The content from Hatzopoulos is not directly related to the topic of this article, Hatzopoulos supports other theories:
- Wilkes 1995, p. 217: "Unable to accept Hammond's duality, Hatzopoulos presumes an error on the part of Polyaenus (based on Hieronymus of Cardia) who would have been ignorant of local geography. Along with the Chaones, the Atintanes will have been the most northerly of the Epirote communities. Beyond these but yet south and west of the real Illyrian Dassaretae, Parthini and Taulantii was a mixed zone, generally reckoned as a part of Illyria but culturally an extension of Greek-speaking Epirus."
- Cabanes, Pierre 1988. Les Illyriens de Bardulis à Genthios (IVe–IIe siècles avant J.-C.), p. 90: "M. Hatzopoulos...propose avec raison semble-t-il, de voir dans Bardylis un roi, non pas des Dardaniens comme le voulait Hammond, mais plutôt des Dassarètes, ce qui met son domaine au contact direct avec la Lyncestide et l’Orestide, et, lorsque ces régions sont plus étroitement unies au royaume argéade, avec la Macédoine elle-même (11). [Mr. Hatzopoulos ... seems to be rightly proposing to see in Bardylis a king, not of the Dardanians as Hammond wanted, but rather of the Dassaretes, which puts his domain in direct contact with Lyncestide and the Orestide...]".
- Jaupaj 2019, p. 80: "...évolution politique et ethnique de la Dassarétie qui apparaît comme une région riche et vaste, fondatrice de la dynastie de Bardylis, roi du premier royaume illyrien au IVème siècle. M. B. Hatzopoulos soutient la thèse que ce royaume est situé en Dassarétie et plus précisément dans la région des lacs, ..." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJaupaj2019 (help)
We are not going to include all the information from sources that mention Dassaret- into an article about a Chaonian tribe that was attested as Dexari. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- You know that this part Unable to accept Hammond's duality, refers to the Atintanes not the Dassaretai. I cite Hatzopoulos directly and he agrees that the specific Dassaretis included the area around Korce: Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on this. I'm quoting Hatzopoulos Macedonian Institutions under the Kings and his inline citation (Hammond):
(p.95) The existence of a Kellion near Korytsa in Dassaretis, a region probably colonised under the reign of Philip II, is an indication that the name of the homonymous Eordaian community, the origin of which goes back to the Early Iron Age, had remained unchanged at least since the Late Classical period>Hammond, "Frontier" 213-14.
.
Hammond1 equates Beue, on the border between Lynkos and Dassaretis, with Euia, which is mentioned by Ptolemy, along with Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassare-tans.2 > Hammond, Macedonia I 64
Alexikoua (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- No wonder you have already used both Cabanes (1988) and Jaupaj (2019) for the Dassareti tribe. May I ask why you believe that those authors refer to two different tribes at the same time?Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can't make such original researches. In scholarship authors can cite other scholars for some information, but that does not imply they accept all their proposed hypotheses. Does Hatzopoulos mention Chaones in relation to Dassaret- in that source? If not, it can't stay in this article. – Βατο (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- It seems you have not yet understood the subject: the relashionship between Dexari and Dassaretae is not generally accepted in scholarship. There are two tribes, the Chaonian one, undisputably called Dexari (because attested as such), and the Illyrian one undisputably called Dassaret- (because attested as such). All the other information is modern speculation. – Βατο (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you created a second Dassaret- article? You obviously agreed for the existence of two Dassaret- tribes that way or not?Alexikoua (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Dassaret- article is about the Illyrian tribe, this one is about the Chaonian tribe (undisputably called Dexari). Whether or not the two tribes were the same, is still a topic of discussion among scholars. – Βατο (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- This article is called Dassaret- since 2008. You just declared that you intentionally created a POV fork (another Dassaret- article). That's definitely not a productive initiative to build an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hatzopoulos cites Hammond about the Dassaratea and I've cited directly Hatzopoulos on this. There is not objection that they both refer to the same region and tribe. Even if Bardylis was located in this area this reject nothing. Indeed the article already states that for a period Dassaretis was under Dardanian rule. I can't see why you insist for Hatzopoulos' removal.Alexikoua (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, we are not going to include here sources that are not directly related to the Chaonian tribe. As already stated, but you ignored, an author can cite another scholars for some information, although not accepting all the hypotheses proposed by that scholar. Does Hatzopoulos discuss Dassaretans (the tribal name used in that source) as related to the Chaonian tribe (citing or not Hammond)? About the article's title, there are sources like Winnifrith and Kunstmann & Thiergen that describe the Dexari and Dassaretae as two distinct tribes in completely distinct space and time contexts, and others that state to be cautious about their equation. Now you can understand how much POV is that title for an encyclopedic article. The undisputed name of this specific tribe is Dexari, for which all scholars agree. It is also the first mentioned one among all those similar tribal names. – Βατο (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It seems you need to take a deep breath and accept that this article is titled "Dassaretae". Hatzopoulos cites Hammond in his Dassaretae (in terms of Geography and settlements) so there is no doubt that both are referring to the same tribe. Anyway you just admitted that you created a POV fork article (Dassareti) in order to include your POV there and now feel ready to copy-paste material here too. You understand that this isn't a productive way to built an encyclopedia. Hatzopoulos refers to this tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hatzopoulos refers to this tribe.
[citation needed]. – Βατο (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on the settlements and region of this tribe[1] This information is essential for an article under the title Dassaretae..Alexikoua (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
References
(p.95) The existence of a Kellion near Korytsa in Dassaretis, a region probably colonised under the reign of Philip II, is an indication that the name of the homonymous Eordaian community, the origin of which goes back to the Early Iron Age, had remained unchanged at least since the Late Classical period>Hammond, "Frontier" 213-14.
.
Hammond1 equates Beue, on the border between Lynkos and Dassaretis, with Euia, which is mentioned by Ptolemy, along with Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassare-tans.2 > Hammond, Macedonia I 64
- I can't see the information
Hatzopoulos refers to this tribe.
Can you provide another quote about it? I provided specific quotes above, which refer directly to the views of Hatzopoulos. And they contrast with your WP:OR claims. – Βατο (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can see that Hatzopoulos refers to a tribe which Hammomd calls Dassaretae. Nothing OR about it. This article is called Dassaretae you need to become familiar with it.Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia policy: WP:SYNTHESIS, please. – Βατο (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can you provide the citations in the source you recently added from which it achieve a presumed "dominant view"? – Βατο (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- The citation you just completely removed in wp:NINJA contains all details. I'm afraid they are too many.Alexikoua (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Provide here the citations used by that source to support the achievement of a presumed "dominant view", please. A scholar can't establish a dominant view while contrasting with other scholars. – Βατο (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- The bibliography used is mentioned in the pages 95 and 96. You can't judge an author in case you simply don't like his conclusion. I've provided a full citation with a full quote. You can look at the rest of this work its online.Alexikoua (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua:, do you understand that including information about the Illyrian area of Lychnidus, which was the capital city of the Illyrian Dassareti, goes beyond the scope of this article, and even contrasts with Hammond's hypotheses, on which this entire article is based? – Βατο (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the information you added from Proeva, she is one of the scholars who does not accept the equation of the Dexari with the Dassaretae, p. 564: "
This piece of information gives credibility to Strabo, who notes that the Encheleis / Engelanes were also called Dassaretae - a widely accepted emendation of the term Sessarethii, which actually stood in the text. Having this in mind, some scholars identify the Dexari with the Dassaretai; this is dismissed by R. Katičić, on the grounds that the Chaonian tribes are never listed among the Illyrian tribes.41 41 R. Katičić, "Encheleer", p. 8. This identification was dismissed as early as G. Zippel., Die romische Herrschaft in Illyrien bis auf Augustus, Leipzig 1877, p. 13.
". – Βατο (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- The source about the presumed "dominant view" reports:
Κατά την απόψη του Katičić, πρέπει να ληφθεί υπόψη το γεγονός ότι στις γραμματειακές πηγές μετά τον Εκαταίο οι Δασσαρέτες θεωρούνται ιλλυρικό φύλο, ενώ οι Χάονες ποτέ δεν σχετίζονται με τους Ιλλυριούς. Επομένως, η άποψη του Hammond, σύμφωνα με την οποία οι Δεξάροι ταυτίζονται με τους Δασσαρέτες, δεν μπορεί να γίνει πλήρως δεκτή, όμως ούτε μπορεί να απορριφθεί, λόγω έλλειψης πληροφοριών.86 Ακολουθώντας τη γνώμη του Διόδωρου Σικελιώτη,87 οι αρχαίοι συγγραφείς88 θεωρούσαν τους Δασσαρέτες ιλλυρικό φύλο μαζί με πολλά άλλα φύλα (τους Εγχέλεις, τους Ταουλέντες, τους Πενέστες, κλπ.). Ωστόσο, ο Διόδωρος δεν θεωρείται αξιόπιστη πήγε καθώς το έργο του αποτελεί διάφορων ιστορικών πηγών. Κατά την σύγχρονη επικρατούσα άποψη, οι Δασσαρέτες και τα άλλά προαναφερθέντα φύλα ανήκαν στον κύκλο τον βόρειο-ηπειρωτικών φύλων, τα οποία σταδιακά κατέλαβαν την βόρειες περιοχές, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της Δασσαρέτιδος.89 Αντίθετα, η Proeva θεωρεί τόσο τους Δασσαρέτες όσο και τους Εγχελείς μακεδονικά φύλα, βάσει ανθρωπονομίας η οποία έδειξε ότι ένας ορισμένος αριθμός τα οποία παλαιά θεωρούνταν ιλλυρικά έχει τα παράλληλά του στην Μικρά Ασία, γεγονός που υποδεικνύει ότι τα συγκεκριμέντα ονόματα πρέπει να θεωρηθούν βρυγικά.90 Η περιοχή της Δασσαρέτιδος εκτεινόταν δυτικά τον δύο περιοχών της Άνω Μακεδονίας, της Ορεστίδος και της Λυγκηστίδος, επομένως θεωρούνταν παραμεθορια περιοχή. Από της πηγές φαίνεται σαφώς ότι η περιοχή της Λυγκηστιδος συνόρευε με την περιοχή της Δασσαρέτιδος,91 όμως τίθεται το ερώτημα από πού ακριβώς περνούσε η συνοριακή γραμμή η οποία διαχώριζε τη Μακεδονία από την Ιλλυρία. Κατά την απόψε της Grozdanova, παρόλο που στα τελευταία χρόνια οι ερευνητές προσπαθούν να ορίσουν τα συνορεύει της Ορεστίδος στην πεδιάδα του Πέσεν, η μεθοριακή γραμμή μεταξύ της Λυγκηστίδος και της Δασσαρέτιδος θα έπρεπε να περνούσε κάπου βόρεια της λίμνες της Μεγάλες Πρέσπας.92
- The citation provided is this:
89 I. Miculčić, ό. π. Αντίθετα, η Papazoglu "Les Villes (1988), σσ. 227-8, αποδέχεται την θεωρία σύμφωνα με την οποία οι Δασσαρέτες ήταν ένα ιλλυρικό φύλο το οποίο βρισκόταν στο εθνικό και πολιτιστικό όριο ανμεσα της Ιλλυρίας και της Μακεδονίας.
Can you translate the citation 89 please? I don't understand which one is the Αντίθετα. Also, who are the "τα άλλά προαναφερθέντα φύλα
"? The views of a scholar which contrast with those of other scholars can't be considered as the "dominant view". – Βατο (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I. Miculčić: agrees with the predominant view as stated by the author (n. Epirote tribe), while Papazoglu states that they were Illyrian tribe.Alexikoua (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do not remove tags when there is an ongoing discussion. Also, you cherrypicked unrelated content from Proeva, while not including relevant content about the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- The specific author after offering a description about the Dassaretae ends up with a conclusion about the predominant view in modern bibliography (Dassaretae = northern Epirotes tribe)
Κατά την σύγχρονη επικρατούσα άποψη, οι Δασαρέτες και τα άλλα προαναφερθέντα φύλα ανήκαν στον κύκλο των βορειο-ηπειρωτικών φύλων, τα οποία σταδιακά κατέλαβαν τις βόρειες περιοχές, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της Δασσαρήτιδος
So for an unknown reason you feel that this needs to be hidden. You need to stop this disruptive wp:IDHT pattern. Why you also remove Proeva? Alexikoua (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- The specific author reports Miculčić against Papazoglu for that statement. A claim about a "predominant view" can't be considered reliable because the mentioned scholars have contrasting views. You included from Proeva unrelated content, while not adding her disagreement with the equation between Dexari and Dassaretae, it is WP:CHERRYPICKING. – Βατο (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- This does not mean that there is no predominant view. The specific author has this specific view and this is clearly attributed to him. You are just an anonymous editor to judge him. No WP:CHERRYPICKING at all. I have the feeling that the only problematic article under this scope is the Dassaretii (presenting them as purely Illyrians). Alexikoua (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Dassareti were a well attested Illyrian tibe, both in ancient sources and in epigraphic material, also the etymology of their name supports it. They are not subject to modern speculation like the Dexari, which were a tribe attested only once in ancient literature. You provided Proeva's suggestions concerning the Enchele, while not adding her disagreement with the identification of Dexari with Dassaretae, which is exactly WP:Cherrypicking from the source. – Βατο (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- It appears you inist on wp:IDONTLIKEIT. You need to stick to the sources. What do you mean epigraphic material? You need to provide examples of Illyrian incriprtions from them.Alexikoua (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Onomastics on inscriptions, indeed the tribal area of the Illyrian Dassareti belongs to the core area of the Illyrian language in current linguistics. There are reliable sources, I have not to provide you examples. On the contrary, you have to provide an ancient source that explicitly considers the Dassaretae an Epirote tribe. It does not exist, that's why Hammond invented two distinct tribes, avoiding contrast with historical facts. You are adding unrelated content concerning the Illyrian Dassareti to create a POV article that goes against mainstream views. Weber clearly considers the tribe Illyrian, although equating them with the Dexari, but not considering them Epirotes. This entire article is based on Hammond's uncertain hypothesis, and on Wilkes 1992 who cites him:
Behind the coast Illyrians bordered the Chaones, the Epirote people of whom the Dexari or Dassaretae were the most northerly and bordered the Illyrian Enchelei, the 'eel-men', whose name points to a location near Lake Ohrid...likely to have been part of the Taulantii until they first appear as Roman allies late in the third century BC.8 8 Hammond 1966, 1967b, 606-7.
and who considered in that book Bardylis as a Dardanian ruler like Hammond, a speculation already dismissed 30 years ago. In current scholarship the first attested Illyrian king is considered Dassaretan. Wikipedia should present updated information generally accepted in scholarship, not outdated hypotheses that contrast with recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- I noticed you removed the tags, although you reverted improvements of the article and keep on adding unrelated content. Those tags should be restored. The incorrect name of the article is not a good reason to include all the sources that mention the name Dassaret- in completely different contexts. – Βατο (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your concerns about Hatzopoulos, Dragic and Weber have been addressed so far. By the way when saying "ethnic state in Illyria" this can't be interpreted as "Illyrian tribe" you understand that this can't be the same especially when the author (Hatzopoulos) has contradicted this simplistic expression. I 'll fix Proeva about the Dexari, though this can't justify tagging the entire article.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, they have not been addressed, Hatzopoulos does not provide information about the Chaonian tribe, and Weber is misused, you can't create a WP:FRINGE narrative mixing Hammond's and Weber's proposals, to obtain an Epirote tribe that extended up to Dardania. – Βατο (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- You again restored the "In Greek mythology" section, whose content is entirely irrelevant for the subject of this article. You're not even trying to improve the article, why did you remove the tags? It is not constructive. – Βατο (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Here you added an WP:OR:
Thus far the available inscriptional evidence from the region reveals a majority of Greek onomastics with a few Illyrian as well as possible Phrygian ones.
Hatzopoulos does not support it: Hatzopoulos 1997, p. 144: "The fragmentarity and corruption of the manuscript tradition of the available sources makes it impossible to clarify the relations between the Dassaretioi and the Encheleis. Study of the peronsal names of these regions might help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, only those from the areas in the former Yugoslavia have been collected: and although these exhibit the expected intermingling of a clear majority of Greek, and indded Macedonian, names with few Illyrian ones, especially in the south, and also with a few other, probably Phyrgian names they do not permit the drawing of any clear conclusion." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHatzopoulos1997 (help) Come on, you are an experienced editor, do not add original research into articles. – Βατο (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also, Hatzopoulos provides information about the relation of Encheleis and Dassaretioi, why did you add it into this article? – Βατο (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Greek mythology section is relevant to this tribe and its backed by sources that describe the background of the Dassaretae. What exactly is your objection with Hatzopoulos? The text supports the quote:
Study of the personal names of these regions *Dassaretae and Enchelae) might help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, only those from the areas in the former Yugoslavia have been collected: and although these exhibit the expected intermingling of a clear majority of Greek
: the available personals names in the area display a clear Greek majority. An experienced editor can understand that this is perfectly backed by RS. Off course additional text can be added but that isn't a reason for a disruptive full removal.Alexikoua (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The text does not support the content you added, you need to read carefully the sources. Furthermore, since you have access to the source, you have already seen in the same pages that Hatzopoulos explicitly describes the Dassaretioi as an "Illyrian ethne". Inclusion of information from Hatzopoulos into this article is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. – Βατο (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's really weird you insist on falsifying the cited material. The quote perfectly supports the specific addition. If you look carefully it states that according to a specific fragment according to Strabo they were counted among some Illyrian ethne while in another fragment by Strabo they can't be grouped at all. Hatzopoulos concludes that their onomastics are mainly Greek ones (a fact you personally DONTLIKEIT), but this isn't enough for a clear grouping.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, he does not. Read the source carefully, please. But to avoid original research interpretations of Hatzopoulos views, there is Wilkes, a renowned scholar who provides them: Wilkes 1995, p. 217: "Unable to accept Hammond's duality, Hatzopoulos presumes an error on the part of Polyaenus (based on Hieronymus of Cardia) who would have been ignorant of local geography. Along with the Chaones, the Atintanes will have been the most northerly of the Epirote communities. Beyond these but yet south and west of the real Illyrian Dassaretae, Parthini and Taulantii was a mixed zone, generally reckoned as a part of Illyria but culturally an extension of Greek-speaking Epirus." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWilkes1995 (help) I am not continuing this discussion, it is not bringing improvements, since you keep on ignoring clear evidence provided by sources. – Βατο (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexi, please, stop disruptive inclusion of WP:OR, the source does not state "inscriptional evidence from the region of the Dassaretae and the Enchelae", but "Unfortunately, only those from the areas in the former Yugoslavia have been collected: and although these exhibit the expected intermingling of a clear majority of Greek, and indeed Macedonian, names with few Illyrian ones, especially in the south, and also with a few other, probably Phyrgian names they do not permit the drawing of any clear conclusion." Furthermore, the source is talking about the Illyrian Dassaretioi. – Βατο (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yet another blind revert while the quote is quite clear on this "The fragmentarity and corruption of the manuscript tradition of the available sources makes it impossible to clarify the relations between the Dassaretioi and the Encheleis. Study of the peronsal names of these regions might help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, only those from the areas in the former Yugoslavia have been collected: and although these exhibit the expected intermingling of a clear majority of Greek, and indded Macedonian, names with few Illyrian ones. IDONTLIKEIT is clearly on your side you understand that this stubborn removal of sourced information is clearly disruptive. Hatzopoulos and Hammond refer to the same Dassaretae (they are citing each other on the location and settlements of this tribe) Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The source talks about Dassaretioi, and states:
The phenomenon of the intermingling of Greek and non-Greek elements, with the latter on occasion not being Illyrian but belonging to earlier population strata, is even more pronounced in the regions assigned by Strabo to the Illyrian ethne of the Bryges, Encheleis and Dassaretioi.
Now start with constructive editing searching sources that actually describe clearly the Chaonian tribe and not the Illyrian one. – Βατο (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Excactly Hatzopoulos mentions a description according to Strabo, i.e. Hatzopoulos disagrees about them being an Illyrian ethnos. In fact he concludes that the available onomastics (citing Hammond's Dassaretae) contain a majority of Greek names, though he is reluctant to label them Greeks. That's a information that needs to be included. I'm sorry but your stubborn attempt to remove RS such as this one falls clearly into IDONTLIKEIT, OWN.Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please, read 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."
Interpreting the sources with your original research should be avoided because it does not improve Wikipedia. – Βατο (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder how's that relevant to the use of Hatzopoulos. What's clearly mentioned in his work should be presented in the article. On the other hand the only OR claim so far is that Hatzopoulos refers to an Illyrian tribe something he clearly dismisses. The majority of their known onomastics are Greek and its sourced.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Again with original research interpreatations, they are not relevant in Wikipedia, you have to understand it to avoid additions of WP:SYNTH content. Since you are ignoring Wilkes (1995) about Hatzopoulos' view, see what he directly says: Hatzopoulos 1993 p. 84:
il serait, entre autres, susceptible de nous livrer des informations précieuses sur l'origine des populations (et de leur culture) de la zone intermédiaire et peut-etre bilingue, entre la Chaonie indubitablement épirote et le pays des Dassarètes et des Parthins non moins indubitablemente illyrien.
Hatzopoulos provides information about the Illyrian Dassaretans (Δασσαρητίων, Dassaretioi or Dassaretai), it should be removed from this article, which is about the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- No wonder yet again you declare yourself that you have run out of arguments and begin mixing information with this tribe and the other one (Illyrian tribe). For future reference Hatzopoulos states that thee available onomasticis of the non-Illyrian Dassaretae which - by the way- inhabited the same region of Hammonds Dessaretae has a majority of Greek names. You also admitted that they were two distict tribes Dassaretae and Dassaretii by creating the later article.09:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- They are two distinct tribes, the Chaonian Dexari attested in Hecataeus and the Illyrian Dassareti attested in Roman times; and Hatzopoulos provides information about the Illyrian tribe that can't be included here. – Βατο (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Furthermore Hatzopoulos, in Macedonian Institutions states:
Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans
or Lychnidos, city of Dassaretis
, and that: On Dassaretis, see Papazoglou, Cité
. Why did you include that source into this article? It does not provide information about the Chaonian tribe. The article should include only information that is explicitly about the Chaonian tribe. – Βατο (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's about this specific tribe, i.e. the Dassaretae. Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on this:
Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans. cited> Hammond, Macedonia I 64
. Yet again wp:IDHT. Lychnidus was located near the Epirote-Illyrian border, see S. Kos.Alexikoua (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your statement: "Hatzopoulos cites Hammond on this:
Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans. cited> Hammond, Macedonia I 64
." is wrong, you are disrupting Wikipedia with WP:OR and addition of WP:SYNTH material. Hatzopoulos (1996) cites Ptolemy, Macedonian Institutions Under the Kings, p. 100: "Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans.2 2 . Ptol. 3.12.29". You can't use a source to suppose that a scholar support the hypotheses of another scholar if not explicitly stated by that source. The word "Chaon-" never appears in Hatzopoulos (1996), how can it be presumed that this scholar is referring to the tribe of this article? The current version of this article is a fork of Dassareti, instead of fixing it you keep adding other unrelated information to push a WP:FRINGE narrative unsupported by the sources you are using. – Βατο (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hammond, in his 1974 paper "Alexander's Campaign in Illyria" states:
On the other hand the plain of Malik-Korce-Poloske, which formed part of the territory of the Dassaretii, was probably autonomous and not dependent upon Macedon. In the geographical terminology of the period it was a part of Illyris. It is possible that the single-wall fortifications above Zvezde, on Mt Trajan and above Tren were built by the Dassaretii at this time, as a measure of defence against the Macedonians.
. In that paper he talks about the Dassaretii without linking them with the Chaonian tribe, but I avoided adding info from it to the article Dassaretii because I know Hammond's view, who considers the tribe a Chaonian one equating them with the Dexari. The same here with Hatzopoulos, he can't be included because he considers them always as related to the Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- What makes that statement wrong? Let's sum up: Hatzopoulos reads: Lychnidos, as a city of the Dassaretans... and his inline citation is Hammond, Macedonia I 64. An author uses an inline citation to point where he found this piece of info and Hatzopoulos about his description of the Dassaretans is citing Hammond's Dassaretans. This is called inline citation in academics and its cery usefull indeed. Nothing wrong, nothing FRINGE on that. Everything its perfectly sourced.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hatzopoulos has deep knowledge on the subject, he cites Hamond for some information, while he cites specifically Polybius, as reported above, for the statement about Lychnidos. But we are not here to interpret the source, Hatzopoulos is not explicitly talking about the Chaonian tribe. Hence, it can't be included here. – Βατο (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dexari/Dassaretae though initially part of the Chaonian group formed their own association during the Hellenistic era. Both Hammond and Hatzopoulos agree on that they were not part of the Chaones during that era..Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)