Talk:Echetus

IP edits

The word "mainland" used in the Odyssey can not be considered as a proper noun of the historical region of Epirus. Epirus as the name of the region with a clear definition is attested for the first time by Hecataeus of Miletus. Also, no unified state of Epirus that could have been ruled by king Echetus exists in the Odyssey in a way that makes the description "king of Epirus" as appropriate for Echetus. And Malkin points out that Thesprotia, which by the way was the southern part of the attested region of Epirus, was not ruled by Echetus, and it clearly shows how wrong is the description "king of Epirus" created by some modern scholars for Echetus and erroneously put by some editors into Wikipedia articles as the info provided by the Odyssey. – Βατο (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

That's *your* opinion *nobody* asked for. You're on the talkpage now because the literature (i.e., Winnifrith, Malkin, Hodges, Lefteratou) doesn't say what *you* want it to say. Move on already. 72.90.245.169 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Which one is my opinion? "The region is first mentioned by Hecataeus of Miletus: τῆς Ἠπείρου (550–476)." is stated by Chapinal-Heras (2021). You also removed the fact pointed out by Malkin, that to Ithaca Thesprotia was an ally and Echetus an enemy, which demonstrates that Echetus can not have been "King of Epirus". The Odyssey only mentions "mainland", not the geographical proper noun "Epirus", which was actually attested by Hecataeus. Also, be careful with the reverts, although you are editing with IP accounts, you have already broken the WP:3RR. – Βατο (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

All of it because I already *explained* the problem with your edits. Also, arguing semantics and "cautioning" me with legalese won't magically make the literature say what *you* want it to say. Let it go. 72.90.245.169 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You did not explain why you removed the info that to Ithaca Thesprotia was an ally and Echetus an enemy. And you did not explain why you falsified Chapinal-Heras (2021), he states "The region is first mentioned by Hecataeus of Miletus: τῆς Ἠπείρου (550–476)." not that "The region is more clearly attested for the first time by Hecataeus of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.". The region of Epirus is not attested in the Odyssey, only the term "ἤπειρό-", used for "mainland" from the perspective of the island of Ithaca. – Βατο (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Gaslighting won't save you. And neither will projecting onto me *your* falsification of Chapinal-Heras via *your* phrase "but Epirus as a region is not mentioned in the Odyssey." Chapinal-Heras isn't falsified if you actually *read* the literature instead of reading stuff into it. Hecataeus saying "τῆς Ἠπείρου" doesn't automatically negate Homer's "ἠπείροιο μελαίνης" given Hodges and Lefteratou. Also, Epirus as a vague term for Winnifrith doesn't automatically negate Epirus as a first 6th-century attestation for Chapinal-Heras. And Thesprotia as Ithaca's distant ally is *already* mentioned if you actually *read* the entry. That Thesprotia is far from Ithaca doesn't change the fact that Echetus in Homer's Odyssey is from the same "dark mainland" (i.e., Epeiros) that Thesprotia is also located in, which the reliable secondary literature *recognizes*. So refusing my explanation, based on the literature, by focusing on Echetus' proximity to Ithaca while circling back to semantics doesn't help. Again, move on already. 72.90.245.169 (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Gaslighting? Saving me? What the hell are you talking about? Focus on content and do not use such inappropriate wording. You are misrepresenting the material of the Odyssey, by selecting the absolutely wrong description "king of Epirus" from some modern sources. Chapinal-Heras' statement must be worded as per the source: the region of Epirus was mentioned for the first time by Hecataeus, and that "ἤπειρό" in the Odyssey was only a general name for the mainland opposite Ithaca. Also the fact that Thesprotia was an ally of Ithaca and Echetus was an enemy must not be removed, because it shows the irrationality of the description "king of Epirus". I don't care whether some modern scholars use such description, it remains purely erroneous and irrational. Echetus can at most be described as king ruling in an area that corresponded to the "mainland" from Ithaca's perspective, not as "king of Epirus". I know I am wasting my time because most likely you are a previously blocked user, I am assuming good faith and providing reliable sources about the matter, but your behaviour clearly shows how biased you are. If you break the WP:3RR again, rest assured that your new IP ranges will be blocked. – Βατο (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't play innocent when *your inappropriate conduct* is crystal clear: poorly justified reverting (, ), grasping at straws (), and you saying I "did not explain" when I *obviously* did. And your recent edits obfuscate things by ignoring Winnifrith (again) and by trivializing Echetus via more *irrelevant information* (so nix Deriu; why bring up the fact that ἤπειρος appears 19 times in the Odyssey if Echetus isn't mentioned in all of them?). And you're in *no position* to pontificate about good faith, users, content, and modern scholars given your conduct here and your historically illiterate "oration" over at the Epirus talkpage in defense of a blocked user. But all IPs are "The Devil", right? For the umpteenth time, you need to move on especially now that Georgia Pliakou refutes, again, *your* opinions *nobody* asked for. And if Echetus has nothing to do with the ancient state of Epirus (as *you* made clear), then the ancient state of Epirus has nothing to do with Echetus (so nix Melfi and Piccinini). You can't eat your cake and have it too as *already* explained. And if you're "wasting your time" here, then you have the option to *leave* instead of doubling-down on *your* opinions. Nobody here is keeping you. 72.90.243.93 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Your misuse of Pliakou clearly shows how biased you are. That source does not support what you are trying to add into the article, but the contrary. Stop pushing the narrative that Echetus was "king of Epirus", the available material in the Odyssey contradicts such a description. – Βατο (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Pliakou wasn't misused. You're forcing Pliakou to fit *your* opinion just like you did with Malkin. Never mind the fact that your edits refuse to acknowledge Winnifrith and refuse to nix information that trivializes Echetus. And accusing me of "pushing the narrative" when Hodges and Lefteratou both *state* that Echetus was "king of Epirus" is proof of *your* bias against Hodges and Lefteratou. To use me as an excuse to dismiss them is a show of desperation on your part. And if you think an expert archaeologist *and* an expert on the Homeric tradition are "wrong", then you go do a Ph.D and *prove* them wrong. Otherwise, your view of Hodges as "ahistorical" and your historically illiterate keyboard-warrior dogma aren't going to cut it. So the only one who needs to stop is *you*. 72.90.174.2 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You just broke the WP:3rr for the second time using multiple IPs. You are misusing sources to push an unfounded narrative. Pliakou does not support what you believe, and Malkin, who you claim as supporting your POV narrative, clearly contradicts it, Malkin (1998, p. 135): "The name of the land, Epeiros (Epirus) , which first appears in Hekataios,81 is not an ethnic appellation but one of the few names in Greek coined from a maritime-geographical perspective: "the mainland." Regional names, not implying an indefinite view of the land ("mainland" is indefinite) , appear much earlier, as we have seen with Homeric Thesprotia." Stop edit warring. – Βατο (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

And that means *what*? That you're morally superior? Or that you're so desperate for "victory" you'll use any rule to save yourself from addressing the problem with your edits? Because "cautioning" me again with legalese won't magically turn *your* opinion into fact. And Malkin 1998 doesn't automatically negate Malkin 2001 saying: "Eumaeus elaborates on the property his master used to have on "the dark mainland" (Epeiros [14.97–100]), where Odysseus kept herds of cattle, sheep, goats, and swine attended by both xenoi (not in the sense of barbarians) and his own men." Malkin wasn't limited to what he published in 1998 since he later studied ambiguities and understood, like Winnifrith, that "Epirus" (whatever its spelling), was historically a *vague term*. Pliakou says that the term's vagueness didn't disappear during the classical period ("during the Classical period Ἠπείρος was still sporadically used as a general designation of land"). And in case you forgot, Pliakou says on page 63: "In Homeric poetry, the term [ἤπειρος] is occasionally used to designate the mainland core of north-western Greece" She also says on page 63: "In the surviving fragments of Hecataeus, the geographical area of Epirus is identified with the region north of the Ambracian Gulf up to the northern end of the Acroceraunian Mountains and as far as Byllis." Nowhere does she say that it *all* began with Hecataeus, which requires a clarification of things (not *your* obfuscation). And your appeal to me to "Stop edit-warring" is just code for "Obey my opinion". Read the literature *again*. 72.90.174.2 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Homer's Ithaca is probably the island Leukas and the land opposite to it is Acarnania. The use of the word epeiros in any case is as a noun, not as a toponym referring to the later Epirus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

How do you know? Are you a Homerist? Besides, Pliakou says on page 63: In Homeric poetry, the term is occasionally used to designate the mainland core of north-western Greece. And that's based on book 24 of Homer's Odyssey so *your* opinion doesn't really matter in the end. And is this you by yet another name, "Βατο"? Doesn't matter how many identities you have, your edits are still problematic. 72.90.174.2 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)