Talk:Atintanians

RfC regarding the lede

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the article's lede be changed from the stable version Atintanes or Atintanians (Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) was an ancient tribe in Epirus. They inhabited a region inland of the Epirote coast which was called Atintania. They were one of the Epirote tribes that belonged to the northwestern Greek group. [...] and spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek. to either of the following options.

OPTION A

The Atintanes or Atintanians (Ancient Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria. They inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe. According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.

OPTION B

The Atintanes or Atintanians (Ancient Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Illyria and Epirus. They inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe that spoke a language similar to other southern Illyrian tribes or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group and spoke Doric Greek.

Khirurg (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede RfC survey

Extended content

:Invalid RfCThe sources have been removed from the questions and many editors have mentioned that there is no WP:STABLE despite the RfC question The question implies that there is a WP:STABLE to which the article should revert to if there is "no consensus". There is no WP:STABLE lede, because the article was expanded from 12k to 50k, so a new lede is necessary. It's the reason why there is a dispute. Either retract the RfC or remove the intro and just keep the two questions (if OPTION A is your proposal).--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) That's ok, you don't have to participate if you think it's an invalid RfC. And it was stable for years, until today when you and the others started edit-warring over it. Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Maleschreiber, you are the one who, without consulting with other editors, rammed into the article the RfC's problematic Option B: [1] which does not reflect WP:CONSENSUS and ignores what the WP:RS says. Your bold action to insert RfC Option B without discussing it with us, triggered an edit war and the Admins stepped in and locked the article. Now the RfC opened to provide a solution based on the problem which you caused (and mind you, your favored Option B still remains on the now-locked article). And now you come here crying that the RfC isn't valid even though it offers your favored option to it? Sorry but the people are going to decide between your Option B and a better-balanced Option A. In the event of no consensus, we return back to last stable version prior to your disruptive edits and then a new discussion may open again for WP:LEAD.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) It's invalid because it asks a biased question and you can't force your version of the article by simply asking a question in a mode which favors your narrative. When editors have a dispute, they are supposed to agree on the questions of the RfC. Why has only one source been added in the reftalk? Why has every other source - except for the Filios (2017) which supports your narrative - been removed? You can't ask for OPTION A or OPTION B with a "WP:STABLE" version which supports your narrative in the case of no consensus, after a full protection of the article and then saying that editors who disagree with you don't have to participate. You can't exclude other editors from participating in the RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC) You are the one who inserted to the article the RfC Option B: [2] and now you are calling it a biased RfC? As for the sources, they can be added. I just added Filos myself too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) (ec) You are entitled to think it's invalid, although that doesn't seem to be policy based, just WP:JDL. The stable version was stable for years until you started edit-warring today. And it's usually standard procedure to revert to the original version in event of no consensus. And I am not "excluding" anyone. If you don't want to participate, that's on you. Khirurg (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC) And it's pretty rich of you to demand that your demands regarding the RfC be met when you changed the lede without consulting anyone. Btw, you do realize that at Parga, in the event of no consensus, the material you are trying to add will not be added. That's how it works. Khirurg (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC) The editor who filed this invalid RfC has used in the RfC question only the source which supports his narrative and has excluded all other sources that have been used in the article. The many different opinions in bibliography highlight that there is no consensus about the location, identity, language of this small group about which there is almost no archaeological evidence. All other sources are in the article. The RfC should be closed as invalid. The RfC is part of dispute resolution but Khirurg started the RfC without waiting for other involved editors to respond so that the questions are framed by his narrative and in the case of a no consensus, the article also reverts back to his narrative which he claims to be the WP:STABLE of the article. But the WP:STABLE of the pre-expansion article (12k) objectively isn't a WP:STABLE because it has been disputed throughout the expansion towards the 50k size of the article today. Whatever anyone believes about the WP:LEDE, the lede of a 12k semi-stub article can't reflect the WP:STABLE of a 50k article because it isn't a a concise overview of the article's topic. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Earlier today, you rammed in your version of the lede [3] without consulting anyone. Now are you are crying "muh invalid RfC" because it was filed without your approval. That is not required for RfCs. You didn't ask for anyone's approval before unilaterally changing the lede to your preferred version. I have filed dozens of RfCs. There is no requirement for consensus to file an RfC. This is just WP:JDL. Khirurg (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Khirurg started the RfC without waiting for other involved editors to respond There is a whole section in this very talkpage with plenty of comments from multiple editors about the RfC. If you didn't participate, that's on you. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) The proposed newer versions are just as concise and not that different from the original. So the whole "50k" falls flat on its face. Khirurg (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) The pre-expansion version is 465 words long. The current version is 2000 words long. It's POV to ask for a return to a lede as the WP:STABLE even while the article largely changed and that WP:LEDE became disputed. To exclude from the RfC question every source which doesn't support your narrative is skewing. The supposed discussion about the RfC question lasted for a couple of hours. Editors didn't have the time to even process the discussion. This RfC is invalid from start to finish and it's pointless to even continue at this point. If the procedure is not accepted by a majority of involved editors but there is exclusion and skewing of narratives, then its results are a priori illegitimate. There's no consensus building in exclusionary procedures.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC) This is the most egregious case of attempting to sabotage dispute resolution I have ever seen, including all the shouting in boldface. You rammed through changes to the lede without consulting anyone and now you're basically demanding that all of your demands are met before the RfC even starts. Forget it. Khirurg (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A as being in line with bibliography. The main difference between the two versions is regarding what language the Atintanians spoke. On this issue, there are two older sources (Cambi et al. 2002 and Sasel Kos 2005) that state somewhat vaguely that they spoke something similar to "other Illyrian tribes", while there is a newer source from 2018 (Panayiotis Filos, In: Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects: From Central Greece to the Black Sea. Georgios K. Giannakis, Emilio Crespo, Panagiotis Filos, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Dec 18, 2017) that explicitly states "There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking populations of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes, Atintanes...), spoke a North West Doric variety akin to numerous populations of Central and Western Greece." This source is a) a literature review, b) focuses on the subject of language, and c) is up-to-date. As can be seen by clicking on the link provided, this source delves into the language question into an incredible level of detail, being by far the most in-depth treatment of the language question. It cites recent work in what is a rapidly developing field. The side arguing for option B will argue that there are sources that consider the Atintanians Illyrians (e.g. Jaupaj 2019), but none of them address the language question. Even if they are considered Illyrians, there are well-known examples for Greek-speaking Illyrian tribes, for example, the closely-related tribe of the Bylliones. Thus "Illyrian" and "Greek-speaking" are not mutually exclusive categories. Version A is thus in line with the most up-to-date and in-depth scholarship on the subject. Option B gives undue weight to older, non-linguistic scholarship, and ignores the most up to date and specialized scholarship. Option A is also better structurally, separating identity/location and lnaguage into two clearer sentences, compared to a single, run-on sentence for Option B. Khirurg (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A per the contemporary and reliable source of Filos, who is undeniably an expert on the historical linguistics of the region, and takes into account both the earlier and modern research on the subject; hence his reference to "overall consensus nowadays". It is not up to anonymous Wikipedia users to disregard and belittle the words of such an up-to-date and respected scholar. I also agree with Alexikoua's proposition for the addition of Macedonia, in terms of the borderland the Atintanes occupied; as backed by the sources of Mallios (2011; p.134), Lane Fox (2011; p.95) and Dausse (2015; p. 27). Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A. The only difference between RfC Options A and B is Filos's report on recent academic consensus regarding the tribe's language, which I copy-pasted here for more convenience: Filos 2017, p. 224"There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece". RfC Option A indicates it, while RfC Option B omits it. The editorial side which initially opposed the RfC as "invalid", in fact is the same one which first brute-forced the RfC Option B into the article [4] (where it remains, unfortunately, at the dismay of the rest of editors who felt that our POV/DUE/VERIF concerns weren't addressed adequately, and thus, giving birth to RfC Option A [5] which was our delayed response to their Option B). The lack of WP:CONSENSUS, persistent edit warring to brute-force RfC Option B to the article lede, left us no other solution but to open a RfC and seek a solution to the impasse by presenting both options. It is unfortunate and unacceptable that we had to open a RfC about something obviously too simple such as Filos. I believe an article should reflect on what scholars report on the matter, not what we editors believe on the matter. I support RfC Option A for seven reasons:

1. WP:RELIABLESOURCES: Wikipedia should reflect on what sources do say on the matter. The information comes from a reliable source: Panagiotis Filos.

1a. Filos is an expert on the linguistics of the region. His work in language studies is acclaimed and is a highly respected scholar and his linguistic fieldwork is the fruit of thorough analysis of all available evidence and info on ancient tribes.

1b. Filos's fieldwork makes use of all the available evidence about the tribe's language and thus is one of the most comprehensive linguistic works regarding the language of Atintanians we can have today.

2. WP:AGEMATTERS: The editorial side which favors Option B, is insisting on using outdated scholarship which supports a different view than Filos's recent fieldwork and is trying to give it as much weight as him even though Filos reports on academic consensus today which is different from what scholars used to believe 20 or 50 years ago. A source's age matters, especially in scientific and academic fields:

2a. Filos's source is from 2017, making it one of the most recent and updated fieldwork we have available regarding the tribe's language.

2b. The other sources, from 2002 and 2005 (which the opposite editorial side backing Option B bases their arguments on), are old, from over two decades years ago, and their information may be inaccurate unlike Filos, who is making use of all the available evidence we have today; I support Option A because it reflects on these facts per WP:HISTRS. A scholarly consensus is established as new information and new discussions emerge. In this context, Filos is reporting that the overall scholarly consensus nowadays is in favor of the view that the ancient tribe spoke the Greek language, and not the Illyrian one which the old sources supported.

3. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH: The editorial side which favors RfC Option B, also insists on challenging Filos's report of academic consensus but for that, they haven't provided any evidence supporting their claims against him. I explained to them that they are just anonymous editors challenging an expert's analysis, and thus, is their WP:OR vs Filos' WP:RS. I have repeatedly asked them three (3) times to provide me any strong reliable sources explicitly countering Filos, but they failed.

3a. The opposite editorial side for example argued that the old sources (from decades ago, (2002 and 2005) can counterbalance Filos's 2017 report on consensus even though the old sources predated Filos who came many years later. User Ktrimi991 specifically stated: "Filos does not decide what academic consensus is. I have seen many weird things on Wikipedia throughout the years, but, frankly, this kind of pointless judgement of sources was unseen before. Btw since you mentioned consensus, Filos is a recent addition that seems to not have consensus. We better keep all theories there and let future academic works shed more light on the matter. That is a honest thing to do." To use old bibliography to counter newer bibliography (even though the old bibliography makes no explicit mention on consensus, while newer one actually does), constitutes WP:OR.

3b. The same editors, also attempted to use the tribe's identity and geographical location in their arguments against Filos' source on language, just to make a wp:or point about what the recent consensus is on the tribe's language. For example, user Βατο specifically stated: "Filos talks about the current consensus on the language variety of the tribes of Epirus. And he includes in brackets the Atintanes among them. But we don't know if they were a tribe of Epirus, as scholars suggest. Sasel Kos, for instance, locates them in southern Illyria (north of the Aoos), accepting Cabanes' view, hence she considers them Illyrian-speakers then Hellenized. About their identity, among current scholars we have Sasel Kos, Shpuza and Ceka who states they were Illyrian (we have also Cabanes, who has not changed his views as reported by Hatzopoulos 2020), while Hatzopoulos who states they were Epirote. Btw, Hatzopoulos places them on the upper and middle valley of the Aoos, and you can see that the location is strictly related to the identity that scholars propose. The most recent and convincing case is not Hatzopoulos, but Cabanes, since they both have been recently analysed by another expert on the subject, who accepted Cabanes." This is a problematic argument, IMO, as scientifically, the identities of people and their geographical locations have nothing to do with the languages they spoke. I reminded our fellow users that in Wikipedia we ought to be careful as to not confuse and mix things up (i.e. apples and oranges) to make a point that doesn't exist and wouldn't be verified. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, just to make an argument of "therefore C", is WP:SYNTHESIS and cannot be accepted.

4. WP:SCICON: Besides the opposite editorial side failing to support it arguments by providing reliable sources to us (see above, at 3.), these editors also failed to take in consideration that: The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

5. Better Lead Structure and WP:DUEWEIGHT: RfC Option A is better than RfC Option B not only on content but on structure as well. As a summary of the article Atintanians, which among others, has 2 sections: one called "Language", and one called "Identity and location". Option A respects this and reflects on it by having 2 separate lede sentences: a sentence on identity, and another one on language, summarizing their respective article sections.

RfC Option A - Identity sentence: "They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe." summarizes the "Identity and Location" section in the article which is still debated by scholars today.

RfC Option A - Language sentence: "According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek." summarizes the "Language" section in the article which refers to past views and the academic consensus nowadays.

Simple as that. Each of these two aforementioned lede sentences in RfC Option A are separated from the other one using a fullstop for obvious reasons. RfC Option B on the other hand, which was rammed into the article without consulting with other editors, hasn't respected that structure which was supposed to, per WP:LEAD. It has messed up everything by uniting the summaries from both the "Language" section and "Identity and location" sections of the article, and omits completely the academic consensus on language. This way, RfC Option B is making language appear as having no consensus and being as divisive subject among the scholars as identity and location are. And mixes these 2 separate article sections into one big lede sentence: "They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe that spoke a language similar to other southern Illyrian tribes or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group and spoke Doric Greek." even though this is not the case and therefore Option B violates Wikipedia's WP:LEAD which should reflect on both article sections, accurately. Option A achieves that by summarizing them separately and independently from each other.

5a. In addition to what I explained about the RfC Option B being problematic for omitting from the Lead section the recent academic consensus covered in the "Language" section of the article, is problematic for one more reason: WP:DUEWEIGHT. RfC Option 2, by omitting the academic consensus on languages, and placing it next to the older views from decades years ago, that the language was Illyrian, feels like an editorial attempt to equalize old views with the new ones, by giving the old sources undue weight against the newer ones. I am fine with having the article lede covering the old sources (from 2002 and 2005) in a historical context per WP:HISTRS, but I disagree that Filos' 2017 report on recent academic consensus on language shouldn't also be summarized on lede per WP:LEAD which is supposed to be a concise overview of the "Languages" section of the article. Different views in the past, do not mean modern scholarship's consensus should not be covered on lede. The article's Lead section should avoid such cases of "undue weight" that can lead to a "false balance" of old views against the modern consensus, and thus reducing the possibility that the article readers perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. RfC Option B does exactly that: doesn't summarize on the article's "Language" section accurately and makes language appear as being nowadays more controversial than it really is according to the newer academic sources. The only way for the readers of RfC Option B to realize this isn't the case, is by looking inside the citations for quotes (assuming that citations are ever placed on Lede), or by reading the "Language" section in the main body of article. Therefore, the RfC Option B is violating WP:LEAD and this leads us to the next problem: NPOV.

6. Our WP:NPOV concerns were ignored: My opposition to the RfC Option B isn't limited only to the problems of wp:original research, wp:verifiability, and wp:due problems I have pointed to earlier, but also to wp:pov problems that led us here to the impasse and the RfC. To understand the RfC, one must understand the background of the dispute leading to it. The long history shortened goes like that: the article of Atintanians has recently been the battleground of an WP:EDITWAR which had characteristics of WP:NATIONALIST Illyrian flag-planting by the editorial side which rammed the RfC Option B to the article without editorial consensus. Such attempts include:

6a. A heavy emphasis on promoting the pro-Illyrian POV on the tribe's identity and geography while at same time attempting to downplay the report on academic consensus over language through baseless arguments (see 3a. and 3b.). That's for the main body of the article. Now, regarding the WP:LEAD which is supposed to: "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" the report on academic consensus isn't covered even thought it is an important point in academic scholarship. The editorial side which initially opposed the RfC as "invalid", had the RfC Option B brute-forced into the article: [6] instead of covering what Filos actually reported, because it does not suit their editorial POV. I am not against updating an article to cover all the different viewpoints, but when this is done in such a disruptive way by edit warring and ignoring other's NPOV concerns, then it isn't helpful.

6b. A preference for communist-era Ideological manifestos as reliable sources: The opposite editorial side unfortunately had attempted to insert to the article of Atintanians some very old, communist-era, sources from 50 years ago to promote a certain pro-Illyrian POV. Even though these fieldwork were politically influenced and directed by the oppressive Communist Hoxha regime of Albania into promoting a certain pro-Illyrian POV. More info about our NPOV concerns can be found here at [Talk:Atintanians#Ideological manifestos used as reliable sources]. Also to understand the background better, one can check the article: Albanian nationalism#Origin theories during communism, and especially the part which says: [...] Albanian archaeologists were directed by Hoxha (1960s onward) to follow a nationalist agenda that focused on Illyrians and Illyrian-Albanian continuity with studies published on those topics used as communist political propaganda that omitted mention of Pelasgians. Emphasising an autochthonous ethnogenesis for Albanians, Hoxha insisted on Albanian linguists and archaeologists to connect the Albanian language with the extinct Illyrian language. The emerging archeological scene funded and enforced by the communist government stressed that the ancestors of the Albanians ruled over a unified and large territory possessing a unique culture. Toward that endeavour Albanian archaeologists also claimed that ancient Greek poleis, ideas, culture were wholly Illyrian and that a majority of names belonging to the Greek deities stemmed from Illyrian words. Albanian publications and television programs (1960s onward) have taught Albanians to understand themselves as descendants of "Indo-European" Illyrian tribes inhabiting the western Balkans from the second to third millennium while claiming them as the oldest indigenous people in that area and on par with the Greeks. Physical anthropologists also tried to demonstrate that Albanians were biologically different from other Indo-European populations, a hypothesis now refuted by genetic analysis.. I made it clear to the opposite editorial side that due to NPOV concerns, I oppose to the use of such communist-directed nationalist archeological fieldwork in POV disputes across Wikipedia. And I have reminded everyone that we as editors ought to rely on independent and reliable sources instead of sources influenced by governments -let alone oppressive communist regimes-, or else our POV disputes may only become harder to resolve. The opposite side had argued to me that independent scholars already have used such communist-era sources in their fieldwork, only for me to remind them that there is no whatsoever problem with citing independent scholars referring back to these communist-era archeological fieldwork, since they scrutinized and evaluated them. Thankfully these sources have now been removed from the article.

6c. Also, in addition to 6a., the opposite editorial side attempted, in the main body of the article, to "bury" Filos's report on languages by moving it from the "Language" section (where it belongs) to the "Identity and location" section: [7], which clearly a case of WP:COATRACK where a report they do not like, is sandwiched elsewhere, into identity and geography, just to make it appear less distinguishable and prominent to the readers.

7. Common Practice in Wikipedia: Needless to say, the common practice in Wikipedia, especially on articles where where multiple scholarly views do exist about a subject, is to cover not only these different views, but also what the recent scholarly consensus is reportedly on that matter (if there is any). Usually, a lede mentions only what the academic consensus says regarding that subject, while different views (especially from older sources), are usually covered in the main body of the articles in a historical context. But given the high editorial disruption the article of the Atintanians has seen lately, I wouldn't mind if the lede covers even those older views from decades ago which supported different views, prior to the recent academic consensus having emerged, as long as this wasn't done at the expense of that academic consensus.

To conclude, I am perfectly fine with any information to the lede, as long as it is something that is well-balanced, important, prominent and worthy of inclusion, while meeting Wikipedia's criteria and rules. Unfortunately, the RfC Option B doesn't do that; it omits the academic consensus reported by Filos in an attempt to give more undue weight to other views predating that consensus. Hence, I am supporting RfC Option A. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A per reliable sources of Filos. Idealigic (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option A in general works, reference is solid clear.Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option B The other side of the dispute that is now supporting Option A till today was strongly opposing the version of Option A. They claimed that there is academic consensus that the tribe was Epirote and spoke Greek. After the page got protected, they resorted to Option A as kind of the "least bad" option on the table. It is easy to understand that their former position would stand no chance in a RfC. Now, while they have improved their stance, they can improve further. Filos says that There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece. How can a single source decide that what other sources say does not have consensus? Filos claims that there is "overall consensus" that the tribe was in Epirus, but the other side of the dispute rejects that claim of Filos by supporting Option A. Option A rejects Filos' claim because it gives "Illyrian" as another currently accepted theory. Version A even starts by stating that the tribe was located in the borderland between Epirus and Illyria. Rightly so because the article gives several sources that place the tribe in Illyria, including reliable sources published after Filos (for instance, Jaupaj 2019). So Filos obviously does not decide what is the "overall consensus" in such a contested topic. On language itself, Filos who can not decide what is "overall consensus" is opposed by two scholars, who think that the tribe's language was similar with that/those of other Illyrian tribes. They are not outdated sources, as they are 21th century sources. Since those two "outdated" sources were published in 2002 and 2005, I asked the other side of the dispute to list those post-2005 works that established that new "overall consensus" mentioned by Filos. They did not give a response. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

All of the above claims are easily debunked.

The other side of the dispute that is now supporting Option A till today was strongly opposing the version of Option A.. Nope, Option A never appeared until the RfC discussion started. The only one "Strenuously opposing it" is Ktrimi991. Unless Ktrimi can produce diffs of "other side strenuously opposing Option A". Doubt it.

How can a single source decide that what other sources say does not have consensus? Of course it can, because it's a literature review. That's what literature reviews are for.

Filos claims that there is "overall consensus" that the tribe was in Epirus. That is not what Filos states. Filos states that there is a consensus that the tribes of Epirus spoke NW Greek, including the Atintanes.

Option A rejects Filos' claim Option A is perfectly in line with what is stated in Filos, provided one reads and quote Filos correctly.

sources that place the tribe in Illyria, including reliable sources published after Filos (for instance, Jaupaj 2019) Japupaj 2019 says nothing about language. No contradiction whatsoever.

Filos who can not decide what is "overall consensus" is opposed by two scholars, who think that the tribe's language was similar with that/those of other Illyrian tribes Both those sources are over a decade older than Filos.

I asked the other side of the dispute to list those post-2005 works that established that new "overall consensus" mentioned by Filos That is the classic trick of second guessing sources and setting an unreasonable burden of proof. Filos actually lists all the sources he use din his publication. Anyone who can be bothered to read the study will see the sources used. Khirurg (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

User Ktrimi991 is erroneously stating that "The other side of the dispute that is now supporting Option A till today was strongly opposing the version of Option A". However, the Revision History Log tells us a very different story: RfC Option A is created by us and is our response to Ktrimi991's editorial side:

21:05 - Ktrimi991's side adds RfC Option B to the article lede: [8]. 11 minutes later someone reverts them.

21:19 - Ktrimi991's side is quick to brute-force Option B for a second time to the article lede: [9]. That totals 2 attempts to add Option B to lede without consulting with the others at the Talk Page first about these edits. We are caught by surprise; RfC Option A doesn't exist yet.

23:43 - the pro-type RfC Option A, was created by us: [10] and is our delayed response to the RfC Option B being brute-forced into to the article 2.5 hours earlier.

In simple words: Ktrimi991's claim that we were "strongly opposing the version of Option A" is unfounded because we didn't oppose RfC Option A, we created it. There is a big difference between "oppose" and "create", IMO. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Question to Option A supporters. Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus. By supporting Option A, you agree that Filos' claim about that supposed consensus is false, because mainstream scholarship is roughly equally divided between Epirus and Illyria (more exactly, Option A places the tribe at the borderland between Epirus and Illyria) . If you agree with Option A that Filos' claim about consensus on identity/location is false, then why should we believe that his claim about consensus on language too is not false? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the scholars on the geographical boundaries of Epirus and Illyria. Scholarly views on ancient geographical boundaries are interchangeable depending the scholars. If modern scholarly hasn't reached a consensus about the geographical boundaries, this does not merit exclusion of scholarly consensus having settled on other conclusions such as a tribe's language. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option B. It correctly presents in a neutral way what scholars put forward, and what is actually included into the body of the article.

  Option A includes many fallacies:

  According to older sources: older in comparison to what? Are there reliable sources that support this WP:OR?

  According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect: is an unreliable statement because we have some of the 20th century sources (e.g. Hammond's works), which mention them as a Greek-speaking people.

  while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.: Filos' work was published in 2017 claiming a consensus on the variety of Greek spoken by a number of tribes in Epirus, among whom the scholar included the Atintanes. We have Cambi et al. (2002) and Šašel Kos (2005) who locate the Atintanians in Illyria, and consider them an Illyrian tribe and their language similar to other Illyrian tribes. But even more recently than Filos (2017), we have Jaupaj (2019) who classifies them as an Illyrian tribe. Hatzopoulos (2020), one of the major experts on this tribe reports three of the main theories on the specific subject (Hatzopoulos 2020, pp. 45–46): "1) Hammond has contended in a series of articles stretching from 1966 to 1989 and in his monumental monograph on Epirus that there are two different countries and two different ethne: the Illyrian Atintanoi in Atintania to the north-west of Lake Lychnitis amd the Epirotic Atintanes in the upper valley of the Drynos in Central Epirus. 2) Hasan and Neritan Ceka have proposed in a series of articles that the Atintanes were an Illyrian ethnos whose territory extended originally between the territories of Orikos, Amantia and Byllis to the North, of Chaonia to the west and of Molossia to the south, corresponding thus to the middle valley of the Aoos, but comprising also the valley of the Drynos as far as Dodona. The cities of Amantia and Byllis would have eventually seceded from this ethnos and formed separate states. 3) P. Cabanes espoused the view of his Albanian colleagues, but left the Drynos valley to the Chaones, reducing thus Atintania to a small area between the city of Byllis and Dassaetis. In a variant of this theory, Fanoula Papazoglou, would somewhat enlarge the territory of Atintania from the gorges of the Aoos at Kleisoura to the East to Selenice to the west." Hatzopoulos does not mention a "consensus" among scholars established in the years prior to his 2020 publication. Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence, and in his work he did not cite any new discovery to make such decisive comment, which completely overrides all the academic research and invalidates all the claims of other scholars published in the last 20 years. – Βατο (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

All the above claims are easily clarified or debunked. The only sources that address the question of language are Cambi et al. 2002, Sasel Kos 2005, and Filos 2017. Filos is the only source that focuses on language, as it is a linguistic review.

older in comparison to what? Older in the sense that 2002 and 2005 are considerably older than 2017

We have Cambi et al. (2002) and Šašel Kos (2005) who locate the Atintanians in Illyria, and consider them an Illyrian tribe and their language similar to other Illyrian tribes They do, but they are far older than Filos and do not specialize on language.

we have Jaupaj (2019) who classifies them as an Illyrian tribe Jaupaj is completely silent on language. Classifying them as "Illyrian" does not mean anything with regards to language, since there are examples of Greek-speaking Illyrian tribes (e.g. the Bylliones).

Hatzopoulos does not mention a "consensus" among scholars established in the years prior to his 2020 publication. Hatzopoulos is silent on the subject of language.

Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence Second guessing a high quality source. Even if this was true, this also applies to those claiming they are Illyrians.

his work he did not cite any new discovery to make such decisive comment Second guessing a high quality source.

which completely overrides all the academic research and invalidates all the claims of other scholars published in the last 20 years. Science works like that. New science overrides older science. Khirurg (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Filos included in the same sentence the location of the tribe in Epirus, the information is inseparable. – Βατο (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option B Most sources which discuss this tribe have been added in the article. They highlight that there is no consensus about anything because there's very little information about the Atintanes. OPTION B both fairly represents the different theories which exist and is a concise overview of the article (WP:LEDE). A new consensus in bibliography is established as new information emerges and new discussions begin. About the Atintanes, there's nothing new in the archaeological and historical record since the 1970s and even then all we had was one small inscription and a fragment of an inscription. From sources published in the last years:
  • • Šašel Kos, Marjeta (2005). Appian and Illyricum. Narodni muzej Slovenije. ISBN 961616936X. who writes that The history of Illyricum is divided into several sharply differing phases , of which the first , lasting to the collapse of the Illyrian kingdom , may be explained in terms of ( varying ) alliances of tribes and peoples of common or similar ethnic background , speaking similar languages . No doubt various southern Illyrian peoples such as the Atintanes , Bylliones , Taulantii , Parthini , Bryges , and others acquired a certain degree of Hellenization, both on account of the common borde with Epirus and the nearness of Greek colonies along the coast and
    • Jaupaj, Lavdosh (2019). Etudes des interactions culturelles en aire Illyro-épirote du VII au III siècle av. J.-C (Thesis). Université de Lyon; Instituti i Arkeologjisë (Albanie). writes that (..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens (..) Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire (..) 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. [(..) the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes lived inland as far as Dodona as Pseudo-Skylax mentions (..) It is more difficult to locate geographically the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes (..) The northern and eastern borders are quite difficult to define and must have fluctuated according to the era and the relations [of the Chaonians] with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..) To conclude, there is no doubt that the Atintanes covered a large territory (..) It is probable that they formed a Koinon which grouped together several different tribes, both Illyrian and Epirote, and that this Koinon was reduced over time and as some of its members defected.]
  • The claim that sources which link them to Illyria and the Illyrian language are "older research" in OPTION A is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on one sentence by Filios (2017) who claims that there is an "there is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation (..) minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety". Filios (2017) supports it - in passing - and despite the fact that it deserves mention, it can't be used to characterize as "older research" everything that was published before 2017. If something is "older research" isn't determined by the date of publication, but whether new information exists. If I write a book based on 19th century sources and I somehow convince an academic publishing house to release it in 2022 - it's actually WP:OUTDATED despite the year of publication. The opinion of Filios (2017) can't characterize authors whom he never mentions. Authors who write in the same period with the same access to an archaeological and historical record which hasn't changed since the 1970s aren't "older" or "newer" research based on when their publishing house finished proofreading and moved to publishing. The argument of Filios (2017) is the only source on which the narrative of OPTION A relies, but a)it is the opinion of one author (WP:UNDUE) and b)it presupposes as an undisputed fact that the Atintanes were indeed located in Epirus - although there's no consensus about their location in bibliography. Two of the editors who support OPTION A asked for Macedonia to be included as part of the possible transboundary region of their location, but you can't both ask for Macedonia to be included and support OPTION A/Filios (2017) and his claim to an "overall consensus" which places them in Epirus. It shows how selectively Filios (2017) and his consensus claim are being used. If the same methodology was used and sources were called "older research" solely based on whether a book was published a few years ago in the 21st century, then Filios (2017) can also be called "older research" because Jaupaj (2019) was published 2 years later. (Side comment: The involved editors who support OPTION A all have had their say more than once, now let others speak and if you absolutely must comment, use the discussion section. As many others have said there is no WP:STABLE to return to in the case of "no consensus" because pre-expansion article is radically different from the current 4X expanded version. A "no consensus" lede will have to be worked out in the RfC discussion.)--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and I do not enjoy doing this) there are claims so inaccurate made above, that I feel need to respond. In particular the claim there's nothing new in the archaeological and historical record since the 1970s is entirely WP:OR and easily debunked. There has been a wealth of new scholarship since the 1970s, as can be seen just by looking at the article. Filos (not "Filios" as Maleschreiber repeatedly misspells the name) clearly states epigraphic evidence has come to light since the 1970s. Regarding the "Macedonia", this was clearly only meant in the sense that the Macedonians ruled over the Atintanians, not that they were "Macedonian". And regarding the language question, a specialized linguistic source clearly supersedes non-linguist sources (Cambi et al., Sasel Kos). These are not linguistic sources. They cannot be given the same weight regarding the language question, especially considering they are over a decade older. Khirurg (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: The final conclusion by Jaupaj 2019 does not label them as Illyrians but as a confederation of Epirote-Illyrian communities.Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaupaj (2019) calls them an Illyrian tribe (tribu Illyrienne) who at one point formed a koinon with other Illyrian and Epirote tribes - as the full quotes highlight. There's a single inscription about the Atintanes, no "wealth of new scholarship". Hatzopoulos (2020) explains The Atintanes have bedevilled Macedonian and Epirote scholars for decades. They are mentioned by <lists authors of antiquity> and on an inscription from Dodona (SGDI 1336). The inscription was published in Pierre Cabanes (1976), L'Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (272-167 av. J.-C.) and there's also a fragment of an inscription which only mentions their name. What is "debunked" is the wildly false idea which nobody puts forward about "epigraphic evidence that has come to light since the 1970s" about the Atintanes.

The "language question" of any community is never treated in isolation by any linguistic source which can "supersede" non-linguistic sources. Thus, Filos puts forward a wider claim about their location. His argument isn't confined to the linguistic situation. Linguistic research about antiquity is autonomous and dependent on the archaeological record from which it draws data about particular communities. If there's no data, there's no "new research" in any field. Consensus is formed as part of an interdisciplinary approach, no field "supersedes" another. Now let others speak. The RfC really doesn't need the repetition of the opinions of the filing editor under every comment. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me but Jaupaj's conclusion -after listing all views- does not mention them as Illyrian. Here the quote you provided:

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. It's obvious that in his final statement he avoids the label 'Illyrian tribe' especially after saying that Hatzopoulos view should be taken under consideration. He states that they were a confederation of Epirote and Illyrian tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaupaj (2019): (..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens (..) Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire (..) 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. [(..) the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes lived inland as far as Dodona as Pseudo-Skylax mentions (..) It is more difficult to locate geographically the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes (..) The northern and eastern borders are quite difficult to define and must have fluctuated according to the era and the relations [of the Chaonians] with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..) To conclude, there is no doubt that the Atintanes covered a large territory (..) It is probable that they formed a Koinon which grouped together several different tribes, both Illyrian and Epirote, and that this Koinon was reduced over time and as some of its members defected.]. Now, let other editors speak and don't make the RfC even more inaccessible by repeating the same argument.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm stating that in his concluding statement after listing various contradicting views the author avoids to term them Illyrians but he provides a more abstract definition instead.Alexikoua (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua you are misrepresenting the source: Jaupaj states exactly that the tribe of the Atintanes was Illyrian. The koinon that the Atintanes may have formed is another thing. Your WP:OR considerations are inappropriate here. – Βατο (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alexikoua here. And I shall remind Maleschreiber and Βατο here that Jaupaj (2019)'s fieldwork isn't stating anything about languages, is talking about identities/ethnicities. In the academic studies, languages and identities can be two separate things and they shouldn't be mixed by editors to prove a point. To use Jaupaj's 2019 fieldwork about identities, against Filos's 2017 linguistic fieldwork about languages, just to prove that there is no Academic consensus on languages, constitutes a blatant case of both WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS because the 2019 Jaupaj source doesn't tackle the issue of language, nor the recent academic consensus about it. Like I have repeatedly stated in the past: in Wikipedia the best way to dismiss Filos's 2017 linguistic fieldwork is to provide sources about the language or the academic consensus. We need strong sources where the issues of the language and/or the academic consensus are mentioned explicitly and clearly, in a manner that leaves no doubts of WP:VERIFIABILITY. So far, Maleschreiber failed provide any sources on this and the debate here is nothing more than just anonymous editorial wp:or against Filos's wp:rs. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt that you agree with your preferred party. But it is irrelevant because Alexikoua's statement misrepresents the source (Jaupaj 2019). The more in depth recent publication on the Atintanes is Hatzopoulos (2020) who dedicates an entire paragraph to them, and states that the problem of this tribe remains unsolved. Filos (2017) only mentions them in brackets when he talks about the population of Epirus and their language variety. Replies can continue endlessly, but you have to respect other editors' comments and go on. – Βατο (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hatzopoulos (2020) talks about identity, not language. Like I have said: to challenge Filos's linguistic fieldwork, you need strong sources where the issues of the language and/or the academic consensus are mentioned explicitly and clearly, in a manner that leaves no doubts of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Anything else is WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDHT. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Read again my previous comment on the more in depth recent source on the Atintanes. Best regards. – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

From my first comment: The opinion of Filos (2017) can't characterize authors whom he never mentions. Authors who write in the same period with the same access to an archaeological and historical record which hasn't changed since the 1970s aren't "older" or "newer" research based on when their publishing house finished proofreading and moved to publishing. The argument of Filos (2017) is the only source on which the narrative of OPTION A relies, but a)it is the opinion of one author (WP:UNDUE) and b)it presupposes as an undisputed fact that the Atintanes were indeed located in Epirus - although there's no consensus about their location in bibliography. The fact that the editors who support OPTION A are now cluttering the talkpage with a repetition of their arguments again and again must stop. You've had your say, now let others speak.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but again I will ask for sources where the keywords "Atintanians" and "Language" are together. Or sources mentioning about "Academic consensus" or/and Filos's work. Can you provide them? If not, then spare us. We got better things to do. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The history of Illyricum is divided into several sharply differing phases , of which the first , lasting to the collapse of the Illyrian kingdom , may be explained in terms of ( varying ) alliances of tribes and peoples of common or similar ethnic background , speaking similar languages . No doubt various southern Illyrian peoples such as the Atintanes , Bylliones , Taulantii , Parthini , Bryges , and others acquired a certain degree of Hellenization, both on account of the common borde with Epirus and the nearness of Greek colonies along the coast Just accept the fact that other editors don't agree with establishing consensus based on the claim of a single source.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't play the dumb with me by citing a decades years-old source from 2005 to counter Filos's 2017 statement "There is an overall consensus nowadays". It is clear that I am just wasting my time with you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident, no new data emerged in the last 20 years, Hatzopoulos (2020) is the more in depth recent publication of all the information about the Atintanes, and he does not mention new discoveries about this tribe. We asked you to report here the sources Filos used to make such unreliable statement that contrasts with all the bibliography, but you did not answer. As per WP:WIKIVOICE, the academic research should be presented neutrally, and the Option A does not do it. – Βατο (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

1) Anonymous Editor falsely claiming "no new data emerged in the last 20 years". 2) Anonymous Editor claiming Filos, an expert in linguistics, "makes such unreliable statements". 3) Anonymous Editor mispresenting the argument that Hatzopoulos (2020) is "not mentioning new discoveries" as meaning Hatzopoulos (2020) is "mentioning Filos (2017) had no new evidence", 4) Anonymous Editor pointing to Hatzopoulos (2020) whose fieldwork is focused on the identity of Atintanians, just to make a wp:or point about Filos (2017) whose fieldwork is focused on language. 5) Anonymous Editor pointing to a 2005 source to challence a 2017 source about the academic consensus "nowadays". 6) Anonymous Editor arguing that a linguist who doesn't explicitly mention names in the "overall" consensus on linguistics matters, is a dubious linguist. 7) Anonymous Editor providing no sources that explicitly and clearly counter/challenge Filos, despite my repeated calls for any factual and verifiable proof. I'm impressed. Do you realize how embarassing it is for you the fact that all these seven (7) arguments break several of Wikipedia's rules. Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't try to ignore us and brute-force your Option B to the article by edit-warring instead of consulting with us the rest for a wp:consensus. You know what? I am off. Its time that we listen to what the Wikipedia community has to say on the matter. If you don't want to listen to us, then, let the others speak. As for me, you will see no further replies here. Unlike you I know when to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Good day. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Βατο: It's OK, if SR doesn't want to accept that the one inscription about this tribe was found in the 1970s and that there's no "new research". Hatzopoulos (2020): The Atintanes have bedevilled Macedonian and Epirote scholars for decades. They are mentioned by <lists authors of antiquity> and on an inscription from Dodona (SGDI 1336). The inscription was published in Pierre Cabanes (1976), L'Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (272-167 av. J.-C.) If some editors want to insist on using one sentence from one source and claim that it explains everything about the Atintanes, they have the right to have that opinion. And everyone else has the right to criticize it. But these editors have had their say and now should allow new editors to participate. They can do that by not repeating the same argument about Filos (2017) for n-th time. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• OPTION B From the sources mentioned in the article, published in the last ~30 years: Cabanes (1988- ), Cambi, Čače & Kirigin (2002), Šašel Kos( 2005), Kirigin (2006), Shehi (2015), Jaupaj (2019) consider them Illyrians, primarily locate Atintania within Illyria (some support an expansion southwards into central Epirus/Dodona) etc. Hammond (1989), Hatzopoulos (1993- ), Thiry (2001), Mallios (2011), Filos (2017) support a connection to an Epirote identity, a location primarily in Epirus and some include them as Greek-speakers etc. Habicht (1995) places Atintania in Illyria, Dausse (2015) places them in an "intermediate area" and argues that "the border between Illyrians and Epirotes depends on the location of the Atintanes, however it seems very difficult to set clear limits in those regions, especially because little is known about some peoples to precisely locate them." It seems very arbitrary to choose one source from this exhaustive list and proclaim that its claim is an undisputed fact and other publications are older research like OPTION A does. It's even more arbitrary if the fact that the last piece of new information about the Atintanes was published in 1976 is taken into consideration. It's apparent that there's no consensus so OPTION B is the lede which best represents the academic discussion with a neutral presentation of all theories. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahmet Q., the present RfC isn't about Identity and Geography, which are the same in both options (only re-arranged around alphabetically):

Identity:

• Option A: They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe.
• Option B: They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe [...] or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group [...]

Geography:

• Option A: The Atintanes or Atintanians were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria
• Option B: The Atintanes or Atintanians were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Illyria and Epirus..

If I were you, I could have checked more carefully what the RfC and its options really are about before participating and casting my vote to it. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Question to Option A supporters. Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus. By supporting Option A, you agree that Filos' claim about that supposed consensus is false, because mainstream scholarship is roughly equally divided between Epirus and Illyria (more exactly, Option A places the tribe at the borderland between Epirus and Illyria) . If you agree with Option A that Filos' claim about consensus on identity/location is false, then why should we believe that his claim about consensus on language too is not false? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ktrimi, your statement that "If you agree with Option A that Filos' claim about consensus on identity/location is false" is distorting the RfC Option A. Nothing like that is stated in Option A.

• Option A:

'The Atintanes or Atintanians (Ancient Greek: Ἀτιντάνες, Atintánes, Latin: Atintanii) were an ancient tribe in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria. They inhabited an inland region which was called Atintania. They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe. According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek.'

• Filos's source:

Filos 2017, p. 224"There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece".

Option A is exactly the same as Option B regarding the varying views on identity/location. The only difference between the two options is that Option A also includes mention on Language consensus which your side WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Additionally, Option A doesn't state that "Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus." either. Option A is carefully reflecting (per WP:LEAD) on the different views on identity/geography as covered on the main body of the article. Like other editors have told you before me: Geography and Identity are not closed, its the Language that nowadays is closed.

The claims in your question contradict what Option A and Filos's source about the language consensus really state, and that's an unacceptable wp:or. The editors who visit the RfC should take note how there is a dishonest and unhelpful attempt by Ktrimi991 to twist facts about Option A so that voters go for his preferred Option B instead, which his editorial side has brute-forced to the article without wp:consensus. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ktrimi's question is appropriate, because the Option A is based exclusively on a single sentence provided by Filos: "There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety akin to that of numerous neighboring populations of central and western Greece." The information in that sentence cannot be separated because it is part of a very specific context. Filos' sentence contrasts with what the 21st century sources put forward, hence it should not be added as a fact as per WP:WIKIVOICE. Best. – Βατο (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The so-called "21st century sources" are actually over a decade older than Filos, are not literature reviews, and do not specialize on language. No other source goes into the level of depth that Filos does on the language issue. It is not hard to imagine what your side would be arguing if the situation were reversed and suppose we had a source of Filos' level that stated there was a consensus they spoke "Illyrian" and two older sources that said they spoke Greek. Yeah, exactly. Khirurg (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There is an obvious tendency to misuse statements in several available papers. To sum up 1. Jaupaj's conclusion does not mention an Illyrian tribe, but an Illyrian-Epirote koinon, 2. Jaupaj confirms that N. Ceka envisioned an Illyrian Atintania stretching down to Dodona, 3. Filos is an up do date and detailed paper about linguistic in Epirus. Its the best we have on this subject today. I suggest to follow wp:HISTRS.Alexikoua (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

1) Anonymous Editor Βατο pointing to the modern source from 2017 by Filos and the decades-old sources from 2002 and 2005 as being a matter of WP:WIKIVOICE and nothing else, not even WP:AGEMATTERS nor WP:HISTRS. 2) Anonymous Editor Βατο supporting Anonymous Editor Ktrimi who is pointing to geography and identity to make a point on... language. 3) Anonymous Editor Βατο is genuinely baptising the decades-old sources 2002 and 2005 sources as "21th century sources" to make them weight and be as prominent as the most updated and comprehesive one from 2017 by Filos. 4) Anonymous Editors Βατο and Ktrimi991 providing no sources that explicitly and clearly counter/challenge Filos on language, despite my repeated calls for any factual and verifiable proof (again). Im shacking my head here. I will not respond to this any further. Its just pointless. I am sure Βατο and Ktrimi991 will recycle the same tendentious arguments indefinitely. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The user who is endlessly recycling arguments below other editors comments in the RfC survey is SilentResident. Filos mentions the specific tibe in brackets in a single sentence, he does not provide a full analysis about the language the Atintanes spoke. A 2005 source is not older because as stated by the most in depth resent work, Hatzopoulos (2020) who specifically described the nowdays research situation on this tribe in an entire paragraph, no new data emerged in the last years. The single sentence without citations provided by Filos contrasts with what bibliography put forward. If there emerged a consensus among scholars, the reliable source Hatzopoulos would include it in his 2020 publication, and you would be able to provide us another scholar who mentions your acclaimed consenus. – Βατο (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SilentResident, I am not recycling arguments. The one wasting entire days writing comment after every comment here is you and Khirurg. Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus. Option A says that the tribe was located in the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria (because the sources on the article give both southern Illyria and northern Epirus as possible locations). Epirus and the borderlands between Epirus and Illyria are not the same thing. By stating that, Option A rejects Filos' claim. You can now recycle arguments as long as you have time to waste. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaupaj (2019): (..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens (..) Pour conclure, il ne fait aucun doute que les Atintanes couvrent un large territoire (..) 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. [(..) the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes lived inland as far as Dodona as Pseudo-Skylax mentions (..) It is more difficult to locate geographically the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes (..) The northern and eastern borders are quite difficult to define and must have fluctuated according to the era and the relations [of the Chaonians] with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..) To conclude, there is no doubt that the Atintanes covered a large territory (..) It is probable that they formed a Koinon which grouped together several different tribes, both Illyrian and Epirote, and that this Koinon was reduced over time and as some of its members defected.] Alexikoua must stop connecting Jaupaj to his own blatant misreading about the Atintanes as an "Illyrian-Epirote koinon". If an editor can't restrain themselves from putting forward false claims, admin oversight will be specifically asked to stop false claims. There's a difference between having the right to voice an opinion and having the right to repeatedly put forward factually wrong statements.

@Ktrimi991: Filos (2017) : "there is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety OPTION A selectively chooses to keep as part of the "overall consensus" the language issue, but not their location. It goes through this WP:SYNTH because sources published after 2017 explain that their location/identity remains unknown and a subject of dispute. It means that OPTION A can't put forward a narrative about "older sources" (based on year of publication) about their location. But the "older sources" narrative is false in its entirety because sources published within the same time period of the 21st century aren't "newer" or "older" sources. Filos (2017) is not older than Jaupaj (2019) or newer than Sasel Kos (2005) who treats Atintanes as Illyrian-speakers because there has been no new information for the last 45 years. In fact, there's no consensus about identity, language, location in bibliography and these three components are tied in to each other. So, OPTION A is inconsistent even in comparison to the one source it is based on. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Option A relies on one statement by Filos, although in the same time Option A refutes that very statement made by Filos. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ktrimi, Maleschreiber, mow I understand why you are so confused and are mixing things up. I feel so sorry. Now this explains why your Option B which you favored and rammed to the article appears so mixed up as well. Maleschreiber, you stated: "OPTION A selectively chooses to keep as part of the "overall consensus" the language issue, but not their location." but RfC Option A isn't a summary of Filos's source about Epirus. (That would otherwise violate Wikipedia's rules and be contradicted by many other sources regarding geography or idenity). Option A Is a summary of the article Atintanians, not Filos. The article Atintanians has among others, 2 separate sections: one called "Language", and one called "Identity and location". Option A respects that and reflects on that by having 2 separate lede sentences as well: a sentence on identity, and another sentence on language, summarizing their respective article sections.

Option A - Identity sentence: They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe. summarizes the "Identity and Location" section in the article which is still debated by scholars today.

Option A - Language sentence: According to older sources, the tribe spoke an Illyrian dialect, while today there is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek. summarizes the "Language" section in the article which refers to past views and the academic consensus nowadays.

Simple as that. Each lede sentence in Option A is separated from the other one using a fullstop for obvious reasons. Do you realize now how your Option B which you rammed into the article without consulting with other editors, hasn't respected that structure which was supposed to, per WP:LEAD? Option B has messed up everything by having language appear as divisive among the scholars as identity and location by ramming 2 separate article sections into one big lede sentence: They have been described as either an Illyrian tribe that spoke a language similar to other southern Illyrian tribes or as Epirote tribe that belonged to the northwestern Greek group and spoke Doric Greek. even though this is not the case and therefore Option B violates Wikipedia's WP:LEAD which should reflect on both article sections, accurately. Option A achieves that by summarizing them separately and independently from each other. Do you realize how your whole arguments are flawed and are basically showing how Option B failed? Like I said: there is one way to challenge Filos's source on Academic consensus on languages. And this is only by providing to us strong sources that explicitly and clearly counter/challenge Filos on language. Sources which must include at least the following key words in them: "Atintanians" and "Language". To argue with you is pointless. You have provided me no sources to challenge Filos. All what you do here is to recycle arguments or find new arguments instead of providing me the sources I asked you. I am not moved by your personal views on Filos's work. Not in the slightest. I am moved by sources and facts. Like how you were suppposed to do too. You are deeper into WP:OR territory and I can't help you. I already dropped the stick and backed away from this never-ending WP:IDHT. Im sorry. My time discussing with you about Filos is now like beating a dead horse's carcass even harder for no reason. Don't you have better things to do? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident, Option A includes a partial presentation of this statement: There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, ... If the information is not added into the same context as provided by Filos, it falls into WP:SYNTH. – Βατο (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Silent Resident makes an excellent point about the structure of the lede. Option A is better not only on content but on structure as well. The claims of WP:SYNTH are nonsense. SYNTH only applies when two or more sources are used. The other thing I would like to point out is the sheer amount of mind reading and second-guessing of reliable sources by the option B side. Examples include Hatzopoulos would include it in his 2020 publication, We asked you to report here the sources Filos used to make such unreliable statement, Filos, like all the other scholars, has no concrete evidence. Not to mention a lot of distortion of the sources, for example with misreadings of sources such as Filos claims that there is consensus that the tribe was in Epirus...- Filos says nothing of the kind. This is pure straw man. It is impossible to have any kind of agreement with people that refuse to accept highly reputable sources and resort to these kinds of arguments. Khirurg (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

But, Khirurg, you have to admit that our fellow editor deserves a barnstar of humor.❤ His argument of a solo source doing wp:SYNTH to itself is the best thing I have heard in decades!❤ But, If you want my advice, do not bother with this question discussion anymore, really it is just not worth your time. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You are now contradicting yourself, you said this: Option A Is a summary of the article Atintanians, not Filos. The article Atintanians has among others, 2 separate sections: one called "Language", and one called "Identity and location". Option A respects that and reflects on that by having 2 separate lede sentences as well: a sentence on identity, and another sentence on language, summarizing their respective article sections. Filos' statement can't be separated to make an original research claim as incuded in the Option A.

Side comment: if you have never heard of it before, I suggest to read this from the policy WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. An experienced editor should avoid making those statements. – Βατο (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Excelent SilentResident! Crystal clear arguments against a persistent misuse of wp:synth definition. Definitely this kind of misuse is part of an unsucessful national agenda (nationalist archaeology that envisions Illyrian domination strecthing to Dodona etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

OPTION B doesn't put forward anything about "Illyrian domination". OPTION A on other hand tries to put forward a narrative about a "consensus" about a Greek-speaking population based only on one selectively and inconsistently used source. Now, don't project your personal politics onto bibliography and don't clutter the RfC with WP:FORUM talking points. It becomes very inaccessible for new editors if they have to be subjected to WP:FORUM in order to read arguments based on bibliography.Maleschreiber (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A without mention of the Illyrian hypothesis. If modern scholarly consensus has settled on one conclusion, secondary theories do not merit inclusion in the lead, whether it be this article or others. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option A per the contemporary and reliable source used and arguments presented by fellow editor SilentResident. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option B Taking a quick skim of the talk page and reading the debate going on I’m leaning B, going by the sources that seem clearly explained and arguments presented by fellow editors Βατο and Ahmet Q.. I think some are reading between the lines when nothing is there. I don’t see Illyrian domination being pushed intentionally or unintentionally as a narrative. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: thank you, but since you have mentioned about any Illyrian domination (not) being pushed intentionally or unintentionally as a narrative, I would like to note that their contribution logs have confirmed my worst fears. The "Illyrian" or "Albanian" narrative is a key narrative in the edits Βατο and his side have made across 20 different articles of Wikipedia - and there is an ongoing RfC in one of them, at Parga's Talk Page. It is that the number of 20+ different articles being the subjects of edits that appear to be promoting Illyrian and Albanian narrative is abit too big to be merely coincidental and unintented. In my case I am avoiding talking about this here for obvious reasons as I want only to focuse on the present article, but since you have mentioned it, I felt compelled to point out this. (The issue has already been brought to an Admin's attention at: [11]. However the admins can't really do much about this unless there is an obvious and gross violation of Wikipedia's rules; For that reason, the AE is considered once both RfCs are over). Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option B, without its grammar error ("as Epirote tribe" --> "as an Epirote tribe"). Of course, frankly both of these options are rather bad, even if we ignore the grammar error... but B is the least crappy. Curiously, they both ignore the viewpoint that we don't know if they should be considered Illyrians, or Epirote Greeks, or something else. The quote from Filos is, in fact, being overinterpreted. Filos explicitly includes (page 224) the Atintanes as a "minor tribe" that was included in "the Greek-speaking population of Epirus". He does not explicitly say they "were Greek" or "did not speak Illyrian" or "were not Illyrian"; modern views whereby Greekness is mutually exclusive with other identities are thus being projected backward in time. That line appears to be the only reference to the Atintanes he makes in that paper at least as far as Ctrl+F goes (I do, of course, possess the computer version). "Identity" is closely tied to language, but is not equivalent to it (modern day Arvanites -- speak Albanian, but have a Greek identity, as many here like to note). So no, the citation for Filos 2017 does not support this narrative whereby there is an overall consensus about the tribe's identity. That Jaupaj 2019 has been brought forward would seem to at least present a significant minority view, if the "Epirote Greek identity" POV is indeed the overall consensus -- meaning it would merit mention at least as a significant minority mention. Yet, at the same time, the middle viewpoint whereby we cannot really determine the identity of a rather obscure tribe is missing, so my support for Option B is lukewarm at best.--Calthinus (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In my crystal ball I see this later sentence by Filos coming into view: In fact, the contact with non-Greek populations (Illyrians) in the northern part of Epirus may have further boosted sub-dialectal variation in this part of the region at least (e. g. lexicon), although we lack any concrete evidence, especially outside the field of onomastics. It's relevance here will be, at best, speculative. One may -- and many do -- speak of contact effects on Arvanitika from "Greek populations" without implying the Arvanites are non-Greek, just as one can speak of effects of language contact upon the Greek speech of peoples near the border of the (Northwest Doric Greek) language community without implying an exclusively Greek ethnic or even an exclusively Greek linguistic identity (just as modern day Arvanites are, in fact, bilingual). --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Option A absolutely does not state that "they were Greek". It only states that here is an overall consensus in scholarship that they spoke a northwestern Greek dialect similar to Doric Greek., which is exactly what Filos states. No "overinterpretation" whatsoever. Option A does not state that "they were Greek" or "they weren't Illyrian". Saying that it does is totally incorrect. On the subject of ethnicity/identity, they two options are the same. The only difference between the two options is with regards to language, and Option A faithfully quotes the most in-depth and up-to-date source on the subject, which no source less than 15 years older contradicts. I thought that was plainly obvious. Khirurg (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Option A -- like option B -- presents readers with the dichotomy: They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe. The difference is that option A claims one 2017 source which mentions Atintanians cursorily once and merely as members of a list is being used as the conclusion of modern consensus although a source from 2019 challenging this has been presented. NPOV dictates option B is the least shitty of the two shitty options. Ideally, this whole matter of identity would be effing purged from the lede. --Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The source from 2018 does not challenge the one form 2017. The source form 2019 is silent on the subject of language. And as we all know, identity and language are separate. The fact that the source from 2019 refers to them as "Illyrian" does not mean they were not Greek-speaking, especially considering they were in a border area. There is simply nothing to contradict the source from 2017. If Filos did not consider them Greek-speaking, he would NOT have included them. Khirurg (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the scholars on the identity of the tribe, or the exact geographical boundaries of Epirus and Illyria. Scholarly views on ancient tribal identities, locations and even ancient geographical boundaries are interchangeable depending the scholars cited on the matter. If modern scholarly hasn't reached a consensus about the tribe's identity and the geographical boundaries, this does not merit exclusion of scholarly consensus having settled on other conclusions such as the language. It is beyond me why the obvious here isn't obvious. If the Option B supporters never objected to the modern academic consensus on language being mentioned on the main body of the article, then why they object mentioning it on WP:LEAD? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Context, SR, context: They have been described as either an Epirote tribe belonging to the northwestern Greek group or an Illyrian tribe. Either-or: meaning an exclusive "or" in propositional logic. --Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, both options A and B include "either-or" regarding Identity. Both of them. Thing is, this "either-or" context has nothing to do with consensus on language. The Scholar may have his own views on identity or geography but reported there about a consensus on languages, something which the other linguistic scholars haven't yet challenged in the past 4 years. I strongly believe that if modern scholarly hasn't reached a consensus about the tribe's identity, this does not merit exclusion of scholarly consensus on language. You may argued against this, and for me this means you just opposed Wikipedia's WP:LEAD rules, and thus, setting a negative precedence elsewhere in the Balkans topic area. Future editors who may dispute/remove academic consensuses from Ledes can use Option B side's arguments in the present RfC here as a precedent. This responsibility is solely falling on you. Expect no more replies from me, or any future cooperation, because I don't want to be part of this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Over one sentence in a single source that mentioned the tribe only once and as a member of a list, we've collectively (with you being the most devoted in terms of time expenditure) produced a short novel's worth of text on this page. If you don't want to "be part of this" you can always, you know, not. Saying this as a friend. This RfC has produced more text than the page itself, probably. On a side note, does anyone actually read this page...? --Calthinus (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

OPTION A is based on a source which links location and language: "there is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, despite its fragmentation into major (Molossoi, Thesprotoi, Chaones) and minor (Athamanes (Athamanians), Atintanes, Paroraioi, Tymphaioi, etc.) tribes, spoke a North-West Doric variety OPTION A selectively chooses the language part and skips the claim about the location. There is no consensus about either and the one source on which OPTION A is based is no more "modern research" than every other source published in the last 30 years because the last piece of archaeological or linguistic information about the Atintanes was published in 1976. If what is "modern" and what is "outdated" was measured by year of publication then Filos (2017) is outdated because Jaupaj (2019)((..) la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes qui entrent profondément à l’intérieur des terres jusqu’à Dodone comme Pseudo-Skylax le mentionne (..) Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. (..) Les frontières septentrionales et orientales sont assez difficiles à les définir et ont dû fluctuer selon les époques et leurs rapports avec les Atintanes qui étaient leurs grands voisins illyriens [(..) the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes lived inland as far as Dodona as Pseudo-Skylax mentions (..) It is more difficult to locate geographically the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes (..) The northern and eastern borders are quite difficult to define and must have fluctuated according to the era and the relations [of the Chaonians] with the Atintanes who were their large Illyrian neighbors (..) was published two years later. Obviously, what is contemporary and older research isn't measured by such arbitrary criteria. OPTION A is a massive WP:UNDUE of one source, which is selectively and inconsistently used for the purpose of a particular narrative. @Calthinus: Filos (2017) is being overinterpreted as one sentence which mentions the Atintanes in passing has been used in OPTION A to put forward some very heavy claims which are contradicted by other sources and a nuanced reading of his entire argument in the chapter, not just the cropped one-sentence quote. I think that the overintepretation stems from the fact that OPTION A really is based on the interpretation of just one source. Even if we restrict use of bibliography in papers and works published in the last 10 years, there is nothing near to a consensus about anything, which is another way of saying that almost nothing is known about the Atintanes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Except it appears there is a consensus regarding language, and it is backed by perhaps the best source in the field. Option A gives due weight to this source. Option B does not. If your straw man arguments about Filos were true, then the source should be removed from the article - good luck with that. Jaupaj 2019 does not in any way contradict Filos. We've been over this, what, 10 times already? Khirurg (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Option A includes an original research because it considers that the language of the tribe was Greek even in the case of a location in Illyria, which contrasts with the source that is supposed to support it: Filos (2017) reports the consensus about the language variety spoken by the peoples of Epirus "There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, ... , spoke a North-West Doric variety.". Wikipedia can't include WP:OR into the article's lead section. – Βατο (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no original research on this issue while this is quite typical in border areas. There is nothing to suggest that Illyria & its surroundings was a region of linguistic purity IF we believe that there was a common Illyrian language.Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Faithfully quoting a high quality source and giving it due weight is not WP:OR. In fact the exact opposite. Khirurg (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Faithfully quoting" it means to include the whole information with its specific context, which is the location in Epirus as per source: "There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus, ... , spoke a North-West Doric variety." The information provided by the Option A falls deep into WP:OR: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Hence, without the specific context, it can't be included into the lede. – Βατο (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No wonder that in the brand new Osprey publication (The Army of Pyrrhus of Epirus: 3rd Century BC), which specialises on military history Atintania is clearly located on Epirus [[12]]. In fact 100% of 21th century western publications are in agreement about this point.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A, because of the well-grounded, reasonable points supporting this. Macedonian (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• OPTION B This is about area of Epirus which is the border area and I think option B would be a better option in this case. Also some sources are exposed by editor Maleschreiber which are a quality base for this option. Mikola22 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - arguments made for the option are stronger.Resnjari (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - Per well-enunciated arguments by Khirurg et al. --Dr. K. 03:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option B because it remains accurate and there is too much dispute about the veracity of the claims in Option A. I suggest a WP:RSN after this to do source assessment with uninvolved editors, which might end up favoring Option A, or something else. Regardless, the original text is ungrammatical, so needs to be replaced. If consensus is for option A, I can live with that, but would suggest some careful source review anyway, involving editors other than those already embroiled in this dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede RfC discussion

The RfC question discussion began at 00:43 and the RfC was filed 89 minutes later at 02:12. That's how long the discussion lasted. No RfC which involves many editors and a long dispute can be expected to have even minimal acceptance when it is filed in a way that excludes involved editors and is skewed towards one of the two answers. The RfC has to be withdrawn or declared invalid. The dispute has lasted for two weeks, the article saw full protection and in 89 minutes editors which support a particular narrative decided that they will file the RfC in a manner which is heavily partial to one narrative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC will not be withdrawn. There is nothing in WP:RFC that says that a consensus should be reached before filing. RfCs are precisely for situations where there is no consensus. Option B is worded exactly the way your side wants (it's basically the version of the lede you rammed through without consulting anyone. So your claims about the RfC being "heavily partial" are total nonsense. Should I withdraw Option A and leave only Option B? Would it be less "heavily partial" then? Is that what you demand? It's also extremely hypocritical of you to demand that your unspecified demands are accepted before the RfC can proceed when you unilaterally made changes to the lede without consulting anyone. "89 minutes" is a whole lot more than the zero minutes you gave everyone else before you made changes to the lede [13]. Khirurg (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Option A appears ok, but we need to stress that it was a borderland between Epirus, Macedonia and Illyria. About classification we should use Mallios wording, since "Illyrian" is a very abstract term we don't know the exact relations they had with the other Illyrian tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It is an invalid RfC: one side of the dispute started it without consulting the other side, including only the source they prefer, and considering stable a version that can't be labeled as such because the article was rewritten with content that was expanded from 11,500 bytes to 50,000 bytes, and with bibliography that was expanded from 14 sources to 44 sources, which clearly contrast with the "sable version" claimed by one side of the dispute. The previous version obviously has to be changed. – Βατο (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bato: Off course you have to be kidding. The disputed pov edit was this one [[14]]. I fail to see such an expansion in here. As Khirurg pointed as long as there is no concensus the previous verison will be restored, per wp:BRD. I suggest you present a decent proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The previous version completely contrasts with what sources put forward, all editors here know it can't stay as a "stable version". In the RfC it should be clarified that the previous version preceded the update and expansion of the article's content. And sources should not be selectively included. There was an ongoing discussion on the draft, why did you start the request without consulting the other side of the dispute? – Βατο (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC, see WP:RFCST - whilst there is a statement that certainly appears to be neutral, it is decidedly not brief; and whilst the absence of a signature is not itself a problem, there is no timestamp at all - and those are mandatory. As a result of both those issues, this RfC is not being listed correctly at WP:RFC/HIST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ok I added a timestamp. Not sure what to do about making it more brief though. Khirurg (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  I noticed the original RfC was also edited by SilentResident (talk · contribs) a few minutes after the opening [15], [16]. – Βατο (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  @SilentResident and Khirurg: Please don't make edits like this or this, Legobot will simply ignore them and rebuild the page using what it can extract from this page, as advised when you edited that page. @Βατο: regarding this edit, Legobot can't handle the {{unsigned}} template (whether substituted or not), it requires a pure timestamp such as is produced by four or five tildes. I've fixed it up: we'll need to wait until 17:01 (UTC) to see if Legobot is happy; if not, the problem will be one of non-brevity. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Βατο:, sentences which are unaffected by the RfC and were never part of our dispute on language academic consensus, can safely be removed. Like it or not. @Redrose64: your help is much appreciated. I am very sorry for the trouble and inconvenience this may have caused. I am sure it wasn't intended. Mistakes with RfCs happen. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Looks like it didn't like it [17]. Please advise. Is length the issue? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it's clearly too long. Presently, it's 3,622 bytes measured from the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) to the timestamp (inclusive); references contribute to the total because it's the wikicode, not the rendered output, that is counted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  I see. If I remove the references, will that do the trick? Is there a length limit? Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  And there you go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your help, it is greatly appreciated. Would you mind striking your "invalid rfc" vote above? Thanks again. Khirurg (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Βατο and Maleschreiber: they know very well that there is no "stable version" as they clam. Hence they are supporting Option A that counters with that "stable version" they were so keen to keep till yesterday. It is a good thing they are moving on and have already left their former baseless stance behind. I do not think that calling it "stable" at the RfC wording changes anything. It is merely a naive act that brings no harm. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently neutral as to which version is better in reference to the content, but both the "stable" version and option b have an "it" ("It inhabited...") that doesn't make sense grammatically and should be "they". — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your pointing that out. Khirurg (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note The issue pointed out above by Ƶ§œš¹ should be taken into account if one of those two versions is the one chosen by the community at the end of the RfC discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Note Involved editors who supported OPTION A shouldn't reply to every comment they disagree with. You've had your say, now let other speak. It turns the discussion into TL;DR and discourages participation from new editors. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate terms around here. Gross factual inaccuracies and baselesss accusations in user's comments have to be addressed. And let me remind you (and the community) that yesterday you tried your utmost to derail this RfC by shouting "invalid RfC" over and over again. Whatever happened to that btw? Khirurg (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources were removed from the RfC question - as I asked for. And many editors accepted that a "no consensus" result can't be a return to the pre-expansion WP:LEDE. You've placed three large comments about what you consider inaccurate and now you're repeating yourself. Let other speak. @SilentResident: don't change your comments. Other editors may have replied to what you've written [18]. It interrupts the flow of the discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly [19] [20] [21], your lengthy objections were that the RfC was filed without your approval (i.e. veto), that it was filed "within 89 minutes", and about the stable version. You repeatedly called the RfC invalid and called for it to be withdrawn on those grounds. That's quite a change since yesterday. Khirurg (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Maleschreiber, I appreciate your advises and I will consider them. However, considering that there were lots of changes of positions from your part lately, (as well as false statements about my opposition to RfC Option A), I had to update my statement to help newcomers avoid any possible misconceptions, don't you think? You wouldn't want my votes to make me appear silly, do you? :-) Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC has become extremely inaccessible already. If there are no disagreements, I will place all comments under every first comment within a collapse template. It will improve accessibility and the comments will still be there for anyone who wants to reads them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there absolutely is a disagreement. Any messing with user comments will be swiftly reverted. You will NOT manipulate this RfC to your liking. As for cluttering it, the main guilty party is you. So if you don't want it to be cluttered, stop commenting and insisting on having the last word for every.single.thread. First you did everything you could to derail this RfC (including admin shopping). Now you want to manipulate user comments? No way. Khirurg (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Any further messing with other editors' comments by Khirurg or SilentResident will be reported. Selectively moving comments which reply to the repetition of the same arguments by you is unacceptable. If you're interested in de-cluttering the survey we can place a collapse template under every "first opinion" comment, but the RfC can't selectively include only some replies. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

Specific author (S.Kos) removed as 'one word argument'

Although I can't understand why S.Kos is selectively removed when saying that a settlement was Greek [[22]]. I assume under the same "one word reference" argument a removal is warranted regardless a tribe or town is labelled as Greek or Illyrian among a list of several tribes (or settlements) by the same author.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm still waiting for a decent explanation why S.Kos label 'Illyrian' warrants inclusion while 'Greek' should be removed at all costs. So far I see only tag-teaming fashion reverts without a slightest comment.Alexikoua (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Stocker (2009) discusses Neritan Ceka's theory - but Ceka's theory has been excluded from the article. The article can't discuss Stocker (2009) about Ceka without Ceka's inclusion. Side comment: Papamichail (2020), "Attitudes of the philologists of the prefecture of Arta regarding the use of the local language variety in the school environment" should be removed. It discusses an unrelated subject. It's the same as citing a book about public health policy at an article about structural engineering because it mentions some basic concepts about earthquakes in a chapter about the response of public health insitutions during an earthquake.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stocker discusses several theories about the so-called Koinon. Jaupaj cites in this specific part cites CEKA 2011 exclusively (Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. Leur position parmi les Parauaioi et les Chaones soulève l’hypothèse de leur présence dans les vallées de la Zagoria et du Drinos traditionnellement rattachées aux ChaonesCEKA 2011), which needs to be restored. Side comment Papamichail (2020) is a work on local linguistics in Epirus and should stay, in fact he discusses the local dialectal variations which is the same exact topic discussed here. What needs to be removed is S.Kos based on Maleschreiber's 'one word argument'[[23]]. Alexikoua (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's titled "Attitudes of the philologists of the prefecture of Arta regarding the use of the local language variety in the school environment" - it's not about "local linguistics". We cite authors and their sources if they directly support a theory - Jaupaj (2019) doesn't support a single theory. There's not going to emerge any consensus about edits which aren't discussed in bibliography. Thank you. I've got other work to do now.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

According to that argument, @Alexikoua, also Filos should be removed because he mentions the Atintanes in a single sentence, and in brackets. Stocker discusses Ceka's theory: Additionally, it is unlikely that the Illyrian koinon ever encompassed as large a territory as Ceka proposes. It more probably was restricted in extent to the southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does not include Epirus. Do not misrepresent sources, they can be checked by other editors. – Βατο (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this "one word argument" was presented in Dimale about S.Kos. If you don't like Kos in Dimale the same counts here. About Stocker, you forgot to mention that: This proposal, endorsed by other Albanian archaeologists, is an example of the type of ideologically "correct" argument that was encouraged under communism and was designed to promote the notion of Illyrian supremacy over foreign (Greek) foundations. Conclusion: it does not reject only Ceka, but all those views presented in Albania (Jaupaj among them since he cites Ceka exclusively as shown above).Alexikoua (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Bato: insists in IDONTLIKEIT fashion, though Jaupaj cited CEKA 2011 exclusively on this. It's also interesting that Jaupaj's conclusion differs from CEKA2011 since he considers Atintanes as koinon which may have included both Illyrian and Epirotic tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Lede

RfCs usually stay open for a month. In rarer circumstances, 2 months. Recently a request for the RfC's closure was submitted, and if one thing is clear to everyone lately is that, none of the two options gained a WP:CONSENSUS and a solid majority support. Not even Option B which remained on the article for the past 2 months. Now it has been removed from the article and I would like that in the future, any editors avoid brute-forcing their edits to the article when they see that there are clearly objections to their edits, and rather try discuss in the talk page and work on reaching a consensus first. Any repeats of past mistakes won't result in the opening of more RfCs, but into reports against the editors. Needless to say, the present article is subject to WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions and for this reason I am adding the relevant warnings on the talk page so that we editors do not forget about it. The last thing the article needs is a new edit war.

Had I opened a discussion earlier, while the RfC was one month old, some editors could probably think it has been too early to open a discussion on how to overcome the impasse and update the lead to reflect on the article's content. I waited one more month and there is still no consensus about it. So I would like to be brave and open a discussion here and see if can we get a common foothold on how to solve the disagreements and finally update the lede? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Keeping the current new version would be good. The language section can be in the current format that says that "Author A (year) says that ....". The readers (if anyone wants to read this obscure article) can jugde by themselves the scholars' opinions and decide what language the obscure tribe spoke. Also, do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit. Do not expect more comments by me here. I am busy and focused on other things. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The last thing the article needs is a new edit war. - agreed. The last version proposed by SR is WP:NPOV. Side comment: The article has 2 readers on a daily basis and I assume that at least one of them is an involved editor. So much workload, for so very, very little.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ktrimi, about your proposal, "Author A (year) says that ....", this is a step in the right direction and I like it, as it is more or less the same as my proposal which is "According to Author (year),^source....". I guess that makes it 2 of us? I will wait and let for the others to comment whether they agree with this or have better ideas, before I feel certain to proceed.

"Also, do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit." the benefit isn't for me I am afraid. Is for the article. The warning is more than necessary now, and if it helps making people think twice before acting again like back then in December, then the better.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The previous version in which the article was locked was in great need of corrections, especially in terms of wp:LEDE there is just (one) author that supports the Illyrian-speech view. S. Kos has been already rejected as a "one word argument" by Maleschreiber in a similar case about Dimale.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Another point: The article is big enough now so inclusion of the various conflicts in which Atintanians participated will be a good initiative.18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

So Alexikoua, I take it that you too are ok with Filos being mentioned on Lede, right? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The current version seems good. The historical contexts concerning the Atintanes are concisely reported by Hatzopoulos (2020) p. 45. – Βατο (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the language will have to be mentioned nevertheless. The question here is how to bridge the differences between the two sides, not whether WP:LEAD will be sidelined when it comes to Language section or applied selectively. Thanks anyways. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@SilentResident: The RfC is about the language - no edits about the language should be included on the lede before a consensus emerges about it. If it ends as "no consensus", we will have to find a new way to discuss language on the lede.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a positive thing to hear this from you. Yes, I agree and I will let more editors comment here their thoughts about the above proposals in case the RfC leads nowhere. At least, this way we can have a useful head-start and avoid having "So much workload, for so very, very little" again. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-RfC discussion about Lede

• @Ktrimi991, Alexikoua, Maleschreiber, Khirurg, Βατο, and Demetrios1993: Pinging you (sorry for that, its just once) to draw your attention here and discuss to resolve finally the issue of the language. Admin Rosguill closed the RfC with no consensus for either options: [24]. The admin also is acknowledging our efforts to work past the RfC as well. To summarize: Ktrimi and I made a compromise by having the author who is the center of the dispute, be mentioned explicitly. "Author A (year) says that ...." or According to Author (year),^source.... This can be a fair compromise for overcoming the language disagreements once and for all. Who else besides us is supporting the compromise? I am expecting a clear "yes" or "no" here. No recycling of old arguments and stirring up more debates please. We had the RfC for that already. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm under the same impression as Rosguill who noted that "editors seem to have successfully worked past it". The current lede version works well enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To me, it seemed as if Rosguill's "editors seem to have successfully worked past it is referring to to our proposals here for working successfully past the RfC. I can't see what else the admin could mean. After all, even the current version of the lede on the article, is just my revision, not a middle ground between Option A and Option B, whose supporters agreed, from both sides, to the inclusion of language in the lede. Now, if you are not interested in resolving the dispute, then you are welcome to leave this discussion. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It has functioned as a middle ground and I think that any discussion to further change it - at this moment - will lead to the same disputes which won't be solved. A workable WP:STABLE has been established and it seems that it is the best that could emerge after many debates.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

How is that a middle ground, when the dispute here is *not* about the language's inclusion to the lede, but about the lede wording? Your comment inspires little confidence that you are here to help us clean the mess you started. It was a mistake of me to assume that you are remorseful for your actions. Perhaps it is time for you to leave the discussion to those willing to actually help resolve the dispute? At least that will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)