Talk:Butrint

A Name section

@Calthinus: We had a discussion on the many names Butrint has had during its history. Among others, you mentioned a few names reported by Lala. Should we create a "Name" section or should we add these names somewhere else in the article? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Name section seems best.--Calthinus (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Editors are trying to replace Wikiproject:Greece with Wikiproject:Illyria, or add WP:Illyria alongside to it. In their edit summaries the editors argued that:

• [1]: "Then WikiProjectIllyria too should include this. Sources discuss Butrint in relation with trade and cultural contacts with Illyria, in a late antiquity/Middle Ages context some archaeology sources of Oxbow Books (Poulter 2019, Greenslade 2019) describe Butrint as a Greek/Roman city in Illyria, and other sources discuss the claims of Albanian nationalists about Butrinit being part of an Illyrian civilization."
• [2] "If WP:Greece can have Butrinit, then geography is not a criterion so WP:Illyria can have Butrint too. I do not see two similar opinions on the side that does not accept the inclusion of WP:Illyria, while the other side has at least mentioned some sources. Move the discussion to TP, please!"

The one editor, even though they acknowledged that Buthrotum wasn't an Illyrian, but a Greek (and later, Roman) city, they argued that Wikiproject:Illyria should be added nevertheless just because the Greeks of Buthrotum had trade or cultural contacts with their Illyrian neighbors. (which is a problematic argument and has no precedent in Wikipedia. Had trade and cultural exchanges been a factor, then Rome and Carthage could have had Wikiproject:Greece added on their articles, considering how well-documented their heavy economic and cultural exchanges were between Greece and these these centers). (Edit: striking, as they are updated and already containing this Wikiproject, however, in conjunction to the Byzantine, not as standalone; the Byzantine Empire had in its possession both of these cities). Furthermore, the editor pointed to select few sources describing the area around Buthrotum as having been part of Illyria, a theory which lacks strong support among the scholars and contrasts with the majority of the academic consensus in that Buthrotum was in Epirus, a historical region of ancient Greece. Last, the editor pointed out to contemporary nationalist Albanian claims (in Albanian politics, there is a strong anti-Greek sentiment and the nationalists have long-tried to de-hellenize places and make them Illyrian). Nationalism has no place in Wikipedia, and whether nationalists claim something, is irrelevant to the scope and purpose of the Wikiprojects.

The other editor argued that If WP:Greece can have Butrinit, then geography is not a criterion. Even though this was never the case here: Wikiproject's criteria are clearly defined at Wikiproject:Greece, which states what its scope is: History, including the prehistory of Greece, the history of ancient Greece including the Hellenistic world, the history of the Byzantine Empire and of medieval Greece in general, to the history of modern Greece. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WPGreece says in its very first sentence that it is about Greece (links to the modern country created in the 19th century). For WPIllyria there is no condition that an article should be about a place that was in Illyria, it can include every article that is elaborated on by sources in relation with Illyria. Indeed, there are sources that mention it as in Illyria:

• • the publisher of the archaeological team of Butrint The cities are Athens, Corinth and Nemea in Greece, Sardis in Asia Minor, Beirut, Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem in the Near East, Carthage in North Africa, and Butrint on the Illyrian coast of the Adriatic. [3]
  • the publisher of the archaeological team of Butrint Butrint with literary evidence about the medieval town. More specifically, it offers crucial information regarding the connection between southern Italy and this part of the Illyrian coast and confirms previous sporadic indications. [4]
  • the Archaeology magazine of University of London -page 1 While in Illyria , he visited Grammata (in the Acroceraunian range of the Vlorë district), Buthrotum (known today as Butrint, in the Saranda district, Dyrrachium (today known as Durrës) and Lissos (Lezhë today) [5]
  • Cambridge University for the south Illyrian colonies, see Shpuza 2006, assuming Byllis and Shkodra probably were founded on ager publicus, whereas Butrint was founded on newly confiscated land due to unpaid [6]

Butrint is mentioned in some cases as part of Illyria in a non-ethnic late antiquity/Medieval context. Indeed, Procopius lists the area of Butrint (Old Epirus) together with more than half the Balkans as part of Illyricum. Its inclusion to Illyria was not due to ethnic reasons - Butrint was never an Illyrian city. In late antiquity and some time in the Middle Ages Illyria was a much expanded (and as always fluid) regardless of the population living in a given place. Not to mention the zillions of sources that elaborate on trade contacts between Butrint and Illyria, and even more sources that elaborate on the role of Butrint as an "Illyrian city" in the ideology of Communist Albania. Butrint as a topic belongs to WPIllyria as much as it belongs to WPGreece (which is not the same thing as WP Classical Greece and Rome). The inclusion in WPIllyria does not indicate that it was in the ethno-linguistic region of Illyria (as opposed to the later concept of Illyria as including much of non-Illyrian populated Balkans), just like the inclusion in WPGreece does not indicate that Butrint is in the modern country of Greece. The article itself nowhere claims such things. Either both WPs stay or both go as the logic for both is the same. I am OK with both options.Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the claim that Illyria was stretching all the way down, next to Corfu(!) and that Butrint was part of it(!), is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which will require strong and substantial sources to support since it goes against the established academic consensus that Illyria's approximate borders were much further to the north, not next to Corfu (or as further down to Preveza as some sources are suggesting). As Wikipedia, we are not going to give these exaggerated claims any credibility unless they constitute a significant view shared by the majority of the academic community. If you insist that Wikipedia should deviate from this consensus, then I suggest you open a RfC and see if others would agree with such claims.

Secondly you stated that: "just like the inclusion in WPGreece does not indicate that Butrint is in the modern country of Greece. The article itself nowhere claims such things. Either both WPs stay or both go as the logic for both is the same.". If I understood well, you are suggesting that if WP:Illyria doesn't get added, then WP:Greece's presence should be removed from articles about ancient Greek cities? Sorry but this sounds like a blackmailing attempt which is unacceptable, is disruptive and goes down a dangerous path of suggesting that modern state borders may determine how Wikipedia's Wikiprojects cover the articles of their focus topic. This is not how Wikipedia works I am afraid. Had we gone with such a problematic logic, were the Wikiprojects had to be determined based on a modern-day country's boundaries, then articles such as the Arvanites would see the removal of WP:Albania since they are people who live in Greece, not Albania and no longer consider themselves Albanians. This is a very problematic logic you are using there and is finding me vehemently disagreeing with. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Buthrotum was under Byzantine rule well into the medieval period, so it is well within the scope of the Byzantine task force of WP:GREECE. As for WP:ILLYRIA (which appears to not be active anyway), yes, many medieval and later writers incorrectly considered everything down to the Gulf of Patras to be part of "Illyria". But the modern scholarly consensus is that border of ancient Illyria was generally considered to be either the Ceraunian Mountains or the mouth of the Aous. That is what we should follow as well. Khirurg (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, you should never again accuse me of making a "blackmailing attempt". It is the same kind of personal attack as the "threats" accusation by another editor - not you - that was dealt with a block for personal attacks. Works published by Oxbow Books, Cambridge University, University of London and many others are not "extraordinary" stuff. The consensus in the academic works is that Butrint was an ancient Greek and Roman city in Epirus, not that in later times it was not listed by some as part of Illyria/Illyricum in a non-ethnic and non-linguistic context. Even Bowden, who elaborates on the Greek character of Butrint being not accepted by Albanian nationalist historians, describes Butrint as part of the Illyrian coast during the Middle Ages when Illyrians did not exist anymore as an ethno-linguistic group. Unless you have a good reason other than redundant justifications like the ones above, I will add WPIllyria again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And it is not like other places in Epirus or Thessaly that were part of Procopius' Illyricium but are, unlike Butrint, never discussed in scholarship in the context of important contacts with (the "real") Illyria and the large bibliography dedicated to the ideological importance of Butrint to Hoxha's ideology. A city that has a large bibliography focused on its various links to Illyria certainly belongs to WPIllyria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't reflect borders. We're using WikiProject Greece even though it has nothing to do with Butrint. The already includes projects which aren't technically relevant because Butrint was never part of their borders. The question is whether Butrint had significance for Illyrians and Illyria. Ktrimi's sources showed this to be true.--Bes-ARTTalk 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow replies. First of all, Bes-ART, "We're using WikiProject Greece even though it has nothing to do with Butrint" Incorrect. Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece is explicitly about: History, including the prehistory of Greece, the history of ancient Greece including the Hellenistic world, the history of the Byzantine Empire and of medieval Greece in general, to the history of modern Greece. Butrint was a Greek city, so removal of that Wikiproject is out of the question here. Ktrimi, equal treatment with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Illyria is also problematic, since the Wikiproject Illyria's focus topic is Illyria and the Illyrians and Butrint is nothing to do with them: the academic consensus is that Butrint's inhabitants were Greek subjects, and city was located in the historical region of Epirus. The late antiquity and early medieval ages, saw Illyria expanded greatly as a province, by the Romans/Byzantines, to include not just Butrint, but also large parts of Europe, stretching from Austria and Dalmatia in the north, down to Peloponnese and Crete in the south, (see Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum) but there is no evidence that Butrint, Thessaloniki, Austria, or even Crete and Corfu themselves, had really anything to do with Illyria and the Illyrians, other than belonging to a Roman/Byzantine province bearing its name. Using a name over areas that bore a name does not entitle the Wikiproject of same name's expansion to cover all these areas. The enlarged Illyria under Roman and Byzantine control had nothing to do with real Illyria and the Illyrians. Sorry but no. Names do not warrant inclusion of namesake projects. Wikipedia's common practices is to carefully avoid adding Wikiprojects about tribes or factions into articles without tangible evidence that these cities were actually inhabited or controlled by the subject of their focus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

So no good reason again, @Iaof2017: as a member of WikiProjectIllyria for years you can add this article to the project, and no editor who is not a member can remove it, as per [7]. Add it if you wish. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I do not think there is anything more to say after this long discussion, as long as there are widely varying sources regarding Butrint's geographical location in Illyria, Epirus or wherever, the Illyrian WP definitely belongs to this article. Its inclusion is not supposed to be a territorial claim as strange as it sounds lol. However, thanks Ktrimi991 for your research and great deal of efforts. Iaof2017 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

All the sources editor Ktrimi pointed out to:

• The cities are Athens, Corinth and Nemea in Greece, Sardis in Asia Minor, Beirut, Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem in the Near East, Carthage in North Africa, and Butrint on the Illyrian coast of the Adriatic. [8]

The "Illyrian coast" his source refers to the late antiquity/early medieval Roman/Byzantine province Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum, an administrative region which stretched from Austria in Central Europe, to include half of the Balkans and Greece, all the way down to the island of Crete in the Eastern Mediterranean, not to the actual geographical and historical Illyria. Also note how the source uses the modern-day Albanian name for the city. Back in the Roman times it was Buthrotum.

• the publisher of the archaeological team of Butrint Butrint with literary evidence about the medieval town. More specifically, it offers crucial information regarding the connection between southern Italy and this part of the Illyrian coast and confirms previous sporadic indications. [9]

This info is about the Roman times again since it mentions the medieval town. Again there is inaccuracy with the name: there was no medieval town called Butrint, there was Buthrotum. Butrint as the name for it appeared at least 1.000 years later.

• the Archaeology magazine of University of London -page 1 While in Illyria , he visited Grammata (in the Acroceraunian range of the Vlorë district), Buthrotum (known today as Butrint, in the Saranda district, Dyrrachium (today known as Durrës) and Lissos (Lezhë today) [10]

This also is about Roman times, and of all the 4 sources presented, this is the only source to use the correct names Buthrotum and Dyrrachium for these cities back then, but also goes a step further as well as to explain to the readers that Butrint and Durres are the today's Albanian names.

• Cambridge University for the south Illyrian colonies, see Shpuza 2006, assuming Byllis and Shkodra probably were founded on ager publicus, whereas Butrint was founded on newly confiscated land due to unpaid [11]

This source, just like the 1st and 2nd sources above again contain inaccuracies with names and foundations of the city: 1) it calls the city Butrint when it was founded. It was founded as Bouthroton, while Butrint is the modern official Albanian name for it. 2) it calls the region of Epirus as Illyria, which is how the Romans called it several centuries later when Epirus came under their control. Considering that the source is using the modern Albanian name and the Roman name for the region, both of which came millennia (the first) and centuries (the latter) after the city's foundation as Bouthroton in Epirus, I wouldn't ever go as low as to use this source to make a point that the city of Bouthroton and the region of Epirus were already called Butrint and Illyria at the time of its foundation. The use of a source that way only serves to make a point about nationalist Albanian propaganda, nothing more.

So far, of all the 4 sources Ktrimi presented, the 3 are about the late antiquity/early medieval era's roman province of Illyria, (which was never coterminous with the the geographical and historical region of same name, since the Roman province stretched from Austria in Central Europe, to include half of the Balkans and Greece, all the way down to the island of Crete in the Eastern Mediterranean.) while the 4th source mentions the city's foundation using later names for both it and the region, not the actual names used at the time of its foundation. Of all the sources, only the 3rd one uses the correct historical names. Last, none of the sources appear to explicitly challenge the academic consensus which is that, during its foundation, the city was called Buthroton, not Butrint, and the region was called Epirus, not Illyria. Misuse of WikiProject Illyria (which is about the Illyrian civilization and their homeland), for articles that weren't part of the Illyria proper but were part of a Roman administrative province of same name, and pointing to sources that do not make careful distinguishing of names based on their chronological periods, as long as they appear to "prove" a point that Bouthroton belonged geographically in Illyria, is disruptive and unecyclopedic at least. Also it saddens me that the editors rushed to restore the Wikiproject Illyria while discussion is still underway and I wasn't given enough time to respond. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

SR, Iaof2017 is a member of WPIllyria for years, so when they add an article to the project, you as a non-member are not allowed to remove it. This is not about to make a "nationalist point", please do not use such battleground mentality when referring to other people's edits. And this is not about geography, and again, Illyria was always a fluid term. Even the tribes that were mentioned as "Illyrians" were not all "true Illyrians" i.e. Illyrian was a language family rather than a single language. This does not imply that Butrint had an Illyrian population (it never had), just WPGreece does not indicate that Butrint is in Greece (it will never be). Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course Illyria is a fluid term, and the reason Butrint has Project Illyria added, wasn't for geographical reasons. So I will ask:

• Considering that the Wikiproject Illyria is about geographical Illyria and the Illyrian tribes
• Considering that the Wikiproject Illyria wasn't added into Butrint's article for ethnographic reasons (Butrint's people were non-Illyrian)
• Considering that the Wikiproject Illyria wasn't added into Butrint's article for cultural reasons (Butrint's culture was different to Illyrian)
• Considering that the Wikiproject Illyria wasn't added into Butrint's article for geographical reasons (Butrint was founded in Epirus and later became part of the Roman region bearing the name Illyria but wasn't coterminous to geographical Illyria)
• Considering that Butrint's area (just as Austria, half the Balkans, and Greece did) became to be known as Illyria but in a different context (Romans) which exceeds the scope of Wikiproject Illyria,

what is the reason Wikiproject Illyria is added into Butrint's article? Considering that Butrint is related to Illyria as much as the areas in Northern Italy, Southern Austria, half the Balkan peninsula, and Greece are, does this mean that WIkiproject Illyria will have to be added to (hundreds if I may say) non-Illyrian towns and settlement articles situated outside of the approximate geographical Illyria? I will appreciate that this lack of clarity is addressed here. In face of the lack of clear answer addressing these points, my concerns for misuse of Wikiprojects still stand. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It has already become clear that you do not carefully read other editors' comments, SR. Please read the comments more carefully, and try to see things for a moment from other editors' perspective. I have already explained that the sources use Butrint to get valuable information about late Roman/medieval Illyria. One of the sources explains the nature of links between the Illyrian coast and southern Italy through archeological findings in Butrint. Another source discusses the character of Roman colonization of Illyria and one of the examples given is Butrint. Another one discusses the coinage in late Roman times and as the example from the Illyrian coast it uses coins from Butrint. Butrint as a major city in late antiquity served to commercial, political and cultural exchanges between its nearby areas -Epirus's interior and southern ("true") Illyria - and the Roman/Mediterranean world. It and Durrachium were basically the coastal hubs of the Balkan at some point in time. Unlike you might think, the importance of Butrint was during its imperial Roman period, not its ancient Greek or medieval Venetian and Norman periods. Thessaly, the rest of Epirus and other places were part of Illyricum, but no scholar discusses them to get information about Illyricum/Illyria. Hence Butrint has importance for WPIllyria, while Nicopolis or Stobi do not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's now understandable. Considering that the Wikiproject Illyria may be relevant from that perspective, I won't object. However, the editors should be mindful of at least one thing when expanding Wikiprojects: that the scope of Wikiprojects is not conterminous with modern boundaries of states and may not be used as such. It never was. Unless it is explicitly stated otherwise in that Wikiproject's page. Also, the replacement of Wikiprojects like how it was done here: [12] was, as you can understand, the reason the discussion took much longer since it gave the false impression that the disagreement was geographical or ethnocentric in nature, owning to the nationalist spectrum in the politics of Albania, which from what I understand now, isn't. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant to add wp:Illyrian when the term "Illyria/n" is no existent here. Butrint has not importance for wp:Illyria. On the other hand we can ad wp:Greece in all locations that were once Greek speaking.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

with that logic all places which are Albanian speaking in Greece should be in wiki project Albania. Durraz0 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Duraz0: So I assume you don't disagree about the relevant projects forthis article.Alexikoua (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel astonished that there is no argument at all for the inclusion of a completely irrelevant wproject such as Illyria... (no wonder even the word Illyrian/s is absent from the text). SR is excellent on his point and we all should respect his analysis.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, Illyria is a neighbour of Butrint. I'm more concerned by editors insisting so much on including an inactive Wikiproject. What's the point? T8612 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Which Wikiproject is inactive? Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

T8612, WP Illyria is active since mid January and was updated since then with new members and so forth. Iaof2017 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad, last time I checked it was inactive. T8612 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't concern me if a Wikiproject, Illyria in this case, is revived. What concerns me is how the revival of that Wikiproject, is used for the disruptive removal of other Wikiprojects [13] without any valid explanation and even though Iaof isn't a member of WikiProject Greece. When Wikiprojects are added in such disruptive ways, it is hard to believe that they were done in good faith. These good faith concerns are fueled further when the same editor is spotted edit warring over Wikiprojects at more articles such as Talk:Ioannina: Revision history. The reason? They wanted to add Wikiproject:Albania to Ioannina city article. The argument? The city was once managed by an Albanian ruler, Ali Pasha of Ioannina. A disruptive use of WikiProjects indeed, which raises eyebrows, and has never happened before in my years in Wikipedia. Iaof's argument that cities should automatically become relevant to Wikiproject Albania just because one of their Governors and Mayors was Albanian. These cities are historical, meaning they have seen multiple rulers through the history, of many different cultural backgrounds but I am not seeing anyone adding WikiProject Italy to New York City's article or WikiProject Israel to Ioannina's article just because they were managed by Italian governor Andrew Cuomo and Jewish mayor Moses Elisaf respectively. Even in cases where the rulers were longer-lived and more influential. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not only Iaof2017, but also one or two Greek editors who have recently added Wikiprojects here or there and have been reverted by others in some cases. If one has issues with this, other talk pages are places to discuss. This one is for Butrint only, not for issues one has with another editor. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If the editors aren't certain when a WikiProject is really relevant to an article, then it is recommended that they leave this task to someone else. No offense but that's what I would have advised myself, had I proceed with such edits. "It is not only Iaof2017, but also one or two Greek editors" you sound as if you believe that one editor's actions are justifiable by the actions of other editors? That doesn't make it any better. Is still disruptive. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not justify anyone, I just noted that it is not only Iaof2017 who has recently added Wikiprojects and has been opposed by other editors. These are common things in Balkan topics, so posting a wall of text on what Wikiproject Iaof2017 added to what other article for whatever reason does not bring anything good to this tp. That was my point. Take your concerns about other articles to a proper place. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Doublicate lead info creating confusion

The addition of "Roman colony and a bishopric" for an unexplained reason is added twice in lead. Moreover, chronological discrepancy is created when this Roman-era information is mentioned from the very first line and this is followed by pre-Roman era information (Chaonians & clasical-era). Going back and then forward in terms of history is definitely not a good way to begin an article per wp:MOS. Take also for example Amantia and Byllis where Hellenistic and Roman-era information is not mentioned from first sentence.Alexikoua (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In terms of consistency Amantia and Byllis follow a strict chronological timeline in lead: the introductory sentence mentioned only Illyria and Illyrians while anything non-Illyrian is followed only from the following sentence. A similar pattern in terms of chronological timeline needs to be adopted here. It's bad prose to confuse the reader with a tortured timeline from the intro.Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The main reason Butrint is known is due to its fame in the Roman period. It is not about "chronology", it is about what Butrint is mostly known about. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only is that claim unsourced, but even if it were the case, the information is already in the lede. There is simply no need or reason to repeat it twice in consecutive sentences. This isn't done in any other similar articles. Khirurg (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove it where it is "repeated". It is in the first sentence because the Roman period is the main reason why the settlememt is well-known. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The settlement is pre-Roman, the Roman period should not be mentioned in the very first sentence. The claim that the Roman period is the main reason why the settlememt is well-known is unsourced. Khirurg (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:Lead sentence should describe what the subject of the article is, and Buthrotum is widely known to have been one of the main Roman cities in the region. – Βατο (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It was a city of the Chaonians for the the first ~1000 years of its history. It was only Roman for the latter and shorter part of its history. Btw, Byllis was completely refounded by the Romans, but it's not described as a "Illyrian and Roman city". Greek cities in what is now Albania are "Greek and Roman", but "Illyrian" cities are just plain "Illyrian" but never "Illyrian and Roman". Weird. Khirurg (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi is kindly requested to provide a decent citation about those claims that appears extraordinary: The main reason Butrint is known is due to its fame in the Roman period. We should avoid a tortured and historically inaccurate timeline in introductory part.

There is also another issue: what makes Amantia & Byllis (Roman colonies but their intro sentence is confined to Illyrian-related information) less Roman compared to Butrint?Alexikoua (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The lead used the sentence Butrint (Greek: Βουθρωτόν and Βουθρωτός[2], romanized: Bouthrōtón, Latin: Buthrōtum) was an ancient Greek and later Roman city and bishopric in Epirus. If there is a proposal to change it, propose it and then change it but don't add a version which fundamentally changes the existing lead. Butrint was first and foremost a Roman colony, one of the most extensive of its kind in the region. This is the fundamental difference of Butrint with a settlement like Byllis. The site of the archaeological project follows a similar pattern and doesn't even calll it an "ancient Greek city" because the early history of the site goes through a radical shift in the Roman era[14]. I'm not necessarily opposed to restructuring the lead to address any concerns about minimization of Chaonian pre-Roman presence, but the way to do such is not to remove the mention of its Roman history.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  The lede currently reads ..and later Roman city and the seat of an early Christian bishopric in Epirus. Perhaps inhabited since prehistoric times it became part of the state of Epirus and later a Roman colony and a bishopric. The same text is repeated in consecutive sentences. It is highly intellectually dishonest to claim that "Roman history is removed." Roman history is not being removed, on the other hand, it is the Chaonian history that was removed [15]. Literal gaslighting. Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence is Originally a settlement of the Greek tribe of the Chaonians,... so both the pre-Roman and Roman history parts are repeated and no Chaonian history is removed. Side comment: The sentence is wrong in all possible ways as the settlement was a dependent of Kerkyra and only much later came under Chaonian control.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You can propose a change which you see fit as this is an open-ended discussion with no mutually exclusive narratives. If you want to expand the lead in relation to pre-Roman history, you can definitely do so without removing that it was a Roman city.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It was not a Kerkyrean colony. The area was part of Chaonia. So why did you remove the Chaonians (in a deceptive manner, no less) [16]? Khirurg (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That edit is not "deceptive" at all. It is just you not being able to understand the edit summary "Don't change the lead without consensus". Not to mention the comment made above saying "I'm not necessarily opposed to restructuring the lead to address any concerns about minimization of Chaonian pre-Roman presence, but the way to do such is not to remove the mention of its Roman history". You were probably too busy trying to remove the Roman part to understand what was going on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, he's the one who "changed the lead without consensus". The sudden "concern" for Roman history is cute, but we all know what's really going on here. Khirurg (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The "later a Roman city" part has been in the first sentence of the article since 2011 [17]. And after failing to remove it at the time [18], you thought to give it a try again this new year. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Until know there has been no argument so far presented on why the 'later Roman city' is so important that should stay in intro sentence. In general the quality of all articles can be upgraded even if this concerns inconsistencies that had been added during 2017. Actually nearly all ancient Greek cities became latter Roman-controlled but this doesn't make it neccesary for lead addition. On the other hand no Illyrian settlement is mentioned as "latter Roman" from intro (Roman colony of Bylis etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In the Aegean area, what is called "Romanization of urban space" for the most part involves the degradation of existing structures, the ruralization of the population, little urban renewal and in general it doesn't involve external colonization. In the Ionian region, the situation is quite different - partially because big urban agglomerations existed in the first place. You can see the difference in size via comparing the site of pre-Roman Butrint and how the site expanded afterwards.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Again wp:OR and no wonder no reference presented so far for this extraordinary statement. Roman colonies were located in various places in the Greek world and not only (cited map in Colonia (Roman)). Illyria had also Roman colonies, Byllis for example but the intro sentence there does not state that.Alexikoua (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Read this. As a city, Roman Butrint was much bigger and even more relevant than the Ancient Greek town. As per WP:Notability and WP:Lead sentence, that info can't be removed. As for Byllis, it was another city with a different development, and the lead sentence does not mention "Illyrian city" or "Roman city", but just "ancient city". – Βατο (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ali Pasha of Ioannina

The usage of Greek, however, did not in any way make Ali Greek, just as his role as Ottoman appointee did not in any way make him Ottoman. He was first and foremost considered as an Albanian. (Fleming 2014, p. 60)

Unless there are serious issues with my version, I won't consider it inappropriate for Wikipedia. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg AlexBachmann (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You know very well that there is a world of sources that describes Ali as "Ottoman" [19], so let's cut the nonsense, shall we? Khirurg (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead still describes him as an Albanian ruler. He was at literal war with the Ottoman sultan. Do I need to repeat the source that I just gave you? I’ll restore Ottoman Albanian and dismiss the IPs revert as long as no sources are cited here. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)