Talk:Dimale

Not existant

This does not exist.

• M. B. Hatzopoulos, The borders of Hellenism in Epirus during antiquity, p.144-145, in Epirus, Ekdotike Athenon, 1997

This exists

• Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilizationMegistias (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My Version has a map and multitude of refs while the numbered users one false like the one above and all the other epigrammaticaly.

• My version.
• Numbered User versionMegistias (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

thats the book i cited chapter 'borders of hellenism' pages 144-145 in the book epirus...read the pages87.202.27.214 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

m.b. hatzopoulos states the the city has a nongreek name no greek founding myths and the mix of greek and nongreek names points to a later hellenization of an originally parthinian settlement87.202.27.214 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

...and the cambridge ancient history is a good general work i dont think its necessray to quote whole paragraphs pages are enough87.202.27.214 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote, from the book, that the i.p. editor insisted: [[1]] (p. 145)

The very late appearance of the Greek element, combined with the fact that the city does not have a Greek name and there is no tradition ascribing its foundation to Greeks, gives the impression that Dimale did not have a Greek character from the begining, but was rather a center of the Parthinoi that was hellenized late under the influence of Appolonia...

I see 3 if's, on the contrary the i.p. editor is more certain in his conclution adding it as a certainty from the lead.Alexikoua (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

its not 3 ifs its 3 becauses...we cant be absolutely certain about the linguistic situation in ancient epirus and south illyria its the evidence that points to a greek dominance in epirus and later hellenization of south illyria...greek editors on one hand dispute the latter yugoslav...or actually slav macedonian since they are ones that have the beef and not serbs for example...and albanian editors dispute the former can we be a bit reasonable...? hatzopoulos is a good scholar and is clear about dimale87.202.59.4 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

oh and the chapter is written by hatzopoulos not sakellariou...whos the editor of the volume...like you wrote elsewhere87.202.59.4 (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have repeated the same thing many times now.The book's title is this *Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization and its contents as shown by Alexikoua aboveMegistias (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

yes im repeating it because you arent listening...i shortened the book title to 'epirus' theres only ONE epirus by EKDOTIKE ATHENON87.202.1.78 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is the one i mentioned and must be entered in that manner and those pages state,

"The situation at the land of the Parthinoi can be traced only at Dimale, which though never explicitly stated to be a city of the Parthinoi, is frequently linked with them at the sources.At this city, Greek inscriptions have been found, written in a north-west Greek or Doric dialect, the institutions mentioned in them are Greek (prytanis,phylarhos), and Greek monumental structures have come to light (a stoa).The onomasticon appears to be mixed, however, with Greek names typical of both Epirus and the Corinthian colonies, and with non-Greek personal names.The very late appearance of Greek elements combined with the fact that the city does not have a Greek name and there is no tradition ascribing its foundation to Greeks, gives the impression that Dimale did not have a Greek charakter from the beggining, but was rather a center or the Parthinoi that was hellenized under the influence of Apollonia on the one had and the kingdom of Epirus on the other."

• Never a city of the Parthinoi explicitly just in their land
• Gives the appearance of Hellenization not something else..

Megistias (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

hatzopoulos cant be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN he says that the most likely explanation is that it was originally illyrian...so whats your problem with naming it as illyrian in the intro rather than ancient greek?? who cares about the shortened title of the book thats the least...87.202.1.78 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

actually my original version was much better because it discussed the uncertainties in the article and not in a footnote but you didnt like that one either..87.202.1.78 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ok see now..87.202.1.78 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

i think the intro is ok now85.73.219.34 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the article to my version.Megistias (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the intro is much better now take a look..'please' + report doesnt compute either..no discussion no sources to show other views does the article belong to you..?85.73.219.34 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This exists

• Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization but i have to ask myself why you cant even bring yourself to write the title.Megistias (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

why do you care about the title??? can you comment on the info??85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Provide links to verify Hammond and the rest please and we may continue.And the title is a pretty simple thing.Megistias (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Links for verification and inline citations please.Megistias (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

so now you doubt my citation of hammond about the possible greek etymology and founding of the city even though this is the whole point of contention here with you refusing to add 'uncertain possibly greek possibly illyrian' instead of 'certainly greek'??? what a chracter...85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Provide links for verification for all your proposed sources.Its simple.Megistias (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'The city may have been founded c. 290 B.C. by Pyrrhus or his successors (Or it might have been an offshoot of Apollonia, like the colonies of Syracuse which became inde- pendent.)'

'It is a Greek word meaning ' of double fleece ', very suitable to a place overlooking the rich sheep-pastures of the Myzeqija.'

HAMMOND

85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

since you have read hatzopoulos article i wont post it...85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A link to verify sources so everyone can see the citation and book please.I am not asking you to move a mountain here, please.Megistias (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

i added the info that you asked for the article can be found here [2]85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort in on that page,jstor,Illyris, Rome and Macedon in 229-205 B.C., by N. G. L. Hammond © 1968Megistias (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

its in page 15...read the article..why are you acting dumb??85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Then link it please.Megistias (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

you need access...im done here85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest changes,

The changes made diff by the IP editor mainly, are removed cited references of an issue that has been resolved a long time ago. Re-adding Albanian assumptions of modern nationalistic composition is irrelevant. Data pertaining to the site have been removed blindly, to facilitate personal views of the aforementioned ideology. diff . Vast removals of this sort are not recommended. Megistias (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

there were NO removals only additions...the extra 1kb is due to you citing PARAGRAPHS out of your sources..so in fact its you who is doing "vast removals". also its pretty silly to accuse hammond, hatzopoulos (because THESE ARE THE SOURCES I USED) and a greek editor of 'albanian assumptions of modern nationalistic composition' whatever that means..85.73.217.158 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

and the 'data pertaining to the site' were mostly added by me in the first place and are still in the article so..85.73.217.158 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why I have the feeling that you misuse Sakellariou (there is a 3 if hypothesis of it being initially Illyrian ihabited, you seem you don't like it). By the way what's this childish map removal?Alexikoua (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

the map can stay its not that attractive but i couldnt care less about it..im not misusing hatzopoulos AT ALL thats his argumentation for the settlement being originally illyrian with a later influx of greeks (or hellenization)..just notice the content that megistias removed in his fury of mentioning 'greek settlmenet' right in the intro...85.73.217.158 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ip 87.x, I remember that I've made you the same question a year ago, why you avoid to mention this specific source [[3]] you use, is it some kind of taboo? And yes Hatzopoulos was one of them [[4]]

In general I have some (minor) objections with your version: Geographically it was on (or near) the 'borders' of Epirus with Illyria, the map can be restored since it's about the period prior to Roman conquest (it was Greek or Hellenized that time according to all posibilities). This: (perhaps situated in the territory of the Illyrian Parthini) is against wp:lead: you mention 'one' possibility in the lead why we should mention both posibilities the same way (below).Alexikoua (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

About the source citation: huh, what are you on about? That book is the source our IP friend has been using. Except that, unlike you, he knows how to cite it correctly: by the name of the individually authored chapter, not by the name of the book (a collected volume). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruption

The town is considered Illyrian, while its foundation is uncertain. Deleting all the sources and presenting a disputed view, which is included in the foundation theories, as the single authoritative view goes against too many policies.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually references disagree with the above claims. There are 2 possible theories: Dimale was founded by Pyrrhus, or by settlers from Appollonia. That Dimale was in the region of Illyria it doesn't mean that it wasn't a colony: see for example Lissus, Epidamnus, they are also non-Illyrian cities-colonies founded by non-Illyrian people in Illyrian soil.Alexikoua (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

These are Hammond's views and on the other hand we have Hatzopoulos's arguments and all the other scholars that don't share Hammond's etymology(he's the only who supported that). That being said it was/is viewed as an Illyrian town regardless of the founders.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems that Wilkes is very precise on this: "a settlement in the territory of the Parthini". Excactly what the present version describes. I will make the appropriate adjustments on lead so that both claims (Parthini and Greek colony version) are equally presented. So, it would be kind of you not to remove the one version for the usual reasons. Alexikoua (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You did read the other sources, didn't you? A settlement in the territory of the Parthini doesn't mean a non-Illyrian settlement i.e please stick to the sources and don't IDHT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys...it can't be that hard to use both Hammond's book and the other ones.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I will make it simple: A settlement on X territory can also mean that this was founded as a colony by non-X people (I can name dozens examples in Illyria). In fact that's what the sources claim. Please stick carefully on Hammond, which is mysteriously removed without the slightest explanation, but needs to be equally presented on lead.Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hammond's view is related to the foundation, isn't it? The city was Illyrian at least since the Illyrian Wars era. Btw we should discuss Hammond's views on RSN some day, because in many articles his view isn't shared by nobody else. Kushtrim123: I didn't remove Hammond's view.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hammond's view on Dimale is only Hammond's view since he doesn't even consider it part of the territory of the Parthini [5]. Btw expand Hammond's theory AMAP on the section, but please don't change the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your personal obsession to remove everything that opposes your national feelings, but unfortunately wikipedia isn't the right place for such activity. If you don't have a good explanation to remove from lead the possible Greek foundation of the city (per top-graded sourced on the subject) and presenting only the Illyrian version then I'm sorry but your are into deep wp:trolling territory something you should carefully avoid.Alexikoua (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read NPA and and also stick to the sources. There's a section that includes theories about the foundation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you reject the one theory from the lead something that you can't explain and should be restored.Alexikoua (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, the fact is that the city of Dimale is known as an Illyrian one, and that issue is not so related with its supposed origin. There is another paragraph dealing with different theories on origins. Taking examples from other articles, for eg that there is a theory Athens was founded by Pelasgians, but this is not written in the lead. Rightly, origins section is good enough for these kind of issues. Aigest (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Aigest: the fact that the city of Dimale is known as an Illyrian one? It seems that you are talking about a diferrent city. In general Dimale was a possibly Greek colony per top graded bibliography something that is without the slighest explanation removed from lead. For future reference Dimale was never explicitly mentioned as a Parthini settlement and had Greek institutions, monuments (per Hatzopoulos the same source that also mentions the possible Parthinian foundation). Since Zjarri. was eager to remove the previous long established consensus about the lead, the npov tag is justified in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua the sources, which you've been trying to delete say nothing about it being a Greek colony. You have one sources(Hammond), who has a view about the foundation, but none of the sources support your statement about it being in general a Greek colony i.e there's no reason for the POV tag othern IDONTLIKEIT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

the source i 've been trying to delete? Seems something is really wrong of what you try to prove, since the one that tries to 'clean' the lead against the bibliography and long established previous concensus is just you. Seems you are deep into wp:TROLLING territory by insisting to remove one of the two foundations views and denying that Dimale was never explicitly stated as a Parthinian settlement. On the contrary the disruptive edits in lead are contradicting the same source you claim to use (i.e. Dimale an Parthinian/Illyrian setlement).Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)You deleted 4 sources and used the summary to say I removed content. In the past you did the same thing on Athenagoras and I had to contact an administrator for you to accept that you deleted sources. Moreover you're again making statements about edits that I never did as I never added that it was a Parthinian settlement.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was already Wilkes on the same sentence, while the rest claims the same but mysteriously this can't explain the lead disruption you made against previous concensus (not to mention snippet abbusing in the case of Winnifrith) [[6]], also you claim that Dimale wasn't an Parthinian settlement?. That's exactly the same dif you gave above.Alexikoua (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

When in all of my edits related to this article did I ever use the term Parthinian settlement?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be joking you claim that it is: an ancient Illyrian city located in the territory of the Illyrian tribe of Parthini., just click on it please, unless you pretent that it was inhabited by another Illyrian tribe which is wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR because I never claimed that it was a Parthinian settlement. In fact the town was relatively unknown until it became one of the first possessions of the Ardiean Kingdom. I read the primary sources before making edits i.e they speak about the Illyrians rulers Demetrius exiled from the town, the ones he put in control, who were defeated by the Romans but none of them are labeled as Parthinians nor the town belonging to the Parthini. Btw it'd be prudent not to claim snippet abbusing in the case of Winnifrith as [7].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the subject which still needs an explanation: why a city with disputed Illyrian and non-Illyrian character (foundation, inscriptions, onomatology, monuments, institutions) is mentioned as Illyrian. One more: Demetrious the Illyrian ruler? Why I have the feeling your are again into wp:or territory, his Illyrian identity is disputed as you claimed yourself [[8]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua I wrote about the Illyrian rulers Demetrius exiled from the town i.e nothing about Demetrius being an Illyrian ruler. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Suppose you need to find something relevant to this subject: if Demetrious exiled Illyrian rulers from the town that's irrelevant with your disruptive edits in lead: selectively removing sources that contradict the claim that 'Dimale was an Illyrian town in the territory of the Parthini'. If you mean with that that it was inhabited by Illyrians, the onomastics of Dimale were mixed (Hatzopoulos).Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a quick research for Dimale and I couldn't find anyone who claims that Dimale was an Illyrian city or that it was founded as Illyrian. If there is any source please provide. So far Hammond gives it as Greek. Hatzopoulos gives it as -probably - mixed. But the following source is probably enough.“Public organization in ancient Greece: a documentary study” By professor Nicholas F. Jones (Department of Classics, University of Pittsburgh). Jones presents a long list of Greek cities and their public institutions. He has listed Dimale as a northwestern Greek city. (Public organization in ancient Greece: a documentary study” Nicholas F. Jones page 157 Chapter IV: The Northwest: Issa, Epidamnos, Dimale (or Dimallon), Apollonia, Kerkyra ). Further more all the archaeological evidence only prove the Greek character of the city. Of course every Greek colony close to Illyrian territory had also illyrian population, just like Illyria had Greek settlers and even Greek rulers. Probably those settlements like Dimale were heavily mixed but remain mainly Greek.
Is there any reference to back up this sentence :”It possibly means "two peaks", from a root *mal-, see Albanian mal "mountain" and Romanian mal "bank" but also e.g. Latvian mala "bank, shore”? I have a feeling that this is either original reserch or folk etymology.Seleukosa (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have researched better Seleukosa. I just made a quick check and in the first page of results there was this Report of the first season ‘Dimal in Illyria’ 2010 by N. Fenn, M. Heinzelmann, I. Klenner, B. Muka. I recommend to the others to read and put relevant info in the article. Archeologically speaking Dimale is classified as an Illyrian hill-top setlement citing "West of the Albanian Alps and south of the plain Myzeqe, there is a north-south running highland called Mallakastra, in which we know of several Illyrian hill-top settlements. Dimal is one of them, located on a big plateau, which provides around 9 ha of flat land to settle..." Up to 2010 the chronology of the city is summarized like this "The first inhabitants settled on the mountain in the Iron Age from the 5th century BC onwards. In a second building phase of the city (begin 4th to middle-3rd century BC), the monumental town wall was built. In the Hellenistic period, the city saw its most dynamic building period where several Stoai and probably a Nyphaeum were erected. The role and degree of influence of the Greek colony of Apollonia in this still requires thorough analyzes. During the following centuries from the 1st BC to 3rd century AD, the city was in decline and perhaps was only used as a small military base in the Roman period. In contrast to the neighboring Illyrian hill-top-settlement of Byllis, which grew to an early Diocesantown, Dimal lost its importance and was abandoned after the 3rd century AD." Archeologist are clear on defining it an Illyrian hill-top settlement. Also if you could do a little check you would see that the sentence "Illyrian town of Dimallum" is used in the literature just like at "Badlands, borderlands: a history of Northern Epirus/Southern Albania Author Tom Winnifrith Edition illustrated Publisher Duckworth, 2002 Original from the University of Michigan ISBN 0715632019, 9780715632017" link

A reference for the toponym here or here. Read the article in pdf before commenting Aigest (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked again and I still couldn't find this report. Thank you Aigest for providing it (an excellent academic text to read). However there is a problem here. This is a report for the first season of the excavation and not the final publication from the archaeologist team. There are probably more excavations to come and more reports to appear. And the one that matters is the final publication - which is the final result of the excavations- and what the archaeologist thing about their findings. And already in the report the writers are careful not to identify who founded the city: “The first inhabitants settled on the mountain in the Iron Age from the 5th century BC onwards. In a second building phase of the city (begin 4th to middle-3rd century BC), the monumental town wall was built” but also to write “The role and degree of influence of the Greek colony of Apollonia in this still requires thorough analyzes.”. Also if you read the entire report you will still see that the archaeological evidence point to a typical Greek city(, Numpaion, Agora, Stoa, and even a theater!!! which is quit remarkable for such a small settlement.) Note that the excavators clearly write :”The finds from these trenches are not finally analyzed”. I also noticed the Stamps on the tiles, all written in Greek , and of course pictures of the findings (all Greek). But we can not ignore that the writers initially report it as an Illyrian settlement. Further more in the University of Colonge site they write “Forschungskampagne in der illyrischen Bergstadt Dimal im Hinterland von Apollonia” reoughly trnaslate as “a first research campaign in the mountain town DIMAL Illyrian hinterland of Apollonia.” Which means that this was probably Illyrian but controlled, influenced or even colonized by Apollonia. But we can know only when the archaeological team publish their findings. For the time being the source can be used to name the town Illyrian.
But here we have a second problem. We already have sources that claim Dimale as Greek (Hamond and Jones) and sources that claim it Illyrian (Winnifrith and the first report of the excavation). I think that the best to do is to keep the lead neutral. Say only that this was an ancient city of Illyria. (From what I can see from the report the Parthini seems to have no connection at all!) Every other information should be kept in the history section as it already is. As it seems the publication of the archaeological evidence we clear things sooner or later.Seleukosa (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the folk etymology :”It possibly means "two peaks", from a root *mal-, see Albanian mal "mountain" and Romanian mal "bank" but also e.g. Latvian mala "bank, shore” from what I can see from the snippets you provided they can not be used as sources. This one here Victor Hehh is actually quoting from Niebuhr in 1851 (which is obviously outdated) We cant see what is Hehh opinion since the text is out of context.. The same more or less apply for the second source here which also seems that Frasheri quotes someone else. Unless we can see what the hole paragraphs say and what is the exact opinion of the authors we can not really tell. I am going to ask some help for this one.Seleukosa (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Jones it wasn't founded by Greek colonists so please don't attribute that view to him. I've added 67 sources about the city and Hammond is the only scholar who says that it was founded by Greek colonists, not located in Parthini territory and also his etymology isn't supported by anyone else. Btw it's not labeled as a folk etymology by any scholars.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See Václav Blažek below on etymology and its meaning (Di-male=two mountains). However it is very difficult to find everything online. The topic itself is not a very important one and I might add that, many works (especially from East Europe) are not known to Western authors and also they are not always available on google books. Aigest (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)P.S. AFAIK the word "mal" (mountain, hill) is an Illyrian one, usually connected with Alb. mal (mountain) and has been used also in other Illyrian place names such as Maluntum here or here or here. That is usually accepted from linguist that's why you have "two mountains" (Ill. di = Alb. dy = Eng. two and the other part is Ill. mal = Alb. mal = Eng. mountain hence two mountains reference) statement from Blazek. Hope it helps Aigest (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

zjarri: Jones book is about Public organization of Greek cities only. He has listed Dimale as a northwest Greek city. Yes I know that you can find not only 67 but 1067 snippets. But snippets are not sources. You alone know how wrong it is to base your arguments on snippets. They have lead you to many mistakes before.
Aigest : Lets wait for FuturePerfect. He can tell which source can be used. Krahe seems the most logical. but then we should add only the exact reference.Seleukosa (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Snippets are part small visible sections of sources and not all of the sources are snippets. Jones has written nothing about the foundation of Dimale, so please don't attribute that view to him.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see Wilkes is misused, he claims that "its a settlement on the territory of the Parthini" (that's the previous concensus) while the incriptions there claims are rather Greek than Illyrian.". On the other hand two sources we have that mention some foundation theories, Hatzopoulos and Hammond (the one mentions both theories the other only the foundation as a Greek settlement) are now completely removed from the lead section in order to present the settlement as purely Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No parts of Hammond's view have any wide or minor support(etymology, location etc.). He's the only one who says that it wasn't located in Parthini territory/di+mallum Greek etymology etc. Even if it's a completely minor opinion, it's still included in the section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hammond is of minor improtance in the subject? I would expect a more serious argument on the issue. In fact you are wrong, Hammond links Dimale with the Parthini and the location is exactly the same as the rest of the authors. Guess you need to find a better argument why Hatzopoulos' is removed from the lead too.Alexikoua (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see even the Greek colonization claim is confirmed by other authors [[9]]. Apart from Wilkes, Hammond, Hatzopouls, there are several specialist authors (if not all) that name the settlement either Greek or mixed [[10]][[11]], or a centre were Greeks and Illyrians live in close proximity [[12]].

Since we have a mountain of bibliography, it seems reasonable to mention the disputed character of the city in lead section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The mountain of bibliography are a 1939 snippet(i.e outdated and unreliable) and a source about colonists(which belongs to the foundations theories) and a book written from a non-specialist. At the time that old Cambridge source was written even the location was unknown. Btw please don't attribute to Cambridge views that it doesn't say i.e close proximity could refer to many facts like its proximity with Apollonia.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be easily assumed that you are into wp:trolling by considering Cac nonsense and Hammond a minor author (guess about Wilkes, Hatzopoulos & Kos there are no ideas how to contradict them). Also the author you claim to be non-specialist unfortunately 'is' a specialist [[13]] (and far more specialist in Illyrian topic than authors you cherry picked and presented in lead [[14]][[15]]). I suggest you finally revert the lead back to the neutral version, before this unexplained initiative started.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't attribute to Wilkes views he has never expressed. Hammond's views are minor as he's the only one who proposes a dubious etymology and the only one who considers the area around the settlement non-Parthini.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua is not making an unreasonable request. It is more than reasonable to mention the disputed character of the city in the lead section. Particularly when there are reliable sources to support it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

AFAIK linguists maintain that the name Dimale/Dimallum was an Illyrian placename

1. "..The absence of glosses makes the interpretation of Illyrian names a matter of speculation. The following are listed without prejudice: Di-male, Di-bolia, Tri-teuta, Tri-bulium..."An Albanian historical grammar Author Stuart Edward Mann Publisher Buske, 1977 link
2. "..Actually we know very little about the Illyrian language: we only have three or four glosses..(2) Names in which the IE vowel o is changed into a, eg : (a) Toponyms: Barbanna, Clausal(a), Dimallum (Dimale), Maluntum, Marusio, Naron, Narona, Panyasos, Scardon. (b) Anthroponyms: Bardylis, Bardeias, Teutana. (c) Ethnonyms: Narensil ..." Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages Authors Vladimir Ivanov Georgiev, Bŭlgarska akademiia na naukite Edition 3 Publisher Pub. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1981 link
3. "...the Illyrian place-name Dimallum is recorded by Livy.."Atlas linguarum Europae: (ALE), Volume 1; Volume 6 Author Mario Alinei Publisher van Gorcum, 1990 Original from the University of California ISBN 9023224485, 9789023224488 link
4. "..llyrian: *dwi- in composited place names as Di-mallum, Ai-fi&Xr) *"two mountains" or Ai-fioXia = Greek *Si-g>vXia, cf. Tri-bulium = Greek Tpi-pvXia (Krahe 1955: 101, 104, 107). *dwi-to- "2nd" > Illyrian personal name Ditus *"Secundus"... "Numerals: comparative-etymological analyses of numeral systems and their implications : Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European languages Volume 322 of Opera Universitatis Masarykianae Brumensis. Facultas philosophica Volume 322 of Spisy Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, Filozofická fakulta Author Václav Blažek Publisher Masarykova Univerzita, 1999 ISBN 8021020709, 9788021020702 link

So linguists opinion is that the name of the city is an Illyrian one. For a ref to the meaning of that name see the link above. Aigest (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks to a long discussion here, now we have a clear picture on Dimale etymology as follows:

1. 1851 Niebuhr explains Dimale with ->Alb. Di (two) and Alb. Mal (mountain) thus "two mountains" ( Vortrage iiber alte Ldnder-und Volkerkunde, p. 305, Berlin, 1851)link
2. 1902 Hehn&Schrader share the same opinion with Niebuhr -> Alb. Di (two) and Alb. Mal (mountain) thus "two mountains" Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa; historisch-linguistische Skizzen Authors Victor Hehn, Adolf Engler Editor Otto Schrader Edition 7 Publisher Gebrüder Borntraeger, 1902 link
3. 1964 Krahe supports the opinion of Hehn&Schrader "two mountains" (Die Sprache der Illyrier, Volume 1 Die Sprache der Illyrier, Hans Krahe Authors Hans Krahe, Carlo De Simone Publisher Harrassowitz, 1964 p.101) link
4. 1999 Blažek says the same "two mountains" (Numerals: comparative-etymological analyses of numeral systems and their implications : Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European languages Volume 322 of Opera Universitatis Masarykianae Brumensis. Facultas philosophica Volume 322 of Spisy Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, Filozofická fakulta Author Václav Blažek Publisher Masarykova Univerzita, 1999 ISBN 8021020709, 9788021020702) link

So different generations of linguists have given the same explanation for over 150 years, from 1851 up to nowadays. AFAIK no linguist has challenged that, so I guess we can be pretty sure on linguistic bases. Aigest (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed Hammond's etymology as it is not even discussed by modern linguists: di-male is generally accepted to be a Paleo-Balkan term related to "mountain", "hill", "river shore" etc., and linguists discuss if it is ultimately derived from one of the ancient Indo-European Balkan languages or from pre-Indo-European. The Greek term μαλλός is not reported by scholars in relation to the toponym Dimale, and it is of uncertain origin: Beekes (2009, p. 899) suggests a pre-Greek origin, citing also other linguists, who suggest a loan from Arabic māl. I see that another editor has already discussed this etymology, if others want more evidence I can add further references, but I think it is not necessary. – Βατο (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hammond is an expert on the subject and his view needs to be stated unless we have a clear position which rejects any alternative theories about the reconstructed Illyrian linguistic approach.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

He is an expert on ancient history, not ancient Balkan linguistics, there is an agreement by the linguists and new sources about this etymology. – Βατο (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Still no sources presented for removing Hammond's etymology. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg, how can a source dispute an improbable suggestion from a non-linguist? Please explain it. I reported here what Beekes, a linguist, suggests about Greek μαλλός.– Βατο (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Beekes suggests a pre-Greek etymology for many Greek words. You said you had sources that dispute Hammond's etymology. Let's see them. Also, a loanword from...Arabic? Khirurg (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Beekes reported the views of different linguists. You didn't answered my question: how can a source dispute an improbable suggestion from a non-linguist? Linguists all agree that Dimale is related to "mountain", "hill", "river shore" etc. The relation to μαλλός is a folk etymology by a non-linguist and a case of WP:FRINGE. – Βατο (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't claim FRINGE everything you don't like it. By the way I can't see a source that claims that this is 'folk etymology'. Source?Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Hammond's 1968 theory can be also considered outdated as there have been much research on the field in the last years by linguists, none of whom reports that μαλλός > Dimale. On the contrary, recent scholarly works support that Dimale belongs to the southeastern Illyrian onomastic area and that it is related to mal, "mountain", "hill", "river shore" etc. – Βατο (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right Hammond's paper was published in 1968. However, most of the alternative theories presented here are pre-1968: published at 1851, 1902, 1964 (see above) also the Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science: Amsterdam classics in linguistics, refers to studies during 1800-1925 while Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics falls clearly into wp:TERTIARY.Alexikoua (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

...and WP:TERTIARY is not about excluding tertiary sources when they are high level (i.e. not high school or undergrad) and instead advocates using them to ascertain due weight. --Calthinus (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant that wp:TERTIARY is not about excluding other SECONDARY which happen to support another view. Still FRINGE is not substantiated Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

mal: "shore, bank, edge." Thracian toponym Malua, Dacia Maluensis, translated to Dacia Ripensis, also Illyrian Malontum, Dimallum, cf., Alb. Dimale, "two mountains." The ancient Albanian form is reconstructed as *mol-no; modern Alb. mal, "mountain," Romanian mal, "bank, mountain." (Illyés, Elemér (1988, 2nd (revised) edition 1992). Ethnic continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian area, p. 220. There is a clear consensus among linguists, μαλλός > Dimale is WP:FRINGE. – Βατο (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

N.G.L. Hammond is a top notch source. You have failed to demonstrate that it is fringe. Not even close. Khirurg (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg, you have not yet answered my question: how can a source dispute and even discuss an improbable suggestion from a non-linguist? μαλλός > Dimale is a fringe theory, I'll rewrite what the guideline says: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. – Βατο (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Late to the party but is the dispute whether Hammond can be used for an etymology? If so, no, he's not an etymologist, not even a linguist. --Calthinus (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hammond in his historical papers about Epirus offers tons of etymologies of toponyms. In another work for example he states that Preveza is of Albanian etymology. Actually all historians in theirworks provide etymologies on toponyms etc..Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In isolation it's fine I suppose. But where it concerns historical sound changes, reflexes, semantic shifts etc, the word of linguists is going to bear more weight. Though perhaps he cites someone?--Calthinus (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alexi, if you are referring to Hammond's chapter in Greece Old and New, Murray, Winnifrith (eds), p. 44, it is not an etymology, he only states that Preveza means in Albanian "the crossing", in that case a tertiary, but that does not mean that it cannod be used, the problem here is that among linguists there is a current consensus about the etymology of Dimale that does not fit with what he suggests. Hammond is not an expert of etymologies and linguistics, if his statement is not backed by the suggestion of a linguist, it is likely not reliable. – Βατο (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus here is the quote from Hammond: The word ΔΙΜΑΛΛΙΤΑΝ written with the broken-bar alpha has the same form of genitive and much the same lettering as ΛΙΣΣΙΤΑΝ on coins of Lissus attributable to some time within the period 250-200 B.C. The name of the city at this time was evidently Δίμαλλος or Δίμαλλον as we find Dimallum in Livy. It is a Greek word meaning ' of double fleece ', very suitable to a place overlooking the rich sheep-pastures of the Myzeqija. And provides this footnote by not citing any linguist: The MS of Polybius give Διμαλλη, Διμαλη, Διμαλοη and Διμαλλον at 3, 18 and 7, 9, 13. See δίμαλλος in Glossaria, and Hdt. 9, 92 for the famous sheep of Apolloniatis feeding 'by the river'. It seems to be not reliable for an etymology. – Βατο (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

....especially when he can't even spell *Myzeqeja. Btw, some people may have missed the memo, but misspelling a major region of Albania with qija (its meaning is... erm let's just say unprofessional... and well-known to many people who only speak a lick of Albanian since it is featured in the most common swear; if you're curious here you go [16])... it's a pretty bad oversight. Let's just say it's pretty clear no one who ever spoke or learned Albanian could have wrote or edited that :).--Calthinus (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Albanian has nothing to do with this. This is a settlement of Hellenized Illyrians. Khirurg (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Albanian has a Paleo-Balkan predecessor, those are your personal opinions. – Βατο (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The opinion of the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, the "bible" of graduate level Indo-European studies, is that regardless of the technical relation of Albanian to the language we know as "Illyrian" (likely more of a descent-from-sibling than direct-descent affair in its view), Albanian can shed some light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words (page 1790, written by Matzinger). Hence, wherever a possible Illyrian or Messapian origin is present, Albanian is going to be relevant. When one is so unfamiliar with Albanian that you misspell one of the largest regions of Albania so that has "I was in the process of fucking" (literal translation) embedded in the name, with no credentials whatsoever in linguistics, and the basis of the argument is that the area is currently great for sheep pastures (note: Myzeqeja was a malarial swamp just decades before he wrote that, so you can see things change with time)... it's not RS for an etymology. --Calthinus (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Newest reverts

Alexikoua has added sources with links from other works, while the ones he's supposedly citing don't mention the town. He also reverted again Hammond's theory about the territory i.e WP:FRINGE. Hammond is the only author who claims that so please don't present his views as those of the authority on the subject. That being said why did he label his version as the stable one? Also by changing the wording, while maintaining the sources there's source misrepresentation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted a sockaccount's edit with a highly disruptive history log (that's stable version). Why Hammond is fringe while he is widely established in bibliography as mentioned above The precise location of Dimallum and the correct form of the name are now established by the find of stamped tiles at the fort of Krotine: see Hammond ? That Dimale was possible (and not certainly) situated on Parthinian territory is stated by Hatzopoulos.Alexikoua (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't mess things up Alexi. Hammond reports in English what Albanian archeologists had discovered in Krotinë, (old stamps with name Dimalitan in an ex fortress in Krotinë, which pinpointed the location of the city as Krotinë, Berat, Albania). That Cambridge reference is not related with the origin of the city, but with its correct name (Dimalitan) and correct location (Krotinë, Berat) as reported by Hammond based on Albanian archaeologists work. You are misusing the source Alex, by implying that Cambridge supports the opinion of Hammond on the origin of the city. Aigest (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Zjarri. was claiming that Hammond is of minor importance because he is wrong about the location (something really weird), and I proved that he is widely recognized on that. Aegist: Someone can easily assume that you are deep into wp:trolling since you are completely out of topic (Zjarri's claimed above is that Hammond is fringe not that the town is purely Illyrian, something also wrong).Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing different things together Alexi. Hammond declares, that the town was founded by Greeks, its name derived from Greek and it was not situated in Parthini territory. According to Zjarri, these Hammond claims were fringe because none supports them (AFAIK I am sure about the wrong etymology that Hammond gives, see above etymology section). You claimed that Hammond view is supported by Cambridge while we see that Cambridge reference is clear "The precise location of Dimallum and the correct form of the name are now established by the find of stamped tiles at the fort of Krotine"(see also above). As such I reminded you that it should be used only on the location of Dimale, being in Krotinë, Berat, but not supporting any other view (Hammond or not) regarding city origin, Parthinian case and etymology. Aigest (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've presented a mountain of evidence that supports Hammonds views (Greek colonization, mixed character, no wonder since Hammond is an expert on the field) while I'm still waiting Zjarri's explanation.

The city's mixed character is widely established in bibliography. So, in case a long established concensus is again disrupted we need to provide the necessary explanations in talkpage (I expect more serious explanations than accussing Hammond of being of minor importance or patialy misusing Hatzopoulos).Alexikoua (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure at which timeframe you are pointing to. We can say more or less surely that from linguists point of view Hammond is using a folk etymology. According to linguists the name of the city is Illyrian (Alb "Dimale" Eng "two mountains") and that is linked also with it's possible founders. Also according to archaeologists apparently the city originated in 5th century BC, while Hammond makes a claim for 3rd century BC. Also from archaeologists the city is classified as Illyrian top-hill settlement. So at least on Dimale origin and etymology Hammond is wrong. Alex, did you read the pdf publication of archaeological expedition made in Dimale in 2010. I've posted a link above. Aigest (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check the previous discussion, the etymology of the name is irrelevant on whether the settlement was Illyrian (per recent disruptive editting) or of mixed character. To sum up, Hatzopoulos, Hammond, Wilkes, Kos, Pająkowski, dissagree with the pure Illyrian character of Dimale (not to mention Greek architecture, inscriptions, offices and the mixed onomastics). @Aegist: can you explain more specifically where you disagree?Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

None is claiming pure that or those. That pure thing attitude smells like nazi concept. What I am trying to explain here is the concept of time frame. I'll make a quick summary: if we speak for the city of the 5th and 4th century BC was an Illyrian one situated in top of the hill, later we see the influence of Greek architecture and after that the influence of Romans. Politically speaking the city became famous while under the authority of Illyrian kingdom and considered by Illyrians as one the most formidable fortresses inside Illyria. After a while the city passed under Romans and remained under them for 400 years as a small military base until his abandonment in 3rd century AD. So in different time frames it had different pictures. Archaeologically speaking with different time frames we can say Illyrian, Greek-Illyrian, Greek-Illyrian-Roman, Roman. That was my concern and that is why I recommend to use the article of 2010 on the city as the base for the article itself. Aigest (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the lead we can take into account all the available bibliography. Dimalle a settlement in Illyria... is something everyone agrees, also the fact that Dimale was on the territory of the Parthini is very likely, although not certain.Alexikoua (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent research

In recent sources, historians and archaeologists consider the 4th century BC proto-urban settlement to have been of an indigenous character, and to have developed into an urban settlement in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, when it reached its floruit under the influence of nearby Apollonia. Here is a recent publication that reports the current views among scholars: Lasagni, Chiara (2019). Le realtà locali nel mondo greco: Ricerche su poleis ed ethne della Grecia occidentale. p. 65:

"l’insediamento illirico venne fortificato nel IV sec. a.C.; nel periodo III-II sec. a.C. la città conobbe il suo floruit, accompagnato da un’intensa attività urbanistica: a questa fase risale, tra le altre cose, l’edificazione di una nuova cinta muraria e del teatro; lavorazioni e materiali sembrano testimoniare un intenso scambio con la vicina Apollonia."

È da considerarsi del tutto superata l’ipotesi, avanzata da Hammond 1968, 14-15, che Dimalla fosse una polis di origine greca, fondata sotto Pirro con un contingente di coloni da Apollonia; cf. infatti Hatzopoulos 1997, 145, che indica piuttosto questa città come centro dell’ethnos illirico dei Parthini, senza alcuna origine greca, ma tardivamente ellenizzato grazie all’influenza di Apollonia e del koinon degli Epiroti.

Archaeologists have also discovered Illyrian koina that were unattested in ancient sources, the Dimallitai and Balaieitai located near the hinterland of Apollonia. The article should be rewritten and expanded with recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not going to rewrite the article based on a single source, especially an obscure non-English language source. Khirurg (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not an obscure non English source, it is a peer reviewed publication that analyzes the recent studies on the subject. And no, Khirurg can't stop fellow Wikipedians from editing. – Βατο (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if it was initially a Parthini settlement (there is no consensus on this) the lead should reflect the history of the settlement in a neutral way.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

one of the main Illyrian settlements near or within the territory of the tribe of the Parthini takes in account the attested informations from ancient sources and is fully supported by recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

simply an Illyrian settlement in Illyria?

Hatzopoulos states Dimale "might" be a Parthini settlement at the beginning (it would be POV to simply interpret this as 'Illyrian'), Wilkes&Winnifrith say nothing about an "Illyrian" Byllis. Hammond the same. @Bato is kindly advised to avoid NINJA in the introduction.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the site is attested in ancient sources as one of the main Illyrian strongholds, always in relation to the Parthini. That info should be restored, especially because all the sources support it. Βατο (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's modern scholarship that doesn't agree with it. You need to present real arguments (Hatzopoulos, Hammond, Winnifirth, Wilkes dissagree with your claim). Simply wp:OWN isn't productive.Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, modern scholarship agrees with it, only Hammond postulated a theory now rejected by scholars. Here are some recent reliable sources: Muka & Heinzelmann 2014, p. 223; Lasagni 2019, p. 64; Bengtson 2009, p. 399; Kaffka 2007, p. 10; Gruen 1986, p. 381; Winnifrith 2002, p. 33; Hatzopoulos 1997, pp. 145 You can check them. It is the current consensus among historians and archaeologists, you cannot remove it from the article, especially if it is an attested information in ancient sources. – Βατο (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the nth time your are displaying disruptive wp:OWN by selecting a tiny number from the available scholarship. It's also weird you added this source [[17]] in this article, while in Lezhe you removed it without discussion as ... vogue [[18]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are kidding me: you are simply refuting your own argument by presenting Hatzopoulos: Of course we can add that the Dimale hadn't possibly a Greek character from the beginning [[19]] (Hatzopoulos). You can check him.Alexikoua (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you check the rest of the reference you provided, for example Bangston refers to the Illyrian military positions during the Illyrian-Roman war not the character of the settlement & Gruen says nothing about an Illyrian settlement there.Alexikoua (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN is displayed by a user who edits this page since 2009, not by me. I did not remove that source in Lezhe without discussion, I removed that content because it was too vague inserted in that context, moreover that same information was already inserted below in order to respect the various periods of the site. What are we discussing here? That a settlement inland of Illyria, inhabited by Illyrians, was not Illyrian? Even if all the ancient sources and recent publications support it? That info should be restored. – Βατο (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me remind you one of the sources you presented reads: "Dimale had not a Greek character from the beginning". No wonder you object this addition in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The information about the Hellenistic period is already in the lead. Also the Roman period will be added. Anyway, it should be written according to the current consensus among historians and archaeologists. – Βατο (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I still can't see a "settlement of Greek character", based on the source you presented. You agree about this addition?Alexikoua (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we can add it in the part related to the historical phase concerning it: The town experienced its climax in the Hellenistic period between the 3rd and 2nd centuuries B.C., during a phase marked by intense urban planning, including the construction of a new city wall and the building of a theater very much organised on a Greek model. But the part: one of the main Illyrian settlements near or within the territory of the tribe of the Parthini should be restored, so that the lead will respect the current consensus among scholars. – Βατο (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

For future reference the consensus among scholars is very different from the one you try to claim. I also wonder why you insist to ignore the reference you provide yourself: a city of Greek character downgrading it to: Hellenistic era and a Greek model city (the Greek character also includes onomastics, religion, administration etc.). Well that's OR. Stop misrepresenting the sources you provide in order to present the city as Illyrian in Illyria pretending to be a consensus.Alexikoua (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)  

No wonder Papadopoulos was also falsified and Dimale interpreted as a supposed "Illyrian proto-urban settlement". I assume someone needs to fix all these inaccuracies during the recent edits (I assume you don't object the addition of Papadopoulos about Lezhe).Alexikoua (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hatzopoulos might be more enlightening Although, the city is frequently linked with the Parthini in various ancient sources, it was never explicitly stated to be a city of that tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed: one of the main Illyrian settlements near or within the territory of the tribe of the Parthini is an information that agrees with that, is attested in ancient sources, and is fully supported by all recent bibliography, whether you like it or not. – Βατο (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You WP:JDL it and unconstructively remove sourced content as it suits you. The Iron Age settlement was inhabited by Illyrians, in fact the site was located in the Illyrian hinterland where there were not Greek colonies. All the sources stress that. Papadopoulos says clearly "Illyrian 'proto-urban' sites", here is his full analyzis of the developements of the Illyrian proto-urban sites, (Papadopoulos 2016), page 440: "Then there was the establishment of a new type of site in the Illyrian hinterland, away from the coastal areas usually inhabited by Greeks, especially during the developed Iron Age, which have come to be known as ‘proto-urban’ centres (...). These proto-urban centres are different to komai in many important respects, not least that they are fortified. It is not yet fully understood whether sites such as Margëlliç, Gurëzezë, Mashkjezë, Byllis, Klos/Nikaiaand Dimal (Kalaja e Krotinës) represent true towns, hilltop refuges, or regional tradingand meeting places (...) [...] Also unclear are the processes by which these Illyrian ‘proto-urban’ sites developed, as well as the relationship of these centres to one another and to the coastal colonies. A particularly vexed problem with all of these sites is the issue of their chronology, and conclusive evidence for the initial stages of their period of use is usually lacking. At Mashkjezë, the earliest cultural layers are dated to the Archaic period on the basis of imported Greek pottery, and a similar date is suggested for Margëlliç, though thelatter has furnished some evidence, albeit limited, of use in the Mycenaean period. The exact chronology of Gurëzezë is far from clear, while at Klos-Nikaia there is little that clearly predates the 5th century BC (...)."

page 441: "Looking at the rise of population centres throughout southern Illyria, thedevelopment from occupied hilltops to proto-urban sites has been mapped out by several scholars (...). The earliest of three phases is usually dated to the Late Bronze Age and is often named after the type-site of Badher. The second, pre-urban, phase is characterised by the sites at Gajtanand Trajan, while the third, full-fedged proto-urban phase sees numerous fortified hilltop sites all over southern Illyria, generally dated to the 7th-5th centuries BC. It is debatable, however, whether the pre-urban sites such as Gajtan were in any way ‘urban’ during their earlier phases; evidence for occupation within the walls is scant,and the sites are better characterised as hill-forts rather than towns. Whatever the historical trajectory of proto-urban centres, the important points to bear in mind are, first of all, the continuance of the colonial foundations in the later Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods, and that, secondly, by the 4th or 3rd century much of southern Illyria lived ostensibly in Greek-looking cities."

And here Lasagni (2019) page 65: "l’insediamento illirico venne fortificato nel IV sec. a.C.; nel periodo III-II sec. a.C. la città conobbe il suo floruit, accompagnato da un’intensa attività urbanistica: a questa fase risale, tra le altre cose, l’edificazione di una nuova cinta muraria e del teatro; lavorazioni e materiali sembrano testimoniare un intenso scambio con la vicina Apollonia."

You can't keep ignoring recent publications on the subject by removing sourced material and pushing an unsourced POV. – Βατο (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no way to insert such a sever POV version, while the vast majority of the sources point to a settlement in Illyria with Greek identity (though not from beginning). Please respect the sources you provided and do not falsify again consensus. Either take it to RSN or further disruption will be reported.Alexikoua (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

All the sources state it was Illyrian, then hellenized Illyrian and then Illyrian under Rome, your disruptive WP:STONEWALL and WP:OWN in Wikipedia articles should end. – Βατο (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Dautaj is the archaeologist who identified the site of Dimale, he is cited by all the historians who talk about Dimale, and his 2009 publication is reliable. Michael Heinzelmann is the responsible for the archeological project of Dimal. He is the supervisor of the project with Muka. The project is in collaboration with the Institute of Building History and Heritage Management and Institute of Building Processes and Building Informatics at the University of Applied Sciences of Cologne, the Archaeological Institute of Tirana, the Department of Anthropology of the University of Winnipeg, Servizio di Antropologia della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Lazio. And you, an anonymous Wikipedia editor, criticize their publications because they are "obscure" and are not in English? Can you report here the WP policy or guideline that makes sources in other languages unreliable, please? – Βατο (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A clear wp:CHERRY, wp:OWN, wp:POV wp:ILIKEIT concert. Even the very lead "a town in Illyria inhabited by Illyrians" makes it the epitomy of disruption. So far there is not a single RS provided but only fragmentary quotes that provided nothing. I'm afraid that I'm certain that Bato will never fill an RSN about the issue he raised. Alexikoua (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The removal of sourced content without providing appropriate reasons is a disruptive pattern in Wikipedia. – Βατο (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your additions are a product of wp:CHERRY, wp:OWN, wp:POV wp:ILIKEIT. No wonder not the slightest argument provided so far I've kindly advised you to do so. Widescale NPA violations is not a solution.Alexikoua (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why according to your rationale this part "Dimale never explicitly stated to be a city of the Parthini" is interpreted as "Dimale near or within the territory of the tribe of the Parthini". I suggest you fill a case in a relevant noticeboard in order to receive advise on how to present a source correctly in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Those additions are well sourced material from specialized publications on Dimale, you WP:JDL and unconstructively removed them without providing appropriate reasons. In this large scale removal of sourced content the part concerning the Parthini was not present, so it is not an argument for that removal. The part "Dimale near or within the territory of the tribe of the Parthini" is sourced with Šašel Kos, Appian and Illyricum (2005) p. 406, a statement that takes in account in a very balanced way all the conclusions of modern scholars and the fact that Dimale appears always in ancient sources along with the Parthini. – Βατο (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you insist that one of the sources you presented (Hatzopoulos) is useless. For future reference Hatzopoulos states that it was never explicitly stated as a settlement of the Parthini. You still need to answer why you delete Papadopoulos in Lezhe (another source you (mis)represented here) and why the 'Greek character of the city' should vanish from lead or degraded to 'Greek city planning'. You understand that disruptive editing isn't a sound approach here, right?Alexikoua (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)  

Who insists that Hatzopoulos is useless? His analyzis is in the article, no one removed it. And the Parthini part you removed from the lead is not the main problem here, it is this unconstructive large scale removal of sourced content without giving appropriate reasons. – Βατο (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Who insists that Hatzopoulos is useless?" Ok, then I assume you finally agreed to add in the lead that 1. the city acquired a "Greek character", 2. all offices were the "typical ones of a Greek city" 3. the onomastics were mixed (nw Greek, colonial Greek and non-Greek) & 4. it was never explicitly mentioned as a Parthini settlement. That's what Hatzopoulos states in p. 144-145.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Dimale near or within the territory of the tribe of the Parthini and never explicitly stated as a settlement of the Parthini are not mutually exclusive. Thus, they can both be included. There's also a problem with WP:OUTDATED material. Many publications don't accept submissions that have been published more than 8 or even 5 years earlier than contemporary research. But in wikipedia, some editors insist on the use of sources from the 1990s and even the 80s in the context of the interpretation of archaeological material, although there is an archaeological project about Dimal by the University of Köln, which has listed all current bibliography that would be required if anyone chose to write a paper about it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Cavali Sforza based work already rejected in RSN=

As I see the Rubini-Zaio paper is solely based on research (Cavalli-Sforza) which is already rejected in past RSN (Unfortunately Cavalli Sforza is way out of date. If Wikipedia has to use only out of date materials we come into conflict with NPOV because we distort our reporting of reality. etc.) [[20]]. I new RSN might overturn the initial conclusion, but I hardly doubt if any mention to an "Illyrian-Albanian population during the first millennium BCE" can be a strong argument for inclusion in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of widely established map

Though the map about the pre Roman situattion was well established by multiple Balkan (Albanian included) editors it appears that recently a tendency needs to get rid of it without precise arguments. Needless to say that a centralised discussion is needed for this matter since the topic concerns a wide scope of articles. In the case a Dimale its painted half Greek half Illyrian. Nothing wrong on this too.Alexikoua (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I am listing here some of it's innumerable inaccuracies:

• It is totally anachronistic
• Illyria Graeca was the name of Epirus Nova, completely anachronistic for the content that it depicts
• The region of Chaonia was not north of the Aoos, but on the coastal area of Epirus
• The locations of cities like Damastion, Pelion, Kodrion have not yet been foud, also Antipatreia's location is dubious
• The location of Amantia is wrong
• A large number of Hellenistic Illyrian towns are depicted as Greek, like Lissos, Dimale and Byllis.
• If Nikaia is to be placed in Klos, then it must be depicted as Illyrian, as the archeological finds on this site suggest
• The attested Illyrian Dassaretan cities (not of the Dexari, which are attested only in Stephanus of Byzantium under Mount Amyron) are depicted as Greek
• Epidamnus was surrounded by Illyrians as attested by ancient authors and archaeology. Thus Epidamnia (the name of the vicinity of Epidamnus) was inhabited by Illyrians, and it was not so large as depicted in the map
• Lychnidos was Enhcelean, Illyrian and Macedonian
• Bassania was Illyrian then Roman

It is better not to have a map at all than to have one with so many inaccuracies. – Βατο (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but as I as see Dimale is painted half Illyrian half Greek. Am I wrong on that?Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to provide precise citation and quote of your positions. For example simply saying that Dimale is seen as fully Greek in this map is an obvious error.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Locations about a couple sites need to be slightly moved indeed. Nothing serious on this but I'll fix it based on Wilkes&Hammonds maps.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a ludicrous map that wouldn't be accepted even in a first semester course. It's anachronistic because most of these settlements and people never lived in the same era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've notified an admin. Going through 4 reverts in order to force add information without consensus and repeating the same cycle of edit-warring across several articles requires admin oversight. @Drmies:--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua there are also maps of Stipčević, Papazoglu, and more recently, Šašel Kos, but the map you added here is completely inaccurate and anachronistic. – Βατο (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've said this map was here for years (and initially not added by me) is also found in dozens of similar articles. Sasel Kos? Sure I have it too.Alexikoua (talk)

I can't comment on content, or not much, but I did just revert Khirurg because invoking JDL is no argument at all, especially when there is a discussion here (to which they have not contributed) with arguments. Khirurg, that's not to say I think the map shouldn't be in there, but you can't use that argument, certainly not without commenting here. What I can say about the map is that it is ugly and completely unclear, and that if indeed it shows places and names as they appeared over time, it's a lousy map. But that is something for editors to decide. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see any reason to accept this map as "widely established". I do see that it's been in there since about 2010, so it certainly has that going for it. But there's some talk about "stable versions" in the history, and this article hasn't really been that stable. I think it would be better (really it's the only way) to discuss the pros and cons of the map--or continue to do that. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• • I am familiar with the content, and the list of demands by Bato is largely trivial. These are complaints for the sake of complaining. That's why I assumed it was JDL. And I also have an impression, based on years of experience, that even if these demands are met, more demands will be made. But I could be wrong. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: An example: the Bryges lived in the Balkans ~1000 BCE, after which they settled in Asia Minor. The reader of the map learns that they were neighbours of the Taulanti, a tribe which appeared 500 years later! Cartography is very delicate affair, which requires a lot of hard work and the wealth which allows you to enroll in the necessary grad courses. Springer's Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, which has some great supplementary maps, requires an investment of $9,500. Now, for a number of (largely classist) reasons we can't get to that level of precision, but we can do much better than the current status where hundreds of maps lurk around wikicommons and many of them spread various petty talking points with no respect for the reader who can't afford the $10K to pay for great maps. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I'll note that Brill makes them for a lot cheaper, but they're done by relatively cheap laborers in Asia. OK, I think you need to just list a few of these inconsistencies, briefly, and make that into a comprehensive argument (I think you've done that already), and if the map is so widely used as is claimed, find a good central place for it--and maybe invite a few mapmakers. I can't remember what that place is where you can request maps (someone made this for me, File:Böda socken.svg). Perhaps User:Goran tek-en knows of a person who might could adjudicate? (Goran, thanks again for all your help with those maps!) Drmies (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Drmies I can't find any link to the map you all are talking about so I can't say anything yet. The place to requests for maps is commons map workshop or at the one here at wikipedia. You can also contact me on my talk page at commons to discuss if I can help you, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Goran tek-en, it's this, File:Map of ancient Epirus and environs (English).svg . My question to you wasn't necessarily about the map itself, but more about whether there's a kind of quality control, or a process in case of disputes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it better to start a discussion on wikipedia or on wikicommons?--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

DrmiesMaleschreiber No is the short answer. We, graphic workers, can do graphic work but we have very often zero knowledge about the subject which we work with. The requester is the one we have to rely on giving us correct information. We can only use our sense if we can understand that there is a dispute going on or things like that. Sometimes when I run in to something like that I ask the group or person to find some kind of consensus and then get back. But it's impossible for us to check. This is probably your favorit topic but probably I have never heard of it before.

Don't bring the discussion to the graphic lab, settle this before making a request. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"One word" reference (removal of S. Kos)

[[21]] I'm afraid this equals wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps the editor needs to explain why this specific one word is not good enough for addition.Alexikoua (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

S. Kos is stubbornly removed on the other hand Stipcevic (a 70s work) is preserved in lead. Needles to say that's the very definition of POV.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't search the word "Greek" in 50 years old sources to add your WP:POV into articles, please. Much reseaech on the specific subject has been carried out in the last years, mainly with the archaeological project of Muka and Heinzelmann, hence you should provide new information that is sourced with new publications, instead of outdated sources that mentions the city only once. The content supported by Stipcevic is about the Illyrian dynast Demetrius, who used Dimale as the most important stronghold in southern Illyria. – Βατο (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, labeling Dimale as a "Greek town" is WP:FRINGE, because of all the evidence that emerged in academic research. – Βατο (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying that the statement by S.Kos is WP:FRINGE about the list of town included in the Roman protectorate is very interesting. I assume the same FRINGE applies about similar statements by the same author when she uses the term 'Illyrian' right? (Atintanes etc.) Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No, as an experienced editor you must have understood how sources should be used and that some scholars' statements can be incorrect, especially in the case of outdated sources that contrast with recent mainstream views. – Βατο (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious that experienced users understand that when a source labels a tribe or settlement with an ethnonym X this should be treated in the same way: either X is Greek or Illyrian. That's especially important when we deal with the very same author (S.Kos).Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• There apparently are two views on this settlement: some see it as Illyrian, others as Greek. What you Alexikoua tried to do is adding only one of them to the lede. The problem is simple. The rest is the usual frivolous forum-like discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well actually the Illyrian view is already presented in lead, what's absent is the Greek one while you Ktrimi try to present Dimale as exclusively Illyrian. I agree that those blind removals are unacceptable and nonconstructive.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

In current bibliography the specific settlement is not considered a Greek town, see Muka, Heinzelmann, Lasagni and Papadopoulos for that. You should provide information from more recent sources, avoiding to search outdated publications that mention only once Dimale without further analysis on the character of the town. – Βατο (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that those blind removals are unacceptable and nonconstructive. Not sure what you are trying to say, but I want to give you a kind suggestion. If you use GoogleTranslate to translate other editors' comments, then try another translation website. See what Muka, Hatzopoulos and Jaupaj say: that Greek character came from Greek influence. Only one source says it was a Greek settlement. So it can be added to the lede that the settlement had Greek influence, or a similar solution. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ktrimi, I added that information into the lede as per recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexikoua, you tried to add to the lede only one view, without any proper wording taking into account what other sources say. Other sources that say it was an Illyrian settlement: page 150, page 111, and UNESCO too on page 9. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I was not the one that removed those sources if you mean this. Some sources claim Illyrian others Greeks. Removing the one side of the coin is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

One source against several. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It is actually one outdated source that contrasts with the mainstream view of several recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, but S. Kos was an active historian since 2000 on the subject. On the other hand Stipcevic is a source from the... 70s, which you are very eager to present in lede.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To me the problem is not the year of the source but that it is one against several. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to add Hatzopoulos and Hammond next to S.Kos, so we are fine with this. @Ktrimi: your comment is in straight contradiction with this edit of yours [[22]], there you are eager to restore the same author.Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There Sasel Kos is opposed by one source, here by several. If you want to make changes to the article, post them here and gain consensus before. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, Hatzopoulos is already included into the article, while Hammond's hypothesis is considered "completely outdated" in current scholarship, it is WP:UNDUE for the lede. – Βατο (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hammond's hypothesis is considered "completely outdated" in current scholarship. It's very weird you keep adding in lede even older sources (from the 70s) while on the other hand removing Hammond who is among the top 5 on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tell us who are the scholars who support Hammond's view? If you have nothing new to say, then do not take the lack of further responses as some kind of consensus to add sth new to the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also assume that S.Kos is partially completely outdated based on this weird OR approach. I've placed cn for Hammond, feel free to check.Alexikoua (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The citation needed is this Lasagni 2019, p. 65: "È da considerarsi del tutto superata l'ipotesi, avanzata da Hammond 1968, 14-15, che Dimalla fosse una polis di origine greca, fondata sotto Pirro con un contingente di coloni da Apollonia", you are welcome. – Βατο (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If wikipedia had proper editorial oversight every source which hasn't been published - as part of the archaeological project of Dimal - or isn't listed in its suggested bibliography would be removed as WP:OUTDATED. Until that happens, we have to remove at least older theories that have been explicitly rejected and abandoned (Hammond).--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite weird I assume you mean Stipcevic which is older indeed. I still wonder why S. Kos is also outdated according to this .... OR concert.Alexikoua (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You should understand that a theory becomes outdated when it is not cited in current scholarship, or if the mainstream view contrasts it. – Βατο (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Sasel Kos (2005)[23]: Demetrius fortified the naturally well defended town of Dimale and secured for himself the local governments in other Illyrian cities , while he quartered 6000 of the bravest soldiers at Pharos. and When the Roman army attacked and defeated Demetrius , the Illyrians offered little resistance , even Demetrius ' stronghold Dimale ( presentday Krotina ) , " " near , or perhaps within , the territory of the Parthini , fell in seven days. Now, can we cite bibliography only if it actually discusses something and not if it mentions it via some one word reference? (Side comment: There's no reason to recreate disputes) Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg: If we cite every passing mention in ways which imply that a source discusses the subject two things will happen: a)The article will be filled with a 2-to-1 ratio of sources which supposedly "discuss" Dimale as Illyrian as opposed to Greek b)the article will become an unreadable mess like Atintanians - which could have been resolved quickly in a neutral manner if one editor didn't try to write the article based on this particularly bad methodology. We don't have to get absorbed in time consuming, miniscule disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually that's an argument to remove a similar statmement by S. Kos in Atintanians.Alexikoua (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Hatzopoulos (1997) as outdated

The specific paper and especially scholar is highly respected in the international academic community. There is no way to have it simply removed. At least an RSN should decide about it. Alexikoua (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Conjectures about Parthini do not belong to this article. Also, there is absolutely no evidence of Hellenization of Parthini. The relevant content about ancient Greek influence on the city remains unchanged. – Βατο (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The city was clearly Hellenized, and the article should state so unambiguously, not buried in the end of the article. Khirurg (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In the Hellenistic period (between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC) the town experienced its climax, during a phase marked by intense urban planning, including the construction of a new city wall and the building of several stoas, a temple, and a theater, showing a significant influence of the Ancient Greek culture on the local Illyrian inhabitants. in the lead section is a balanced wording. – Βατο (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Bato you actually removed Hatzopoulos' conclusion entirely for an unexplained reason and the information is related to this settlement. Also you removed essential information about the language, onomastics, hellenization. Those are conclusions by a serious scholars in a published work [[24]]. Please avoid this kind of disruption. Take it to RSN if you believe that this work is outdated or speculative.

removed text:

Although the city is frequently linked with the Parthini in various ancient sources, it was never explicitly stated to be a city of that tribe & The non-Greek name of the city, the lack of any Greek founding legends associated with it and the mixed (colonial Greek, Greek from Epirus, non-Greek) onomastics of its inhabitants, suggest that Dimale had not a Greek character from the beginning, being originally a settlement of the Illyrian Parthini, which was Hellenized under the influence of the Epirote state and Apollonia.

How can this information be unrelated to this settlement? Please take a deep breath and reconsider. I propose the addition of the above text without attribution since those conclusions are not contradicted in scholarship. It's really weird that you removed everything about the city's Hellenization and onomastics. Alexikoua (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Bato: It's also weird that you used extensively this work in various other articles: the Dassaretii among them. Someone can suggest that you use certain sources selectively (only in case they mention that the subject of the article is Illyrian as in the case of this work).Alexikoua (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I added content that is relevant to this article. Nontheless, this part from Hatzopoulos (1997): "The very late appearance of Greek elements combined with the fact that the city does not have a Greek name and there is no tradition ascribing its foundation to Greeks, gives the impression that Dimale did not have a Greek charakter from the beginning, but was rather a center or the Parthinoi that was hellenized under the influence of Apollonia on the one had and the kingdom of Epirus on the other." is obsolete, in recent scholarship there is no doubt that the settlement was founded by Illyrians and later experienced the influence of ancient Greek culture. While the article already includes due weight content about Parthini: "[Dimale] was situated in the vicinity or within the territory of the Parthini". As for the provenance of the Greek influences, the section Dimale#Findings and organization provides detailed information. – Βατο (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You certainly understand that there is something wrong in your explanation: Hatzopoulos states that Dimale was rather a center or the Parthinoi that was hellenized under the influence of Apollonia on the one had and the kingdom of Epirus on the other.: Even if founded by Illyrians it was later hellenized. Anyway I guess you also need to read Lasagni:Per ciò che concerne la sezione dedicata alle Poleis, mi riferisco in particolare al caso delle comunità ellenizzate dei Dimallitai e dei Balaieitai, la cui analisi costituisce una sorta di appendice rispetto all’esame delle realtà locali nelle città corinzie, e in particolare di Apollonia, come peculiare esito di nuovi equilibri regionali prodottisi nel tardo III sec. a.C. I assume you can translate [[25]] comunità ellenizzate. To sum up: Hatzopoulos conclusion isn't obsolete. Alexikoua (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Lasagni 2019 provides the following text, which is good to be (back) in the article: È da considerarsi del tutto superata l’ipotesi, avanzata da Hammond 1968, 14-15, che Dimalla fosse una polis di origine greca, fondata sotto Pirro con un contingente di coloni da Apollonia; cf. infatti Hatzopoulos 1997, 145, che indica piuttosto questa città come centro dell’ethnos illirico dei Parthini, senza alcuna origine greca, ma tardivamente ellenizzato grazie all’influenza di Apollonia e del koinon degli Epiroti.

@Βατο: Are you fine with that?Alexikoua (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I added that. – Βατο (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)