Talk:Atintanians

Latest comment: 3 years ago by SilentResident in topic Discussion about Lede

RfC regarding the lede

edit


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

edit

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

Well I'm still waiting for a decent explanation why S.Kos label 'Illyrian' warrants inclusion while 'Greek' should be removed at all costs. So far I see only tag-teaming fashion reverts without a slightest comment.Alexikoua (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Stocker (2009) discusses Neritan Ceka's theory - but Ceka's theory has been excluded from the article. The article can't discuss Stocker (2009) about Ceka without Ceka's inclusion. Side comment: Papamichail (2020), "Attitudes of the philologists of the prefecture of Arta regarding the use of the local language variety in the school environment" should be removed. It discusses an unrelated subject. It's the same as citing a book about public health policy at an article about structural engineering because it mentions some basic concepts about earthquakes in a chapter about the response of public health insitutions during an earthquake.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Stocker discusses several theories about the so-called Koinon. Jaupaj cites in this specific part cites CEKA 2011 exclusively (Plus difficile à situer géographiquement est la tribu illyrienne des Atintanes. Leur position parmi les Parauaioi et les Chaones soulève l’hypothèse de leur présence dans les vallées de la Zagoria et du Drinos traditionnellement rattachées aux ChaonesCEKA 2011), which needs to be restored. Side comment Papamichail (2020) is a work on local linguistics in Epirus and should stay, in fact he discusses the local dialectal variations which is the same exact topic discussed here. What needs to be removed is S.Kos based on Maleschreiber's 'one word argument'[[23]]. Alexikoua (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's titled "Attitudes of the philologists of the prefecture of Arta regarding the use of the local language variety in the school environment" - it's not about "local linguistics". We cite authors and their sources if they directly support a theory - Jaupaj (2019) doesn't support a single theory. There's not going to emerge any consensus about edits which aren't discussed in bibliography. Thank you. I've got other work to do now.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
According to that argument, @Alexikoua, also Filos should be removed because he mentions the Atintanes in a single sentence, and in brackets. Stocker discusses Ceka's theory: Additionally, it is unlikely that the Illyrian koinon ever encompassed as large a territory as Ceka proposes. It more probably was restricted in extent to the southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does not include Epirus. Do not misrepresent sources, they can be checked by other editors. – Βατο (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Let me remind you that this "one word argument" was presented in Dimale about S.Kos. If you don't like Kos in Dimale the same counts here. About Stocker, you forgot to mention that: This proposal, endorsed by other Albanian archaeologists, is an example of the type of ideologically "correct" argument that was encouraged under communism and was designed to promote the notion of Illyrian supremacy over foreign (Greek) foundations. Conclusion: it does not reject only Ceka, but all those views presented in Albania (Jaupaj among them since he cites Ceka exclusively as shown above).Alexikoua (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Bato: insists in IDONTLIKEIT fashion, though Jaupaj cited CEKA 2011 exclusively on this. It's also interesting that Jaupaj's conclusion differs from CEKA2011 since he considers Atintanes as koinon which may have included both Illyrian and Epirotic tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about Lede

edit

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

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

Keeping the current new version would be good. The language section can be in the current format that says that "Author A (year) says that ....". The readers (if anyone wants to read this obscure article) can jugde by themselves the scholars' opinions and decide what language the obscure tribe spoke. Also, do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit. Do not expect more comments by me here. I am busy and focused on other things. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The last thing the article needs is a new edit war. - agreed. The last version proposed by SR is WP:NPOV. Side comment: The article has 2 readers on a daily basis and I assume that at least one of them is an involved editor. So much workload, for so very, very little.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)Ktrimi, about your proposal, "Author A (year) says that ....", this is a step in the right direction and I like it, as it is more or less the same as my proposal which is "According to Author (year),source....". I guess that makes it 2 of us? I will wait and let for the others to comment whether they agree with this or have better ideas, before I feel certain to proceed.
"Also, do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit." the benefit isn't for me I am afraid. Is for the article. The warning is more than necessary now, and if it helps making people think twice before acting again like back then in December, then the better.--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The previous version in which the article was locked was in great need of corrections, especially in terms of wp:LEDE there is just (one) author that supports the Illyrian-speech view. S. Kos has been already rejected as a "one word argument" by Maleschreiber in a similar case about Dimale.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Another point: The article is big enough now so inclusion of the various conflicts in which Atintanians participated will be a good initiative.18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
So Alexikoua, I take it that you too are ok with Filos being mentioned on Lede, right? --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The current version seems good. The historical contexts concerning the Atintanes are concisely reported by Hatzopoulos (2020) p. 45. – Βατο (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
There is no doubt that the language will have to be mentioned nevertheless. The question here is how to bridge the differences between the two sides, not whether WP:LEAD will be sidelined when it comes to Language section or applied selectively. Thanks anyways. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@SilentResident: The RfC is about the language - no edits about the language should be included on the lede before a consensus emerges about it. If it ends as "no consensus", we will have to find a new way to discuss language on the lede.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. It is a positive thing to hear this from you. Yes, I agree and I will let more editors comment here their thoughts about the above proposals in case the RfC leads nowhere. At least, this way we can have a useful head-start and avoid having "So much workload, for so very, very little" again. Good day. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Post-RfC discussion about Lede

edit
  • @Ktrimi991, Alexikoua, Maleschreiber, Khirurg, Βατο, and Demetrios1993: Pinging you (sorry for that, its just once) to draw your attention here and discuss to resolve finally the issue of the language. Admin Rosguill closed the RfC with no consensus for either options: [24]. The admin also is acknowledging our efforts to work past the RfC as well. To summarize: Ktrimi and I made a compromise by having the author who is the center of the dispute, be mentioned explicitly. "Author A (year) says that ...." or According to Author (year),source.... This can be a fair compromise for overcoming the language disagreements once and for all. Who else besides us is supporting the compromise? I am expecting a clear "yes" or "no" here. No recycling of old arguments and stirring up more debates please. We had the RfC for that already. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm under the same impression as Rosguill who noted that "editors seem to have successfully worked past it". The current lede version works well enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
To me, it seemed as if Rosguill's "editors seem to have successfully worked past it is referring to to our proposals here for working successfully past the RfC. I can't see what else the admin could mean. After all, even the current version of the lede on the article, is just my revision, not a middle ground between Option A and Option B, whose supporters agreed, from both sides, to the inclusion of language in the lede. Now, if you are not interested in resolving the dispute, then you are welcome to leave this discussion. Good day.--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
It has functioned as a middle ground and I think that any discussion to further change it - at this moment - will lead to the same disputes which won't be solved. A workable WP:STABLE has been established and it seems that it is the best that could emerge after many debates.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
How is that a middle ground, when the dispute here is *not* about the language's inclusion to the lede, but about the lede wording? Your comment inspires little confidence that you are here to help us clean the mess you started. It was a mistake of me to assume that you are remorseful for your actions. Perhaps it is time for you to leave the discussion to those willing to actually help resolve the dispute? At least that will be appreciated. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply