Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Template:WP1.0 for older discussions, see Talk:Macedon/Archive 1 and Talk:Macedon/Archive 2

poorly written article

This poorly written Wiki article attempts to make it appear that ancient Macedonians were distinct from ancient Greeks. I would gambit the article is largely edited by people from Fyrom/Republic of Macedonia with irredentist aims towards Greece (contrary to both US and UN resolutions to refrain from propaganda against Greek Macedonians). Despite the occasional voice of objections there is no major dispute among most scholars that ancient Macedon was inherently Greek in nature. (at least more than anything else) The Hellenic age (the greek word for what we in english call "greek") is evidence beyond dispute of this.

To give an example of historical distortions found in this article...

“ Macedon or Macedonia (Greek Μακεδονία Makedonía) was the name of a kingdom centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west and the region of Thrace to the east. ”

By saying the "northern-most part of Greece" it makes it seem like it bordered Greece. There was no "Greece" state in ancient times... there was only a collection of autonomous city states and Kingdoms that self-identified as Greeks. (Mycenae, Athens, Argos, Ithica, Sparta, Macedon Corinth, etc...)

Another example of irredentism.... the Wiki article states....

“ "It became increasingly Atticised during this period, though prominent Athenians appear to have regarded the Macedonians as uncouth[3]. ”

This statement is very deceptive. It was common during times of conflict for Greeks to label each other "barbarians" (non-Greeks) as an insult. (similar to saying "unAmerican" today) While Demosthenes used "barbarians" to describe Macedonians... he also used it describe the Athenian orator Aristogeiton [Aristophanes, ‘Nephelae’ (line 491). And even Demosthenes himself as described by as a "barbarian" by Aeschine. Plato characterized the Lesbian Aeolic Greek dialect as ‘a barbarian register’ while addressing Pittakos of Mytilene. Athenaios VIII 350a Socrates calls Strepsiadis “ανθρωπός αμαθές ουτώσι και βάρβαρος“. (Strepsiadis…was a well-known Athenian) - Protagoras 3410 etc... etc... There are countless instances of Greeks describing each other as barbarians.

There are other examples of bias in the article but the most telling is how it lightly brushs over the Hellenic period of Macedon (similar to the golden age of Athens).... in which Macedonia spread the Greek Language, Greek culture, and Greek ideas to the region. They unique flavour of macedon among Greeks... was very similar to how Athens also had unique aspects to it... as did Sparta... as did most of the Greek mini-states.

If Macedon wasn't Greek.... then Greek philosopher Aristotle wasn't Greek either (since he came from Chalcidice in Macedon). To go down this road we would also need to rewrite a fair portion of Wiki articles related to antiquity and the Hellenistic period. To do this to suit the political needs of a country whose population is roughly a quarter Muslim and most of the rest are ethnically slavic (who have called themselves Yugoslavians, Serbians, and Bulgarians in the last hundred years) amounts to roughly helping the Taliban blow up Buddhist statues for political ends.

Because of political nature of the article I would advise a complete rewrite by people will credentials in ancient studies. History is not a popularity contest. Just stick to the facts as we know them. What's ironic is that virtually every last piece of "evidence" that Macedon wasn't Greek... is either translated from Greek or comes from Greek artifacts. The citizens of Fyrom can't even read inscriptions from Macedon... as they are almost all writen in Greek. (Their own "Macedonian" language was called Bulgarian less than a hundred years ago) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Currency of ancient Macedonia by NO mean was "greek" drahma. There were more, drahmas and tetradrahmas, but the main currency was STATER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.247.75 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"greek drahma"?? How about "greek stater"? Just read before you post... GK1973 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

@OP. Your first comment re "ancient Greece" is of course correct but come on now. What kind of distortion due to politics do you see here? This article doesn't discuss modern politics at all and in fact, you're the first to mention them here. If you see any kind of "weakness" in this article, as you state, I doubt it's because of that. The article on Ancient Macedonians, btw, spends a LOT of space (probably more than necessary; neglects other aspects as well) talking about their "Greekness" so, what's your point?

As an asides, why is Aristotle's being a Macedonian such a widespread belief (I've come across it in various philosophy books as well)? He was born in an Ionian colony and, as far as memory serves, there are no ancient sources calling him a "Macedonian". The earliest sources of this sort I recall are medieval biographies. Feel free to correct me, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's poorly written, but not for the reasons you state. Calling the mythical Karanus the first king and not pointing out that he is mythical...and I am curious where this is from?

" It should be mentioned that the Macedonian tribe ruled by the Argeads, the tribe whose lands the Greeks called Macedonia, was itself called Argead (which translates as "descended from Argos")"....please cite your source for this, thank you...

This is another of those articles where modern politics rears it ugly head I can see, I assume that it why it is locked. To the OP, how does saying that Macedon was in the northernmost part of Greece (which it is) make it sound like it borders Greece?

Also apologies if I don't sign this right, it's been a while.Gingervlad (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)gingervlad

removed modern concepts

Archived per WP:TALK, there's no need to remove anything. As GK1973 says, the concepts and words of "Greece"(Hellenes) and "Greek"(Helenic) clearly existed on the antiquity and can be found on all historical documents with the correct meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All instances of the word Greece and Greek should be removed from this article. Greece and Greek are modern concepts that did not exist at the time. Although Ancient Macedonian culture may have been similar to what you would see in Athens or Sparta, or any other city-state it is by no means Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.16 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure of what you mean with the concepts of "Greece" or "Greek" not existing at that time. Check the works at wikisource:Category:Works_originally_in_Greek. For example, on the preamble of the Laws of Plato it says "greeks" and "Greece" several times wikisource:Laws_(Plato)/Preamble --Enric Naval (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Another smart boy... the concepts of Hellenes and hellenic (translated as Greeks and Greek by the Romans and thus the Western world but this is another story) are ancient and given thousands of times in all historical documents of antiquity. For example, according to Herodot, a historian who lived before Alexander the Great, Philip II or even Plato, Alexander I king of Macedonia proclaimed himself "a Greek (Hellenas) viceroy". The meaning of these words is clear to whoever has read any ancient texts and of course they denote exactly what they denote today... a single nation divided in many tribes, cities, prefectures etc... And of course thousands of times you will find the word Hellenas (Greek) used in ancient texts. Why shoud anybody answer to these meaningless babblings? Because, unfortunately, not everybody knows about history and voices like that count on it... GK1973 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

name of article

What is that "Macedon"????? I know about Macedonia. Like Trakia, Thessalia, Paphlagonia .... many other macedonian names.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.242.15 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC) is reading the first line of the article so much to expect from someone... "Macedon or Macedonia" its the same place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.125 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "macedon" is the person who comes from or lives in Macedonia. Does anybody know any ancient reference of "Macedon" as a geographical term?79.107.74.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

North of Greece

I understand Macedon definitions vary based on authors and sources, I added sources which state Macedon was North of Greece:

1. Hellenistic World by F.W.Walbank p. 91: '.... Macedonians were an essential bulwark to the north of Greece'
2. ^ Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World By Pierre Jouguet p.179: 'After crossing the Spercheios and ravaging the territory of Heracleia, which he could not take, he marched on Thermopylae. The pass was defended. The peoples of Northern Greece -Locrians, Phocians, Megarians, Boeotians, Athenians- had sent their contingents, the largest being that of Aetolians. Antigonos Gonatas and Antiochos had furnished 500 hoplites each.'
3. ^ Alexander the Great by Richard Stoneman p.1: 'Alexander the Great was born in summer 356 BC and died thirty-three years later in the month of Daisios (June) 323 BC. He was born the son of Philip, the King of Macedon, a fertile and predominantly pastoral region lying north of classical Greece'
4. ^ The Greeks by Jean Pierre Vernant p.43: 'Athens also imported wood for shipbuilding, wood that for the most part came from northern Greece and from Macedonia.'

Just a few sourcesMactruth (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC

I have shown sources for my editing, which are valid and fair. Greek users are continuously reverting the edits, but with little reasoning. In fact, the only reason I got was from Δρακόλακκος, who stated, "this is completely lame, go mess up something else" which is an OPINION. This is POV pushing, and the page will be reverted back. Mactruth (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly you Greeks cant except the fact that your claim of "Macedonia being in northern Greece" isn't accepted by all historians? Instead of showing all the data to the people, you only show that which supports your claim, without discussion or argument. Good jobs guys. Mactruth (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the differentiation between the geographic boundaries of classical "Greece" and the Greek-inhabited/influenced areas. Classical Greece proper has often been depicted as reaching north up to Thessaly, so that Macedon can be said to have been "north of Greece". But by the same token, the Ionian cities lay "east of Greece", and Magna Graecia "west of Greece", without anyone actually being able to dispute that they were Greek. But since Macedon was Greek or hellenized (Greekness being a cultural identity more than anything, it comes down to the same thing), it was indeed in the northern part of the Greek sphere, and, indeed, of modern Greece. Perhaps it is best to avoid the pointless arguments by substituting it with "in the northernmost part of the ancient Greek world" or something like that. Constantine ✍ 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greece is NOT a place. So any such term used as a geographical determinant is not precise. Before anybody starts shouting, let me explain. Greece has been, and still is, a region. "Ancient Greece" has not. What is it? Is it the totality of the Greek world? Then Magna Graecia and Ionia should also be Greece... Is it the region called Greece by Strabo? Then Macedonia is clearly in the north of Greece, as perceived in the times of Strabo - NOT ancient Greece. Unfortunately, we do not exactly know where the boundaries of the region of Greece lay before Strabo. Aristoteles suggests that Macedonia was inside what was called Region of Greece, but then other sources seem to suggest that, although clearly inside the Greek world, it was not IN Greece. Many sources even seem to suggest that Thessalia was outside the region of Greece, since the pass of Thermopylae is many times called the gates into Greece. Of course, I know that Mactruth's agenda has nothing to do with that, he just strives to hint, suggest etc that the Macedonians were not Greeks, but in this case, I also find that "Ancient Greece" is a flawed geographical term. You have to understand that Greece as a pure geographical term had nothing to do with Greece as the home of Greek cities, kingdoms or tribes. There are those who wish to suggest that whatever lay outside the region of Greece was not Greek and this idiocy has unfortunately led to Greeks being very reluctant to admit what they already know, that is that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE MACEDONIANS WERE A GREEK TRIBE. GK1973 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía) was the name of an ancient kingdom. Initially the kingdom of the Argead Macedonians, centered in nowadays Greek Macedonia, north of Thessaly, Macedon later incorporated the rest of the Macedonian tribes. It was bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west (in nowadays Greek Epirus), the region of Thrace to the east (in nowadays Greek East Macedonia, Greek Thrace and Bulgaria) and Paeonia to the north (in nowadays Republic of Macedonia). For a brief period, it became the most powerful state in the world after Alexander the Great's conquests, inaugurating the Hellenistic period of world history.

It is true that MACEDON initially was ONLY the kingdom of the Argead Macedonians. Their kingdom was fully within MODERN GREECE and at any time NORTH OF THESSALY. To make understood that the Argead Macedonians were not the only Macedonians, thus Macedon was NOT the full region of Macedonia at the time BEFORE the Argeads had subdued the rest of the Macedonian tribes I mention their later incorporation in the KINGDOM OF MACEDON. Then, I added Paeonia in the north (east was there, west was there, north was not...) and I added where these other region were in regard to MODERN GEOGRAPHY, since these can be the ONLY geographical determinants... I also changed this part about Alexander having conquered "most of the world known to Greeks". This is really awkward, since the Greeks knew much more in terms of geography than what this phrase gives them credit.... Alexander's exploits were huge, but this phrase is just plainly wrong. The Greeks perfectly well knew the lands all the way to the British Isles, as well as of the lands north of the Danube (Istros), Lybia (Africa) and of course the existence of India... GK1973 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, he is just using this to try to imply that the ancient Macedonians were "something other" than Greek. He's been trying for months now. WP:DNFTT at this point. "Northernmost part of ancient Greece" is fine. It's sourced, and there's nothing wrong with it either in the geographical or cultural sense. --Athenean (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the article Ancient Greece "refers to the period" (a time period), so in better English it should read just "in Ancient Greece" since geographical identifiers cannot be used for time periods without sounding awkward.

Brittanica, (here[1]) has this wording early in the first paragraph: "in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula"... "achieved hegemony over Greece" ..."of ancient Greek civilization"

Should we change it to "in Ancient Greece" and add a seperate sentence for the geography? Shadowmorph (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The description of the territory is very polemical to say at least. This has been extensively discussed in the past [[2]]. In my talk page [[3]] you can find several references that give a different perspective to what many have been saying here. They are sourced too! With this I pretend only to claim the polemic character of this subject. For that reason I propose a wording that avoids the terminology such as "Ancient Greece" and that uses a more geological terminology with references to rivers and mountains.

Also there is the problem with the maps, with some in French [[4]] and others that are not very informative [[5]]. Hxseek has a good alternative to the maps used: [[6]]. This is better looking and its source is well established and respected: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece".Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE (ESPECIALLY FIRST PARAGRAPH NEEDS CLARIFICATION): Macedonia or Macedon was a kingdom which "By its geographical position ... forms the connecting link between the Balkans and the Greek peninsula." There we need a clarification. Yes, the land where the Kingdom was centered, connects Balkans with Greek Peninsula. But this term is not the best to clarify the land arround the kingdom itself: all the excavation sites I have visited (Vergina and Pella, (capitals), Philippoi, Dios (Religious place where they make ceremonies to the 12 Greek Deities), and some others just where points of high interest for the ancient Macedonians, are giving more emphasis on the land itself being part of the Greek Mainland, rather than to the Kingdom's location as a crossroad of a Greek Peninsula with Balkan Peninsula without further description. The term "Greek mainland" gives emphasis of being part of Greek world which extends further, up to north of Greek Peninsula's limits, instead of just a "connection of Greek World or Greek Peninsula with Balkans". I mean the Kingdom its forming a greek land. As we see the 5 major settlements of Ancient Macedonia, including its 2 capital cities, prove that the land has an "identity" itself which links it with the rest of the Greek World. Its not just a crossroad between Greece and Balkans: Macedonia is part of the world itself. However the article lacks to make a reference to this. It may let the visitors who come to read and gather more detailed informations about Macedonia, to find the article lacking some informations about the influence of the land to the kingdom itself. Yes, "connects Greek peninsula with Balkan", but what the kingdom itself is...? what describes it? Where belongs? Attica region of Athens, Laconian region of Sparta belong to Greek mainland, while Macedonia region of Pella where? of course needs further clarification where the term Mainland can be used better than the Peninsula does. Modern day people need a reference to its "identity" as when they read an article, they see it from a general view first. Just I am trying to give an example which term describes one of the most powerful states in the ancient world: as part of Mainland or a nonsense connection between just 2 areas?. When I am reading the article, after my visit (one and half months ago) in 1) Pella, 2) Vergina 3) Dios and 4) Philippoi, I see that while 4 settlements that the article needs more clarification of the Macedonian land itself, as we already to with Attican land and Laconian land.: The Kingdom is not a "layer" over the land, is part of a land which culturally, geologically and politically (location of capitals), religiously (Dios, the main Macedonian religious site, which is built on the roots the greek mountain Olympus and they had greek religion) and cultural part (columns in Pella, Mosaics in the ground, to God Dionysus), of the Greek mainland-I saw it with my eyes- etc), which all together form more than enough elementals that clarify the kingdom itself as part of the Ancient Greek mainland, rather than simply... North of Greece or a crossroad between Greek Peninsula with Balkans. Is part of the Greek Mainland. As a wiki, we have to give priority to which geopolitical/geological category Ancient Macedon is better clarified while at same time we give emphasis to the archeological excavation data: "North of X Peninsula which links it with Y Peninsula" or more simply "part of the X mainland, X world" as the data give us?. Because the term Greek Peninsula is a term which its borders have been not determinated yet, sometimes appears larger in scale, including more of King of Macedon's lands, while other times is much smaller, ending up to northern Thessalia, so we can't use it for Macedon which has already some portions of land within it. May the land where the Macedonians where centered, is not described as within the limits of the Greek Peninsula, or part of Magna Grecia, or Minor Asia, however its part of the Greek mainland world. (The Greek Mainland includes: Pelopponesus, Laecedemonia, Attica, Larissa, Macedonia). When we refer to greek mainland as general layout, which includes Macedonia, and is the region, which includes both Greek Peninsula (southern parts of Macedon) and some portions north of it (rest of Macedon). The excavations in the archeological sites themselves at least this confirms. And last, I should note that the archeological sites in Pella, Vergina, Dios confirm that at least, Macedonia, has strong geological/geopolotical connection with the rest of the Greek world rather than staying as a connection of it with Balkan Peninsula, so the term part of Greek Mainland or something like this fits better here and describes it better than the "North of Greece" for the antiquity.--62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NO! Section "Involvement in the Greek world" concerns issues you discuss. intro properly begins more neutrally and objectively; part of Greek Mainland begs the question and would be misleading, since the complex relation of macedonia and 'greece' or greek culture was an issue in ancient times and still is. Wran (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is about the location. the state itself is not just a connection between X and Y area. This doesn't requires clarification about the land itself?--62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any term we can use to desrcibe the kingdom's land but keeping neutrality? for example to include at BOTH time the data from archeological sites of what land was, while at sime keep neutrality. --62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We have 3 priorities I guess: first is to upload all the critical about this information that have been for emerged, for years, from the excavation sites and have been not proved invalid all this period, even when more more Y informations emerge from new excavations in different places that have proved the X data as valid. (Vergina, Pella, Dios, Philippoi excavation sites, in connection, and keep on). Second, regional data about settlements's characteristics in comparision with nearby towns and the nearby regional groups: Does this X region/town shares the same characteristics/ fullfills the creteria to be included to the more general Y region which includes towns that share similar characteristics with it? third: because there are political disputes in the X age (today), the data of Y age (antiquity) as have been proved from region's excavations must be not halted. Data themselves are different fact. Giving direct links to the archeological sites' records and data. Co-operation with archeologists who work in the sites so the database of the site can get updated directly. This is the best. --62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Empire of Alexander the III

Would it be to much to make it an article (considering it was only an empire from when he took the throne to his death at Ba-bi-lu)?It would make it easier to link Diadochi Articles together. The main reasoning I'm using is the fact that Alexanders empire, was so different from the kingdom ruled by his formers.(forgot I wasn't logged on) --Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that it might be useful to make the short Alexander the Great empire-part of Macedonia as its own article. However I also do understand the arguments against it (that it was in theory indeed the same kingdom as before and so on..). -GabaG (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says Macedon?

Where does the name Macedon come from? Both ancient and modern Greeks called it Makedonia and in other languages it was refered to as Macedonia, Macedoine, Makedonya, etc... So why Macedon? Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do a google search 'Macedon', and eliminate all the adjoining terms such as county, ranges, etc you end up with: 362 hits and these still include items that have nothing to do with the Maceodnia of Philip and Alexander. "Results 1 - 10 of about 362 for macedon -town of -medicine -county of -ranges -club of -real estate -wine -and spa" Politis (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedon is a term used in English to only denote the kingdom of Macedon(ia), which usually was not the same with the region of Macedonia. In the early years, it only was the part ruled by the Argeads, thus a part only of Macedonia, later, it also comprised lands in Thrace and Epirus. GK1973 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this original research? (I'm refering to the theory only a part of Macedonia was ruled by the Argeads thus was different than the kingdom of Macedon(?)) Shadowmorph (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Macedonia" is the most common English usage, and accurately refers to the kingdom, the Macedonian Empire, and in all other times of its history mentioned here. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brittanica, (here[7]) says Macedonia (the ancient kingdom). It doesn't even mention Macedon (disambiguation) nowhere near the beginning. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

actually it doesn't use "Macedon" at all. "Macedon" can be used when referring to "Phillip II of Macedon" or the "rise of Macedon" but probably only to distinguish between pre-Alexander and the later eras. I've been bold and moved the page Shadowmorph (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"kingdom of Macedon" is not the most common use, but "Macedonia" is. If we had to use Macedon for the title it probably should be kingdom of Macedon like in kingdom of Israel. But contrary to the Israel case, kingdom of Macedon is rarely used for times other than the pre-Alexandrian. This article is about Macedonia in all time periods Shadowmorph (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The word ancient could be omitted because there never was a non ancient kingdom by itself. But it is better left there for clarity Shadowmorph (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Kingdom of Macedonia" is the most common term. Yet "Macedon" has the same meaning. As long as "Macedon" directs to this page and is mentioned as an alternative term, I got no problem GK1973 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the re-direct from Macedon (I think) simply because the term Macedon is so unusual.Politis (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Any more suggestions, welcomed Shadowmorph (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always been under the inpression that the country's name was the 'Kingdom of Macedon' and I have used that name for all the articles, that have involved this kingdom. 'Macedonian' was the adjective for the noun 'Macedon(ia)'. Kyriakos (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

well, you were mistaken. "Macedon" sees some use in dated sources, but the most common term is clearly "Macedonia". We long used to keep this article at Macedon just for disambiguation purposes. It is always helpful to consult the OED rather than wading though google hits. Macedon n. is listed, as "1. Ancient Macedonia. Now arch. and hist.", first attestation c. 1330, in use in the 19th century and into the 1960s, but at present mostly in the composition Philip of Macedon. I would advocate the title of Ancient Macedonia as most appropriate for this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there are other Macedonias to disambiguate. Ancient Macedonia could be confused with Ancient "Macedonia" (region surrounding the location of the modern republic that uses that name) which would be Paeonia, I think. That problem only appeared when an admin decided to move the country article and omit the words "Republic of". And he didn't remove the move-protection either. If that wasn't done, there would be less need to disambiguate that, imho. I'd challenge your proposal on its basis also. It's not that bad but the word ancient is itself trivially omitted in all contexts that the correct Macedonia is inferred by other means. When the words Aristotle, Empire, Army etc pop up then "ancient" is not needed; it is not a part of the description. By Googling "empire of Macedonia" gives many results while "empire of ancient Macedonia" gives no results. Same for "Aristotle was born in Macedonia". You can check other sources. Thanks for your input, by the way. Oh and in case you don't know there is a current arbitration about the Macedonia naming dispute inside Wikipedia. Temporarily no Macedonia-related article (of the non-locked ones) should be moved until the ARBCOM finishes it's job. Check it here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2 Shadowmorph (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About the common use about "Macedonia" in antiquity

Search term in "quotes"	results
"empire of Macedonia"	4,270 results [8]
"empire of Macedon"	2,470 [9]
"empire of ancient Macedonia" / "ancient empire of Macedonia"	0 / 5 [10] / [11]
"tomb in Macedonia"	198 results[12]
"tomb in Macedon"	2 [13]
"tomb in ancient Macedonia"	0 [14]
"Aristotle was born in Macedonia"	234 results[15]:
"Aristotle was born in Macedon"	4 [16]
"Aristotle was born in ancient Macedonia"	5[17]

Shadowmorph (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the move to "Macedonia (qualifier)", just "ancient kingdom" doesn't strike me as a particularly good choice. I suggest "Macedonia (antiquity)" or "Macedonia (Classical Antiquity)". --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No.. this would be problematic because Macedonia (antiquity) could also mean Macedonia (region)(antiquity) and Macedonia (region) has very little to do with Macedonia in antiquity or even Macedonia (country)(antiquity), which is even less relevant. In antiquty there were actually 2 Macedonias, Macedonia (kingdom) and Macedonia (ancient region), the latter being the territory of the combined Macedonian tribes in addition to the Argeads we all know. Macedonia (classical antiquty) is also not a good solution, because Macedonia's history spans far back to the past and to the future of this relatively short period. Yes... unfortunately, wherever the word "Macedonia" is used there are issues with semantics...GK1973 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology -> "македнос", Solun, language etc??????

I'm sorry, is this an encyclopedia or a playground??? "The name of Macedonia (from [Macedonian], Makedonía), comes from the ancient Macedonian word македнос"!!!! Is this an ancient alphabet i'm missing? An ancient spoken language i'm missing??? Would you please get some serious... this is an encyclopedia, not a propagandistic forum!

There is an image that says "The statue of Alexander the Great in Solun sea front"... from the antiquity till nowdays the name of the city is Thessaloniki after Alexanders sister Thessalonike! Why are you people trying to twist the history?

After the ancient Macedonian language, there was the Slavic Macedonian language? The religion of the ancient Macedonian was the unknown Ancient Macedonian religion? Just a notice... 30km south from the Macedonian capital Aigai (inside the Macedonian kingdom) there is the Mount Olympus, i think you've heard about the Twelve Olympians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#The_King

"The King

The king (Басилеус, Basileús) headed the central administration: he led the kingdom from its capital, Pella, and in his royal palace was conserved the state's archive. He was helped in carrying out his work by the Royal Secretary (Басиликос граматеус, basilikós grammateús), whose work was of primary importance, and by the Council."

What the Cyrillic alphabet has to do with the ancient Macedonian kingdom???

I'm sure there are more since i read it very quickly. I don't know if i have to laugh or cry!!! Can someone please clean this mess? --xvvx (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Relax, man. Just a silly piece of POV vandalism. It was reverted within three minutes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, i don't know what's wrong. Even though i can see from the history page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&action=history that you have reverted the article to the previous version, for some reason i can not understand, if i click on the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom) i get the previous version --xvvx (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Try refreshing your browser cache, perhaps. Internet Explorer: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's o.k now, without refreshing the cache. There might be some other problem. IE is an unknown word for me :p I use linux and tried 5 different browsers (Firefox, Opera, Epiphany, Arora, Konqueror) :p --xvvx (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric Macedonia

My concern is this material, whose accuracy I've not yet examined. It seems interesting but it is placed IMO in the wrong article (at least to that extent): Macedonia (Greece), where there should be only a summary of it per SS. So, my question is: where should this material mainly be?

1. Here?
2. To the history section of the Macedonia (region)?
3. As it stands now?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two points (I cannot comment on its accuracy, although it looks good):

• As phrased, it covers the area of the modern province, because its source does.
• That's the only reason I can see for Macedonia (Greece) to have a history section at all, other than a summary of Macedonia (region). Its boundary is the Greek frontier as of 1913, and it is unlikely to be a natural division in the palaeolithic (or even in the nineteenth century).

I would put it in Macedonia (region); the connection of purely archaeological cultures to the kingdom of Macedon must be conjecture. But this would involve asking if the archaeology of the inland parts of the region differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hat link

The title is unambiguously referring to an ancient kingdom. However "ancient" might create some confusion about the roman province and the byzantine thema to the lay reader. Thus the inclusion of other places template. We could also change that part of the hat link to For other historical entities see Macedonia (disamgiguation).Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Current hat link looks fine. (Taivo (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

the current article title is an abomination. I liked it rather better when this article resided at Macedon. But at least the title is now absolutely unambiguous, so no, no hatnote will be needed under this title. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Revision: Description of the territory

A long time has passed and the article continues at a low level. It's time to implement changes that will increase accuracy, neutrality and coherence. Starting with the territory:
The description of the territory is very polemical to say at least. This has been extensively discussed in the past [[18]]. In my talk page [[19]] you can find several references that give a perspective different to what many have been saying here. They are sourced too! With this I pretend only to claim the polemic character of this subject. For that reason I propose a wording that avoids terminology such as "Ancient Greece" and that uses a more geological terminology with references to rivers and mountains. Also there is the problem with the maps, with some in French [[20]] and others that are not very informative [[21]]. Hxseek has a good alternative to the maps used: [[22]]. This is better looking and its source is well established and respected: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece". Maps with similar look can be prepared and used for the different stages of the 'Macedon'.Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, not again! You were denied last time by a solid consensus and I do not have the time or patience to re-hash the same old nonsensical debate again. The maps are fine. Hxseek's are inaccurate. Your sourcing is worthless and misleading. Forget it, not a chance. --Athenean (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Last time the map changes were accepted but could no be implemented because of POV pushing and contributions loaded with dogmatic opinions and deprived of any objectiveness, just like yours. Why the sourcing is worthless and misleading? Why they are inaccurate? Why not use a neutral description of the territory?Ilidio Martins (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also problems with the current reference for the territorial description which is based on the term "Greek peninsula". This is a not an objective description since in proper geological terms the area attributed to the Greek peninsula is not a peninsula! Could anyone point where is its isthmus? Could anyone pick it from the list of peninsulas in Europe[[23]]? To make things worst the "Greek peninsula" term is redirected to "Geography of Greece". Because of the absence of a geological peninsula one borrows it a political meaning? This is what I call biased nonsense!
In summary the particular article from Britannica that is used as source for the current Wikipedia article has severe problems with objectiveness and accuracy of the terminology used. The reference should be removed as well as the wording based on it.Ilidio Martins (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Eordaians, Mygdonians etc

We are not sure whether all or some of these tribes were Thracians. The Mygdonians for example might have been Bryges and the Bryges are most possibly not Thracian. The Eordaians also had Greek elements in the past, but might be completely assimilated by the time we are talking of etc. It is easy to find historical texts where the Lyncestae, the Orestae etc are called Macedonian tribes but this is not easily possible for the said tribes. In my opinion, most possibly they were Thracian or Thracian affiliated, so I do not have a problem with stating that. But, as you said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to make a certain civilization appear more prominent than it really was. Believe you me when I say that "most possibly" is a very good solution, unless you want "antiThracians" to crop up and (with far more compelling and supported arguments) try to erase that word from the article.

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannica's reference

There is problems with the current reference for the territorial description which is based on the term "Greek peninsula". This is not an objective description since in proper geological terms the area attributed to the Greek peninsula is not a peninsula! Could anyone point where is its isthmus? Could anyone pick it from the list of peninsulas in Europe[24]? Moreover "Greek peninsula" term is redirected to "Geography of Greece" which constitutes a quite daring suggestion.
The article from Britannica that is used as source for the current Wikipedia article has problems with objectiveness and accuracy of the terminology used. The reference should be removed as well as the wording based on it.Ilidio Martins (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

the peninsula is actually known as the Balkan peninsula. This should be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such thing as "Greek peninsula" except locally in Greece, which is not official international entity of reference, I believe. MakedekaM (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, guys, look at a map. A peninsula is defined as a narrowing of land that extends into a body of water. While we can debate whether or not there really is such a thing as a "Balkan Peninsula", the narrowing of land that characterizes a "Greek Peninsula" is south of ancient Macedonia. The narrowing occurs in the region of ancient Epirus and Thessaly, not in the region of ancient Macedonia. No matter how you slice it, the bulk of ancient Macedonia was north of the narrowing that defines the geographical Greek peninsula. Politically, of course, the region of ancient Macedonia lies mostly within the modern country of Greece, but we don't define geographical features politically. The narrowing of land that defines the "Greek peninsula" is south of Pella, not north of it. (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

The Argead kingdom was mostly in what you yourself, taivo, define as the Greek peninsula. Aiges was the traditional capital up until Archelaus' times (that is for more than 4 centuries) and even Pella lies within the Greek peninsula, since the borders of a peninsua are not a stright line but mostly geographical elements of which the plains of Bottiaia are part of. Pydna, mt Olympus, generally the region of Pieria is the traditional area of Macedon, which later expanded. What you call Epirus an Thessaly are still Macedonia. Even Orestis and Eordaia are within the Greek peninsula. Almopi, Lynkestis and Pelagonia are outside the "Greek peninsula", but then these were not actually parts of Argead Macedonia GK1973 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of what constitutes "ancient Macedonia is in Greek peninsula" or even with your attempt to draw the lines of the Greek peninsula to include the Pella region. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but it's just another Greek POV pushing to stretch the boundaries of "Greece" beyond the classical entity to encompass the modern entity. Sorry, but that's how I interpret it. The "Greek peninsula" neither encompasses all of modern Greece, nor all of the Greek-speaking areas of antiquity. Look at the map at Macedonia and it's clear that core "ancient Macedonia" is outside the narrowing of the Balkan peninsula that extends no further north than Thessaly (which was not part of "core Macedonia"). (Taivo (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you are clearly wrong. Most of the ancient kingdom, even if you exclude Pella (also outside the initial Macedonian kingdom), Olympus and Pydna and the whole region of Pieria, which IS the historical Macedonian kingdom is clearly outside Thessaly and within the region you call Greek peninsula. So are many other non-Argead Macedonian kingdoms GK1973 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Macedonian kingdom lies within the Greek borders. Ionia was a Greek colony. The article says “is an ancient region of central coastal Anatolia in present-day Turkey”, the article about Magna Grecia, says “is the name of the coastal areas of Southern Italy on the Tarentine Gulf”. Is it or not the ancient kingdom of Macedonia in Greece? Why do we have to eliminate that word? The main image about the Macedonian kingdom area http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Macedonian_Kingdom.jpg clearly shows that it was within the Greek region. The ancient Macedonian kingdom is in Greece and that’s a fact. I still can't understand why do we have to change that. O.K the ancient Macedonia is in Balkans, the Peloponnese, Epirus, Thessaly etc are also in the Balkans, actually the whole Greece is in Balkans, do we have to change that? It seems to me irrational! --xvvx (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

xvvx, we're not talking about whether or not ancient Macedonia was Greek or not. We're only talking about whether the core of ancient Macedonia lay within some imaginary construct we're calling "the Greek Peninsula", so your comment is irrelevant to the discussion. GK1973, if you're saying that most of Macedonia lay north of Thessaly, then that's what I'm also saying. Thessaly is the northernmost part of Greece that can geographically be within the "Greek peninsula" because the narrowing of land required to call something a peninsula does not include modern Thessalonica and northwards. Look at the map of the regions of Greece at the place you're linking this to. You will clearly see that the narrower part of northern Greece is at the northern edge of Epirus and Thessaly. The parts of Greece labelled "Macedonia" and "Thrace" are clearly and unambiguously north of the narrowing of land required in the definition of "peninsula". (Taivo (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Since I was the editor who originally inserted that let me express my opinion here. Taivo, please support your argument with sources rather than with your own original research. You cannot redefine geography and there is no reason for you to try to find the meaning of the word peninsula. There are thin peninsulas , thick peninsulas and long peninsulas. As far as Wikipedia is concerned we can settle with what a reliable sources tells as that the Greek peninsula is. There is no reason for any of us to try to find the borders of it because he perceives the narrowing to be this or that. I am not the biggest fan of Britannica but they do say that Macedonia was "centred on the plain in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula, at the head of the Gulf of Thérmai". Even if you have another reliable authoritative source that refutes that, the fact that the Britannica citation exists means that it represents at least one accepted view of where Macedonia was defined geographically in respect to the Greek peninsula. Besides of your viewpoint that involves Macedonia not being "Greek" neither being "in ancient Greece" (you have well established that is what you believe), I beg you to reconsider whether this crusade to exclude Macedonia even from the geographic definition of the Greek peninsula is really adding anything to the article. Bear in mind that we could also use the modern well-defined geographic boundary of Greece for the purpose of orienting ourselves and the reader in the map. For instance we could say that it was originally centered around Aegai modern day Edessa, Greece [25] and achieve the same result. I have the feeling that would not be acceptable (because of the "G" word) to some editors like MakedekaM who seems to believe that there is no such thing as a Greek peninsula. I take it that when you mentioned the "imaginary construct" you meant the "geographic definition" and don't share MakedekaM's view. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MakadekaM said something about: "official international entity of reference" which is equal to "geographic definition", but international one. Do NOT MISINTERPRET MY WORDS INTENTIONALLY SO YOU CAN BE PUSHING YOUR POV. Thank you. MakedekaM (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New Introductory Map

The introductory map "Location of Macedon" doesn't seem all that useful for two reason. First, the name "Macedonia" isn't listed on the map anywhere, so you can't tell where Macedonia actually is or where it begins or ends. Second, you can't tell which part of the Greek peninsula you are looking at. I advise getting another, more useful map.

ancient Greek kingdom

That is a very common way of refering to Macedon and considering that Alexander, Phillip and the Macedonians themselves have allready been labelled Greek I don't see the point of removing the reference in this instance. Particularly as I took care to back it up with several citations from WP:RS.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can back up an adjective with reliable sources doesn't mean it's a good idea to put it in. The addition of "Greek" to the first sentence doesn't add anything to the article and gives the impression of baiting our Macedonian editors (read WP:POINT). As you say, the relation of the ancient kingdom of Macedon to the Greek city states is made clear in the rest of the article. There's no confusion. What's the point of baiting your neighbors to the north just because you can find three references that call Macedon a "Greek kingdom"? Work on the content of the article and improve that. Don't spend your time focusing on how to "prove" that ancient Macedon was Greek. You don't need to prove that at all, it's relation is already in the article. (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

You can find reliable sources all over the place for just about anything you want. But what is the point of focusing overmuch on "Greek"? It is plain, as you say, and is sprinkled throughout the article, so putting the word "Greek" in every sentence of the article (especially the first one) is just baiting our Macedonian editors. I suggest that you give careful attention to WP:POINT. (Taivo (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

If it is a fact then it should be mentioned prominently. Check the entry for Sparta for instance. It says "ancient Greece" in the first line, even though it is also "sprinkled" Or Classical Athens. Or any of the other classical Greek states.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now please check out the entries for Sparta, Athens etc. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sparta, Athens, etc. don't matter. They have never been other than Greek and they form the very core of "Greece". Macedon was peripheral. Until Philip, they really weren't even Greek and the Greeks really didn't accept them (until post-Alexander). So there is no reason to "prominently" mention it. You are just baiting the Macedonian editors. It's not necessary since Macedon was not part of the core of ancient Greece. (Taivo (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

It is exactly because it was peripheral and may be considered to be outside of ancient Greece that it should be noted that it was part of ancient Greece. Also you are of course wrong in asserting that Macedonians were not Greeks before the time of Phillip. In fact they had allready been hellenized by the 5th c. BCE, that's even if you assume they weren't Greek to begin with. See the Britannica article.--Anothroskon (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that accusations of baiting should not be made and that you should assume good faith.--Anothroskon (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge your personal motives here, but "prominently" writing "Greek" in the first sentence of this article is baiting in its effect. This has been discussed several times in the last six months and the consensus is consistent--don't put too much "Greek" into initial statements about Macedon. If the article completely ignored the Greek component of Macedon, then you would have a very valid point and the issue would have to be added throughout the article. But the Greek element is already generously displayed in the article. There's no need for baiting by "prominently" displaying it in the first sentence. There's a radical difference between what you can do and what you should do. I can drink and smoke if I want, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. (Taivo (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Surely you mean drink and drive? There isn't anything wrong with drinking and smoking.--Anothroskon (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked "don't put too much "Greek" into initial statements about Macedon", can you be kind enough to explain what is "much" and what is not? And especially why? I mean the story about the drinking and the smoking is sound but not really illuminating about your opinion (and your revert). To me there is a more illuminating story saying "either she is pregnant or not", which I find it more relevant to the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Anothroskon here. The way I see it, the only argument advanced so far against his recent edit is that it would offend the sensibilities of Slav Macedonian users. This argument is a) entirely subjective, b) irrelevant, and c) assumes motive (i.e. bad faith). It is subjective because it based only on Taivo's says-so and not backed by much evidence. From my experience, Slav Macedonian users are more preoccupied with modern history articles and have shown scant interest in this article. To the extent that Slav Macedonian users show any interest in ancient history articles, it tends to be limited to the pages on ФНЛНП and mostly AЛЕКСАНДАР МAKEДOНСКИ, consisting mainly of naive POV-pushing by changing the names to their modern Slavic equivalents. As evidenced by the talkpage history, most objections on this page come from northern European and American users.

The "baiting" argument is also irrelevant, because I was under the impression that wikipedia is supposed to be immune to national sensibilities. During a recent debate (spring of 2009) on whether RoM should be referred to as RoM or FYROM on the article on Greece, Taivo was one of the main proponents of the argument that wikipedia should be immune to national sensibilities. It was argued that referring to the country as RoM was may be offensive to Greek users, but tough. Sorry, but if wikipedia is supposed to be immune to Greek sensibilities, then it should be immune to Slav Macedonian sensibilities as well. If Slav Macedonians are taught a bunch of unhistorical nonsense in their schools that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was not Greek, tough. That's their problem, not wikipedia's problem. At some point, too much political correctness turns into censorship. This precisely what's going on here. Taivo is not contesting the Greekness of the ancient Macedonian kingdom per se, but rather that we shouldn't call a spade a spade because one particular ethnic group might find it offensive.

Lastly, the argument that one can find reliable sources to back up anything is simply not true. One can find sources to back anything, but not reliable sources. I can find dozens of reliable sources that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was Greek. But I can't find a single reliable sources that the modern-day Slav Macedonians are the sole direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians because that is a bunch of nationalist BS. --Athenean (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is an instance where an unnecessarily heavy pointy hand is being laid upon an article that is perfectly fine without it. What is the point to stating that Macedon was an ancient "Greek" kingdom? The point is to bait Macedonian editors. Macedon was only Greek peripherally. Before adding "Greek" to the initial statement, how about listening to a wider variety of editors rather than just to the editors who are typically associated with a pro-Greek POV in other articles? You write, Athenean, as if this were an article about saddle horses--uncontroversial and uncontentious. But you know as well as I do how much the various editors struggle over these Macedonian-related articles. The word "Greek" is totally unnecessary in that first sentence especially since Macedon was always only peripherally Greek. It's like referring to French Guiana as "France". Technically it is, but it's not very enlightening and misleading in its implication. "Arawak is spoken in France" may be technically true, but no one's going to find Arawak speakers in Paris, which is the first place a reader will turn to find them. Let's get a couple of other (non-Greek) editors to weigh in here. If they agree with you, then fine, I'll bow to consensus. But until we have some more variety in the respondents, let the old consensus version remain. The references are still in history. (Taivo (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Remember the WP:BRD process here that is fundamental to Wikipedia--Be bold, Revert, Discuss. 1) Be bold and edit--Anothroskon did that. 2) If another editor objects then the edit is reverted--I did that. 3) Discuss until a consensus is reached--Anothroskon instead reinserted the contested material. The discussion is only now beginning with the addition of Factuarius and Athenean. But it should be remembered that the change is not incorporated until a consensus is reached. That is the fundamental Wikipedia process. We are not at consensus at this point. We are just starting to discuss and I have submitted a request for comment so that other opinions can be gathered. (Taivo (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Actually you will find that I didn't reinstate the addition. Please be more carefull in the future.Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, Anothroskon, my apologies. Factuarius did. Thanks for the sharp eye. (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Beyond my concern over baiting, there is the added concern over what "Greek" implies. Athens, Sparta, and even Syracuse were "Greek"--either by being part of the historical core or being settled by Greeks. Macedon was neither. It was not a part of the core and it did not have a history of "Greekness". (It was also not Slavic, so don't think I'm pushing that POV.) These were the boorish cousins who came to crash the party. (Taivo (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi Taivo, you mentionned WP:POINT. Quoting the page: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it. Now, how is this related to Anothroskon's edit (which was backed up by 5 references and did not involve disruption - the core of WP:POINT)? Please, let's debate the real issue, without making such allegations, since this can go both ways and prevent meaningful discussion.

• First of all, I think a slightly expanded lead (eg, one more sentence) could help with additional context, therefore avoiding such "black or white" choices.
• Regarding the argument you mentionned about some previous consensus which states that "too much Greek" could bait editors of one nationality: I cannot find this with a quick search. But, regardless, I think Athenean convincingly argued that this is not a relevant argument for wikipedia.
• To the point, it is is generally uncontested that the Macedonian aristocracy claimed Greek origins, spoke Greek, self-identified as Greek and was accepted as Greek (even in the Olympics). This makes Macedon a Greek kingdom. I am not discussing the references added by Anothroskon, which provide further independent support for his edit. Needless to say, this is not an article about the early ancient Macedonian language, about which too little is known for a decisive classification.

Regards. Antipastor (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Point. My memory failed me. I was thinking about the admonition not to bait just to make a point, but I got the wrong guideline/policy reference. My mistake. (Taivo (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Re: "Too Much Greek". My comment is based on a long discussion on wording at Talk:Macedonia where the phrase "ancient Greek kingdom" became "in Greek antiquity" and finally settled on "in the time of Phillip and Alexander". And if we were talking about removing references to "Greek" throughout the article then your point about Wikipedia not being tied to politics would be absolutely valid. I'm not arguing for anything of the sort. Macedon was clearly tied in certain ways to ancient Greece. The problem is in the first sentence only. What is the point in using "Greek" in the very first sentence where its effect appears to be baiting? Thank you for your comments, Antipastor. I'd still like to hear from a few more respondents. (Taivo (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your clarifications, now I clearly understand the concern that you raise:

• The previous discussion involves a disambiguation page. This disambiguation page explicitly mentions the Republic of Macedonia, is mainly about the modern use of the term Macedonia and was the subject of a long dispute. Moreover, as a disambiguation page, there are no references, no context and it must be kept brief. Those are the reasons a cautious approach was chosen, and what makes the "baiting" argument relevant there.
• Here, we have a historical article which allows more extensive coverage, with content unrelated to the modern dispute. Therefore, careful sourced and informative additions (and I agree within the proper context) do not need such strict restrictions, and the baiting concern is weak. Antipastor (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Re to Taivo: I'm sorry, but I simply cannot buy the "baiting" argument. How can you be so sure that Anothroskon's intention is to bait Slav Macedonian editors? Can you get inside his/her head? Especially when editors from that country have shown the scantest interest in this article. Do read the discussion archive of this article, it's not that long. There are hardly any editors from that country participating in it. If someone did want to bait Slav Macedonian editors, there are far easier and more effective ways of doing it than in this relatively obscure history article (e.g. try adding the Albanian name of Skopje in that article's lead, just to name one of many). I also think this debate here is only very loosely related to the Macedonia naming dispute, though it may appear otherwise initially. No serious editor, as I recall, used the Greekness/non-Greekness of the ancient kingdom as an argument in that debate. Debating the Greekness of the ancient Macedonian kingdom using the scholarly literature is one thing, and I can accept it. Political-correctness type arguments to the effect of "we must not say X because group Y might be offended" are another, and I cannot accept them. --Athenean (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Macedon was not peripherally Greek. It was more Greek than most other Greeks states. Of course theories exist, but the academic consensus supports the full Greekness of the Macedonian kingdoms regardless. Culturally and linguistically they were Greeks, they supported their Greekness, they were clearly identified as Greeks by the "barbarian" civilized (peoples who left us enough literary tradition to be able to draw academic conclusions)world (Romans, Persians, Hebrews), all archaeological evidence points to this conclusion. Acarnanians, Ambraciots, even most Hepirotan tribes were considered "less" Greek than the Macedonians, but since there is no contemporary state claiming their heritage there is no ongoing debate regarding their Greekness. The Athenians are more times called barbarians than the Macedonians in the collective Greek literary tradition. A simple trip or study of the findings at Pella, Vergina or Dion would once and forever disperse any such assumptions. Taking, though, into account that in history nothing nothing is an absolute certainty, alternative theories have been suggested as to the Macedonian Illyrian, Thracian, Brygian etc ancestry but these are just ALTERNATIVE theories that bear interest but are clearly less supported by the academic community. We have had this discussion na million times and the outcome is always the same...We agree that this is the prevalent academic position and then we abstain from using the word "Greek" to not offend our friends from the Republic of Macedonia. I move to clearly use the word Greece in the lead as is proper, as we have done for their country, regardless Greek protests.

It is not a simplistic attitude to call Macedonians Greeks. Scotland was not considered Greece, Macedonia was. Proponents of the non-Greekness theory choose not to give value to the bulk of Grecoroman literature and draw conclusions from singled out extracts. They rarely have any clue as to the archaeological and linguistical evidence and repeat old-fashioned arguments that can rarely be supported. Our job though is not to debate on the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians but to establish an academically sound lead. And academic consensus, regardless what sceptics might suggest is that the Macedonians were along with the Molossians, the Orestai, the Pelagonians etc Greek tribes GK1973 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(Others are now commenting, so it is inappropriate to change the text until an agreement is reached. This sentence hasn't said "Greek" for a long time, so a day or two longer won't kill anyone while the discussion proceeds. Please make your comments here rather than in an edit summary.) (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

GK1973, I find your comment "it was more Greek than most other Greek states" to be rather overblown. Unless you mean something along the lines of "converts are often more radical than those born into the church", then you are wrong in that assessment. When "Greek" is used as an adjective, then Americans (at least) don't think about those northerners, but immediately go to Athens and Sparta. They know Alexander the Great, but he is identified as often with Macedon as with "Greece". If you mean that "Greece" didn't exist as a unified entity before Philip and Alexander unified it, then I also think that's rather overblown. The core Greek states came together at least once before to repel the Persians and they identified themselves as a unified ethnic group based on shared cultural and historical heritage to repel Xerxes during the Thermopylae/Salamis/Platea campaign. And the Iliad clearly illustrates a notion of Greek unity prior to Macedon. I still agree with Future Perfect (below), that it's a stretch to call this "Greek" with the implication that it was some kind of "Athens of the north". The fact that there is never a debate in calling Athens, Sparta, and Thebes Greek, but that there is a problem with including Macedon in that group illustrates the complexity of the issue. (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

The correct analogy would be neither with Scotland nor Athens but rather with Ionia and Magna Graecia. These were also on the periphery of the Greek world yet are unproblematically called Greek even though they played an even smaller part in the Persian Wars than did Macedon. Also please note that WP has a policy that content deeemed offensive by some special interest groups but which is nonetheless factual should be included. I will look for the exact wording in WP.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No Taivo, I stand by my statement that Macedonia was "more Greek than most other Greek states. The archaeological evidence we have excavated in Macedonia proper and directly attributed to the ancient Macedonians is by far superior and more detailed than anything we have about ancient Sparta (we are not even sure where the famous komes were), most of Attica, Epirus, Thessaly etc. The inscriptions we have directly attributed to Macedonians are second only to those found around Athens and only if only excavations in Macedonia proper are counted. The literary evidence we have amounts to thousands of pages and I can safely state that the Macedonians are less times referred to as barbarians as, for example, the Athenians. When "Greek" is used in America, the minds of the unaware commoners also do not go to the hundreds of Greek cities, within and without non-Strabonian Greece, they do not think of the people of Syracuse, Tarantas, Smyrna, Bosporus, Cyrenaica, nor of those in Epidamnus (Dyrrachium), Larissa, Helis, Amphissa, Chalcidike etc. Yet, Dion and Olympus are considered purely Greek by the unaware American, although they entirely lie within Macedonia. They identify Alexander as often with Macedon as with Greece as they do Pyrrhus with the Molossians and Greece. This has nothing to do with academic knowledge. Were the Minoans Greeks? There are theories that they were a non-Greek race, yet the consensus is that they should be counted among Greeks, which is exactly what we write there. Your arguments should be research more and sadly bear no academic value. The common fight against the Persians has nothing to do with Greekness, although Herodot clearly commends the Macedonians for their part both before and during the Persian Wars. He occupies himself more with the Greekness and antipersian struggle of Alexander I than he does with the other "medizontes" Greeks, which formed a larger army than the "free" Greeks in Marathon (where the Spartan absence is scolded), in Thermopylae, in Plataea and in Salamis. The Macedonians are among the Persian allies (as are all the Ionian Greeks, the Greeks of Thrace, Chalcidike and the rest of Greece north of Thermopylae) but they are the only ones who collaborate with the Greek army. Even the Syracusans are scolded for making excessive demands in order to help "Greece" Unless the Thessalian Greek cities, the Ionian cities, the cities of Magna Graecia etc are also not "Greek", this argument is clearly invalid. I urge you to at last browse through a book about Macedonian antiquities and examine the findings. Talking with shared arguments as they can be found on the internet is not the way to reach a conclusion. Get yourselves some copies or images of the Macedonian royal decrees found in Macedonian citadels, cities and temples. Look up the inscriptions of pre-Alexandrian tombstones and pottery excavated in Macedon. Even if someone could argue that Greek speech somehow magically replaced the ancient Indoeuropean language of the Macedonians sometime before (?) or after Alexander (?), we have hundreds of purely Greek inscriptions made by common Macedonian laymen and not by the aristocracy, which is believed (?) by the proponents of the non-Greekness hypothesis to, for some reason, have replaced their language with that of the Greeks. Are you even aware of how many famous Macedonian writers, sculptors and other artisans there are? The evidence Taivo and FP is truly overwhelming and should you go to Macedon and see it, if you had traveled around the excavation sites and marveled at the abundance of archaeological treasures clearly ascribed to Macedonians as I have, you would change your views. The only problem here is the pro (Ro)Macedonian feeling some people display. You have self appointed yourselves protectors of the weak and close your eyes to science. There was never a debate before the RoMacedonian claims to the heritage of the ancient Macedonians and this is perfectly clear all around the world in all major archaeological museums which do not distinguish between Greeks and Macedonians, no more than they do between Athenians and Greeks. Of course theories exist, but so is the case with every article of Wikipedia. It is general academic consensus we are supposed to look for and not cling to the writings of the 3 Bs, as if they represent the whole of the academic community. By the way, I have to apologize for the wording of some of my arguments. When I reread my text, I think that some could be perceived as offensive which is truly not my intention. I know that I have to do with studied editors and I mean no offense whatsoever. Please assume good faith. GK1973 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. and about the Iliad argument.. The Iliad was written at a time when Macedon was a new born kingdom and it talks about a time when Macedonia did not exist. The Macedonian invasion of the lands which would later be called Macedonia began some 4-5 centuries after the fall of Troy. Of course there was a sense of unity even back then even if it was not under the name of "Hellenes", which in the Iliad is only the people of Achilles in Phthia in Thessaly, coincidentally an ancestor of Alexander III. Even the poet (as Homer is called in Greek texts) calls the Greeks by other names (like Dannaoi) but this is another discussion. Actually this is an argument that can be used by the proponents of the Greekness theory, since the failure of Homer to provide any nation/tribe called Macedonians while he does name peoples of the area (like the Paeonians) among the Troyan lines, clearly supports the claim of the later Greeks that the Macedonians did not exist back then in the area and in fact were later invaders. GK1973 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that most international scholars do consider Macedon to be Greek. Here are just a few examples, if you people like I can post a lot more:

-"The Macedonians were Greeks." (George Cawkwell, Emeritus Fellow, University College, Oxford , "Philip of Macedon", Faber & Faber, London, 1978)

-"Macedonia as a whole was tended to remain in isolation from the rest of the Greeks..." (Peter Green, British classical scholar, "Alexander the Great", p. 20)

-“Where the Hellenic city-states had failed, the culturally backward Greek kingdom of Macedon came within an ace of success;…” (Arnold Joseph Toynbee, “Greeks and Their Heritages”, 1981)

-"We have now become accustomed to regarding Macedonians as northern Greeks and, in extreme cases, to hearing Alexander’s conquests described as in essence Greek conquests." (Ernst Badian, “Studies in the history of art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times”, 1982)

-“Since so little is known about the early Macedonians, it is hardly strange that in both ancient and modern times there has been much disagreement on their ethnic identity. The Greeks in general and Demosthenes in particular looked upon them as barbarians, that is, not Greek. Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognises them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorians and ‘NorthWest Greeks’ who, after long residence in the north Pindus region, migrated eastwards. The Macedonian language has not survived in any written text, but the names of individuals, places, gods, months, and the like suggest strongly that the language was a Greek dialect. Macedonian institutions, both secular and religious, had marked Hellenic characteristics and legends identify or link the people with the Dorians.” (John V.A. Fine, ‘The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History’ Harvard University Press, 1985)

-“As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the Macedonians shared in the ability to initiate ideas and create political forms.” (N.G.L. Hammond, “The Miracle that was Macedonia”, 1992)

-“Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos form part of the Greek ethnos; hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world.” (: M. Opperman, “The Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed.- Macedonia,Cults”, 1996)

-“In the cultural gulf between Greeks and Macedonians the question of Macedonian national origin was never more than of secondary importance in antiquity. For modern scholars the evidence from names – there is not a single sentence extant from the language of the Old Macedonians – tilts the scales in favour of the view that includes the Macedonians among the Greeks. The theory, therefore, advocated by the student of Indo-European linguistics, P.Kretschner , that the Macedonians were of Graeco-Illyrian hybrid stock, is not to be regarded as very probable. So the majority of modern historians, admittedly with the noteworthy exception of Julius Kaerst , have argued CORRECTLY for the Hellenic origin of the Macedonians. They should be included in the group of the North-West Greek tribes.” (Hermann Bengtson, “History of Greece”, University of Ottawa Press, 1997)

-“The idea of the city-state was first challenged by the ideal of pan-Hellenic unity supported by some writers and orators, among which the Athenian Isocrates became a leading proponent with his Panegyrics of 380 suggesting a Greek holy war against Persia. However, only the rise of Macedonia made the realization of pan-Hellenic unity possible.” (Vilho Harle, Finnish academic, “Ideas of Social Order in the Ancient World”, 1998)

-"When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south." (Ulrich Wilcken, German historian, "Alexander the Great", p. 22)

-"This was Macedonia in the strict sense, the land where settled immigrants of Greek stock later to be called Macedonians." (W. J. Woodhouse, Australian historian, "The tutorial history of Greece, to 323 B.C.: from the earliest times to the death of Demosthenes", p.216, University Tutorial Press)

-“Philip had no illusions about the stability of the Common Peace, given the turbulent history of the Greek city-states, their competitiveness, and their general reluctance to sacrifice their freedom of action even for the common good. Moreover, he was a Macedonian, from the backwater of the Greek world.” (Martin Sicker, “The Pre-Islamic Middle East”, 2000)

-"Whereas the Athenians governed themselves as a democracy, Macedon was still ruled by a type of monarchy that had disappeared from other Greek city-states centuries before." Alexander the Great: Macedonian King and Conqueror (Bernard Randall, “Leaders of Ancient Greece”, 2003)

-“In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their language: the place-names, names of the months and many of the personal names, especially royal names, which are Greek in roots and form. This suggests that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives (though with a local accent which turned Philip into Bilip, for example).”( Richard Stoneman, “Alexander the Great», 2007)

-“The Macedonians were originally one of several Greek tribes living on the northern frontier of the Hellenic world”. (Kathryn A. Bard, “Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt”, p. 460, 1999)

-“It should be noted that there is no connection between the Macedonians of the time of Alexander the great who were related to other Hellenic tribes and the Macedonians of today, who are of Slavic Origin and related to the Bulgarians.” (David H. Levinson, “Encyclopaedia of World Cultures”, p. 239)

-"... not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." (Ian Worthington, English historian and archaeologist, "Philip II of Macedon", Yale University, 2008)

Btw, do take a look here about ancient Macedonia, from Yale Courses: [26] The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against making this a reference game. The internet is filled with references of individual scholars, would be scholars etc and would bring us nowhere, since there may be tens of thousands of references as to the Greekness of the Macedonians but the few hundreds at to the opposite would look many in a forum. If we are to seriously debate on this issue, we are supposed to be accustomed with much of the bibliography and the evidence. Those who are not should first research and then suggest an opinion anyways. On my part I would prefer arguments to references. GK1973 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, I agree that this shouldn't be a "my references trump your references" game. But I like Blueboar's suggestion of "Hellenic" (see below). "Hellenic" is generally not so "Greek" as "Greek" is. (I took no offense at your writing style.) (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Taivo. As far as I am concerned I have no problem with the word "Hellenic". To my knowledge there is indeed no difference between "Greek" and "Hellenic". Hellenic is indeed no broader term in archaeology and is used to only describe Greek artifacts, traditions, inscriptions etc. Thracian artifacts for example are not called Hellenic no matter how Greek they look, nor are there any Hellenic kingdoms which are not purely Greek in any text I am familiar with. For me, it is as good a choice as "Greek" for these reasons. Should it mean "something like Greek but not Greek" I would strongly oppose to its use. Do you base your understanding of the meaning of this word on a certain text? I know that in linguistics it does form a broader group of languages than Greek proper, but have you ever come across a text which distinguishes between "Greeks" and "Hellenes", between "Greek" things and "Hellenic"? Such a differentiation I have not encountered even in museums of the East or Egypt, where one would expect to find "Greeklike" artifacts "Hellenistic" yes but "Hellenic" as opposed to Greek?. The same applies to artifacts found in the Western Mediterranean and especially in the Italian peninsula, which was very heavily influenced by Greek culture. GK1973 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Macedon be labelled as a "Greek" kingdom in the first sentence?

Should the first sentence of this article include the label "Greek"? (Taivo (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

• According to my opinion and knowledge identifying Macedon as a Greek kingdom is the correct academic approach. Theories that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek of course exist (as is the ase even with Thebans - were they Egyptians? or with Athenians - were they of barbarian origin as Herodot claims?), but we are supposed to respect academic and archaeological consensus. The existent alternative theories are sufficiently discussed in the article itself. Do not forget that this article is not about the country but the ancient kingdom, so there is absolutely no reason why we should make academic allowances. GK1973 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• The relation between the Greek world and ancient Macedon is too complicated to be summed up in such a simplistic attribute. Straightforwardly calling the kingdom of Macedon (in all its historical extension) a "Greek kingdom" is about as useful as calling the medieval kingdom of Scotland an "English kingdom". In crucial ways, it just wasn't, and wasn't regarded as such by its contemporaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• The arguments about it being non-Greek must refer to the period after the 7th c. BCE (when Macedonians appear) and before the 5th c. BCE. Afterwards, even for the scholars who doubt their hellenism, their hellenization was complete. See the Britannica article. The comparison with Scotland is moot, Scotland didn't conquer England but the other way around. The crucial point is that by the time the Macedonians had forged a unified kingdom (Macedonia)they had adopted the Greek language. The article hence refers to the period after the 5th c. BCE.

  The cultural links of prehistoric Macedonia were mainly with Greece and Anatolia. A people of unknown ethnic origins who called themselves Macedonians are known from about 700 bc, when they pushed eastward from their home on the Haliacmon (Aliákmon) River under the leadership of King Perdiccas I and his successors. By the 5th century bc the Macedonians had adopted the Greek language and had forged a unified kingdom.

  --Anothroskon (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Macedonians were a people in Thessaly who invaded what was later called Macedonia and ousted or assimilated the pre Macedonian inhabitants of the area. They are never attested to have "adopted" the Greek language, this is a modern hypothesis. On the contrary, according to Herodot, it is the Macedonians who hellenized Athens before they changed their name to Dorians (Dorians according to Herodot is the name the Macedonians adopted when they entered the Peloponnese during what is known as the Dorian invasion.). GK1973 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Taivo's view: «The addition of "Greek" to the first sentence doesn't add anything to the article (...). As you say, the relation of the ancient kingdom of Macedon to the Greek city states is made clear in the rest of the article. There's no confusion. (...) Work on the content of the article and improve that. Don't spend your time focusing on how to "prove" that ancient Macedon was Greek. You don't need to prove that at all, it's relation is already in the article.» The question is not "Is the macedonian kingdom a greek kingdom or not?", the question is "Is it useful to put the word greek everywhere?". The content of the article shows enough the "greekness" of the macedonian kingdom. Furthermore, since this "greekness" was questionned even in Antiquity, it's another reason not to mention it in the introduction (the episode of the jugment of the hellenodice in order to know if king Alexander had the right or not to take part of the olympics clearly states that this greekness was not accepted by everybody; nobody would have made such a request against a Spartan or an Athenian)--Phso2 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking about their contemporaries' opinion, the Greekness of the kingdom was solved some 2,5 thousands years before when a king of theirs, Alexander, took part in the Olympics games. The Scottish paradigm is totally wrong and un-historical since Scottish people or even their aristocracy never tried to claim an English origin during their entire history until this very day, as was the case with the Macedonians during their entire history as an ethnic group. --Factuarius (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the greekness or not of the macedonian kingdom, but the pertinence of the mention "greek" in the introduction. Anyway, stating that «the Greekness of the kingdom was solved some 2,5 thousands years before when a king of theirs, Alexander, took part in the Olympics games» is objectionable, since he was allowed to take part in because he proved his family to be of argian descent, ie indisputably "greek"; it's difficult to see this decision as a proof that Macedonians were considered just as greek as Thebaeans, Spartans or Athenian. Anyway, "greek or not greek" is not the question here.--Phso2 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian commoners also took part in the Olympics and according to legend the Temenids marched to those lands "with a large host of Greeks". GK1973 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that by the time we can speak of a Macedonian kingdom the inhabitants of said kingdome were greek speakers so by all reasonable accounts Greek. This would make the kingdom Greek as well.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  ::Elegant solution Blueboar, If the others agree it's OK with me. --Factuarius (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Phso2:This is the ancient kingdom of Macedonia article's talk page, not Ancient Macedonians talk page. --Factuarius (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

this is the "Should Macedon be labelled as a "Greek" kingdom in the first sentence?" discussion as well, not a "Is the macedonian kingdom a greek kingdom" discussion.--Phso2 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if we can agree that since its foundation it was a Greek then I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. The same applies to the Greek cities in Asia Minor and Southern Italy and Sicily. They are all prominently labelled as being Greek.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway your position "its relation is already in the article": don't say a word about it in the lede, is strange enough to make me wonder about it. Is it plain academic? I mean if their relation "is clear in the rest of the article" what's wrong with the lede? Assuming good faith, all this story is becoming increasingly weird. --Factuarius (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't add to the article, because it makes the style heavy, because the word "greek" being already 3 times in the intro and the word hellenistic one time, i don't feel the need to insist more on that, except in a more or less polemistic intention, to "mark the territory" against those who would claim the contrary because of the problem with fyrom. Btw, there is not such an urge to put the word greek on all pages where it could be put on (Miletus, Sybaris...)--Phso2 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt Phso2's good intentions. Phso you are correct that the refence is not put in all those places but it is put in many of them. If you feel the style is cramped by the many instances of the word Greek we could remove one (say the Greek peninsula) or two of the extraneous ones.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK if that's the problem do you agree with Anothroskon's proposition? Maybe in combination with Blueboar's proposition will allow the rest of the others to agree in a consensus. --Factuarius (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Greek" doesn't need to be removed from the rest of the article. I would still oppose the word "Greek" in the first sentence because it just feels too much like "marking the territory". Blueboar's suggestion is quite acceptable, since most English speakers don't necessarily equate "Hellenic" with "Greek". "Hellenic" in colloquial English feels less "Greek" than "Greek". I don't have references, just a native speaker's intuition on the matter (which should count for something in the English Wikipedia). In linguistics (my field), there is a distinction between "Hellenic" and "Greek"--the former is a slightly broader category. And we need to be careful about using WP:OTHERSTUFF in this discussion. Except for Future Perfect, everyone seemed to be willing to accept "Hellenic". (Taivo (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

• Would substituting the word "Hellenic" resolve the issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not against this proposal, it is pure politics. "Hellenic" means "Greek" (there is absolutely no difference in the meaning of these words except in some linguistic works which seem to use Hellenic as a broader term to encompass prehistorical Greek elements), so I doubt that this would be deemed a solution by those who deny their Greekness, unless we agree that it is the word "Greece" that creates a purely political and not academic problem. GK1973 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would go for it but it wouldn't solve the problem as the other side would still object.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Its fine as is Melathron (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elegant solution Blueboar, If the others agree it's OK with me. --Factuarius (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not, no way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hellenic" may have some technical anthropological or archeological meaning that I'm not aware of, but perceptually it is an elegant solution to me. While I don't really consider Macedon to be a part of Greece, it was definitely Hellenized. So "Hellenic" works for me (and all the references "proving" it I don't feel are particularly necessary--the article itself is full of references and "proves" it). To me "Hellenic" is a broader term for me--"Greek" means a part of Greece proper, "Hellenic" means a part of the Greek-influenced world. I'm curious as to why Future Perfect would object to "Hellenic". (Taivo (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

I would like to see the side opposed to mentioning "Greek" in the lead to back their position with at least some academic sources that states that their Greekness is controversial or disputed. I have yet to find or see such a source. All the "against" arguments here seem completely subjective to me (e.g. "It wouldn't add anything to the article"). The anc. Macedonians were generally not considered Greek by scholars in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Modern scholarly opinion has changed considerably since then, based mainly on archeological finds that took place int the second half of the 20th century. From what I've seen, even Borza, who is at the most conservative end of the spectrum, believes that the ancient Macedonians derive from the same stock as the proto-Greeks. However, it seems the old perceptions still linger. Is there any scholar out there who says that the relation between southern Greece and Macedon is too complex for Macedon to be referred to as a "Greek kingdom", or is that just one user's opinion and nothing more? If the word "Greek" appears too much in the lead, that's fine, we can remove it from elsewhere (e.g. "the Greek peninsula"). But if we state unequivocally that cities of Magna Grecia and Ionia are Greek, then we should do the same here. Hellenic is fine with me, btw. --Athenean (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Taivo I think you mistake "Hellenic" for "Hellenized" or something. "Hellenic" is a synonym for "Greek" in practicality. Fut gives another display of his arrogant and confrontational nature here. He doesn't just say no, he adds no way and obviously. I think he will not compromise or listen to reason and should be ignored. There's no objective reason not to call Ancient Macedonia a Greek/Hellenic kingdom. Archaeology should trump all. 89.210.162.151 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hellenic" in linguistics includes Greek, Ancient Macedonian, Tsakonian, and other (not yet discovered?) not-quite-Greek languages in a branch of Indo-European. "Greek" is more restrictive. If the word "Hellenic" works, then it doesn't matter whether your dictionary says it means the same thing as "Greek" or my usage makes a slight distinction. You can read "Hellenic kingdom" and understand "fully Greek" and I can read "Hellenic kingdom" and understand "mostly Greek". The ambiguity serves us here. Americans (at least) don't recognize "Hellas" as a name for Greece so "Hellenic" doesn't exactly mean "Greek" in usage. It works for both of us. And, once again, we need to be careful not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF in Wikipedia discussions. The Greek cities of Asia Minor, Syracuse, even the Greek colonies in Crimea and Spain can each be approached individually, but just because we X at Y doesn't mean that's the best solution here. (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Although I have some reservations, I find Taivo's position honest and constructive. No need to open a discussion inside the discussion about terminology here. Fut is indeed heavily involved with the RoM-Macedonian issue now and in the past, but I would prefer to hear his final position before any change. --Factuarius (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense against Taivo's good intentions here, but his argument about "Hellenic" is no more than a semantic sorcery trick. The specialised linguistic sense is patently irrelevant here, since this is not a linguistic context – the sentence about cultural/political identities, not about linguistic affiliations. Hoping that an inappropriate epithet could be made more palatable just because people won't understand it, or because some other people could bring themselves to understanding it in some artificial different sense, is not a good approach. There's no way "Hellenic", in this context, could possibly be an improvement over "Greek". – Oh, and, anonymous grudge-bearing sock IPs have no say in such a discussion at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're just angry because I beat you to defining what your arguments would be. I welcome the chance to waste your time while you try to prove I'm a sock-puppet, which I'm not. Nice to see your good, civil nature protruding and how you treat good faith fellow editors... Simanos (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's actually ironic that Greek editors would probably prefer Hellenic to Greek. Not many know that Graeci was just one tribe of Greeks (like the Spartans/Lacedaemonians) and simply was the first one to colonize Italy and influence the Romans and the other people there. So they got the erroneous habit of calling all of them Greeks. On the other side it was Ionian Greeks who "made contact" with the peoples of the east and so it came to pass that Greeks are know as Yunan (Turkey) or Yavanas (India) or similar. It's all a big joke really, but have it your way Taivo, I don't mind. BTW, I think that Hellenes was the name of the tribe of Achilles and that's why the Greeks took it for themselves as a whole (even Alexander III claimed Achilles as ancestor). Other names include Danaans, Achaeans and Argives (Homer). I think also some ancient writers considered Athens a barbarian city in myth(?) that was Hellenized by Macedonians/Dorians(?). 89.210.162.151 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I propose the following lede, or a similar consensus solution (while I have no problem with Greek/Hellenic in the first sentence):

Macedonia or Macedon (from Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía) was an ancient kingdom, centered in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, bordered by Epirus to the west, Paionia to the north, the region of Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south. Forged as a unified Greek kingdom by the 5th century BC, Macedon rose to a dominant position in the Greek world under the reign of Philip II (359–336 BC). For a brief period, after the conquests of Alexander the Great, it became the most powerful state in the world, controlling a territory that included the former Persian empire, stretching as far as the Indus River; at that time it inaugurated the Hellenistic period of Greek civilisation.

With possibly references or a footnote after unified Greek kingdom (or equivalently say: unified Hellenic kingdom). Antipastor (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that under this wording the word Greek/Hellenic can also be moved from the second sentence to the first. I would like to hear feedback or a similar productive approach from those who object. Antipastor (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would still prefer to have "unified Hellenic kingdom", but other than that the paragraph, I think, is a good one. It references Macedon's dominance of the Greek world and its important place in Greek history. But we should still hear from Future Perfect and any others who object. (Taivo (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

On a secondary note, I prefer "established" to "forged" now that I read what I wrote, better to be absolutely clear! Antipastor (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that the Greek/Hellenic be in the first rather than second sentence. "an ancient kingdom" is too wishy-washy/vague/politically correct. The way I see it, only one user so far objects to "Hellenic" in the lead sentence, while everyone else, including a good number of (non-Greek) users are fine with Hellenic in the lead. Not that I disagree with Antipastor's latest proposal or anything like that. --Athenean (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence is also absurdly stretching political correctness by avoiding to say the obvious, as eg "located within the northern part of modern Greece", even though such sensitivities have been ignored in other contexts. But anyway, the new wording addresses additional constructive comments by Taivo (and others). Antipastor (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) May I suggest omitting brief comments with labels which carry modern ethnic/nationalist overtones? We are talking about a kingdom whose educated aristocracy spoke Greek when it suited them and called themselves Greek when they felt like it, whose core population lived mostly in the territory of modern Greece and spoke, probably, a dialect mutually intelligible with Greek, and which at various times included many non-Greek speakers and extended beyond the territory of modern Greece. I suggest that single ethnic labels do not adequately capture the reality and, while they may be useful at times, if they are causing controversy they should generally be omitted. It might well be appropriate to give a referenced comment to one or more of the more-nuanced facts, but, to respond specifically to the RfC, I'd leave out the label "Greek", and even the slightly less-controversial "Hellenic", from the lede. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Persian Empire was composed by many nations (Medes, even Ionian Greeks, etc), but we still call it Persian. People need to deal with the truth, wikipedia can't cater to their outrageous sensibilities. As you admit the Macedonian kingdom was ruled by Greeks/Hellenes and it doesn't matter what the local population did before it became a unified kingdom. It had a different name before, it wasn't called Pelasgian Macedonia or whatever. 89.210.162.151 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good point 89.210.162.151. but unless you feel that this was your last good point related to this discussion, you must do something with your name. About the Achilles' tribe for what I remember it was the Mirmidons, but anyway. As for the rest I feel really bad in seeing that the person who tried to bridge the parts -Taivo- is in the uncomfortable position (although no offence was made against him) to explain that it was not his intention to play a sorcery trick. Too bad message for any future try for a consensus.. --Factuarius (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine I created an account. It doesn't change anything. The IP is more likely to show location and bias imo. About Achilles tribe I'm far from certain, but you can read the wikipedia entry for Hellen ("They conquered the Greek area of Phthia and subsequently spread their rule to other Greek cities. The people of those areas came to be called Hellenes, after the name of their ancestor. The ethnonym Hellenes, is dating back to the time of Homer. In the Iliad, "Hellas" (Greek: Eλλάς) and "Hellenes" were names of the tribe (also called "Myrmidones") settled in Phthia, led by Achilles.") or the stuff about Selloi at the Names_of_the_Greeks article (some of which I vaguely remember reading in an old encyclopaedia 15 years ago). About Taivo I certainly didn't antagonize him, I just made it clear to him that Fut and his ilk would not accept his compromise and why. And guess what, I was spot on wasn't I? I don't see anyone rushing to protect me from his personal attacks and general antagonism and baseless accusations... Simanos (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Should I change my username to "Merlin" now? My personal opinion is in line with Richard Keatinge and that was the point of all my posts opposing "Greek"--that its inclusion was just pointlessly staking a claim--like saying that Alexander was a "white male"--without adding anything worthwhile or noteworthy to the content of the article. As far as playing linguistic sorcery, we do that all the time--we choose phrases that are compromises between two opposing camps. We name Macedonia "Republic of Macedonia", we call Ireland "Republic of Ireland" (even though that is not its official name). I would prefer that the ancient kingdom of Macedon have no needless and potentially baiting characterization--neither "Hellenic" nor "Greek"--since Richard Keatinge is quite right that the aristocracy of that kingdom where "Greek" when it was convenient and "barbarian" when it was convenient. Philip and Alexander were more or less aberrations of that pattern (or just extreme examples perhaps?). Do we really know what the common people of Macedon thought about it? Doesn't most of our actual evidence come from Greek writers anyway (or Roman writers who liked to pretend that they were Greek). And, with all due respect to Future Perfect, he's not a native speaker of English. The meaning of words is based on its native speakers. While dictionaries and academics might have precise definitions for words, in the end it comes down to what native speakers understand. That's what words mean--what native speakers want them to mean. (Please don't post 50 diffs showing examples where I seem to say the opposite, because, as an academic, I do try to define words precisely when they are non-controversial.) Americans (I can't speak for any other English-speaking communities, just my own) are not going to define "Hellenic" in the same way they define "Greek". They recognize "Greek" = "Greece", and there is no uncertainty, but they don't have a similar equation to hang "Hellenic" on, thus, "Hellenic" is more vague. Readers who have even a little familiarity with history will define "Hellenic" as more "Greek-like" than "Greek". Future Perfect makes the perfectly valid point that in academic literature "Hellenic" = "Greek". That's why it would be much better to have no qualifying adjective attached to "ancient kingdom". "Hellenic" was never more than a compromise, but it is still less acceptable than having no "pissing on the fire hydrant" adjective. (And please remember, this discussion isn't about the facts of Greek influence in Macedon, but only about whether to stake a claim in the first sentence.) (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

My friend Taivo, nationality in a historical article isn't racism. Just look at the article for Darius_I_of_Persia "a Zoroastrian Persian Shahanshah (Great King) of Persia". If Alexander was Hellenic/Greek (or whatever) why should it not be in his article? Because some revisionists get hurt? You say the aristocracy of that kingdom where "Greek" when it was convenient and "barbarian" when it was convenient. That's not really true. The Macedonian aristocracy was always pushing the "we are Greek" angle. Outside enemies (like in Athens) were sometimes pushing the "they are barbarians" angle. Unless you have specific examples to the contrary. Also since you ask about the "little people" archaeology doesn't say much, but all of what it does say is that they were behaving like Greeks too. So why all the fuss? Just because there's an unsupported theory with no evidence and a theory with few evidence we shouldn't be giving both equal credence. Simanos (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Simanos, we are not talking about the article or the Greekness of ancient Macedon. We are only talking about whether or not it is appropriate to put the word "Greek" in the first sentence. We all get off-track a bit in our postings and wander into proving this or that. But the issue is whether it is appropriate to stake a claim in the first sentence or not. No one's saying that ancient Macedon wasn't culturally and historically tied to Greece in some more or less extensive way. The article makes that point abundantly clear. But I am still of the opinion that planting a flag or pissing on a fire hydrant (or whatever other metaphor you prefer) is a bad idea in the first sentence. (Taivo (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Actually, Taivo, it was you (not me) who started talking about the barbarian nature of Macedonians, all I did was ask you for internal (to Macedon) references which you failed to provide. And I did answer your other question by showing you how nationality in historical context doesn't equal racism (unless people are revisionist pov pushers) or did you miss my reference to Darius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Simanos: Good luck with your name. I am afraid that you've lost track of the last post of Fut. What I told you had to do with his post. Speaking for myself I don't really have problem with your IP, but Fut seems to have. As for Achilles you are more informed than me. --Factuarius (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A name is a name by any other name. Thus it is with my name (or IP) and the names for Greece. I was interested in the etymology of Greece when I was young because I heard a lot of folklore tales about it, stuff like it being a derogative invented by Turks (meaning slave). I wanted to prove the "adults" wrong. Let's see what Fut will do now to avoid the real issue, now that I have a name (Say my name bitch! /American Pie) Simanos (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't make sense of things like the prejudice that [Eumenes] faced except by taking into account that the Macedonians did not see themselves as Greek nor the Greeks see the Macedonians as truly Greek or even for many Greek in any sense. This is not a black and white issue but it is not a claim that should be in the lead.Dejvid (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What prejudice? That for decades he was the Treasurer of Philip and Alexander, that he was followed by the Macedonians as their general and fought against other Macedonians? That even the famed Argyraspides followed him as their leader until they betrayed him to get their possessions back? Can you bring forward examples as to when a "national" Greek army accepted his leaders to be from another Greek state? Were Athenian contingents led by Thebans? Corinthian contingents by Elians? This was only done in mercenary armies (like the 10.000). Yet, Eumenes was a Macedonian general as were many other non-Macedonian Greeks. Do you know that the non-Macedonian Greeks who resided in non-Macedonian cities within Macedon in the age of Alexander were also called Macedonians? For example, do you know that Macedonian Companions were revruited from Amphipolis, a city which was annexed by Philip? Please... it is no disgrace to sometimes admit that someone is simply not schooled in istory that well to be able to really pose convincing arguments. Just reciting the unacademic arguments found in blogs is not an opinion. This "grayness" issue is just made up and only is an issue because people do not occupy themselves with the real facts. GK1973 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Retroactive break: larger picture (LEDE)

• We are not simplistically talking about a label here, contrary to the thread's initial title. Obviously something a priori qualified as a mere label does not offer anything, but context is everything; we must reflect academic consensus, where it is obviously not taboo to say the word Greek in some relation with Macedonia: on the contrary. So I hope we can focus on the real issue, since saying "a label is useless" is trivial, and understand that this debate does not carry any nationalistic overtones.

Query to Fut. Perf. and others who have raised objections: may I ask your opinion on the lede proposal that I wrote above (and Taivo qualified it as good), which does not generally "label" the kingdom as "Greek" in the first sentence. I have added a second sentence including the very pertinent information about Macedonia's position in the Greek world and an indication on how and when it came to dominate it (in extreme brevity).

In this context and time frame, "established as a unified Greek/Hellenic kingdom" is not controversial (I assume a minimum of familiarity with the subject from those who participate here). To briefly hint to the reasoning on why this needs to be mentioned in the WP:LEDE, the Greek character of the kingdom in this period is an important characteristic, defining the relations and confrontations with other Greek city-states, and it was paramount to achieve hegemony (and subsequently permit Alexander's campaigns). We do need to improve the lede, to reflect the milestones and importance of Macedon's history. Antipastor (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"What we are talking here"? We are talking for nothing Antipastor. Only wasting our arguments and our time. To name the problem is Fut's "no way", and to say the truth that everyone think but nobody says: there are a lot of hasty readers that often don't read more than the lede in WP. All the other are more of a Kafkasian situation in which you are free to say as much as you want about the greekness of the Macedonian kingdom in the main body of the article but not a word in the lede. It was really a rare pleasure to discuss with all of you guys and I am looking forward for a new meeting somewhere around under better conditions, --Factuarius (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable precision is the answer; choosing to say nothing is setting the bar too low for an encyclopaedia (and yes wording can be fine-tuned, I do have other similar proposals but I expect feedback first).

Yes, the main arguments were wasted in a poorly framed dilemma. But, if we don't trivialize the issue and remain within the proper (historical, not modern) perspective, it is not too late. Antipastor (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with a historical topic (and not a BLP), we can be a little patient and see what other input we might get. Don't know what time zone you're in, Antipastor, but sleep on it and don't get too frustrated about it. The lead paragraph is actually fine and historically accurate as it stands right now (it's at least several months old in that manifestation). The original issue, as initiated by Anothroskon, was simply inserting the word "Greek" into it, not completely rewriting it. (Taivo (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I am obviously in a very different time zone from most if not all others in this discussion, and this did not allow me to advocate early on about not just focusing our attention to the labeling. I think the omission in the lede is important, and now is the opportunity to address it. So, I have not edited the article, since the question is not just about the first sentence; am I wrong to assume that adding a second sentence without consensus would not be acceptable? Antipastor (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, there are two questions that are being discussed separately it seems. 1) The original question about keeping the word "Greek" out of the first sentence, and 2) rewriting some of the remaining lead paragraph along the lines proposed above (where "Hellenic" appears in the second sentence). The two issues have become conflated somewhat and it's not always clear which issue any particular response is directed at. Perhaps we should start a new section to try and sort out the two issues. In articles that have some contention in them (as all articles related to the word "Macedonia" do), it's always better to get some agreement beforehand. (Taivo (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I took the liberty of creating a subsection break; but the two questions are related (eg the first is a moot point, if the second is addressed). Antipastor (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) OK, so we are not talking only about the limited proposal for a defining label of approximate and arguable accuracy. That's good, because I'd like to repeat the suggestion that it would be a bad idea. I do think that a sentence giving a more nuanced idea of the ethnic and cultural identity of the Macedonian kingdom would be a sensible idea. Without trying to pre-empt anyone's valuable ideas on phraseology, what about something on the lines of "Despite significant cultural differences from the Greek city-states, the kingdom was usually accepted as Greek by contemporaries and its main language was a dialect of Greek"? Comments please. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Change contemporaries (which is not true) to "current scholarship" (which is) and I'm in.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? What does contemporaries mean in this context? Does it mean us or the ancients? Simanos (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings to all, it's been a while. It was a kind of hard to follow the arguments in the above discussion. I'd take Taivo's summary of the issues for it. Let's check out the lead section as a whole shall we?

At first it mentions names, specific location and a kind of vague temporal orientation (just the word "ancient") but its kind of Ok so far. Secondly the borders are given giving some context (that helps with the temporal vagueness too) and lots of useful links to other kingdoms. That is more or less a standard sentence for countries leads in Wikipedia. Ok so far. Lastly the importance of the kingdom in its time period is stressed along with an obligatory mention of Alexander, a link to its prime adversary Persia and the expanded borders are covered with a final link to the Hellenistic period.

I have to agree that mentioning "Hellenistic" at the end of the section is more natural and gives the word a meaning. If we started by saying Macedonia was a hellenic kingdom we would be giving out that word prematurely to an uninformed reader. Therefore the lead is not that bad as it stands.

There is however a significant gap. The win of Phillip II over Athens and its allies and the formation of the Hellenic League is missing. That omission makes the link to the Hellenistic period somewhat unexplained and it is not sufficiently self-explanatory. We have to take into the matter that some of the now established norms about nationality and ethnicity were formed on the very basis of the Hellenic union we are talking about so using the description "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence without further context can be considered as just a phrase devoid of the necessary meaning.

I am up to inserting an obligatory paragraph about Phillip II's period so as to better summarize the historic sequence and help the reader arrive even more naturally to a basic understanding of the connection between the overlapping meanings of Macedonian, Greek, Hellenistic, Hellenic etc.

Was Macedonia a Greek kingdom? Of course it was. Whatever choice of words aside, a nicely flowing lead section can help begin reading the rest of the article felling more equipped.

P.S: Richard Keatinge's phrasing looks fine if properly placed. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A slightly disambiguated phrasing of Richard Keatinge's sentence would be "Despite significant cultural differences from the Greek city-states, the kingdom was usually accepted as Greek by its contemporaries and its main language is thought to have been a dialect of Greek." We just don't know enough about the true character of Ancient Macedonian to decide the question of dialect or closely related language, so the wording needs to be a bit vague on that matter. (Taivo (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Anothroskon, are you saying that the contemporaries of ancient Macedon did not accept it as Greek? (Taivo (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Re the language: we should avoid the ancient language, since its status is too ambiguous. We could talk with confidence about a Greek dialect during a later time eg after the 5th century bc or Philip's time (and it would be useful to mention him too, along with hegemony and/or the Hellenic league). Antipastor (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this as a second sentence: "Despite retaining some significant cultural differences from contemporary city-states, Macedon was established as an essentially Greek kingdom by the 5th century BC, and it rose to a dominant position in the Greek world under the reign of Philip II". Antipastor (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense and serves no purpose whatsoever. Who claimed that the Greek states were essentially city states at the time, so that this would make a point? Greece was not just Athens and most other Greek states had forms of government radically different than what most people think. There were many Greek kingdoms at the time of Philip, more before that. Plus, does anyone really understand what a city-state is? Do you really think that city-states were just cities and their immediate environs? Athens was a democracy (vastly different from how we now perceive it) but as a state it was comprised of multiple cities, some as populous as Athens itself (Piraeus for example was a different walled city, not just a large port, Eleusis, Acharnae etc) The Greek word for "city" was actually "demos". The demos of Acharnae provided 3.000 hoplites during the Peloponnesian War, which accounted for a population of maybe 50.000 people. And Acharnae was a walled city too, not just a rural conglomeration of villages. This is why the word "citizen" in English does not mean "city-dweller" but the people of a state. There were also "Koina", governed by councils, etc. Even Sparta had its unique governmental system, something between a democracy, an oligarchy and still a kingdom. So, this statement is void of any meaning. All this argumentation that is being made in an effort to set Macedon apart from "contemporary" Greece is historically absurd. Proponents of this view mix up Greece with what they know about Athens, which also seems to be very limited. Why not make the comparison with Syracuse, the Epirotan states, Sparta, the Cypriotic kingdoms etc etc etc. Judging or trying to judge Greekness from how a state resembles Classical Athens (for Athens also was a kingdom for most of its history) is really naive, especially when it is done without proper knowledge of what a "polis kratos", a city state, was. In conclusion, a city state was essentially a "country" and not a "town". What, according to the Athenian scholars set Macedonians apart from them was that they were not "democrats" and not that they were not a "city state". Of course this serves not to deny that there were many city states which were actually comprised of one main settlement and more less important ones, but this has nothing to do with what a "polis kratos" really was.GK1973 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly inserted into the lede the following: "Despite significant cultural differences from the Greek city-states, by the 5th century BCE the kingdom was usually accepted as Greek by its contemporaries, and its main language is thought to have been a dialect of Greek. Under Philip II it achieved hegemony over neighbouring areas including many Greek states." I hope that our discussions have now progressed to the point where we can all accept that or something like it, and I also suggest that it reflects scholarly consensus and gives a useful summary appropriate for a lede. I have tried to avoid essentialist labels or any other slogans of nationalism. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Building on Richard Keatinge's nice proposal, we can say that on the 5th century the language was Greek (see Britannica for quick ref). I also tried to avoid repeating "Greek" too many times, and added the word "some" because it was still culturally Greek in a large part. Antipastor (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I removed the clause about language. Language is one aspect of culture and there is still uncertainty about the exact relation between ancient Macedonian and ancient Greek. The statement is still very true and accurate without the language clause. (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

I am wondering if people would be willing to consider slightly amending the current wording of the second sentence to include "and by contemporary scholarship", since the current wording says nothing about scholarly consensus. The current wording is also unsourced, whereas "and by contemporary scholarship" can be easily sourced. --Athenean (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, I appreciate your exactitude in telling us what we already knew--that the Greek states were more than just "cities"--but most English speakers call the Greek states "city-states" normally. "City-state" also does not imply democracy, just the relative size. If you have a preferred term, perhaps simply "states", then let us know. (Taivo (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I am very happy that you Taivo know what a city state was, but most people (editors here included) do not and this is a very common misunderstanding that leads to such phrasing as the one attempted in this lead and to many more arguments stemming from this ignorance. Most think that a cultural difference between the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks was that Macedon was a kingdom, which is absolutely absurd. Most English speakers do not call the Greek states "city states", they try to call the city states "city states" and even this has to do with wrong translation (or understanding thereof) of the ancient texts. For example, there is no text whatsoever which talks about "city states" in ancient Greek. They do talk about the "polis" (which is always translated as "city", most times correctly) and they usually use as the name of a state the name of its administrative center, which gives the illusion that a Greek state was actually a single polis. It also has nothing to do with relative sizes nor with relative populations. Macedon was not much larger than Athens, if we only count Argead Macedon, as was the case during most of Macedonian history. Other Macedonian states were as large as most other Greek tribal states in Epirus and other regions, and Athens had a really huge population (certainly more than a million in the 5th century BC). Macedon, as most people here perceive it was the kingdom Phillip formed after the subjugation of the rest of the independent Macedonian tribes, which would at times again gain their independence or semi independence in the future. The Athenian Empire was large and much more inhumane than the Macedonian yoke, so were many other Greek states at one time or another in history. This whole story about cultural differences should be completely rephrased or omitted. The first question is what differences and compared to which other Greek state? Unfortunately, when unaware people think of Greece they instinctively think of Athens and Athens alone. So, making a cultural comparison between Athens and Macedon is what we try to do here? We can but it surely does not belong in the lead. Why not stating that kings were customary to Dorian states, Sparta had kings... Would that belong in the lead? Why not say that the Macedonians were a mainly pastoral people as were the Greeks of Epirus, Acarnania, Tessaly and Boeotia? Would that belong in the lead? I propose that we add nothing of the sort in the lead and should you all deem it important, we could start up a new section comparing Macedonians to Athens, to Lacedaemonians or other Greeks... It is this a priori assumption that Athens was the norm in Greece that leads to so many wrong deductions. Can you tell me if there are more cultural differences between Sparta and Macedon than between Sparta and Athens? How about between the Molossians and Athens and the Molossians and the Macedonians? GK1973 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

More than a million in Athens(Attica)? What was the total pop of Greeks including all colonies? What was the pop of the Persian Empire, China, India for comparison? Simanos (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep... the Greek peninsula could have as high a population as 6.000.000! During the Peloponessian War, Athens could man 400 triremes, which gives a total of over 80.000 men serving as marines, rowers and sailors! And do not forget that it also could field a very large army (the 13.000 hoplites (hoplites were but a fraction of the Athenian forces, comprising the most wealthy part of society after the Hippeis) mentioned by Herodot are only a part of the Athenian heavy infantry and not its total and he is very clear on that) and of course the slaves... probably something like a 25-35% of the total population, maybe even more... Most of the numbers we have are about the citizens of Athens. We should keep in mind that these were but a very small minority of the total Athenian population. The walled cities of Athens and Piraeus had each a population of about 60.000, according to the calculations made regarding their size and there were populous demoi like Eleusis, Acharnae etc. And the rural population should also be included... In all, there were more than 100 cities in Greece proper and Macedon, all with many thousands of citizens. Actually, there were many places in Greece which were much more populous then than they are now, like for example many islands, Epirus, even parts of Peloponnese... Calculations about the Persian Empire usually give numbers of 30 mil upwards. 50 mil even more. The same applies to China and India. Certainly, the population of most ciilizations (especially in the West)in antiquity was much larger than during the Medieval years, when sanitation and medicine were practically inexistent. The total Greek population (1-2 mil slaves included) could have been as high as 10-15 mil. GK1973 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So about 4-9 million in Med and Asia Minor colonies. What was the population of Egypt btw? Any references about these figures? BTW I agree with your point about cultural differences. People must learn even the word Greeks is wrong. And so is Yunan that is used in the east. Graeci was just one tribe that colonised cities near Rome and Iones were only 1 of 3 Greek "origin tribes" (Dorian and Aeolians). Simanos (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I removed the sentence in question and will here explain why.

A. This "cultural differences" argument is totally wrong. Culture is, as many here correctly support, much broader than language. Differences between Macedon and ANY other Greek state certainly exited but were not more than between other Greek states themselves. Macedonians enjoyed the same cultural elements that defined any other Greek state as Greek and still had their own traditions, names, calendar etc. So did any other Greek state. Peculiarities were nothing uncommon in Greece, just think of Sparta and its traditions and laws and you will get the picture. Presenting Macedon as having cultural differences without making clear what I said above is like singling out what was commonplace in ancient Greece.

B. The argument that most Greeks accepted Macedon as Greek by the 5th century BC is also wrong. According to all evidence, Greeks accepted Macedon as Greek since the beginning of the kingdom's history. I have not come across any text other than Athenian orators of the Phillipic Wars doubting (for any reason) the Greekness of the Macedonians. Thucidides could have but did not. Herodot was all too clear. So was every pre-philipic writer. Even the Alexander I's incident serves not as an argument to the opposite, since both the writer and according to him the Hellanodicae accepted Alexander's (and so his people's) Greekness, since according to legend the Temenids established this kingdom with their kinsmen and not alone. Actually, as I have mentioned before, the Macedonians are less times called barbarians as were the Athenians and many other Greek peoples. I know that some think that with this argument they tell the world that the Maceconians were Greeks, but the wording is clearly wrong. GK1973 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the cultural differences part. The Macedonians were significantly different since they were not allowed to take part in the Olympics untill later and since their kings were asked to prove their Hellenism. Also I think the part about the language should be ratained since whatever their language before the 5th century BCE we know that post that time their language was Greek (see Britannica). So a compromise can be achieved.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to say that it must absolutely be kept as such, but I think GK1973 is reading too much into Richard K.'s sentence: it does not specify anything. The wording is intended to just say that there were some cultural differences (anyway I was personnaly thinking of this article reference, but there is no room to discuss extensively).

Saying "by the 5th century" is not unreasonable from another angle, to speak of the main period of the kingdom of Macedon's history as starting then approximately, (eg hinting to the Persian wars, but not precisely or explicitely) and again this does not say anything about before. As a side note, the doubts on the Greekness consist in saying that Macedon was not a largely assimilated kingdom by then, even if one accepts the much earlier settlement of a Greek tribe. Now, I am just mentioning it, not that we need to accept this view, or need to refute it here (and my limited explanation). Antipastor (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it reads fine to me without that second sentence. Why do we need to talk about culture and language in the lead at all if it cannot be done fairly and accurately? It is dealt with far more appropriately in the subsequent paragraphs of the article. Putting a compromise sentence into the lead that no one is happy with because it either 1) over-emphasizes Greekness (my objection) or 2) inaccurately reflects the situation (GK1973's objection) is probably not the best solution. The statements of the lead right now are 100% accurate. We should just leave it that way. (Taivo (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I am happy with the lead as is as well.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, being overzealous to prove a point actually leads to more misunderstanding and dangerous assumptions. I agree with Taivo, even though I have a radically different position as to the Greekness of the Macedonians. Anothroskon (Seeing High), feels that we have to point out the differences between Macedonians and the rest of the "Greeks" before the 5th century, but as I have already stated, there can be no such comparison, because Greeks tended to have many cultural differences anyways and on many levels. Should we approach that issue, it should be done very carefully and would be pointless, unless we perceive to do the same regarding all other Greek tribes. As to the Macedonians' non participation at the Olympic Games, I have to point out that there is no text telling us that Alexander I was the first Macedonian to take part in the Olympics, so assuming that he was is also not exactly a proof of anything. Should he have been the first, Herodot would probably have mentioned it. This story is also a hypothesis, regardless how sure Anothroskon thinks he is of that fact. The very fact that the king (and not kings) was asked to prove his Hellenism shows that the Hellanodicae did probably not agree with the accusation of some of Alexander's opponents and a simple accounting of your lineage would certainly not persuade anyone, UNLESS they truly believed the common Greek tradition of the Temenidae to be valid, in which case, he just had to say, he was a Temenidae... (a Greek, as according to the same traditions, the Hellanodicae believed, were his people). Nevertheless, although we cannot be sure whether Macedonians took part or not in the Olympics before Alexander I, as we cannot be for hundreds of other Greek states which are not mentioned in the lists of winners to even more advanced dates, we can be sure that Macedonians did take part in them and that noone ever again doubted their Hellenism, not at times before Philip's reign and Macedon's rise to power, nor at the very time of Philip, when the antimacedonian sentiment was at its peak offering us the only allegations of certain Athenean orators that the Macedonians were "barbarians". And it was not only Macedonian royalty that took part in the Olympics but also commoners. Anyways, sometimes it seems that I too am overzealous and I apologize for the length of my posts, but I think that there are many aspects which people tend to misinterpret regarding the Macedonians and too many assumptions are being made, when there is no reason to. GK1973 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I added an alternate second sentence copied from Rise of Macedon, which avoids controversy and labels and I think is more meaningful. Not that I want to restart the discussions, I think this formulation is reasonable taking into account all that was said, but if anyone objects to it please feel free to revert or improve it. Antipastor (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's fine. It says virtually the same thing as before and you did a good job of taking our previous discussions into account ("periphery", for example, can mean either just in or just out of "Greece" depending on your point of view). (Taivo (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

(I must say I did not come up with this wording, just copied it here, because it seemed quite good). Antipastor (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even with copying, you have to be aware of what you're copying and evaluate it. Garbage can be copied just as easily as quality. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Removed irrelevant diatribe

If one of the regulars (not Dragan...) objects, they can put it back and I won't be offended. But this rant doesn't belong here. (Taivo (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Endorsed. Regular WP:TALK enforcement, please do not restore. Moreschi (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thx GK1973 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed a second one. Same conditions as above if someone wants to restore it. (Taivo (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

O, thanks. Yes, the comment was too long and the place was inappropriate.Draganparis (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Terminilogy

There are modern expressions which are often used and do not correspond to the expressions used at the ancient times. Therefore this article need a paragraph that would offer en explication as follows: The readers should be aware that in Wikipedia articles related to the Ancient Macedonia, the expressions “Greece” or “Greeks”, which were nonexistent terms at that time, besides signifying “Hellas” or “Hellens”, during the periods of Hellenism often in facts refer to “Macedonia” or “Macedonians” or even to the diadochi kingdoms. The readers should attentively observe the context to determine which intended meaning corresponds to the term that is used. This would facilitate reading and would of course be more close to the state of affairs at that particular moment of the ancient history.Draganparis (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which terms "were nonexistent terms at that time". What matters is which terms are used by mainstream experts today. Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to start working on a proposal. If it's neutral and adequately referenced, we can start discussing where to put it.--Ptolion (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"feel free to start working on a proposal"??? Thanks for the support. This has been a proposition already, I have little to add. For example. When we talk of Hellenistic kingdoms (term non existent at the time) we should explain that we talk about diadochi kingdoms, almost exclusively Macedonian ruled kingdoms after Alexander III. When we talk of Alexander’s Asian Empire, we must say that this was exclusively Macedonians ruled empire. When we talk about Ptolemaic Egypt, we must say that this was Macedonian dynasty, and that Egypt was not simply overwhelmed by the “Greek culture” but that it was a cultural and intellectual centre of the world dominated and driven by the Hellenistic culture.

The expression “Greek” is used only to help the modern reader to locate geographically the events, but the political structures (like kingdoms and states) are called their names as they were called in the ancient times. Again, an example. When we say that Alexander III was a Greek king (like in the article about Alexander III) we must accept that this to say is false and instead it must be simply said that he was a Macedonian king and that the dynasty claimed Hellenic origins. Etc.

A Polis and kingdom in the ancient Greece (to say here "Greece" is correct) had its political connotations which put it over and above ethnic character of its citizens and we can not now impose on all of these political structures "Greek" ethnic character. This is simply mistake of category confusion which normal editor of Wikipedia simply do not recognize (people with whom I quarreled earlier and who even blocked me for a week!). Equally today we do not talk about Germany, Austria and Switzerland as "German" states, do we? Or number of English speaking states as "English" or "British" states! This would be ridiculous. So, this what I suggested must be done all over the places to give the texts more realistic and normal tone. Otherwise people suspect, as I do, that there is invisible hand of pan-Hellenic nationalism involved here. And this is just bad for Wikipedia.

And now, please , do not just exclaim "misplaced comment" to justify censoring the comment and erasing it (to remove the evidence - as I thought that people's intention was - but if you think that it is misplaced, please help put it on the proper place. This would be a sign that my earlier accusations could have been wrong. Draganparis (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My god, not again. WP:DNFTT people, please. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course the term "Hellenistic kingdoms" was non-existent at the time. The English language itself, in which this article is written, was yet to begin its separate existence. It exists now in a sophisticated form, and we use English-language terms here (as Ptolion says) simply as they are used by leading historians of the period. There need be no uncertainty in the meaning of 'Alexander's Asian empire', 'Ptolemaic Egypt' and so forth. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

O yes: there is slow extinction of the expression"Macedonian". Leading historians use the expression "Macedonia" together with the "Greek" and with necessary explanatory expressions, as I suggested. But if the majority here is happy with removing the expression "Macedonia", I will understand.Draganparis (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This page seams to be strongly influenced by the Greek propaganda. Why Wikipedia permits this? I was following what has been happening for couple of weeks and must say that there is a kind of racist turn on the pages on Macedonia. Look just the pseudonyms of the editors. All are obviously Greeks. This is just propaganda pages.Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take care not to insult the great number of editors contributing to this artlcle and take notice of the many discussions and references that made up the article.Megistias (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please no politics, no insults, no false accusations. Please just history. Otherwise I will withdraw the subject that I started.Draganparis (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no "pan-Hellenic" propaganda on this or any other pages. We are just using the conventional terminology used by international experts. As I have told you many times before Dragan, it is not our place to correct the sources just because we believe that they are wrong (with cheap arguments about "Swiss German Queens of England" etc). As long as the sources say Greek (or Hellenic, or Hellenistic etc), so should Wikipedia.--Ptolion (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

While there are a great number of Greek editors here, there are also many non-Greek editors as well--those who actively contribute and those, like myself, who just "watch". Ptolion is correct in one aspect--we often must use the wording used by the historians writing the topic. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or for changing the standard English terminology used by historians. We can be careful in the way that it is used and there have been plenty of "terminology debates" on this and other Macedonian-related pages so that the wording used is as neutral as possible. You have to struggle with ancient Macedon, however, because Alexander himself became less and less "Macedonian" the further east he got. His generals found it harder and harder to recognize their king as he first Hellenized and then Persianized himself. But the terminology used by historians (for centuries really) is a guide to that era--it is the Hellenistic period of history, not the "Macedonian period" and the process of spreading Greek culture and language throughout the ancient Near East was not "Macedonianization", but Hellenization. Those are the common English terms used. That is the guide for Wikipedia--and you can see it reflected at Republic of Macedonia where the article is not named "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is basically what the Greek editors wanted. There, the common English usage is overwhelmingly "Macedonia". Here the common English usage is "Hellenization" and "Hellenic" for Alexander's influence on the Near East. Those are the facts outside Wikipedia. We live with them. (Taivo (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

The END. Thanks for kind answer. (Or this is just another dissimulation of a fair discussion before blocking the opposite opinion?) Yes, if I would continue the discussion YOU will call for “block” of “pipeti-ripeti” or whatsoever accusations. This all is just fine game of history and politics. You blocked me but you tolerate one obviously disturbed personality to develop long gibberish arguments without a single reference; and you gave up on “Greek king” argument! Now you say my Austrian queen of France (Antoinette for example) would be a cheep argument! I wrote a textbook on argumentation and you dismiss here an obvious counterexample. We do not call Monaco France but should call Macedonia Greece!!! All Slavs speak similar languages, certainly more similar then Greek and the Ancient Macedonian were, but we do not call them all Russians or all just Serbs!!! If we did, this would be on the account of blood relations and would be pure racism. The cultures are different, you might say. But culture does not make up political history. The European culture is quite homogeneous, but politically Dutch are not German, although blood connections must be quite strong too. Pursuing cultural history, as I already said at some other place, leads to the movements like Nazism or pan-Slavism, leads to ignoring political entities and finally to nationalistic or racist outburst. You call for non-Greek or non-Macedonian opinion and when you have one (me) you remove my text and block me! And sway under 3 notorious Greek nationalist (ah, just let me not mention their pseudos, they will jump on me and ask for a block again). I just do not know how can you maintain that the “modern historians” call all of this just Greece and you went through all these disputes almost without a single citation. Neither Hammond, nor Walbank or Borza, nor Lane Fox, nor Heckel, Bosworth, even Zarnth, who is quite close to do this, would identify Macedonians with Greeks. Where this affirmation comes from, the affirmation that the expression “Greek” may be used for Macedonians? Where from?

But please do not answer. It has been enough. I do not care any more. We have here a proof that history articles of Wikipedia are far from being ready to become a reliable source of information. (In addition, that Athens had over 1 million of inhabitants and similar things are to find here on Wikipedia. Quite extraordinary ignorance, my friend.) And you are responsible for this too, indirectly. Yes, Wiki is handy, but politically poisoned to its bones. Thanks for “listening”, anyway. You can erase it all and block me for 200 years now. I finished. For me the chapter on "Terminology" is closed. Cheers.Draganparis (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, of course, in its present form Wikipedia could not become a reliable source. But I do not agree that "European culture is quite homogeneous". Moonraker2 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

History should not be manipulated and the term “Macedonia” must be used as first choice. Draganparis is right. The name of Macedonia can not be replaced by Greece, this is just wrong. Yes, then it could be explained that this makes part of Greece today, or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdikka I (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I reread the article yesterday and was impressed at how rarely Macedonia is called "Greek" or "Greece" at all. Your arguments are totally misplaced. I remember participating in long discussions with other editors about how to word the initial paragraph, for example, in order to remove overtly Greek connotations. If you think that this article excessively calls Macedonia "Greece" and Macedonians "Greeks", then you are absolutely mistaken. Reread the article. There's is not an overuse of "Greek" or "Greece" here. (Taivo (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Can somebody please give a source for this sentence (not implying Macedonian dynasty) which states that macedonians are Greeks: Before the establishment of the League of Corinth, even though the Macedonians apparently spoke a dialect of the Greek language and claimed proudly that they were Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdikka I (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on the Ancient Kingdom. On the Ancient Macedonians there is another article.Megistias (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, may be, but I see this differently. Counting is not a proofe that this is not the case. If you just once would say that Macedonians WERE GREEKS (!!?), this is enough. Today you can say that they are Greeks, have Greek passports (some have Bulgarian or "Macedonian Republic" passports). But this to say is quite racist because we speak then about blood!!! If we speak about lands, countries, then there is Greek Macedonia (North of Greece) and the Republic of Macedonia. Blood is not an objective or we are racist then if this would be the point. But in the old ages, they were the other country, and this is OK. Somebody wrote on these pages that Macedonian kings claimed their Greek origins, and if this is true then this is OK. Why should then Macedonians be Greeks? Also they are not "Greek kings". Today, I think Greek king has to do something with English kings, and Spanish queen is she also Greek Queen??? Nobody says this, but she is born in Greece I think. So Alexander is not "a Greek king" but simply just Macedonian king. But this is another text on Wikipedia. In this text is said that Macedonians said that they are Greeks!This I do not believe. So if nobody can give a reference for the affirmation: "...Macedonians ... claimed proudly that they were Greeks" (did they really claimed proudly that they were Greeks???) then this sentence states something that is not supported by the evidence. Therefore we should take away this sentence. Please erase the affirmation that: "...Macedonians.... claimed proudly that they were Greeks".Perdikka I (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been discussed and referenced extensively. You personal opinions do not matter. Megistias (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perdikka and Dragan have both claimed that the ancient Macedonians' origin here is being defined through blood and is therefore "racist". It's always amusing seeing Godwin's law in practice. As I've said above, we use the terminology used in mainstream literature, even if you don't like it and even if you think it's wrong - period.--Ptolion (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with this page for months and I fail to see the overuse of "Greece" or "Greek" in this article at all. In fact, over the last year, the "Greek" presence has actually been reduced. (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Taivo man, pls get this Dragan dude permabanned already, it's obvious (from posting style) he's using more and more sockpuppets every passing day... Simanos (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, sorry. While annoying and time-wasting, I'm not entirely certain that Dragan has actually violated any policy yet. There are admins who watch this page, though, so when the line is crossed, I'm sure they'll take some action. (Taivo (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

I presume we should respect the facts as such...I can't remember any ancient source mentioning "...Macedonians.... claimed proudly that they were Greeks".If some of our Greek friends claim firmly so against the scientific evidence let it be...But still, that is Wikipedia -remove the fairytales 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)(User:Pirinec) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirinec (talk • contribs)

You are probably right. But I think that we should leave modern Greece in peace. We stand all on the shoulders of Greek culture and science and we should respect this and be permissive if Greekness of all of us, who may be not feel Greeks, would be slightly overstated now and then. I stated this elsewhere also and think that it is necessary to restate it here too. But the problems of possible Greek propaganda, which violates WP:NPOV, and which is NOT in favour of that Greek cultural tradition, should be avoided here. I have two issues which are of extreme relevance to this page and should be discussed here. Both concern WP:SOURCES but in slightly different way. These are point 1 and 2 below. These are relevant here because the editors involved on this page, majority of them in fact, just violate number of issues, and this could be corrected at least in part by them alone.

The problem with this article and the discussion pages is that

1. Propaganda material is acknowledged valid to be used here (violation of WP:SOURCES) and

2. It is accepted by the administrator that one editor could impose the rules which are against the rules of Wikipedia, against WP:NPOV and against number of citation rules (WP:SOURCES).

Let me explain these points.

1. This point concerns the propaganda material from the Greek nationalistic site that has been dumped by "The Cat and the Owl" 14:58, 21 November 2009. It was taken from: http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/10/08/historians-greek-ethnicity-ancient-macedonians/ (accessed today) In spite of the violation of WP:SOURCES, it has been later cited and accepted as valid sources without any verification and validation.

2. And, as I mentioned, a view has been expressed that we do not need to give proves, or cite some references or sources, since this “would bring us nowhere” since we know it all - such a view being against the rules of Wikipedia. Again, this position openly violating WP:SOURCES, introducing complete arbitrariness. Here is what was written:

I would advise against making this a reference game. The internet is filled with references of individual scholars, would be scholars etc and would bring us nowhere, since there may be tens of thousands of references as to the Greekness of the Macedonians but the few hundreds at to the opposite would look many in a forum. If we are to seriously debate on this issue, we are supposed to be accustomed with much of the bibliography and the evidence. Those who are not should first research and then suggest an opinion anyways. On my part I would prefer arguments to references. GK1973 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2009.

The editor above refers in the first part of the comment to the damped material mentioned in my point 1. Yes, I agree with GK1973, just dumping long lists of “proofs” does not prove anything. The reference quality must be estimated and measured against counter evidence (see WP:SOURCES). Indeed, there are other rules to respect, like the obligation to have seen the cited reference: the source where the reference has been originally cited must be given. Editors here would say that “copy-paste” is not permitted. But again: the information must be sourced; this is the most important aspect of Wikipedia.

Yet the advice in the second part of the comment of GK1973 is erroneous and extremely important: an advice is given which contains the fallacy of giving unreferenced point of view, custom which Wikipedia does not support. No wonder then that it has been already so often the case on these pages to violate the WP:SOURCES and almost never give references – except for above mentioned propaganda material (just examine the text above, please). All what we have then is just point of view after point of view! I am not saying that this is done with bad intentions. However, we cannot expect good article under these conditions. I plead again to the administrators to look into these pages and to try to respect the rule WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.Draganparis (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The ancient Greek character of the Kingdom has to be emphasized further, as since the people were Greeks or Hellenized very early, the Kingdom itself was Greek par excellence.Megistias (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources in this article are reliable and have been verified and discussed, just because you found some listed in an external site, and you dont like them, means nothing. This article as well as Ancient_Macedonians have been discussed over 3 years, archives on the kingdom are in the top of the page. Megistias (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

O, no, I must apologise for not being clear enough. My affective relation towards these references is just opposite to what my text perheps did not state clearly: I like them very much. The cited works are of great value. I object only on formal ground to the use of references which the author did not consult by himself. The author in question is obliged to give the source where these references came from. This then helps estimate reliability of the references. The editor GK1973 also objected to these references, but in my opinion, on false grounds. I explained this above. Sorry for misunderstanding. Thanks for the suggestion to consult the archives on Wikipedia. Yes, some of these or other references that could be found on other similar sites (see below) are unfortunately given again, and again exactly in the same way, all words absolutely the same, so obvious copy-paste technique was used, and again without citing the source. The sites most often used are:

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2006/12/31/modern-historians-about-macedonia-george-cawkwell/

and:

http://www.macedonia.info/FAQ.htm

Thanks for responding so fast. This is promising.Draganparis (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a short comment, dear Megistias, I missed to pay attention to your kind first response. To the claim that the people were Greek, I could only say I wish they were. However, the linguists seam to reject that the language was related to Greek more then to the other non Greek languages and classify it as “unaffiliated”, between Phrygian, Thracian, Illyrian, Venetic, Messapic and Lusitanian. (B. W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture, An Introduction, Second edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, p. 10 and 464.). The ground for that conclusion is that, unlike any other Greek dialect, macedonian sound change included that the vocal aspirates lost their aspiration and became voiced stops. Apparently this is enough to draw such important conclusions. The people of course become Greek, but after Alexander III. Whether they were Greek beforehand...? We must be prudent and wait to see what the modern history will tell us.Draganparis (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish to add something to the above disscusion between Draganparis and Megistias.

1. Dear Draganparis, You said "The people of course become Greek, but after Alexander III.".

How is it possible for someone or even for a nation to change its nationality for some years?! Did they receive blood (greek) transfusion?

To your opinion, the Macedonians did, but the greeks, turko-bulgars, slavo-bulgars, serbs did not changed their nationality during the 600 turkish empire?!!! This is ridicoulous! Please read the insription IG (Inscriptiones Greacae, V 2, 550 l. 8) where Ptolemaios I, son of Lagos (and not only he) claimed prodly that they he was Macedonian.

2. Dear Megistias, proud and wise descendant of Sokrates! (If Sokrates would read your none-sense he would negate his hellenic origin!!)

You have said, that: "The ancient Greek character of the Kingdom has to be emphasized further, as since the people were Greeks or Hellenized very early, the Kingdom itself was Greek par excellence"

Please, decide now, were they greeks or were they hellenized? Or is it difficult for you, because you are not sure or there is may be no evidence for it? And please, read more carefully the text of Draganparis exspecially regarding the quality of the references!Maxkrueger1 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, my intention has been to sharpen the criteria for argument development by asking for more consistency, for the respect of some fundamental rules of Wikipedia and to stimulate the editors to really read the arguments of the others and give precise comments and explanations. Dear “Megistias” I do not want to elaborate here on the Greekness of the Macedonians again. I made two clear points, and this has been my intention. My discussion on this point finishes there. Citing quality sources is essential and this is simply not done in particular on this talk page; disproving an argument is also essential - not just saying “this is known”. Please always give citations when affirming something, give quality citations and avoid propaganda sites, or admit of using these sites and permit critical evaluation of your citations and your argument. To “Maxkrueger1”: if you want we can discuses the concept of nation at some other place. Please go to the Google or Wikipedia “nation” (or read some works of Hobsbawn or Ernest Gellner) to see that the concept of nation is ambiguous and most of all politically and not racially determined.Draganparis (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek Peninsula?

I have a doubt about the term "Greek Peninsula". The link in the article redirects to the "Mainland" section of the article "Geography of Greece". In this section we can clearly see a map with borders, which is defining the current Greek mainland territory which is apparently the same as "Greek Peninsula" (according to the implicit meaning of the link).(?)
To illustrate my doubt let me place a couple of questions relative to the use of "peninsula" to describe the Greek mainland territory:
1. Are all the sides but one surrounded by water?
2. Where is the isthmus?
Could someone please clarify the usage of the term peninsula and explain what is exactly the "Greek Peninsula"?
Thanks,Ilidio Martins (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First, a peninsula does not require an isthmus. A peninsula is a prominent projection of land with water on three sides. The "Greek peninsula" is the lowermost part of the Balkan peninsula and consists of that part of Greece south of a line that roughly extends from Thessalonika west to the Adriatic. The capital and heart of ancient Macedonia lies just barely within the northeast corner of this area. The wording of this in the article was the result of long, hard debate, compromise and consensus-building so you venture into the waters of contention at your own peril. --Taivo (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time, either. This is the third year running this fellow appears around this time of year to make the same exact point. It's like a natural phenomenon at this point, like perihelion or something. I've come to expect it around the end of May every year. Athenean (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The ground in the mountains has unfrozen from the winter and the trolls emerge from their hibernation? (Taivo (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Apparently some species are migratory. As winter ends, they begin to migrate northward to their summer grounds, briefly swooping by Macedonia on the way. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the mokery that is not constructive and not according to the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and rational thought, I think that if the Greek peninsula is an accurate term then it should be part of "list of peninsulas" in Wikipedia. There should also exist a Wikipedia article of geographical/geological nature describing the "Greek peninsula" and the current article should link to it. I will post a message on the List of peninsulas wiki.
Thanks.Ilidio Martins (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But, in any case, whatever comes of the discussion at peninsulas, it will not affect this article. The wording here is the result of long, hard discussions, compromise, and consensus building. It's not going to change just because you get a bee in your bonnet. But looking at your user contributions, it's plain to see that Athenean is right. You emerge once a year at the end of May to rock the boat here and then disappear. (Taivo (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

What is plain to see is why my contributions are erratic and, in general, why not more people contribute to the Wikipedia project (and I am mean this at many different levels). The reason is that new content contributors are faced with this hostility that has no excuse under the Wikipedia umbrella. New users should be guided and incentivized but what happens is exactly the opposite.
See from this example where an inexperienced contributor (myself) receives unjustified hostility every time a contribution is made. In this particular instance, I even gave Taivo the benefit of the doubt and readjusted my goals to simply change the linking pattern on the pages (no text changes proposed at this moment - assuming Taivo is right).
If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of compromises and not of accurate facts then has no more historical or reference value than a collective opinion article or poll. As a precautionary example, the current political and historical experiment that Slate.com is developing in collaboration with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (http://www.slate.com/id/2254054/) illustrates how dangerous collective memory and opinion can be.
What my experience is telling me is that only some are now "responsible" for the content of these pages. That is not only a betrayal of the Wikipedia spirit but also a very dangerous state of affairs, in a path from educated democracy to dogmatic oligarchy.Ilidio Martins (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
From a simple utilitarian perspective, why not just satisfy my encyclopedic needs using Britannica? I end up giving more money to Wikipedia than I would pay for Britannica anyway. I would have the assurance of professional and unbiased articles and if by any chance they have errors I certainly receive more professional feedback. Why waste my time on Wikipedia when the project is degenerating from what it promised to be?Ilidio Martins (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think that Slate article is relevant to Wikipedia, then it's clear you have no understanding of the way Wikipedia works. --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And if what you want is content that you can use in writing a term paper, you should be using Britannica instead of Wikipedia. Any student of mine that cites Wikipedia as a source gets marked down. Wikipedia is here for broad background, not for detailed research. It's here for when you want to know what a Western Tanager is because one just flew into your back yard. It's not here to give you something you can quote in a research document. Wikipedia doesn't replace Britannica, it just saves the expense of Britannica for those who want to look up a thing or two. --Taivo (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you have a very biased and hostile analysis of my comments. Remember I mentioned Dr. Elizabeth Loftus? Why don't you look her up on PubMed? Check her books too. Slant.com is just a gateway to a target public. You are clearly blinded by your own prejudice!
Relative to what is Wikipedia, nothing like an "auto-referential article" to clarify any doubts... are you sure that you know what are you talking about? Maybe you should check what Britannica says about Wikipedia so that you can use it as a reference in your next post?
What is the point of an unreliable and irresponsible content source in this era? Clearly, most of the Wikipedia articles have bigger and wider objectives than just "broad background"!?
On the other hand, it is really good to know that an experienced Wikipedia contributor has such a negative stance towards Wikipedia content. It really explains a lot... Thanks!Ilidio Martins (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my last comment. I've fed the troll enough. Since you only show up once a year to bitch about "Greek peninsula", I can easily assume that you don't know what you're talking about. (Taivo (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

albanian etymology of the name macedonia

The most reasonable and logical explanation regarding the etymology of the name of the Ancient Macedonia is found in the language of Illyrians and Epirotes, who were the ethnic inhabitants of Ancient Macedonia. The very name of Macedonia, formerly known as ‘Emathia,’ derives in all probability from the Albanian word “E Madhia”, meaning “The Greatest”.(Larned et al 1922)