text:
Talk:Illyria

Strange repeated text fragment removed
IP 70.69.175.56 seems to have added this fragment to the article both in Illyrian kingdom and in "In the Bible". It's not related to the Illyrian region, has typoes and throws in some strange uncited claims, so I moved it from the article to here and added back the periods in the sentences just before the additions. Those wiser on the topic can probably figure out what this is all about? Kataja (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Illyria, is also the name of an ancient mythological high priestess and sorceress of Roman and Greek decent (her myth is speculated by experts to be descended from an older similar figures from ancient Babylonia, Mesopotamia, and as far back as the neolithic era ie the goddess of willendorf ), who stood up during times of crisis against outpouring hoards during battle. she was a lesser know womens activist, who was honored and worshiped my many. until 500-600AD, myths of her were spread all across europe, but were nearly eradicated by Christianity, and Islam, claiming that she was an evil witch and the devil's whore. few remaining artifacts are left that give some clarification of Illyria's myth and power. a few small pieces of pottery, wine jugs, and a few statues, and some written work by Thales, (a goddess worshiper himself) he wrote of her despise of man laying blame where it was not due, saying famously that "[things] are not white or black... but both because nature's both.... the only good or bane is in the heart of the doer" today she is little but an unknown myth, seen many places but recognized rarely. the few people who keep her record, are sparse neo-pagan witch cults, and higher level historians.

Ancient Illyria
Well, I always thought that the article should be under Illyria, but now there are quite a few pages that link to Ancient Illyria. Should we change all those articles to point to Illyria? At the very least we should probably change the links in the History of Albania series. Dori 15:02, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ancient Illyria is redirected to "Illyria". We have to change the links in the orientation tables of the History of Albania series. In other cases, the change is not strictky necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres (talk • contribs) 15:56, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * Done. I also fixed some of the double redirects. Dori 23:13, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense?
 [ copyvio removed]

Moved this from article. Seems patent nonsense, but if it isn't, rewrite and put back in. Wyllium 23:41, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It isn't nonsense, but it's a copyvio, so I'm going to delete it from here. RickK 23:42, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It was misplaced anyway, that's about Illyria (television). --Shallot 17:00, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Fwiw, I've just moved Illyria (television) to Illyria (Angel) — OwenBlacker 23:28, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * to Illyria (Buffyverse) -- Paxomen 13:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

i lirë
Quote from the article: "The Albanian transliteration i lirë translates to a free person."

Albanian "i lirë" has nothing to with the Illyrians.

"Lirë" is a term borrowed by the ancestors of the Albanians from Latin "liber"="free". ("b" between the vowels disappears on Latin words borrowed in Albanian, just like in the word "horse" lat. cabalus -> alb. kalë.)

The name of Illyria was used long before the Romans came in the Balkans. Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

lol "i lirë" means in albanian the free and "i liri" means the free one that word is illyrian and not latin orgin and i think slavs should not write here in this wiki artikels which have to do with albanians because you are politcally motivated and writte here only lies which your goverment told you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardan207 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

...ancient civilization related to present-day Albania.
Quote from the article: "This article is about the ancient civilization related to present-day Albania."

I contest that. It seems that Illyrians have nothing to do with Albania, except the teritory.

There is no proof there is any connection. There's a text written in Messapic (Messapians were an Illyrian tribe) that says:

klohi zis thotoria marta pido vastei basta veinan aran in daranthoa vasti staboos xohedonas daxtassi vaanetos inthi trigonoxo a staboos xohetthihi dazimaihi beiliihi inthi rexxorixoa kazareihi xohetthihi toeihithi dazohonnihi inthi vastima daxtas kratheheihi inthi ardannoa poxxonnihi a imarnaihi

It has no resemblence whatsover with today's Albanian. We should look for the ancestors of Albanians  in Dacia, Moesia or Pannonia. Bogdan | Talk 17:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * (ITYM Dalmatia, not Dacia? Anyway...) --Joy [shallot]   11:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Ancient Dalmatians were Illyrians. Anyway, see this table that shows how phonetical features diverged from the proto-indo-european in various languages. Albanian is closest to Dacian. Bogdan | Talk 12:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it'd be fair to rephrase the intro sentence to not be so definite, but it does seem quite likely that the Albanians have a few common genes with the Illyres just like the neighbouring Slavic peoples do. --Joy [shallot]   11:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course. But it's about the language/culture than about the genes. For example, in the 8th century, a large part of today's Romania was assimilated by Slavs, only to be re-assimilated by the Romanians before the 11th century. Before Nationalism, assimilation was as easy as learning a foreign language. :) Bogdan | Talk 12:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That text proves nothing. The tribe could have used a different dialect or language. Also, although Albanian is thought to have derived from Ilyrian, I seriously doubt you can find anyone who will say that knowing Albanian means knowing Illyrian. In most historical texts it's pretty well accepted that Albanians are descendent of Illyrians. That doesn't mean it's true, but I wouldn't accept a minority opinion, or original research as more authoritative. Dori | Talk 15:56, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * That text proves nothing. The tribe could have used a different dialect or language.

 * It is believed that Messapian is an Illyrian dialect because of 1) the funeral graves look very similar to the Illyrian ones 2) many proper names are also common to those in Illyria

 * Also, although Albanian is thought to have derived from Ilyrian, I seriously doubt you can find anyone who will say that knowing Albanian means knowing Illyrian.

 * It is "thought" ? Since quite a number of linguists believe that Illyrian and Albanians are not related, I think we should use the NPOV policy.

 * In most historical texts it's pretty well accepted that Albanians are descendent of Illyrians. That doesn't mean it's true, but I wouldn't accept a minority opinion, or original research as more authoritative.

 * This is not an original research, but yes, it may be a minority opinion, especially among Albanian historians/linguists, but NPOV tells us to says to say the arguments of both parties and let the reader decide. That's why I created the Origin of Albanians page. Bogdan | Talk 16:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure we do tell all sides, but we also emphasize the majority opinion, and likewise, we don't bother to mention any crackpot theories. Are there even two parties like you say? It's not just Albanians vs the rest of the world, you can find plenty of non-Albanian historians (I would say the majority with the exception of most Serb historians) who say it's very likely that the Albanians descended from the Illyrians. Dori | Talk 17:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * There are also some Romanian linguists that use this theory to explain the common Romanian-Albanian words. I am not sure what would be the purpose of this claim of the Serb historians, since if the Albanians were not formed in Albania, most likely forming place would be in Eastern Serbia. :-) Bogdan | Talk 17:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is likely possible that Albanians have Illyrian blood (but no more so than Serbs, Bosnians, or Croats), however it is entirely impossible that the Albanian language derives from Illyrian due to the fact that modern Albanian is a satem language and Illyrian was a centum/kentum language. It is impossible for a satem language to transform into a centum one or vice versa (unless there is a change in its subtrate, which is not the case with Albanian). I agree that there are some historians who believe that Albanian is the descendant of Illyrian, but none of these historians explain how a centum language became a satem one. This has been explained in more depth by some Albanian historians who do not agree with the Illyrian origin of Albanians theory such as Dr. Kaplan Resuli, Dr. Adrian Vebiu, Dr. Fatos Ljubonja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.90.87 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It is likely possible that the Albanian language deriveds from the Illyrian language due to the fact that little is unknown about the Illyrian language and they only are suggestion to if Illyrian is centum or kentum. The serbian cannot be a Illyrian language cause it dosent orginates from the Illyrian but from the slavic.

 * A long straight sword with single or double edge introduced for close combat use in the Roman army. The Albanian word shpata means sword.

 * A a short curved knife used by the Illyrians as described by the Roman poet Ennius. The Albanian word thika means knife.

 * "Ardia" derived from the Albanian "ardhja" future.

 * "Taulant" derived from the Albanian "dallendyshe" swallow.

 * "Enchela" derived from the Albanian "e ngjala" eel-man.

 * "Dardan" derived from the Albanian "dardhen" pear.

 * "Thesprot" derived from the Albanian 'thes pro" bear sack.

 * "Dalmat" derived from the Albanian "delmet" sheeps. The ancient author Strabon mention that their was alot of sheeps in Dalmatia.

 * "Desaret" derived from the Albanian "deshiret" the desires.

 * "Histri" derived from the Albanian "uhstri" warriors.

 * "Epiri" derived from the Albanian "e piré" intoxicated, drunk.

 * "Mollosi" derived from the Albanian "molisje", hardworkers.

 * "Kalabri" derived from the Albanian "kullumbri" strawbeery.

 * "Gent" derived from the Albanian "gdhend", ingraved.

 * "Agron" derived from the Albanian "agon" come about, happen, occur.

 * User:Albanau 12:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know enough Albanian to say more, but it looks that at least two Albanian words are borrowings, and therefore not of Illyrian origin: shpata, from Italian spada and deshiret, from Latin desiderare. Bogdan | Talk 20:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, thika is most likely related to the Thracian curved knife called sica (see the knife in the hand of the Thracian gladiator) Bogdan | Talk 20:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Desaret meant 'the desires'..."---'The Desires' is a good name for a 1960's Motown group, but that's about it. Decius 14:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * MOST OF THE ABOVE WORDS HAVE GREEK OR ROMAN ETYMOLOGY,CHECK A LEXICON
 * THESE ARE THE NAMES THAT GREEKS AND ROMANS GAVE US.
 * The Greek name Epirus signifies "mainland" or "continent", to distinguish it from the Ionian islands off the Epirote coast. It was originally applied to the whole coast south to the Gulf of Patras. The name is thought to go back to Proto-Greek āper-jos, from an Indo-European root apero- meaning 'coast'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanos (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Illrians are the present day Albanians........... Here is why Serbs are not the descedants of Illyrians......... SLAVS WHO ARE SERBS CAME INTO BALKANS INTO 7TH CENTURY A.D...... THEY SPEAK SLAVIC LANGUAGE,,,,,,, THE BIBLE TALKS ABOUT ILLIRYCUM AS AN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE,,,,NOT SLAVIC,,,,,SERBS MIGRATED TO BALKANS FORM THE CARPATHE MOUNTAINS OF RUSSIA,,,, SOME SERBS ALSO COME FROM PRESENT DAY IRAN, SIBERIA, AND CAUCUS —Precedingunsigned comment added by 75.21.70.73 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Not that I have to point out how wrong and idiotic you are, but your whole statement is riddeled with the most basic errors that any person with half a clue about the world would know.

 * 1) The Albanian -Illyrian theory is just that, a theory, often played up by Albanian nationalists as if to justify their 'claims' over other countries lands, ie Kosovo (Serbia), Macedonia, even northern Greece.

 * 2) The slavs that came in the 7th century mixed with the Illyrians, thus todays Serbs, Croats etc are, in part, descended from Illyrians

 * 3) The Carpathian mountains are in Romania, not Russia

 * 4) Serbs do not come from Iran or Siberia
 * Hxseek 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * And Wilkes book quoted in the Article says that albanians have nothing to do with illyrians.Does albanian nationaliic propaganda supersede science? Bosnians, Montenegrans and the such should have Illyria history related to them. Megistias (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Ptolemy mentions a city called Serbinum in the locality of present-day Gradiška (Bosnia & Hercegovina) already in the second century AD. So much about 7th century Serbian migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.214.54 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm Frenkalbatros, ilirian are not albanians.
 * even if the language is similar, megistias says the truth,
 * i am fierce of being Albanian but is useless to try bogus theories, (sorry for my language but i am albanian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenkalbatros (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

THE PRESENT DAY SERBIA WAS CALLED SERVIA- WHICH MEANS SERVANT IN LATIN,, THEY CHANGED THE NAME OF SERVIA TO SERBIA AROUND 1934 I BELIEVE,,,,,,,,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.70.73 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The slavic people came from the carpatian mountains in the 7th century and they settled in illyrian territories benefiting from the weakness of illyrians tribes. They assimilated illyrian people so that makes them in part illyrian descendents but the similarity of the albanian and illyrian languages along with the grave traditions of illyrians and arberians (predecessors of today albanians in the middle ages) indicate that arberians are descendents of illyrians therefore albanians are descendent of illyrian tribes. albanians claim nothing by saying they are from illyric descendenc and kosovo became a part of serbia in 1913 when other countries decided for albanias borders. albanias voice was irrelevant to the major powers of that time in confront with those of serbia and greece becous of their strength in the region they would have been better allies for those powers. More than 80% of kosovo speaks albanian and they call themselves albanians. Serbia lost all rights over kosovo after milloschevics genocid. Everyone keeps forgeting about events that happened just a decade ago. Albania has no claim for the neighboroughs lands even though 30% of macedonia is albanian and lands in norther greece were once populated by albanians (cameria) but they migrated to southern albania unlike albanians in kosovo who prefered to stay under serbian rule but in their homes.(this information is not related to illyrians but its a response to a statement made above that albania claims kosovo or other neighborough territories)

In a europe growing unified year by year territorial claims of serbians, albanians or other countries are pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New Page for Tribes
I expanded the list of tribes and I think its so long it should become its own page. Anyone against this idea? freestylefrappe 07:27, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, will we ever say much more about them than merely list them? If it's going to remain this way, it might as well stay... --Joy [shallot]   12:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not Illyrians
I removed a number of tribes that were not Illyrian tribes: Maedi were Thracian; Triballi were Thracian; Scordisci were too mixed up with Celtic and Thracian to be considered Illyrian; Paeonians were Paeonians, a distinct ethnicity; Liburni are by most scholars not considered to be real Illyrians; and so on. I'll check the rest later. Decius 10:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The List should be a separate page---and be aware that every single tribe listed will be double-checked. Decius 10:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listing the Celtic Boii as an "Illyrian" tribe was a gross display of ignorance or carelessness or both on the part of the lister or his/her source. Decius 11:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Veneti
I see that someone had listed the Veneti as an Illyrian tribe. Actually, the ancient Venetic language and people are considered distinct from Illyrians (though very probably the languages were related, even closely related, though the close relation of Venetic to Illyrian is very much disputed by scientists). Read this:Venetic language. Read that Venetic sentence. You can see that Venetic was so close to Latin (Italic) that some classify Venetic as an Italic language. If you want to say that the Veneti are the same as Illyri, then you are saying this: the Illyrian language has nothing at all to do with Albanian, and the Illyrian language was in fact close to Latin. You cannot have it both ways. Decius 04:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check your source
User:Freestylefrappe lifted that erroneous list of Illyrian tribes from this website:. The homepage is. This is a pseudo-historic website (a crank site) which is known to be full of untrustworthy information. Next time, instead of just assuming that all those listed are correctly listed, try checking the homepage and doing some extra research. Decius 05:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Illyrian Tribes
I really wish people would stop posting the ridiculous tribe list from such a propagandic source. Confirmied Illyrian tribes are the following from this source ;

(latinized)

Encheleus, Autarieus, Dardanus, Maedus, Taulas, Perrhaebus, Taulantii, Perrhaebi, Enchelei,Autariatae, Dardanians, Partheni,  Dassaretii, Darsi, Autarieus, Pannonius, Scordiscus, Triballus

These were presented by Appian. Tpilkati 7 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

 * Thanks Tpilkati, that is much better than a propaganda site. But even Appian's list is rightly disputed: the Triballians and Maedi are more often acknowledged to have been Thracian. Decius 7 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

 * Tribal names should be given in the plural, either in Latin (e.g. Taulantii, Perrhaebi, Enchelei, Autariatae, Partheni, Dassaretii, Darsi) or in Anglicized forms (e.g. Dardanians), but with some consistency. They are never given in the singular, so I find it truly odd that most names in Tpilkati's list are given in the masc. sing. form, e.g. Encheleus [same as Enchelei], Autarieus [repeated twice, and the same as Autariatae], Dardanus [same as Dardanians], Maedus, Taulas [same as Taulantii], Perrhaebus [same as Perrhaebi], Pannonius, Scordiscus, Triballus. Perhaps those masc. sing. names refer to the mythological eponymous ancestors of each tribe (like Romulus for the Romans). When this list was first started, it was a list of ancient tribal names, given in their modern Albanian forms. Over time, different contributors have been adding the original classical names for those tribes, but many modern Albanian forms still remain, e.g. Dalmat, Mesap, Japyg, Labeat, Taulant, etc. They should be taken out, because they are totally irrelevant and as derivative as the English ones. Since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Abanian Wikipedia, one expects to find either the English forms or, as is customary, the original classical forms, given in Latin. Perhaps Decius will find the time to clean this up. Pasquale 00:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

NW Greece
If we call the Thesprotians and Mollosians "Illyrian tribes", then we may have to call the Macedonians an "Illyrian tribe". Strabo in his Geography (Book 7.2) writes:

"Among the Thesprotians and Mollosians old women are called Peliai and old men Pelioi, as is also the case among the Macedonians."

---Peliai and Pelioi meant "Pigeons" in ancient Greek, and comes from pelos, 'dark' (PIE *pel-,'pale, gray, dark'). Other similarities are known between the ancient Macedonians and the tribes of ancient Northwestern Greece. It seems to me that the Thesprotians and Mollosoi and the Macedonians were perhaps kin (speaking similar languages or dialects?), perhaps forming a semi-Hellenic branch (or on the other hand, they were just "backward" Hellenes). Unless very strong evidence exists that the Thesprotians and Mollosoi were Illyrian tribes, we should remove them from the list. I removed them from the list for now. Decius 18:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Peliai and Pelioi for old women and men seems to be more related with the Albanian word plak/plakë (pl. pleq) which means old man/old woman. It is very ridiculous to call an old man or woman pigeon, even if you want to respect or offend them. --Getoar 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Read this: . The Pigeons idea is from Strabo himself, and he was not far off. The ancient Greeks named their pigeons after their dark/pale grayish color, and the Greek and Macedonian and Mollosian/Thesprotian words come from PIE *pel-, "pale, gray, dark". That Albanian word comes from the same root (PIE *pel-) yes, but any linguist will tell you that the ancient Greek form is closest to the Macedonian, not the Albanian. The Albanian form has a very close correspondance in Lithuanian however: pilkas means "gray" or "old" in Lithuanian (don't remember exactly which one). The Lithuanian word is also from *pel-. The Greek and Macedonian forms have pretty much the same form, but altered meaning or altered application. ---Decius 02:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Plutarch has some interesting passages on the Thesprotians and Mollosians in his biography of Pyrrhus. He says that in the language (Dryden translation uses this term) of the country of Epirus, Achilles was known as Aspetos. Plutarch also states that the Mollosian/Thesprotian king Tharrhypas (observe the -rrh- element also found in Macedonian) was "the first" Mollosian/Thesprotian king "who, by introducing Greek manners and learning, and humane laws into his cities, left any fame for himself." So the same Greek-or-non-Greek ambiguity circles around Mollosians and Thesprotians, as around the Macedonians. Decius 04:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

there are several ancient greek writers that identify the Chanionians, Mollosians and Thesprots as barbarians, and also several old roman historians that do the same, i believe there are links to this in the pages for each tribe and also archeological digs in northern greece and sourthern albania have uncovered objects that are quite different from traditional greek-ware and are quite similar to other objects found in other illyrian dig sites, i have posted a link for that somewhere as well a while back i will try and locate it and post it again back here67.149.105.34 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Jonian

Improvement drive
History of the Balkans is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. If you are interested, support the article with your vote. --Fenice 20:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hyllus
So who is this magnificent, antediluvian Illyrian king Hyllus, and what classical sources mention him? He's mentioned all over the net (mostly in Wikipedia mirror sites and crank sites), but it is quite mysterious that nowhere is a classical reference given for him. Perseus mentions a number of figures named Hyllus (including Hyllus), but none match the description. ---Decius 05:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Poor information!
Wikipedia claims that the second Illyrian king we know is Bardyllis, while Albanian Nation History tells how Bardyllis, a digger, won enough advocacy in order to organize a rebellion against Sirra (I wrote it as Albanians do in their books). It is said that Sirra became a king at the end of the fifth century BC, while the revolt took the place in the fourth century BC.

On the other hand Wikipedia tries to make differences between Illyrian tribes, and this is done in purpose to relate modern Albanian state (1/3 of the territory of Ethnic Albania) with the territory inhabited by ‘proper’ Illyrians.

If someone says that ‘illyrian’ – ‘ilir’ (Alb.) doesn’t mean ‘i lirë’ (Albanian free), because it is Latin, I would like to add that the word ‘libero’ may have been used before. Illyrian was an Indo-European language and it is natural to have common or at least similar words with other languages of the family. Një = uno = one = une = eins... or maybe this word, one of the simplest was Latin and then diffused into other languages.

List of Illyrian Tribes by Aleksandar Stipcevic (‘Glli Illiri’, eng. The Illyrians) (only the tribes marked on the map):

Amantini

Andizetes

Ardiei

Atintani

Autariates

Breuci

Bylliones

Chaones

Colapiani

Dalmates

Daorsei

Dardani

Dassaretae

Daunii

Desitiates

Encheleae

Histri

Japodes

Japyges

Jasi

Labeates

Latobici

Liburni

Messapii

Mezei

Molossi

Paeones

Penestae

Parthini

Peucetii

Picentes

Pirustae

Plerei

Scordisci

Serretes

Taulantii

Thesproti

Varciani

Other tribes:

Agrianes

Albanoi * The Yugoslavian censure removed this tribe from the map of A. Stipcevic

Lucanians

Pannoni

Tribali

etc.

Getoar 19:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but that Slav you quote has no idea what he is doing. His list is erroneous. ---Decius 06:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyway, I read his work and I think Aleksandar Stipcevic is one the greatest historians to have contributed in Illyrians case. He didn't do it himself but he is based on data provided from ancient books and archeological sources.--Getoar 08:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Albanoi * The Yugoslavian censure removed this tribe from the map of A. Stipcevic" THEY REMOVED THIS TRIBE TO HIDE THE HISTORY OF PRESENT DAY ALBANIANS, SERBS KNOW THAT THE LAND THEY HAVE TODAY IS NOT THEIRS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.70.73 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Chaones         greeks Molossi             Greeks Paeones            Thracians or indpendent Scordisci          Celts Thesproti          Greeks Agrianes           Thracians Albanoi * The Yugoslavian censure removed this tribe from the map of A. Stipcevic Dont exist only albanopolis existed most likely a roman city with a latin greek name etc.                Mistakes are abound and Stipevic ignores basic knowledge on tribes and more.He confuses greeks and thracians and celts with Illyrians.UnacceptableMegistias (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I have this book A. Stipčević, Iliri. All this section is misinterpretation of data in the book. It's true that there is a map with tribes positioned within it, but that map actually present the most important SETTLERS of the western Balkans and not exactly ILLYRIANS. For example there are Scordisci in a map, but in the text in the book it clearly says that they were Celts. There are Liburni too, but in the text they are described clearly as tribe distinguished from those that belong to Illyrian proper, etc...
 * Don't eliminate one of the best contributors to our knowledge about Illyrians (constantly quoted by all eminent authors) just because some wikipedian here misinterpreted what is written there. Stipčević's book was published in 1971 (actually I'm not sure that it was 1st edition) and in that moment it was one of the best books about Illyrians in general. Maybe it's enough to say that even J.P. Mallory uses A. Stipčević as one of 3 sources in parts about Illyrians in his excellent Indo-European Encyclopedia (published after 2000).
 * I advise Getoar to read Stipčević's book first before making superficial conclusions as that list above, but also to read newer works of other eminent authors, to see how later archeological researches changed our perception and knowledge about some tribes, like a few in the south counted as familiar to Illyrians earlier, but more related to the Greeks now.
 * Megistias your comment goes on Getoar's count, not Stipčević's one. But in the future try to avoid such conclusions and save it for the poorly informated users and not wrongly quoted scientists. I say this because this is 2nd time of what I've seen that you criticize A. Stipčević just because he was misinterpreted here in wikipedia(1st time it was some stupid Serb-Albanian struggle and A.S. was misinterpreted by both sides). Zenanarh (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Albanians during Hodja regime, deleted any historical information about Greek presence in modern albanian territory. So, they wrote in their school books that the tribes of Molossians, Chaonians and Thesprotians were ...Illyrian. Suppose they wanted to destroy the ancient Greek inscriptions written by these people in the archolochical sites of Butrindo, Appolonia, Dyrrachium or elsewhere in order to support their ideas. Hope these books ,which are a shame for humanity, are now long forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaones Molossi are not greek tribes, the origins of these two tribes are very disputable, some ancient historians refer to them as barbarians while others as greek, as i have stated before several inland archeological digs have turned up items of non greek origin, while there are several other sites closer to the sea which are clearly of a greek nature. The most likely explanation at this point is that of hellenization which is quite normal when a lesser developed culture meets a much more advanced one.Jonian (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction contradicts itself
The delineation of ancient Illyria can pose a problem to historians, since before the Roman conquest the Illyrians were not unified into an Illyrian kingdom, and Illyria's borders before Rome are not always clear. For example, the Dalmatae, though classed as an Illyrian tribe by language, were only subject to the kingdom of Illyria for a short time and soon defected during the reign of King Gentius.

Was there or was there NOT a king of Illyria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.151.157 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New Map
I think that the map on this article is of a very low quality as compared to most other maps on Wikipedia now. I request that someone creates a more detailed and accurate map. I'd do it, but the only image program I know how to use is Microsoft Paint. Bifgis 20:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The map is wrong, indeed. Illyria extended from what is now Croatia/Bosnia down to the borders of ancient Epirus. Some sysop please check that. 24.5.75.64 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The map is wrong, illyria and illyricum dont much. Illyria extended from what is now Croatia/Bosnia down to the borders of Greece that is ancient Epirus. This map is contructed by decius a albanian propagandist user in german wikipedia and contradics Wolrd Bilbiography on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * This is better Or this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Indeed, someone should change the map, as it is unhistorical and inaccurate, giving the incorrect impression that the whole of Epirus and the island of Corfu belonged to Illyria, which they didn't, as they were in fact Greek. Obviously the creator of this map is a fan of the false theory of Pan-Illyrism. Here are some historically accurate maps of Illyria and Epirus, showing the actual bordering between them:

 * http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/macedonia_1849.jpg

 * http://www.forumancientcoins.com/forvm/Articles/Maps/images/Map_Ancient_Greece_1900pix.jpg

 * http://www.crystalinks.com/mapgreeceancient.gif

 * http://www.e-grammes.gr/maps/650bc.gif

 * http://www.e-grammes.gr/maps/433.jpg

 * http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/1/7/7/9/2/Reference-Map-of-Ancient-Greece---Northern-Part..jpg

 * http://www.wbenjamin.org/nc/greekmap.jpg

 * http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/sdukancgrecn.jpg

 * http://www.culturalresources.com/images/maps/Gre5BCBg.jpg
 * Helladios 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Borders of illyria and greece
This map must ber cut from oricum/oricius and above to be correct.

"Arha Ellas apo Oricias kai arhegonos Ellas Epiros"

'''"Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus."

'''Claudius Ptolemy, The Geographer

Megistias (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian peoples map
Or this map Megistias (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ilyria proper map
This university offers this map of Pre-roman conquest illyria. Megistias (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * That is not Illyria on the map. That's an area populated with Illyrians. I's written there - "Illyrians". Illyrians didn't have such union. Illyria was much smaller and in present south Croatia, Montenegro and Albania. Zenanarh 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Its not saying its a union its just showing where they were.This is for illyria not illyricum or any of their ancient states that were fluid and changing anyway.Illyria was not only present south Croatia, Montenegro and Albania.PAnnonia and Dalmatia are included as they were illyrians thus illyria.This isnt about a part of it but all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your map shows position of tribes in the western Balkan. Purple area on your map best accords to the territory of the Roman province Illyricum. Illyria was much smaller state in the south. Dalmatae are considered to be Illyrians, that's true, but they were never a part of Illyria state. Also Dalmatia was smaller region in 2nd century BC than nowadays. It was settled not only by Dalmatae. Panoni were never a part of Illyria state. You mix real Illyria state with some non-existing "Illyria" which, according to you, covers all Illyrians!? Zenanarh (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Website (www.geocities.com)
I just wanne add a website, maybe will help you with some clarification regarding Illyrians http://www.geocities.com/protoillyrian/index.html I also wanne mentioned that I noticed many of the Towns and People names will and up with "um" and "ae" if the source is Roman and with "os","es"or "is" if the source is Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vini78 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Albanians and Illyrians = No.Slavs and Vlachs=YEs
Albanians and Illyrians = No.Slavs and Vlachs=YEs

"The Illyrians, like the Celts and Thracians, dissolved in the sea of latter conquerors, simply for the reason that during the long period of Roman rule they had lost their native culture and were unable to utilize their language to a political life of their own...We first learn of Albanians in their native land as the Arbanites of Arbanon in Anna Comnena's (Alexiad 4)."

John Wilkes, "The Illyrians", Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, 1992

John Wilkes: "The Illyrians", Oxford Press, 1996:

(1) "..A separate group of Illyrians identified by renowned historian Geza Alfoldy: he identifies 'Pannonian peoples' in '''Bosnia, northern Montenegro [around Plyevlya and Priyepolye, p.84] and western Serbia [Sanxak]". p.75'''

(2) "Not much reliance should perhaps be placed on attempts to identify an Illyrian anthropological type as short and dark-skinned similar to moderAlbanians." p.219

(3) "...a documented description of Illyrians, Pannonian family: - Pannonians are tall and strong, always ready for a fight and to face dangerous but slow-witted." p.219

(4) "Life has always been hard in the Illyrian lands and countless wars of resistance against invadors are testimony to the durability of their populations." p.220

(5) "In sum, the destructive impact [of Bosnia-centred theory] on the earlier generalizations regarding Illyrians should be regarded as a step forward." p.40 Megistias (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern countries on Illyrian soil
The following modern countries are on illyrian soil so they take part in the illyrian "heritage".They must be included in all Illyrian projects and since Wilkes points out that among Slavs and the Vlach population of the Areas true illyrian ancestors are found they must be posted and Quoted.This Albanian exclusiveness is arbitrary and irrelevant as most of illyria is part of other countries and other peoples have such ancestors.

ALBANIA (about half of albania) MONTENEGRO SERBIA CROATIA BOSNIA & HERSEGOVINA SLOVENIA HUNGARY Megistias (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i think you are missing greece here, part of northern greece has illyrian inhabitants in it, several archeological digs in what is now norther greece, around Ioanina have turned out objects quite similar to those found in other illyrian dig sites, i do agree however that the albanians do not have exclusivity to illyrians, the only point is that albanians appear to be the only ones that have have a larger illyrian influence in their language and customs than those other countries67.149.105.34 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Jonian

Linguistical similarities between Illyrian and Albanian
Illyrian (Ilir in albanian) means the free in Albanian. The Illyrian king Bardyllis name means white star in Albanian. The province of Dalmatia means "land of sheep" in Albanian. The city of Ulqinj means "land of wolves" in Albanian. The Illyrian capitol Lissus (Lis) quite simply means tree in Albanian. Dardania means land of pears in Albanian The name oh the illyrian tribe Thesproti means Bringer of sacks (bags) in Albanian

In exception for a few borrowed words from Romance, Turkish and Slavic, Albanian is modern day Illyrian.

Bardhyll, Genc (Gentius in Romance) Agron, Teuta are a few examples of Illyrian names that are still and only used by Albanians.

This obvious affinity can not continue to be denied. Confirm this with an Albanian interpreter or do you wish to keep your eyes closed.

Conclusion: If Serbs where a little bit freindlier to their Albanian neighbours they would gladly explain this long before any misconceptions could be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Please, keep in mind that per our verifiability policy "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." To be included in the article, the claim of a close affinity between the Illyrian & Albanian languages would need to be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Otherwise, such content would constitute original research on our part. - Best regards, Ev 00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * So, how does the above exactly prove that Albanian is simply modern Illyrian ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * To proove anything with my keyboard and mouse is very hard but as i havesaid earlier, confirm this with an albanian interpreter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Albania is has a Thracians language affinity and not an Illyrian one.,The Thracian language, An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC - 500 AD.Megistias (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Albanian claims regarding illyria,pelasgians and others
Here are some quotes from famous Albanian historians;

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

When the Albanians arrive on the Balkan and today's Albania, there is nothing else they can do except to take those toponyms. A large part of Albania is flooded with Serbian toponyms. Just as an example, I wish to mention the towns of Pogradec, Kor?a (Korcha), (Chorovoda), Berat, Bozigrad, Leskovik, Voskopoja, Kuzova, Kelcira, Bels and others.

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

After him followed the Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi who in the middle of Tirana openly opposed the hypothesis about the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. With me agreed, via the printed media, several other younger scholars of whom I would especially mention Fatos Lubonja, Prof. Adrian Vebiu and others." Quote: About the Albanians, Wilkes writes "NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."

Wilkes was proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European lineage. Quote: That's the way it is with our culture, which is mythomaniac, national-communist, romantic, self-glorifying. You can't say anything objective without people getting angry. The Albanians are a people who still dream. That is what they are like in their conversations, their literature...In light of Hoxha and 'pyramid schemes, Albanians are a people who still dream. That's just the way they are..." Fatos Lubojia - Albanian historian Quote: Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi writes: I can say that today appear a group of new Albanian scholars who do not agree with the false myths (About Illyrian & Epirote descent) and courageously accept the scientific truth that they are not whatsoever connected to these ancient peoples. I am proud that I lead this group and that they took up from me the necessary scholarly courage."

 * Reasponce from Durim:
 * If you truly grasp history then you should know that the balkans has assimilated cultures and genes from Ethiopia to Mongolia. No gene in the balkans has stayed pure. But still the language of the Albanians is the language of the Illyrians, as i have said before you can confirm this with an albanian interpreter or study the language yourself. Prooving anything here is very hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: Ardian Vebiu Famous Albanian historian writes:

My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticismMegistias (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Responce from Durim:
 * This is an extreemely ignorant claim, this looks like your words moore than Adrian Vebiu`s

 * Study for yourself and see the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * How about you bring some sources and not only express your dislike and insistanceMegistias (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Responce from Durim
 * It is very hard to prove anything, just as i am very doubtful of you quoting these historians real words or if they even exist (i never heard of them). But it is funny that you do not mention the work of the Albanian professor Hysni Myzyri. I leave it there for you to study the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Durim, to understand what is being requested of you please read carefully our Verifiability and No Original Research policies. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Megistias, when quoting someone please indicate as clearly as possible from where is the quote taken. Just mentioning the person is not enough: please do provide also the details of the book, publication or article. Cite your sources clearly. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

COnstructed illyrian names in Albania
The articles on albania and illyrians related history should all mention that names were constructed and added. They were added during the communist era and thats why they are unacceptable by historians.

On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today

ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 196 it is stated

From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157.Megistias (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Response from Durim:
 * What do you have to say about Albanians living outside of Albanian communism and still having Illyrian names? Maybe Tito told them to get Illyrian names. Any claims made here on Wikipedia are very hard to prove but you can confirm it yourself by studying the Albanian language and try to compare it to any language in the world, the only language it compares to is Illyrian, start studying and you will see this yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above i stated is sourced and obviously a fact.You offer no sources.You must provide sources for names and prove with sources again that they are of Illyrian origin.Megistias (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you bring some sources and not only express your dislikeMegistias (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Responce from Durim:
 * I have no sources other than my brain understanding the Illyrian language, as i said before confirm this with an albanian interpreter or study the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you have nothing to offer here.Your brain isnt a source and again you persistence isnt one as well.You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own factsMegistias (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Responce from Durim:
 * I think you can agree with me on the point that this is an discussion where we speak our minds? I cant prove anything with a mouse and a keyboard, you have to study it for yourself. These names you have mentioned do not match any Google search i have done, which leads me to suspect that you are lying (amongst other strong suspicions). When you quote something then just a name will not do, you have to tell us where you have read this so we can check for ourselves, this i believe will disprove your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You should speak with sources.I have offered mine and i expect yours.Megistias (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

i would remind you the above "Please, keep in mind that per our verifiability policy "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." To be included in the article, the claim of a close affinity between the Illyrian & Albanian languages would need to be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Otherwise, such content would constitute original research on our part. "Megistias (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Epirotes
They we're also Illyrians.You must correct the Picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.125.52 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They were northwest Greeks and the actual original GreeksNW greeks.Megistias (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Responce from Durim:
 * Yes the epirotes are also illyrian because their name Epiri in albanian means the drunken, as in alcoholic. You ask for sorces well i ask you to translate these words in greek for me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 13:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Responce from Durim:
 * Epiri (E piri) translated into albanian means "the drunken", as in alcoholic. It may have been a land of wine cultivators or some other alcoholic beverage. The name now used for the greek part of Epiri is Thesprotia which ironicly is albanian for bringer of sacks or bags. Thesprotia is named after a tribe which obviously identified themselves with the illyrian language.

 * An common argument of these affinitys with the albanian language is that comunist albania deliberatly changed the language to assimilate the history as their own. This argument lacks knowledge, the albanians that emigrated to italy in the early stages of the ottoman invasion still use these words even after 500 years of separation. The 4 million albanians that were untouched by Enver Hoxhas propaganda speak the same languga and still share the same stories even after 60 years of albanian isolation.

 * Others simply dont take this affinity of languages seriously, and in my thought their protest is voiced by nationalism and racism rather than logic.

 * See also my discussion on dorians and the albanian/illyrian translation of Dorus.

 * Please recognise or disprove my claim so i can go on and think about something else.

 * You ask me to give you sources, but it is hard to believe my claims by writing a name of an Albanian interpreteur, i can give you many phone numbers of such persons if you want to ask them yourself. So i ask you now to please translate these words for me in Greek, and if you can give me a number of an grreek interpreteur so i can confirm it.

 * Dorus.
 * Aegimius.
 * Thesprotia.
 * Epirus.

 * They all translate easily in any Albanian dialect, so i would like for them to do the same in Greek. If this is indeed Greek then i will without a doubt in my mind say that i was wrong.

 * If not, then please start recognizing your Albanian neighbours so we can take at least a small step towards ending our nationalism and racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) using the IP 15:39 - 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Durim, please read carefully our Verifiability and No Original Research policies. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

greek nationalistic propaganda agains albanians
this article is not true. the editor dont mention the albanians which are the direct discendents of illyrians. this is not an historical article but an article written for nationalistic reasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolaci (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a disruptor and a troll.Megistias (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * who pay you to do this thing, to write all this articles about the history of albania.to create lies about albanians and to ignore or cancell tha name albania in your articles. tolaci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolaci (talk • contribs) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeap its sad and wrong but scholars are getting involved now,so in some way this nazi way of reasing the history of the Albanian people will smash their face with shame.We all know that wikipedia its not the place to get ur info,read the books and articles see what they say about Albania.The truth will find her way!--Taulant23 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

my 2 cents i see a lot of discussions about the illyrians and albanians, it is true that there is no proof of a connection between the two people however after trying to explain the existence of albanians we see that the best possibility is still that they derive from illyrians or otherwise they just sprang out of the ground. There is a lot of discussions about the illyrians and they geographical possitioning but that will be to no avail, the illyrians were a large conglomerate and they may have stretched over a large area, however from archeological findings we see that they main are is from modern day Slovenia to the bay of Arta in Greece. There are several ancient greek writers who identify the Molosian and Chaonians and Thesprots as not greek, however since the illyrians were not particularly advanced in culture they very fast and easily assimilated the more advanced greek culture which was made easier by the greek colonies that were created in the ionian coast were these tribes lived and the illyrians did give their contribution with the incorporation of their main deity the sun god into greek myth. As for the Ventians that i saw mentioned here it a lot more possible that they were a latin tribe and not illyrian. There is also a lot of discussion about the albanian language and illyrian language, there are words in both languages which cannot be either of greek, latin or slavic orygin and the issue is that even though some words in albanian can have similarities with neighbouring lands there is no way to find out who borrowed whose and there is actually a trail which can help a little in the languages, old illyrian is very rare but however some words pop up here and there every 2-300 years, from roman times then in byzantine libraries, then in church manuscripts, then in crusader notes and finally the more knows ones in the 1400s. However i do agree that none of this proves that the albanians are descended of the illiryans but there is a lot mor connections between the 2 than with ani other balkan people atm. again this is my 2 cents and sorry i did not provide the source of my info(too lazy atm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.238.183 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The albanian language has thracian affinity An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC - 500 AD.The illyrian languages are larglely unknown and many of the "illyrian" tribes spoke non illyrian languages.Veneti were not illyrian indeed they were italic tribes.Epirotes-Macedons were GreekNW greeksin ancient even par few exceptions that go with insults hurled at spartans,thessalian and others that Athenians did not like.Pelasgians are on the same case Greeks,not illyrians but in ancient texts Greeks in all but very few exceptions or they may not have existed.On illyrians and albanians once if ever the language gets discovered we may find out but up to then will still wander.Albanian nationalism demands to include non illyrians as illyrians(all ancient hellenes). Megistias (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First i would like to point out one thing, the Pelasgs are never in any historical work portrayed as greeks and they were a differnt branch of the indo-european people which was later assimilated by the 3 main settlers of the balkas the greeks, the illyrians and the thracian As to the thracian ancestry of the albanian language several works by linguist point that the albanian language has a lot more in common with ancient illyrian e.x

Hans Eric Tunman- Professor at University of Hales " A history of Eastern Europe"

Johan George Von Han- Professor at University of Heidelberg "Albanian Studies"

Franc Bopp- Professor at University of Berlin "On the ways of ancient greek, sanskrit persian and german"

Gustav Mayer- Proffesor at University of Grass " The albanian language within the indo-european family"

Holger Pedersen- Professor at University of Copenhagen "The study of balkan languages" All of the preceding state that the albanian language can only be properly explained as a remainder and heavily infiltrated version of an illyrian dialect and there are a lot more works out there As per the tribes of epirus, there are several greek and roman historians which have called them non-greeks, such as

Herodotus- Calls the people of epirus as barabrians

Thucydides refers to the epiriots in his works as the "thousand barbarians" which he then elaborates as the Chaonians and their neighbours

Plint the Old: Writes that the chaons and the molossians were bucolic people somewhat wild and spoke a differnt language than their neighbours to the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.238.183 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling .We have posted sources.Megistias (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have, and i have as well and i can offer a lot more if needed, however to make the long story short, the modern albanian people live in an area historically inhabited by illyrian tribes, their language is a unique branch of the indo-europian language, the language and the people can be traced throught the centuries although with some significant holes so after checking all other possibles alternatives we are left with the illyrians as the most viable one and the one with more connections, i am not saying that the illirans are directly the grandfathers of albanians as the modern greeks are not the sons of old greeks but through historical studies we find connections between the people and there is absolutely no way for any real historian to deny that fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.238.183 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You misquote "Plint the old??" among other things.Epirotes were GreekNW greeks.You write irrelevant stuff.We dont know the Illyrian language and MODERN historians dont link albanians to illyrian and use the connection as a conventional euphimism because of the Albanians geographic location.Stop trolling and posting irrelevant stuuf that only spam.Your language is a Thracian language and not Illyrian An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC - 500 AD.Megistias (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources on Epirus Hellenicity and Secondary sources on Epirus Hellenicity.Megistias (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Illyria
I am thinking on starting a wikiproject Illyria I would like to know if users support this and if anyone is ready help thank you-- Cra del  19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in.I have made many articles and referenced a great number of the already existing ones.Megistias (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone remove last edit
Someone remove last edit Megistias (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Illyrians as Albanians
Illirian as Albanians

A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians.

this is what i added (diff.)

A verifibly of this, it can be checked the Encarta Encyclopedia, online or off-line ("people of Indo-European stock who are considered ancestors of modern Albanians")

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564668/Illyria.html

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861620183/Illyrian.html

Encyclopedia britannica online or book editions ("illyrian, Some scholars believe the modern Albanian language")

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042146/Illyrian-language

or other websites of history like this ("Most historians of the Balkans believe the Albanian people are in large part descendants of the ancient Illyrians")

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_albaniaancient.htm

Or infinite other internet sources or websites, (i just maked a search of 5 minutes)

Books and scholarship aswell is full of examples of scholars supporting this connection.

Herman Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, The Anchor Atlas of World History, 1, New York, 1974, 90, 94;

and most big known scholars valid supporters of this connection:

Holger Pedersen (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058921/Holger-Pedersen)

Paul Kretcmer (university of vienna)

Hugo Schuchardt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Schuchardt http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-528358/Hugo-Schuchardt

"Albanesisches und Romanisches zu Miklosich's Albanesisschen"

Gustav Mayer ("Albanesiche Studien")

Teodor Mommsen ("Romische Geschichte")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Mommsen

Jakob Fallmerayer ("Das albanesische element in Griechenland") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Philipp_Fallmerayer

Cabej E. 1976, page 22, <> Book: "Le Probleme du territorie de la formation de la langue albanaise"

This was just some names i had here in my hands momentanely, the list is still long.

But i suppose even if i bring only the encyclopedia britannica source, it should be ok, so all the other links are just a support for the users that are not informet about the theoryes.

Wikipedia rules:

in according to the rules of wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

"Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources"

1) is the britannica a reliable and verifiable source? i suppose yes

2) can i write this point of view of scholarship? in according to the rules of Wikipedia, yes

3) It is related? yes

4) this is to much for an article in wikipedia? no, wikipedia rules don't denie me to write more material if i bring reliable sources.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This belongs in the origin of albanians talk page and not here.Megistias (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your addition will be removed.diff.Megistias (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

if necessary, i will begin a dispute resolution, if i have material in addiction of the current one, no-where in wikipedia is written there is a limit of sections.

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Begin it.You addition is irrelevant here and Brittanica is not updated the messapian language is not considered Illyrian but independent and brittanica says some scholars anyways.
 * Linguist ,Once believed related to Illyrian, it is now recognized to be an independent Indo-European language, unrelated to Italic.
 *
 * Origin of Albanians is where such things are discussed.
 * Megistias (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, if you have valid rules of wikipedia that denie me to write this, bring them forward.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove it moon, its Irrelevant among other things mentioned above.This is on Illyria and not Origin of Albanians.Megistias (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, this is a enrichment of the article, and it is largely sourced, and it is related, if this connection is cited in the encyclopedies this mean of course a rilevant part of scholars support this conenction.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It will simply be removed since you are pov - pushing with irrelevant material in this article ,you use an outdated wrong source and you refuse to communicate properly and all the rest.Megistias (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence make me consider this a intentional trying of distorsion of the historical and modern facts, of course i'm not here to make accusations, but this is becoming self-evident

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

i felt necessary to contact the Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * PelasgicMoon: That section was irrelevant to the article. Furthermore, a simple comparison between your edit and the source allow us to assume that you are just trying to push your POV in Wikipedia. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think does not matter where i come from, but does matter if my sources are right or not, so i propose the same article with the title "Illyrian Ethnicity" as an enrichment, also in the "pelasgian" article it is sayd the ethnicity theoryes, and even in a respectable encyclopedia as encarta, in the name "illyria" in the third line it is said what i propose (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564668/Illyria.html), so why i can't anrich the article?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * PelasgicMoon, that section is irrelevant to the article. Why don't you add it to Illyrian languages instead, where it can actually follow the source you are providing? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

so why in the article the section of shakspeare don't go in the "shakspeare" article?

simply because it is a relation, as in this case

... PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in origin of albanians and has no place anywhere else.Megistias (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Illyria is mentioned in Twelfth Night article,a comedy by William Shakespeare.Illyrians are mentioned in Origin of albanians article ,the albanians are irrelevant here.Megistias (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I felt opportune to open a request for arbitration.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised how modern greeks are still today trying to delete the historical facts

I suppose this is a well-organized complaint against the history of albania, or simply a greek mafia in wikipedia.

Sources? Yes i have, all users are working in Illyria, Illyrians, history of Albania, etc etc articles are Greek. This is sourced!

Illyrians seem to be the modern Albanians, this is accepted by most of the scholars. Here in Wikipedia I did not read this, so i went in the talk pages, and I saw where the users that are working in the article come from...

You can change the articles in Wikipedia, but you can't change history.

I don't want to begin conversations here as I saw someone already tryed in a civil way, PelasgicMoon stop talking with Greeks, you're just losing your time, they accused you to be nationalist, to bring falisfied sources, since you entered they had uncivil behaviour with you just because you proposed your idea... these are greeks... they are here for too much times before you, so administrators listen to them, not you, That's it.

Ehi greeks, what you gonna do now, delete my post? I would not be impressed...

and i'm not Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.50.190 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The Cat and the Owl removed the comment above: Deleted comment by anon unrelated to the section. 13:01, 20 March 2008

edit conflickt? who deleted the text written by user 77.100 or something like that?

it was written:

''"I am surprised how modern greeks are still today trying to delete the historical facts

I suppose this is a well-organized complaint against the history of albania, or simply a greek mafia in wikipedia.

sources? yes i have, all users are working in the illyria, illyrians, history of albania, etj etj articles are greeks. This is sourced!

Illyrians seems to be the modern albanians, this is accepted by most of the scholars. Here in wikipedia i did not read this, so i went in the talk pages, and i saw where comes from the users that are working in the article...

You can change the articles in wikipedia, but you can't change the history

I don't want to begin conversations here as i saw someone already tryed in a civil way, PelasgicMoon stop talking with greeks, you're just losing your time, they accused you to be nationalist, to bring falisfied sources, since you entered they had uncivil behaviour with you just because you proposed your idea... these are greeks... they are here for too much times before you, so administrators listen them, not you, That's it.

Ehi greeks, what you gonna do now, delete my post? i would not be impressed...

and i'm not albanian"Italic text''

someone had understood that? PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have filled this page with spaces and irrelevant material that was rejected severa times.Megistias (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * See this section in its original state, before my minor refactoring to simplify reading. - Ev (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

i did not fill nothing, Megistias look at this diff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illyria&diff=199583674&oldid=199583346

i just said "someone had understood this?"

PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That numbered user is clearly you since he used the spaces and same talking pattern .Megistias (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This whole Illyrians as Albanians section is full of spaces.Please dont put spaces so abundantly.Megistias (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, you have sources or not this message was mine? or just your personal guess? please stop accusing me irrilevantly and be civilized.

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remove this it has already been discussed.diff illyria and it is irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Frenkalbatros, ilirian are not albanians. even if the language is similar, megistias says the truth, i am fierce of being Albanian but is useless to try bogus theories , (sorry for my language but i am albanian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenkalbatros (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy. There is a dispute to whether Albanians are descendants of Ilirians, but there are also a lot of scholars that support the idea. On the other hand it is much harder to give facts that Albanians are not Ilirians than contrary. I think the article should have a source stating that there is a number of scholars and theories about the connection of Albanians and Ilirians. I read that someone posted some links to support these addition. We should let the readers decide whether the Enciclopedia Britanica and Encarta are strong sources, and not let some user (who is obviously POV) here teach us about the value of those encyclopedias. --Lilonius (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this article about?
Illyria or Illyricum or both? Why a map of Illyricum in info box of Illyria??? Zenanarh (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Albanian are the descedents of Ilirians and if you learn the history you can see beter the situation.Please don't put in this site not real facts becouse this could make you lose the credibility and if you are Wikipedia=enciclopedia please stay in the facts.You have to talk with real profesors,to see maby some muses,and to read some boks.This is an advise,and I know who right this don't know Albania and her History,but you can tray to find it out.This is not a fight,I don't wont to see this,the History is a fact,this hapent,that's all.But the greks allready take a peace of Albania in the Second Wor,they wont more...they kill allready in off,they dosen't have to kill our History to. Please be impartial when you right the History.Thank you.By —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.146.108 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Greek, I'm not interested in Albania, I have nothing against Albania and Albanians. Illyrians have much more descendants than just Albanians whose one ethnogenetic component probably did come from the Illyrians, but only from a few south-eastern tribes, settled in an area of what is northern Albania at present (like Taulanti tribe). Unfortunately, too many Albanians misuse terms like Illyria, Illyrians etc in spirit of their modern self-identification, like a fact, which is not reflection of the serious historiographical literacy and has nothing to do with history. It can only produce scholar resistance, which is once again often recognised as "something vs Albania" by the same misusers.
 * right the History? So if I right the History, does it mean that you left the History? By ;) Zenanarh (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Iliria the Albanian spelling of the topic.
How about Iliria the Albanian spelling of the topic. So many people on here discredit, the widely held view may i add, that Albanians are the modern ancestors of the Illyrians. It's a lot of bullshit to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.100.249 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I will keep editing it, putting the Albanian spelling first, how it should be. Whoever deleted it should be banned. Realmadrid123 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Illyria and Illyrians origin
I would like to know what do you think of this text in the Illyria and Illyrians articles (in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illyrians&action=edit&undoafter=290146216&undo=290156658

I've provided a lot of information backed up by books with exact page numbers, after a long research with several historians. I think that the section should remain in those articles. --Jurgenalbanian (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Trouble is, it is poorly written and unorganized, and gives moreover undue weight to what is essentially a fringe topic. --Athenean (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you are smarter then historians,then why don't you provide us with examples about how it is "poorly written" or "unorganized",and as about the references,you have the books,you have even the number of pages where the article is written,the fact that you don't read,or that you don't have any worthy library in your neighbourhood matters me not!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Jurgenalbanian is right. Athenean has not read the book (disputing a referenced piece without before reading the reference ?).
 * However, it can be written better. I cannot write better than Jurgenalbanian, so I'm not editing.
 * More inline references are needed, I assume, because this is a "sensible" topic.
 * The references however exists. So, disputing the piece of text, you are disputing in fact the references. --  eagle  al   20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 * The book? Which book?  "The Routledge Dictionary of Gods, Goddesses, Devils, and Demons"?  Or that other nationalist publication in Albanian?  And how do you know what I've read and not read?  The "passage" in question is just a textbook example of nationalist POV-pushing.  This is exactly the kind of thing we do not need in Wikipedia.  Forget it.  --Athenean (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With what you wrote,you just proved that you did not read a thing about the article.Let me give you some refferences...(all of them are written at the article):

- The first known occurance of the word Albanoi as the name of an Illyrian tribe in what is now north-central Albania goes back to he 2nd century BC, in the History of the World written by Polybius, whom mentions a city named Arbon in present day central Albania. The people who lived there were called Arbanios and Arbanitai.

- In the 1st century AD, Pliny mentions an Illyrian tribe named Olbonenses

- In the 2nd century, 130 AD, Ptolemy Claudius, the geographer and astronomer from Alexandria, drafted a map of remarkable significance for the history of Illyria. This map shows the city of Albanopolis (located Northeast of Durrës) ), from which the Albanians were later on to be identified by the world.. Ptolemy also mentions the Illyrian tribe named Albanoi, who lived around this city.

-Albani (Albanoi), tribe in ancient Illyria, from Alexander G. Findlay's Classical Atlas to Illustrate Ancient Geography, New York, 1849

- In the south of Albania is a city called Berat which in ancient times was called Antipatrea and by the Romans Albanorum Oppidium which means the Fortress of the Albanians

- Approximately a millennium later, some Byzantine writers used the words "Albanon" and "Arbanon" to indicate the region of Kruja. Under the Angevine rulers, in the 13th century, the names "Albania" and "Albanenses" indicated the whole country and all the population, as is demonstrated by the works of many ancient Albanian writers such as Budi, Blanco and Bogdani.

-Albanians in their native land as the Arbanites of Arbanon from the daughter of Emperor Alexius I Comneus (1081-1118), Anna Comnena which describes in her account (Alexiad 4 which is a book written around the year 1148 ) of the troubles in that region caused by the Normans during the reign of her father Alexius I. She describe the political and military history Byzantine Empire during the reign of her father (1081-1110), making it one of the most important sources of information on the Byzantines of the Middle Ages....

Other Ref:

1. A. Stipcevic 1989 'Iliri: povijest, zivot, kultura'.

2. Mark Tirta 2004 'Mytholgy between Albanians'

3. Manfred Lurker 2004 'The Routledge dictionary of Gods and Godesses, Devils and Demons'

I just gave you about 10-11 books,if you can't find neither of these in your neighbourhoods library,then you can go and fully read the article where you can find about twice or triple more refferences then the ones I just wrote,and when you oppose,give me facts and refferences,not your own suppositions!-- Ju rg en ta lk |undefined 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And stop accusing me for nationalism,none of the writers above is albanian except "Mark Tirta",who wrote his book with the help of a greek historian!-- Ju rg en ta lk |undefined 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody could oppose, I assume it's time to post this study in the article. AlboSoldier (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

-This study and these resources provided in here have been ignored long enough by the people who seem incapable of providing any reason for them not to be implemented, and who seem to keep writing in other sections of this article, except this one. If I don't get any valid reasons on why this study was never implemented in the article, while there was never provided the reason in not doing so, by the end of the week, then I'll be moving it to the Main Article. People that say Albanians are not descendants of Illyrians and vice-versa, should give some real arguments and resources about this, as the albanians seem to have done, and not just troll in here, as it is not a forum, it's the discussion page of an enciclopedia, so please be more serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.72.38 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead
If the Slavic migrations in the Balkans is mentioned in the article, then according to that rationale, Albanians should also be mentioned? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).

why? The Slavic migrations date to the 7th century, and they are relevant as spelling the end of an identifiable "Illyrian" entity. The Albanians first appear 500 years later, in the 12th century, long after anything related to Illyria had passed into history. You do not seem to be aware of the significance of "500 years", a full half millennium. For a culture without written historiography, 500 years is basically "forever", so long past any living memory that events pass completely into myth and legend. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the first time they were mentioned was in the 11th century, thank you very much. If the Slavs invaded the Balkans and assimilated the people of Illyria, then surely it is worth mentioning that the Albanians were not assimilated?

Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * So what, then it's 4 centuries instead of 5. dab's point still stands.  And this is the article on the land inhabited by the Illyrians, not the Illyrians themselves anyway.  --Athenean (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"this is the article on the land inhabited by the Illyrians, not the Illyrians themselves"? The second para of the lead actually mentions the people of Illyria. And if we're going to present the view that the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians, then it should also be mentioned in this lead. I mean, why not, it only seems rationale, we're already mentioning Greek Myths...(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

If this article is for the land inhabited by the Illyrians, not the Illyrians themselves then you should mention in legacy section what happened also to the territory of "Real Illyrians" Illyrii proprie dicti (see Katicic, Alfoldy and Wilke on that issue which is to be considered as such) and how come this assimilation process (Origin of Blkan Slavs) is connected with territory? Aigest (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians are not Albanians, although the thought of it certainly made me chuckle. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * read facts about the iliryians and albanians here and read facts about south slavs who occupied ballkan hereLindi29 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Stavonc

 * Can someone tell Stavonc to stop adding things blindly? Special:Contributions/Stanovc Megistias (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology
Removed this, which is unsourced folk etymology at its worst. Its placement in the Mythology section is even weirder. This is precisely the sort of folk etymology we need to avoid in this encyclopedia. For all we know, words that sound like "Illyria" could mean something in Urdu and Udi, but we wouldn't be including them here, would we? Athenean (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

this is obviously a folk etymology since the albanian word comes from latin..87.202.36.16 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Illyrian history
After an Afd, it was decided by consensus that the article named Illyrian history be merged. The obvious target articles for the merger are this one, and Illyria. I have already begun implementing the merger. Some sections of Illyrian history were cut-and-paste from this article, so I simply removed them from Illyrian history. That was a no-brainer. However, the remainder of the merger is non-trivial. Much of the Illyrian history article is unsourced. Is there a point in merging massive amounts of unsourced text? We must be careful not to duplicate info, but also not to lose info that is sourced but not already in this article. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is nothing worthy we can add here from Illyrian history, redirection seems the only way.Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, at a first glance I agree with you guys, but there is new information in the current article different from Illyria. There is no information (when sources correctly) what should be deleted (am I right?). So, until we agree on what to delete and what to keep we should not make any hasty move. Also, we have to see whether this article deserves to be kept, it is different from Illyria as it is focused only o the history of the people, while the first is focused on the territory. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

@AC: The article 'Illyrian history' will not be kept per afd result, we should here discuss which parts should be moved to Illyria. Take your time.Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Alex, I read the AfD comments. The article has been agreed to be merged with Illyria. I was a bit bothered by both your and Atheneans insisting on "redirection seems the only way". Why would you still insist on something that was disregarded just a few days ago by many neutral editors? —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The article will not be kept but merged with Illyria per afd. This discussion is to make specific suggestions on what should be moved from Illyrian history to Illyria. Since the article 'Illyrian history' appears completely or and fringe I can hardly find something worthy.Alexikoua (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Aha! That is another way of saying I don't care what AfD concluded. Just because YOU DON'T LIKE the article doesn't mean anything. I will come up with some suggestions briefly. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Who made that map of Illyrians?
What is this map on this article? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of self-made maps, which are constructed according to someone's view and opinion? Why the map I brought is not valid, and deleted by user Athenean, and the self-made map is valid? (Edvin (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC))

Map issue (many mistakes)
This map is full of mistakes. I'll mention some:

1 Dassareti are located by historians in Albania, between Vjosa river and Prespa lakes (roughly Korça basin). In the current map they are placed some 300 km in north, somewhere in Kosovo near Mitrovica.

2 Labeates are located by historians around Shkodër Lake in Albania and Montenegro (even Shkoder lake was called Labeatis lake in Ancient times). In the current map they are placed some 200km away in Kosovo around Gjakova.

3 Amantes are located by historians in Albania, Vlorë district, south of Vjosa river in Plloçe village (15 km east of Vorë city). In the current map they are placed some 200km away around Lake Ohrid.

4 Bylliones are located by historians in Albania, in Klos region close to Vjosa river. In the current map it is placed much norther around Shkumbin river

Could be more mistakes. I've just mentioned some. The map should be corrected or replaced with a new one. Aigest (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So far I've checked, the map is fine:

1. The Dassareti are located in N. Albanian-Kosovo near the Ardieai. Perhaps you mean the Dessaretae, who were not Ilyrrians (per Hammond, Wilkes) and lived in Korce plain. 2. Also per Hammond Amantes were not the same tribe, retlated to the Epirote Amantes tribe that lived south.Alexikoua (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 * actually the map is a kaleidoscope of tribes which existed in wholly different times periods. So irrespective of whether the locations are correct, it is chronologically non-sensensical. Eg tribes which existed in the 4th century BC and then disappeared (eg Autariatae) are mentioned with tribes which first appear  after Roman conquest Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific on that (i.e. name the tribes).Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been superseded by 2 SVG translatable files and a simple png. Two are rather simple.with tribe names, approximate extent

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryroseB54 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Scope
What is the scope of the article? Does it only discuss pre-Roman Illyria or all phases of Illyria up to late antiquity Illyricum? --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Illyrian kingdom
I noticed something curious about a new article at Talk:Illyrian kingdom. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Map issues
the Labeatae should be placed on today's Albania-Montenegro border. Where currently are the Labeatae should be placed the Pirustae. The Dassareti should be added to the map. The Amantes (tribe) and Atintanians also should be added but with a different colour due to being disputed as either Illyrian or Greek. The Pannonian tribes are not placed well in northern Serbia and southern Hungary - though I can't provide a better picture at the moment. In any case, a much better map is needed, hopefully someone will make one some day. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for the location of the Labeatae and the Pirustae? Regarding the Amantes and Atintanians, since they are disputed, I think it is best to avoid them. For the Atintanians in particular, their location is unknown, so there is no way to include them. If I included them in a map of Epirus, you would probably remove the map on those grounds. Khirurg (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The non-inclusion of the Amantes and Atintanians in the map is a serious issue as it implies that they were certainly Greeks. In all maps, be of Illyria or Epirus, they should be included with a different color from both Illyrians and Greeks. The location of the Atintanians being unknown is not an issue, because many of the tribes in the map have their precise location unknown: the placements in the map are mostly locations in the general area where the tribes are thought to have been. I will soon post RS for the Labeatae and Pirustae. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, again, do not forget the Dassareti. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How can the location of a tribe whose location is not known be added to a map? That is an unreasonable demand. Not showing a tribe on the map does not imply they are "Greek" in any way. If the Dardani were not shown on the map, would that imply they were Greeks? Of course not. Khirurg (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Illyria


text:
Talk:Discourse

Translation
Take a look at the German Page on this topic. If someone would translate it...

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.199.118 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

12/11/03: This document only contained the linguistic dimension of discourse. I tried to put in something about the social aspect of the term. Please improve my humble opening! What the hell does discourse mean? There is no simple (or even complex) definition given

Agreed, this is convoluted and whoever wrote this forgot to mention what it means.

---

According to Dictionary.com , in its ordinary, non-technical sense, discourse can be: In Linguistics, it can be an instance of connected language longer than a sentence.
 * 1) verbal communication,
 * 2) a formal, verbal presentation or discussion of a subject.

The word is part of the lexis of each of a number of discourse communities, including sociology, linguistics, and philosophy. As such, it has applications and meanings specific to various fields. Thus, an exhaustive definition would be an appropriate topic for a substantial article. Presumably, this is Wikipedia's version of such an article. --Grosbach (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Definition
As with so many other philosophical terms, there is no clear-cut definition of discourse - only various author's reference to the word. I'd dare say that, in most contexts, it is very similar to 'language' though, except broader in scope. The article does hint this, mentioning Habermas' "rules upon which speakers could agree on a groundworks consensus". Discourse can also refer to more abstract things like conventions and norms. Generally, discourse is the stuff that defines what can be said about a matter, as far as I understand. --213.237.94.61 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ryerson University's MSW program has a course called "Critical Perspectives on Marginalization". One of our assignments was to go on wikipedia and look up words that relate to the course and edit or create new articles. We are then asked to critique the existing article and our edits. We decided to post our new version of DISCOURSE and see what wikipedia has to say! we welcome all feedback!

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by APannerific (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How's discourse related to context? Could something useful be said about that? Kaol 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This entry does not make any reference to sociolinguist Jean Paul Gee's notions of big-D and little-d discourse, which have been very influential in applied fields like education. Sophie Oliver (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

When did rhetoric stop meaning the art of discourse and when did discourse stop meaning to lead off course? Referring if not obviously to the use of logical fallacies in persuasion, This wiki and that of rhetoric have been reduced to bombast in my opinion, (bombast is still a synonym for rhetoric, maybe that should be changed if rhetoric is just persuasive and not misleading in nature(Ill post this there as well)) Signed manually like it means something sovos

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.90.177 (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

cleanup
"Habermas trying to find the transcendent rules upon which speakers could agree"

Are the rules, he is trying to find transcendent or transcendental? --Lynxmb 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This entry does not make any reference to sociolinguist Jean Paul Gee's notions of big-D and little-d discourse, which have been very influential in applied fields like education. Sophie Oliver (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Judith Butler's supposed definition of discourse as "the limits of speech" has no citations. The only other document I could find attributing this definition to Butler was a report by Kristen Goulding: . Goulding cites page 34 of Butler's 1997 book Excitable Speech; however, I checked the page and could not find the passage quoted. My guess, based on the fact that her book is about "hate speech," is that Butler was actually saying that hate speech is at the limits of discourse, though it is difficult to know. In any event, I believe the definition and reference to Butler ought to be removed from the article, as it has no citation, is of questionable origins, and frankly does not make sense. If anything, discourse could be defined something like "that which defines the limits of speech," which may have been the original idea Butler was expressing. It is not possible to tell without consulting these sources in more depth. I am not an expert on Butler, but based on the above I would think the definition and attribution ought to be removed from the article.

Modernism/ Regnier[10] cites "10. Regnier, 2005" who? what?

Circular reference
Why is this article referencing an earlier version of itself? While this might be motivated in some rather special cases, it seems rather circular here. Is this because of some earlier merger with another article? Should it be removed?

--Emil 13:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Emil asks "Why is this article referencing an earlier version of itself?"
 * Now that is a very aposite question.
 * If dynamic semantics is correct, it is a fundamental nature of discourse that speech acts have meaning precisely because they reference earlier versions of themselves.
 * As to whether or not that is what Wikipedia articles should do, I cannot say. Harold Philby (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural hegemony
There is a well established use of the term discourse in the Marxist tradition, notably in Antonio Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony, which tries to explain the capitalist phenomenon as being the product of a dominant cultural discourse. ADM (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to understand?
Was this article perhaps written from a too scholarly perspective? I'm not exactly sure how Wikipedia is supposed to sound, but for the uninitiated, this could be nonsensical. What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It reads more like a manifesto about moral relativism than a clear description of 'discourse'.LegendLength (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a part of the ruling discourse?
If yes, it just shouldn't write about this notion itself. If no, it should be more critical about psychiatry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.110.87.13 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic definition of discourse
I believe that in linguistic analysis "discourse" is a generalization of the concept of "conversation" to all modalities (e.g., writing, signing, braille, Morse code) and contexts. This article seems to focus on the postmodern / sociological definition of discourse as a set of communication styles, assumptions, and beliefs common to a culture or community.

I would like to see the distinction between those two senses of "discourse" more clearly drawn in this article, instead of being linked to other articles that touch on the issue. As the article currently stands, it misrepresents the 'social sciences' by focusing on one view of discourse within humanities departments. The emphasis on Foucault is especially disproportionate.

A good initial fix might be to make the links to the "conversation" and "discourse analysis" pages more clear.

Sisyphustkd (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)sisyphustkd

enouncement
Foucault seems to be struggling to find a definition that means more or less the same as 'all the things produced in speech or writing making coherent sense that relate to a field around which some sort of demarcation line can be drawn'. If English is to be saddled with 'enouncement', the French word 'énoncer' has to be explained: is it the same as 'enunciation' ? I doubt it. So what on earth does it or is it supposed to mean ?Pamour (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * It's supposed to be a way to use words with imprecise meanings to sound smarter than the reader. For someone who has been reading academic texts for years, isn't that obvious? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead
I propose deleting "debate" from the lead sentence, as debate is clearly included in communication. If I hear no objections, I'll do it myself in a few day. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * okay, hearing no objections, I changed it Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Link/explanation needed for Performativity
In the last paragraph of the article, in the section on Feminism, there is a reference to performativity that gives no hint of the meaning of this term, which does require some explanation to maintain the overall non-speciaist tone of the article, and there is no link to the Wikipedia article on Performativity. The link, at least, should be added.88.120.130.106 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Discursive practice
Discursive practice is not an independent concept from Discourse, and there is room to add the information to that article SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed reference to Chinese term
This was in the lede for some reason:

In China, the general term for discourse is Lun.

That sort of cross-linguistic comparison would be more relevant in Wiktionary I think, than Wikipedia! Arided (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Treatise
The current page on treatises isn't much more than a list, which can be done by tags. They're just written discourse. Perhaps a section could be dedicated to the use of "Treatises" in scientific/philosophical contexts. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that the treatise is an independently notable form of discourse; and that the list is sufficiently long that it would unbalance the Discourse] page. The current format seems reasonable, just adding [[Treatise to the 'See also' list (as I have just done). Klbrain (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Discourse