRY and other forms of intellectual dishonesty is becoming a recurring feature of these discussions, and since it is becoming tiresome to keep repeating the same arguments, I'm just going to put this out here, and leave it at that. The sources below clearly contradict the outdated POV of Stipcevic, and in an intellectually honest discussion, would put an end to this discussion about the border between Epirus and Illyria. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- John Wilkes, "The Illyrians" [15], 1992.
- p. 92:
Appian's description of the Illyrian territories records a southern boundary with Chaonia and Thesprotia where Epirus began south of the river Aous.
- p. 96:
Yet this first authentic accoun of the Adriatic lists the names of several Illyrian peoples on the east coast down as far as the river Aous.
- p. 92:
- N.G.L. Hammond, "Illyris", in Cambridge Ancient History, Boardman & Hammond (eds)., 1982.
- p. 261 [16]:
Illyris, a geographical term with the Greeks applied to a territory neighboring their own, covers more or less the territory of modern northern and central Albania, down to the mouth of the river Aous.
- p. 261 [16]:
- Panayotis Filos, "The dialectical variety of Epirus", in "Studies in Ancient Greek dialects: from central Greece to the Black Sea", 2018
- p. 216-217 [17]:
Nonetheless one may say with some degree of certainty that from the 4th century BC onwards the geographic boundaries of Epirus were by and large set as follows: the so-called Keraunia or Akrokeraunia mountain range to the north...
- p. 241 [18]:
The northern parts of Epirus, e.g. Chaonia, bordered on S. Illyrian territory
- p. 216-217 [17]:
- There is also Sasel Kos that draws a straight line from the Acroceraunians to Damastion stating that "northern&southern Epirus were part of the Greek world".Alexikoua (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Khirurg, do not cast aspersions and focus on content, please. You labeled Crossland (1982) as outdated in the article without a proper source (WP:OR). Also you removed Carlo de Simone (2017) because according to you he is a "dubious source" or a "tertiary" source, but content in Wikipedia articles can be added from tertiary sources if they are reliable, and De Simone is reliable, not "dubious"; indeed, as @Calthinus: pointed out: "De Simone represents a mainstream view. He is a very well-regarded linguist". There are more recent bibliography that support those statements, one is Filos (pp. 221–222) reported here by @Maleschreiber, another is Malkin p. 143:
"From the point of view of some modern scholars, some of the Epirote tribes that did not speak dialects of Illyrian should be regarded as Greek, especially if they spoke a dialect of the language... Pierre Cabanes has shown that, linguistically, Greek was spoken in southern Epirus and Illyrian in the north and that there must also have been an area of bilingualism. What is more important, how-ever, is that Illyrian-speakers and Greek-speakers in the regions of modern Epirus and Albania were more similar to each other in their modes of life (and in their habitats-mountains and rain) than to Greeks dwelling in poleis such as Athens or Corinth."
If you want to consider 80s works by Aleksandar Stipčević, Radoslav Katičić, N. G. L. Hammond and CAH as outdated, I agree, but you have to accept more recent scholarship about the subject. @Alexikoua, there cannot be a definition based on "a straight line from the Acroceraunians to Damastion" because Damastion's location has not yet been determined, and most likely it was in Dardania or in the borders with Paionia. – Βατο (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)- (1) De Simone is a respected linguist and one of the leading experts on the Messapic language, along with Matzinger (also a reliable source). (2) A source is not regarded as outdated because of its age, but because it is not cited in modern scholarship any longer (e.g. Einstein's Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity, published in 1917, is not outdated). Stipčević and Katičić are among the founders of modern Illyrian scholarship and are still frequently cited in recent studies; Krahe's work is outdated, not their. 92.184.104.48 (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, moreover Stipčević (1989) and Wilkes (1992) are only 3 years apart, one cannot be regarded as outdated and the other as recent. – Βατο (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cabanes considers for example the Biliones as bilingual. In strict geographic terms if Epirus stretches as far as the Shkubin, it's obvious that the northernmost part spoke some Illyrian. However, in terms of Ancient Greek geography Epirus stretched north to the mouth of the Aoos i.e. is limited to the Greek-speaking region. See Sasel Kos: "northern Epirus is part of the Ancient Greek world" (Acroceraunian -Damastion line).Alexikoua (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In strict geographic terms if Epirus stretches as far as the Shkubin
No, it doesn't. Epirus Nova is a much later term. The Epirus which we are discussing here is the ancient Epirus as Filos (2017) explains and southern Illyria begins at the mouth of Aous after the 4th century BC. That doesn't exclude bilingualism as a reality in the northern parts of ancient Epirus south of the Aous.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)- I moved to the following expansion which is really modest in terms of how everything is phrased[19]. @Alcaios: (good to see you back first of all!) if you get the time, do a quick scan for anything I might have missed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I've said this area of bilingualism stretched further north. And as Filos noted bilingualism on the southern Illyrian side was more intense while Illyrians were more willing to adopt Greek (as more prestigious language).Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- You see, one is L2. And the other, is L1. Bilingualism is usually not this symmetrical thing. Modern Greeks are more willing to adopt English than the reverse, obviously. If one is the prestige language, it expands into the original territory of the less prestigious language.--Calthinus (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I've said this area of bilingualism stretched further north. And as Filos noted bilingualism on the southern Illyrian side was more intense while Illyrians were more willing to adopt Greek (as more prestigious language).Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I moved to the following expansion which is really modest in terms of how everything is phrased[19]. @Alcaios: (good to see you back first of all!) if you get the time, do a quick scan for anything I might have missed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cabanes considers for example the Biliones as bilingual. In strict geographic terms if Epirus stretches as far as the Shkubin, it's obvious that the northernmost part spoke some Illyrian. However, in terms of Ancient Greek geography Epirus stretched north to the mouth of the Aoos i.e. is limited to the Greek-speaking region. See Sasel Kos: "northern Epirus is part of the Ancient Greek world" (Acroceraunian -Damastion line).Alexikoua (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, moreover Stipčević (1989) and Wilkes (1992) are only 3 years apart, one cannot be regarded as outdated and the other as recent. – Βατο (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- (1) De Simone is a respected linguist and one of the leading experts on the Messapic language, along with Matzinger (also a reliable source). (2) A source is not regarded as outdated because of its age, but because it is not cited in modern scholarship any longer (e.g. Einstein's Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity, published in 1917, is not outdated). Stipčević and Katičić are among the founders of modern Illyrian scholarship and are still frequently cited in recent studies; Krahe's work is outdated, not their. 92.184.104.48 (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Khirurg, do not cast aspersions and focus on content, please. You labeled Crossland (1982) as outdated in the article without a proper source (WP:OR). Also you removed Carlo de Simone (2017) because according to you he is a "dubious source" or a "tertiary" source, but content in Wikipedia articles can be added from tertiary sources if they are reliable, and De Simone is reliable, not "dubious"; indeed, as @Calthinus: pointed out: "De Simone represents a mainstream view. He is a very well-regarded linguist". There are more recent bibliography that support those statements, one is Filos (pp. 221–222) reported here by @Maleschreiber, another is Malkin p. 143:
- There is also Sasel Kos that draws a straight line from the Acroceraunians to Damastion stating that "northern&southern Epirus were part of the Greek world".Alexikoua (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Stipčević has book from 1989 and we must respect RS. Therefore there are no problems here, and the fact that someone doesn’t like information from this source is another thing which has nothing to do with the source. We are here to improve Wikipedia and not to hide information which exist. Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Structural issues
The article suffers severely due to bad structure.
1.There is a subsection about "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" (erroneously as a subsection of 'origins'), and all of the sudden after a couple of sections below there is also another titled "Language" (under the section 'culture).
2. A "middle ages" section lies forgotten in the 'archaeology' section instead of 'history'. Alexikoua (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I can't explain this kind of edit summary [[20]]. Even that 'word' origin is absent there.Alexikoua (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- The subsection "In ancient Greek and Roman literature" includes the origins of Illyrian peoples as described by ancient authors, while the subsection "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" includes the three main subgroupings by onomastics which reflects the differentiations in the region. – Βατο (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- As Bato said the subsection "In ancient Greek and Roman literature" is about the origins of the Illyrians in ancient literature, it is not a subsection about every reference to Illyrians in ancient literature.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the subsection "Middle Ages", I agree with Alexi, it should be moved in the "History" section. – Βατο (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be moved to that section. I didn't even notice that - I always thought that it was in the "History" section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, does "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" that includes the three main subgroupings by onomastics which reflects the differentiations in the region. mean that this is about origins? I fail to see anything close to Illyrian origins in this subsection & a move to culture next to 'language' subsection is justified. Both subsections are dealing with various issues about Illyrian language(s). Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be moved to that section. I didn't even notice that - I always thought that it was in the "History" section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the subsection "Middle Ages", I agree with Alexi, it should be moved in the "History" section. – Βατο (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- As Bato said the subsection "In ancient Greek and Roman literature" is about the origins of the Illyrians in ancient literature, it is not a subsection about every reference to Illyrians in ancient literature.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- The subsection "In ancient Greek and Roman literature" includes the origins of Illyrian peoples as described by ancient authors, while the subsection "Linguistic evidence and subgrouping" includes the three main subgroupings by onomastics which reflects the differentiations in the region. – Βατο (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Frazee (1997)
@Iaof2017: Does this edit need any special treatment, when obviously the quote by Frazee (1997) doesn't represent a summary of the article's content and goes against WP:MOSLEAD? The segment, "They constituted one of the three main groups of Indo-European populations in the Balkans prior to 2000 BC" clearly is not an appropriate summary, since the arrival date of Illyrians has disputed hypotheses that are presented in the article. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Addition of Slavic theory
Hello Dan! I am sad that you undid the paragraph that I wrote, I understood that you want to discuss the topic, what kind of material do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicodemusov (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Nocdemusov: It would be better to hold this discussion on Talk:Illyrian, so I'll copy this discussion there. Your addition appears to be based on pre-20th century scholarship that has largely been rejected in favor of more modern, better-researched information. The existing material already mentions, and discards, the theory of equating Illyrians to modern-day Slavs, so your material runs directly counter to the rest of the material in the article. Your claim that the change in scholarship regarding the Slav-Illyrian identity was due to Austro-Hungarian politics is unsourced. Further, your claim that this claim of identity is being revived in the academia of Slavic countries is also unsourced. If you're going to make this claim, you'll need better sourcing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with WikiDan61. I see a lot of IP activity. The article should probably go through temporary semi-protection.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Updating the references to "balkan" and "balkan peninsula"
Tu reain consistent with other articles, which discuss the pejorative meaning of the word "balkan", the fact that there was never a European region/country with such name, hte word being turkish, not Slavic or German, and that there is no such thing as a "peninsula" where Southern Europe is, I have made a few corrections in the text to reflect the actual name of the region: Southern Europe.
For reference see "Southern Europe article, where the pejorative meaning of the turkish word "balkan" and its use is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.61.170 (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- @122.148.61.170: I don't see any discussion about the pejorative nature of the word "Balkan" at Talk:Southern Europe or in the Southern Europe article. Can you be more specific? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- He meant the Balkans article, where it is mentioned in the last sentence of the lede. Similar edits were performed by the same IP on Prehistory of Southeastern Europe that i follow, but in that case Southeast Europe was used instead, which is more precise than Southern Europe. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Albanian nationalism subsection, POV or consensus?
My recent edit has been reverted by what appears to be a well coordinated WP:TAGTEAM. This behavior mirrors previous editing on this same page discussed in 2020. The edit centers on the following addition I made The Koman culture representing evidence of a continuity of the Illyrian-Albanian population manifested in Albania during the reign of Enver Hoxha, in turn serving as the main focus of Albanian nationalism.[1] This is extracted from the following sentence: "In Albania, for a long time, the fibulae with bent stem have been regarded as the foremost element linking the Koman(i) culture to the Iron-Age civilization of the Illyrians, the main focus of Albanian nationalism during the Communist period" The first editor in question reverted this addition as it is quote not simply a figment of Communist imagination. A second editor reverted it as apparently the statement is not related to Komani culture. As outlined, artifacts representing Komani-Kruja culture including the dress attire known as the "fibulae with bent stem" are according to Curta, a core tenet of Albanian nationalism in justifying a continued linage of Illyrians. My question is, does anybody object to my addition. If no, good, if so, please provide a justification and suggestions for corrections if you believe a mistake has been made. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- For further evidence, under the subsection "Byzantine Empire", the following statement is made: The Komani-Kruja culture, dated to the 7th-9th centuries AD, attempts to prove the Illyrian-Albanian continuation, with artifacts found that are very similar to archaeological artifacts found in the 4th-6th centuries AD in Illyrian sites.[2] This statement mirrors what is being mentioned by Curta, albeit Curta discusses this phenomenon receiving prominence during the reign of Enver Hoxha. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should update your bibliography. A lot has changed after the sites were excavated. Nallbani (2017)
Till 2009, we did not know the real nature of the Komani settlement, except the existence of its main cemetery,12 albeit without any topographical plan of the excavated burials. (..) We recognize a first structuring of the site in the late Roman period, probably around the 4th century
--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)- None of this changes the fact that Albanian nationalists are still trying to use Komani-Kruja to "prove" continuity with the Illyrians. Khirurg (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is increasingly becoming the prevalent theory because the excavations don't indicate something different. "Albanian nationalists" may believe whatever they want to believe about Komani-Kruja but all recent studies indicate that: (Winnifrith 2020):
in these hills a Latin-Illyrian civilisation survived, as witness by the Komani-Kruja culture, to emerge as Albanians and Vlachs in the second millenium
If a theory is supported by Albanian nationalists and is WP:FRINGE, we can remove it. If a theory is becoming more and more acceptable because excavations confirm it, discussing about what nationalists believe is besides the point and is closer to WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)- Well, except that it's not
all studies
. You are just citing a single out of context snippet in Winnifrith that is speculative in nature. That is very far fromthis is increasingly becoming the prevalent theory
. Misusing the literature to present an "air of inevitability" is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)- It is the general direction in recent studies. I sound confident in these discussions because I'm aware of the trend in research. The problem with wikipedia is that people who aren't involved in a specific field cite opinions which have changed over time without having the knowledge that Curta (2004) is not Curta (2012) or Curta (2013). They should read the bibliography and then make a judgment about what is being discussed. Side comment: Curta, Florin (2012). "Were there any Slavs in seventh-century Macedonia?". Istorija (Skopje). 47: 61–75., Curta, Florin (2013). "Seventh-century fibulae with bent stem in the Balkans". Archaeologia Bulgarica. 17: 49–70. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, except that it's not
- This is increasingly becoming the prevalent theory because the excavations don't indicate something different. "Albanian nationalists" may believe whatever they want to believe about Komani-Kruja but all recent studies indicate that: (Winnifrith 2020):
- None of this changes the fact that Albanian nationalists are still trying to use Komani-Kruja to "prove" continuity with the Illyrians. Khirurg (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should update your bibliography. A lot has changed after the sites were excavated. Nallbani (2017)
- I've restored that sentence, since it seems well well supported by the cited source. Paul August ☎ 21:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this. I also restored this sentence [21] which is also well supported by the sources, yet keeps getting removed by certain users. Please keep an eye on the article, it is a target of major disruption. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The quote is outdated.
This specific culture is viewed in a Roman-Byzantine or Christian context that includes various ethnic and social groups that also adapted various foreign elements, while the view that it is associated with one particular group is disputed outside Albania
Popovic 1975; Popovic 1984; Bowden 2003; Curta 2006)
These are citations published long before the excavations of Komani-Kruja. Curta (2012) writesNonetheless, it is quite clear that despite claims to the contrary, burial assemblages associated with the so-called Komani culture (..) have nothing to do either with sixth- to seventh- century sites in the Lower Danube region known from written sources to have been inhabited by Slavs (..). In many respects, the communities who buried their dead in western Macedonia continued the traditions of Late Antiquity (..) There are of course new elements (..) But nothing indicates that those were communities coming from beyond the border of the Empire. Judging from the archaeological evidence, no Slavs have settled in Macedonia during the seventh century
By overlaying publications which cite older bibliography next to newer ones, the article becomes confusing and self-contradictory. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)- It is absolutely not outdated. The source is from 2017, and while the author cites older work, it is clear that he endorses this view as he uses his own voice. The "outdated" trick is not going to work. Btw, if the section is enormous and cluttered to the point of being unreadable, it is largely because of your additions. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The quote is outdated.
- Thank you for looking into this. I also restored this sentence [21] which is also well supported by the sources, yet keeps getting removed by certain users. Please keep an eye on the article, it is a target of major disruption. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Curta, Florin (2013). "Seventh-Century Fibulae with Bent Stem in the Balkans". Archaeologia Bulgarica. 17 (1): 49-70.
- ^ Anamali, Skender (2011). "Varreza e hershme mesjetare pranë Kalasë së Dalmacës, Koman (kërkime, probleme, rezultate)". Iliria. 35 (Iliria): 39–47. doi:10.3406/iliri.2011.1098. Retrieved 3 August 2021.
- My edits focused on presenting the sources in a timeline. A Popovic 1975 citation is older than most other sources. It belongs to the early era of K-K information. It can't be placed between Nallbani (2017) and Winnifrith (2020).--Botushali (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Try again. It is from 2017. Read my comment above and stop pretending you didn't hear that. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Curta (2021):
No Slavs from the territories north of the river Danube rushed to grab the lands supposedly left behind by early Byzantine farmers and no remainer who refused to go away took the opportunity to enlarge his property. The only pocket of population in the interior of the Balkans is that of the so-called Komani culture in northern Albania and the neighboring mountain territories
In archaeology, opinions based on zero excavations (Komani-Kruja excavation began after 2009) are never discussed as contemporaneous to contemporary bibliography which follows excavations. - @Khirurg: The author doesn't adopt it as his view. They write:
Recently, however, this view has been critized by other scholars, who prefer to situate the 'Komani-Kruja culture' in a regionalized Romano-Byzantine or Christian context of various ethnic and social groups, adopting additional foreign elements
Popovic 1975; Popovic 1984; Bowden 2003; Curta 2006)
It refers to Popovic 1975/1984, Bowden 2003, Curta 2006. Popovic 1975/1984 is outdated and I've removed Anamali 2002 (Albanian author) as outdated as well. Bowden is discussed in the article and Curta has released 3 papers which discuss Komani-Kruja since 2006. The placement of the quote inserts Popovic 1975 in an equal position to contemporary bibliography. Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- My edits focused on presenting the sources in a timeline. A Popovic 1975 citation is older than most other sources. It belongs to the early era of K-K information. It can't be placed between Nallbani (2017) and Winnifrith (2020).--Botushali (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- He certainly doesn't criticize it or dismiss it as outdated. WP:NPOV requires that all significant POVs be given due weight. You can't use "outdated" to exclude every POV except the one favored by you. Khirurg (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per Nallbani (2017), I have written that
During the 7th century as Byzantine authority was reeastablished after the Avar-Slavic raids and the prosperity of the settlements increased, Komani saw increase in population and a new elite began to take shape. Increase in population and wealth was marked by the establishment of new settlements and new churches in their vicinity. Komani formed a local network with Lezha and Kruja and in turn this network was integrated in the wider Byzantine Mediterranean world, maintained contacts with the northern Balkans and engaged in long-distance trade
This is what contemporary archaeology discusses - because this what excavations has shown - and what "regionalized Roman context" means. The comment about "foreign elements" refers to Popovic (1975) and the hypothesis of Yugoslav archaeology that in western Macedonia the inhabitants of the relevant sites were also Slavs. It is rejected by contemporary sources. The quote from Curta (2012) in the article is a direct replyNonetheless, it is quite clear that despite claims to the contrary, burial assemblages associated with the so-called Komani culture (..) have nothing to do either with sixth- to seventh- century sites in the Lower Danube region known from written sources to have been inhabited by Slavs (..). In many respects, the communities who buried their dead in western Macedonia continued the traditions of Late Antiquity (..) There are of course new elements (..) But nothing indicates that those were communities coming from beyond the border of the Empire. Judging from the archaeological evidence, no Slavs have settled in Macedonia during the seventh century
--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per Nallbani (2017), I have written that
- He certainly doesn't criticize it or dismiss it as outdated. WP:NPOV requires that all significant POVs be given due weight. You can't use "outdated" to exclude every POV except the one favored by you. Khirurg (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Botushali: [22] If this is cited accurately, it will become
According Popovic 1975/84...
because Bowden and Curta have been cited in the article and have multiple recent publications which reflect their opinions which have changed. And then it can be moved to the section about early hypotheses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)- @Maleschreiber: Agreed - I did not know who the source was referring to so I put "certain scholars". In this case, since opinions have changed and these are indeed dated sources (70's-80's Komani-Kruja research is very different to contemporary research), it would be appropriate to refer to these theories as 'previous' and/or 'outdated' - especially in the case of Curta who has changed his beliefs on the matter - because that is indeed what they are in the face of modern archaeological excavations and studies on the matter. Botushali (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's not just Popovich 1975. What's going on here is you can't find a source that says this POV is outdated so you are trying to substitute it with your own opinion, and present that as fact. You can ping each other and agree with each other all you want, it doesn't change anything. Khirurg (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)