Talk:Molossians/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Molossians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Use of controversial book reviews

It appears that E. Meyer's suggestion on re-evaluating the date of some inscriptions is not widely accepted among book reviews. Some conclusions: "Not all historians will be convinced by the interpretations suggested in this account." "yet remain many unanswered questions." and 'further investigation is needed;. []. If someone has access to this book it would be helpful to see Meyer's precise interpretation and which exactly inscriptions are re-dated according to her.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Book reviews aren't "controversial" - they highlight differences between past and recent research. It's how research develops - it doesn't apply certainties, where they don't exist. According to one of the two reviews used in the artice The accepted view has been that this is King Alexander I (343-331 BC),1 and Meyer argues for them to be dated to the reign of King Alexander II (272-242 BC). She employs both the strong and weak criteria to show, convincingly in this reviewer’s opinion, that these inscriptions should be dated to Alexander II.. The other also embraces the newer redating. In the article, I highlighted that as As of 2014, the previously seen as early 4th century inscriptions attributed to Neoptolemus I and his son, Alexander I of Epirus have been suggested for redating in the era of the Neoptolemus II of Epirus (about a century later) and Alexander II of Epirus respectively. This redating if accurate would have larger implications about the history of the Molossian state. Where's the controversy?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears you insist on information from a specific book you don't even have access. Kindly asking: Have you access to this work? Relying on books you don't even have access is quite disruptive, especially if book reviews conclude that: "Not all historians will be convinced by the interpretations suggested in this account." "yet remain many unanswered questions." and 'further investigation is needed".Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "relying on the book" to make any sort of comment. I'm relying on academic papers to mention the fact that inscriptions have been redated. I don't need to have access to the book to do that because I'm not using the book as bibliography to argue for an interpretation by its author. From d'Alessandro (2015) The inscription was dated, by Cabanes, in the years before 330 / 328 BC, the last years of AlexanderI.s reign. M. seems to trust in Hammond’s restoration of the name of the king (Neoptolemus, Alexander’s son) in the last line of the inscription: in fact, it is very unlikely (an unicum, in all epigraphic sources in Epirus) that the name of the king would be listed after the name of the prostatas and of the other officials (political, in common scholars’ opinion, or religious, as M. suggests). is what I've written in the article about Neoptolemus I & II. Also, don't quote bibliography in a selective manner. D'Allesandro doesn't disagree with Meyer (2014) about the dating of the inscriptions - her comments is about political interpretations that emerge from the redating - which is something that is not the in scope of my edits. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean that you rely solely on book reviews without having access to the work that's reviewed & even better some reviews are quite critical on this specific book. If "further investigation is needed" that's something we should also respect before adding such controversial material that none has access.21:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the above, it's draining to explain to you the same thing for the n-th time about how bibliography functions. We use papers like reviews in order to highlight events in the development of research. Based on existing bibliography, I wrote that As of 2014, the previously seen as early 4th century inscriptions attributed to Neoptolemus I and his son, Alexander I of Epirus have been suggested for redating in the era of the Neoptolemus II of Epirus (about a century later) and Alexander II of Epirus respectively. This redating if accurate would have larger implications about the history of the Molossian state. It's not an endorsement, it's not a certainty - it's how bibliography has appraised so far the redating - and we ought to report that. D'Alessandro refers to other aspects of the book (which the wiki-article doesn't discuss because we would need the book to do that), it doesn't have to do with the redating of the inscriptions which d'Alessandro also supports The inscription was dated, by Cabanes, in the years before 330 / 328 BC, the last years of AlexanderI.s reign. M. seems to trust in Hammond’s restoration of the name of the king (Neoptolemus, Alexander’s son) in the last line of the inscription: in fact, it is very unlikely (an unicum, in all epigraphic sources in Epirus) that the name of the king would be listed after the name of the prostatas and of the other officials (political, in common scholars’ opinion, or religious, as M. suggests). I will not explain this again - read the bibliography closely.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A supposed NW Greek koine

I wonder how a "North-West Doric variety with distinct features" from Filos can be interpreted as a "NW Koine". It appears that all recent edits need to be checked and corrected since the sourced material isn't portrayed the correct way (inclusion of obsolete theories in lead etc.).Alexikoua (talk)

Filos (2017), p.222 : ..most epigraphic texts date to the late Classical/Hellenistic period i.e. to a time when the impact of a supraregional NW Doric koina was already felt, even though the Attic-Ionic koine eventually established itself in the region at a later time, i.e. in ca 1st c.AD. which you removed when you claimed that there was "source falsification" . The exact edit in which you removed the term "NW koine" (koina in Doric) rm NW Koine: no such term in Greek linguistics. According to Filos (2017) at least it was exactly that. So, a self-revert is the correct path here IMO.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And you've removed material from Davies (2002): These genealogical claims from the Molossian ruling dynasty were part of a planned effort by them in order to use elements of Greek culture for their own political ends in order to dominate in regional power struggles.^[1] in this edit in which you didn't even mark the content of the edit. Will you revert yourself or explain why you removed it? --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

References

[1]
Davies 2002, p. 237 In fact it was not Greek needs, ambitions or curiosity which eventually eliminated the barriers so much as a calculated effort by the ruling dynasty of one Epeirote people, the Molossoi, to manoeuvre themselves into a position of predominance within the region. (..) One truck was cultural - to present themselves as Greek (with a Trojan War ancestry) to take from Greek culture what could be turned to political use, and to manipulate the Greek political process in their own interest as best they could.

It appears you need to be careful on how inline citation works. For an unexplained reason you created a redirection from n.31 to n.30 [] inline. By the way you need to explain why a Trojan War claim in Ancient Greek literature is FRINGE.Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no such claim in ancient Greek literature - which should be referenced in a higher resolution. All Hammond (1997) says is that at the time when this was produced, "it wasn't doubted" in ancient Greek literature. That's the exact quote. Now, the first Molossian king to be given a Trojan name was Neoptolemus I of Epirus in the 4th - 370 BC to be exact. The edit you've made about Chatzopoulos (1997) is not about the Molossians. It also introduces repetition Such genealogies were known and widely accepted in Ancient Greece at least from the end of the Archaic period (which you've included in the section). The Archaic Period ended in c. 480 BC, so it fits our narrative but we've already said that much in much more nuanced manner because as Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) tell us, this sort of naming "tradition" was against ancient Greek nomenclature - it was something that "newcomers" did to enhance their genealogies. Almost all the Neoptolemoi who appear in historical record are from peripheral areas to the core of the ancient Greek world and lived in the Hellenistic/Roman era (see Neoptolemus (Pontic general)). I'm not highlighting this to say that they were "less Greek" according to a scale from 1 to 10 - but that "Greekness" had changed. In a way, it's very similar to what is happening today around the Balkans in some of the more newly formed national identites.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Greece wasn't politically united. Each entity had its distinct identity. Epirus was part of the Greek word with a distinct identity. "Greekness" etc. are confusing terms in the context of Greek antiquity.Alexikoua (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Epirus became part of the Greek world as part of the expansion of the concept of Greekness to other groups. See, identity is something which evolves and becomes more inclusive or exclusive according to its function. The bibliography of this very article discusses all of these subjects also via the category of Greekness, as a political-cultural concept. That is exactly what I'm trying to highlight here. That there was no *one* concept of ancient Greece (or ancient Illyria or Thrace or Dacia) in which a region either was within or outside of: it was something that evolved. Just like modern identities.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Epirus was part of the Proto-Greek area (see Georgiev if you mistrust Hammond). That was in the Late Bronze Age.Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant (and Georgiev had many interesting beliefs that I recommend you slowly back away from, like the Thracian identity of large parts of ancient Greece). Whether Ukraine or Poland or Belarus were part of the proto-Slavic urheimat has nothing to do with whether Polish identity is felt by people in Russia or Bulgaria. --Calthinus (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant? LOL. Offcourse speaking Greek is relevant in terms of Greek antiquity. Georgiev also concluded that Greek speech was quite evident from that era based on a wide variety in local toponyms etc.. In linguistic terms there is strong evidence that this was the core of the said era.Alexikoua (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev also concluded that huge chunks of Greece were Thracian, Thracomania and all -- so it's pretty weird that you're still relying on him, unless you want that to be cited everywhere. But yes, it is plausible that Epirus was part of the proto-Greek urheimat, but proto-Greek was spoken before 2000 BCE, and we are talking about a time at least 1.5 millenia later. --Calthinus (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus: It appears you have an extremely POV taste of reliable material. Unfortunately for you Georgiev meets fully RS.Alexikoua (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well that was a personal attack. You know what's RS though? Madgearu's view on Georgiev : Of course, scientists were astonished by this theory. In the same interwar period, the Bulgarian scholar Vladimir Georgiev maintained that the Ionians and the Achaeans were Thracians, not Greeks... So, yes, do be careful Alexikoua, about who you choose to rely on... --Calthinus (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pretending of being attacked (personally?). You are welcome to initiate a discussion in the relevant tp. Who is Madgearu? I still avoid citing directly Georgiev.Alexikoua (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua's words: It appears you have an extremely POV taste of reliable material. Please do contort yourself into Picasso-level gymnastics to explain how that is not a personal attack, I'll take this sort of apology as a sign of affection. And I am glad you are learning something about when to not cite Georgiev. And thanks for the recommendation, but I'll pass, thankfully most people know not to seriously use Vlad the old commie who advocated theories to advance state interests -- and all of this about him is explicitly stated in available RS. As for the rest, I have good faith they will learn :). Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting a couple of RS you don't like is a fact you have already declared. But the appropriate procedure if you have any issue with this specific source (and Hammond who also accepts Epirus as a proto-Greek area) you can fill a RSN case.Alexikoua (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus is trying to explain to you that to an argument that says "the situation in the 5th century BC was ambiguous and we know little about it", you can't respond with "yeah, but in 2000 BC..." as a counter-argument.--Maleschreiber (talk)

Pardon me but Calthinus took it a step further saying that the correspondent sources are not that good.Alexikoua (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment on original question The answer to the original question is "no". NW Doric was one variety of Greek, different variants of this variety were spoken in Epirus and in Aetolia and some other places. The NW koina was associated with the NW Doric of the Aetolian League. Which led to political connotations, because way back then, the Epirote state was not exactly buddy-buddy with the Aetolian League. However, the native Greek variety of Epirus was a dialect that was also closely related to this koina. --Calthinus (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I said two days ago that Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossians and the genealogy their ruling dynasty constructed - so that's out now (without a counter-reply in any way - so I expect no reverts that aren't even marked as reverts by you). Also, don't create split sections. It's a mythological construction - in creating two sections (one about "claimed genealogies" and one about "mythology") you're creating the false impression that they're two different things. Also, what Plutarch wrote isn't part of any mythology. It's a mythological construction by a named author of a historical era. Good cooperation involves using bibliography correctly and not making edits that create implications that don't exist in bibliography. @T8612: thank you very much for your edits. Could you review my latest edits if you get the time? Peer-review from editors who have a good understanding of the material they're dealing with is always a much appreciated process. In particular, the redating by Meyer (2014) is fascinating about its political implications.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Achaeans by Chatzopoulos

You have to be kidding since the quote clearly states about royal genealogy among Epirote tribes. And guess what, the Epirote Molossians were the only ones among the 3 main Epirote tribes that had kings. Moreover all claims about 'mythical genealogies' were more or less constructed. This was a typical feature in the Greek world as Chatzopoulos states. . Alexikoua (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH, which introduces glaring contradictions in the article because Chatzopoulos never mentions the Molossians in relation to the Achaeans for one very particular reason. Chatzopoulos (1997) writes: And it is known that only the royal households but also the tribes and cities of Epirus traced their origin or their foundation to Achaian heroes of the Mycenaean period. - that is some general information. The reason why he doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty is because the Molossian royal house didn't claim origin from any Achaean hero. It claimed dual Phthian (Thessalian via Achilles) and Trojan origin. It did so because of the political claims it gave them against their Thessalian adversaries - as is explained by Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) further down in the article. See, when we edit according to bibliography, logical and historical narratives emerge. When we don't do that, contradictions emerge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In general a reference to 'royal genealogies in Epirus' is perfectly suitable for this article. You are welcome to fill another RSN, but the sourced material is portrayed the correct way.Alexikoua (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"In general", a reference to royal genealogies might be relevant - as long as it puts forward something about the Molossian one. In particular, this "sourced material" is irrelevant - it doesn't matter how it is portrayed - because it doesn't refer to the Molossian ruling dynasty directly or indirectly. The Molossian ruling dynasty didn't claim Achaean ancestry, so Chatzopoulos doesn't mention them. Use your bibliography properly and read carefully what it puts forward in the future.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm Neoptolemos (son of Achiles) belonged to the Achaean army. I can't understand what are you talking about, perhaps reading some mythology might enlighten you that Chatzopoulos is focused on this very topic.Alexikoua (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, don't add one more SYNTH/OR to your narrative. Achilles was not "Achaean", he was Phthian (Thessalian) and that is why the Molossian dynasty claimed him. Chatzopoulos doesn't mention the Molossians at all, doesn't discuss Acheans as the "Achean army" in this broad manner that you're trying to put forward. Thus, it'll be removed and from now on you will only add material that is supported in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Achaeans" was a collective term for the Greeks in Trojan War & Chatzopoulos mentions the 'royal houses of Epirus'. It can't be more relevant.Alexikoua (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, don't use WP:SYNTH to explain what Chatzopoulos (1997) "means". Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty, nor did they claim ancestry from any Achaean. There's no point in repeating your SYNTH again - you don't have an argument grounded in policy or bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet again stubborn wp:IDHT: Chatzopoulos says "royalty in Epirus" and Molossian kings was the only royalty in Epirus that claimed descent from Neoptolemos, an Achean.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Neoptolemos wasn't an Achaean. He was the son of Achilles (a Thessalian) and Andromache, a Trojan. See, that happens when you SYNTH bibligraphy. So, don't use it when it doesn't refer to the subject of the article. The most likely scenario is that you'll create problems by including your OR narrative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me kindly enlighten you that Neoptolemos, son of Achilles fought for the Greek side in the Trojan war. Those besieging Troy were collectively called "Achaeans"."the Achaeans, as though a generic term for all the Greeks at Troy, the collective identity of the Bronze Age Greeks". Well I assume you owe a sincere apology since there is a mountain of evidence that concludes that Acheaens=besiegers of Troy.Alexikoua (talk)

No, don't get me involved in WP:FORUM discussions. In wikipedia, we cite bibliography if it mentions the subject. We definitely don't speculate about terminology by using other, irrelevant. works in order to interprete cited bibliography. All of this is not how wikipedia functions and I'm not going to randomly speculate about the manner in which Chatzopoulos (1997) uses the term Achaeans in that particular sentence. It's not wikipedia functions - and if you keep up with not editing within the policies of wikipedia, there will be admin oversight. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've provided sources clearly stating that Achilles and his son were Acheans, as all Greeks besieging Troy were called as such in Greek literature (Homer, etc). I assume you need to take a deep breath and calm down. In fact the Achaean mythical claim of the Epirote Molossian royalty is quite essential to be displayed in the appropriate section.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, he wasn't and you haven't provided any source about it - but none of this is related to Chatzopoulos (1997) either way. No WP:FORUM from now on. We'll work strictly within the boundaries of bibliography and respective guidelines, so no WP:SYNTH, no WP:OR, no random citations that don't discuss the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

MSchreiber: I wonder why you insist to reject the well sourced fact that "Acheans" is a collective term to describe Greeks in the context of Trojan War. I assume that forum-style interpretations can apply only to you considered that you stubbornly display a high level of wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant material from Chatzopoulos

The irrelevant material from Chatzopoulos (1997) has been removed. It has been explained that you can't include material that doesn't refer to the subject of the article - the WP:SYNTH introduction of which also creates contradictions in the content.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion here Talk:Molossians#A_supposed_NW_Greek_koine you are already participating. Kindly saying you need to stop wp:IDHT.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua, IDHT means that when I explain to you that you can't cite bibliography that doesn't refer to the Molossians because it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and it introduces glaring contradictions (which the author doesn't put forward - namely, Chatzopoulos never places the Molossian dynasty as claimants of Achaean heroic ancestry), you can't reply to me "yes, he doesn't mention them - but this term here might mean that...". It's not how wikipedia functions and it's draining that I have to explain basic principles because you can't accept that you can't cite bibliography in this way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no harm in having Chatzopoulos in there; he provides valuable content for our readers. This is a generalist encyclopedia, not an elite academic venue, see WP:ELITE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. I will re-instate the material, and it should not be removed again. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossians - there's nothing to "re-instate" here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Epirote royalty=Molossian royalty. In fact there was no other royalty in Epirus than Molossian.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No narratives and equations that bibliography itself doesn't put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty obvious we are dealing with a major case of WP:JDL here. Case closed. Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you've added this SYNTH material. I've tagged the article. If you remove them, there are appropriate noticeboards for SYNTH/OR - WP:NORN.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the usual tagging gimmicks. This time you avoided adding a POV tag, because that would count as a revert, which you already have quite a few. But there is no original research, so the tag will be removed. And feel free to go to WP:NORN or any noticeboard you see fit. Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I avoided a POV-tag because I started RfC about it. The OR/SYNTH tag is well-justified - you're placing citations in a misleading way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I admit that I'm impressed with the claim that Achilles was not an Achaean. Greek literature labels him as the greatest of all the Achaean warriors, Achilles.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua, Achilles was a Thessalian who fought in the Achaean army. Of course, Hatzopoulos (1997) doesn't discuss it and he doesn't mention the Molossians - so it's irrelevant in any way, shape, or form.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The OR tag is absolutely not justified, and you know it. Practically every sentence is sourced. You are just tagging the article because of WP:JDL issues. And the reason you are using the OR tag is because you have already used to POV tag, so adding a POV tag would count as a revert. And tag-bombing (also known as tag-shaming) is a form of disruption. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the Molossians 1. Epirotes 2. ruled by a king? If the answer is 'yes' then everything about 'Epirote royalty' applies here.Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already provided sources that Achiles was an Achaen. There is nothing more to prove & we have nothing that contradicts this fact. Phthians were also Achaeans since Achaeans was a collective term. I assume you have sources that contradict this claim else you need to stop edit-warring.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't function on WP:SYNTH interpretation. If Chatzopoulos (1997), doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty, then we don't include him.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I added the tags because you re-institated material that doesn't address the subject. I've been explaining for two days that it doesn't address the subject and you've been stonewalling every explanation with all kinds of irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with wikipedia. You also added Filos (2017) just below Douzougli (2010) although he doesn't mention any of those authors. As a minimum, remove Chatzopoulos (1997) and I will remove the tags. You can't expect editing process in this article to function outside of the guidelines used in all other articles. Reinstating material that doesn't mention the subject, indicates WP:OWN-like disruption. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is astonishing. Molossian royalty is interwoven with the Epirote royalty. Every book and source you check out there can confirm this. If one speaks about Epirote royalty, can refer to no one other than the Molossians whose the kings were the ones who ruled Epirus. Please see List of the kings of Epirus. To imply that Epirote royalty is different than Molossian royalty, will require very very strong sources, which I am afraid do not exist and which means your position here is crossing the WP:OR borders, as the academic consensus is that the Molossians were the royalty of Epirus, none else. Someone better start reading books instead of adding tags. Speaking of tags, I have removed them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: None of these are reasons to tag the article. There are ways to address that without tagging. But that's not the goal, here is it? This is WP:JDL and WP:IDHT disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention them - hence the tags which you removed. I've explained to you how the way you used Chatzopoulos (1997) is an example WP:SYNTH. This type of editing by the three of you sets a very serious precedent about how bibliography is used and how disputes are approached. So be it - it only validates the opinion that large scale and very strict admin oversight is needed in the Balkans topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg, Alexikoua, I admire your patience here but I am afraid this may need admin attention. The editor here clearly is not here to improve the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: It is extremely disruptive and uncool of you to tag an entire article because of a minor disagreement. And yes, that's why close admin supervision of this topic space is needed. @SilentResident: Thank you, I couldn't agree more. Khirurg (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You've added material in such a way that doesn't correspond to bibliography - that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's not a minor disagreement, it's a violation of SYNTH/OR on your part. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes you believe that 'Epirus royalty' is irrelevant here?Alexikoua (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Achaeans by Chatzopoulos

Related Articles