Talk:Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

To be expanded!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is still under-construction. At the moment it is mostly lifted from the article Philip II of Macedon, but it will be expanded (and the latter article contracted) soon. Please do not delete! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs Full References

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article (possibly because it was lifted from another one), is missing a bibliography that would hopefully complete the references that are used in the article. There are authors with page numbers, but no titles, no years, no publishers... Essentially it would be impossible to locate these sources of information - certainly they are not easily available as they should be in an article that is referenced with in inline citations (this article has the inline citation & is just missing the other half)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is mainly because I haven't actually finished writing it yet! You may notice that it tails off half-way through. But you are right, I should do the Bibliography first...watch this space! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article candidacy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MinisterForBadTimes has written many Wikipedia:Good articles yet is apparently no longer active on Wikipedia and never thought to nominate this brilliant, well-sourced masterpiece. Therefore, in his stead, I will nominate it for GA status, and take none of the credit for this work of his, aside from tiny, nitpicking edits, a necessary expansion of the (originally terse and insufficient) introduction, and adding of a few images to spruce things up. Bravo and three cheers to the Minister! Hopefully this will pass the GA nomination along with Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which I have almost entirely rewritten and greatly expanded with new sections on society, culture, technology, engineering, currency and finance. Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 7 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rise of Macedon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 15:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again.

I'll continue this when I get home. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I'd suggest changing "various" to "many" in the infobox.
"defeating the Phocian commander Onomarchus at the Battle of Crocus Field." suggest "defeating the Phocians, commanded by Onomarchus, at the Battle of Crocus Field."

@Iazyges: hi Iazyges! Thanks for reviewing this article! I have changed the field of the infbox but instead I listed the belligerents. Saying "many" is a bit too vague, at least as vague as saying "various". It looks much better. I also reworded the sentence about the Phocians. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources

"Intact and relatively detailed histories of Greece cover the period ca. 500–362 BC, in the form of Herodotus's The Histories, Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, and Xenophon's Hellen." perhaps: "Intact and relatively detailed histories of Greece, such as Herodotus's The Histories, Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, and Xenophon's Hellen, cover the period c. 500-362."

@Iazyges: I've reworded the sentence exactly how you've suggested. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Background

I would suggest either making "===Macedonia in the early 4th century BC===" into "==Macedonia in the early 4th century BC==", or removing it altogether, as it only contains a main article template.
"The Illyrians began to prepare to invade Macedon" began to prepare is a bit awkward, perhaps "The Illyrians started planning to invade Macedon".
The nominal heir of Perdiccas, his son Amyntas IV, "was only an infant" perhaps "was at this time still an infant".

@Iazyges: done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Recovery

" He took this opportunity to march his army in Paionia" Perhaps expand on opportunity, I am assuming from historical knowledge that the Paionian were crippled by the death of their king, and their was [perhaps] a power struggle for the throne. If there is more that can be added, please do so.
" and requested Philip to aid them.[28]" Perhaps "And requested aid from Philip" or else "and asked Philip for aid".
"Aleuadae to negotiate a peace settlement with Pherae from a position of greater strength." Is this meant to convey that the Alaudae were at a greater strength than before, or else they were just in a superior position?

@Iazyges:: I've fixed the article according to your first two suggestions, but I don't know about your third one. The text seems pretty clear to me. For the full context, it says: "Although Diodorus says that Philip defeated the new tyrants, Buckler considers it more likely that Philip's appearance on the scene allowed the Aleuadae to negotiate a peace settlement with Pherae from a position of greater strength." Basically, Philip showed up with an army and the two tyrants of Pherae were in imminent danger of being attacked and deposed. They basically had no choice but to negotiate with the Aleuadae noble family, who had requested aid from Philip in the first place. Otherwise they would be threatened with a siege and possible extermination. Instead, as was typical of how Philip did things, he came away from the situation with a new wife, forming a marriage alliance with factions who were his erstwhile enemies in order to ensure their obedience/loyalty/compliance. Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

North

Sorry for being slow to review.

You should probably link etesian winds to Etesian, although that article isn't fantastic.
"Philip expelled those who were ill-disposed to him but" ill-disposed seems a little awkward, perhaps "hostile"?
"by offering them an alliance on very advantageous terms" are any of the terms known? (I'm presuming no since you're generally very specific).
"Philip was to capture the city of Potidea" by capture does this mean they marched into the city, they sieged it, or something else? Because capture in this context seems to mean siege.
" He changed the name to Philippi" No changes needed here, but Apple doesn't fall far from the tree eh.
"greatly increased the population" Is their a record of how he did this? I.e. did he force people in, move slaves in, offer cheap land?
"The capture of Krinides was thus, in the long term, a very significant event in Philip's rise to power." What's the citation for this one? I presume the same as the quote?
"Polyaenus recounts that Philip attacked and reduced" reduced might need to be changed, as in my mind, given Phillips history I would presume this meant burn to the ground, is that correct?

Thessaly

"as ritual demanded for temple-robbers." would "as this was the punishment demanded for temple-robbers." work better? Because it makes no direct mention of a ritual execution.
should "Archon" be linked? The article doesn't mention the Thessalians, but a link may still be useful.
After Phillip effectively controlled the Thessalian army, did he reform them into his 5m pike build, or did he keep them as they were?

End

Thats all the suggestions I have.

No dead links Y
No Copyvio Y
Aigai is a DAB page. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: excellent! I tried to edit the article to the best of my abilities per your latest suggestions. I do not have the sources on hand so it was slightly difficult to address a couple of your concerns. I hope these suffice! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Post-pass comment

I'm going to request that Iazyges reverse this listing and reopen the review. The first thing I saw when I looked at this article was that it was huge—over 80,000 prose characters—yet the lead is only two paragraphs, a clear violation of WP:LEADLENGTH, which is a section of MOS:LEAD, one of the basic criteria of a GA. This is not okay. It's especially not okay because I brought the lead length up as part of the problematic Sino-Roman relations GA review last fall, and while that article had five lead paragraphs rather than two, too many rather than too few, it pointed up something that should always checked by a GA reviewer. PericlesofAthens, I'm very sorry that such a situation once again involves one of your articles, but something's clearly gone wrong, and it needs to be addressed now. Further, if this basic criterion was not addressed, there's a good chance that others were missed as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was fully aware that five paragraphs were too much, but must have grown unfamiliar with the rule that an article over 30,000 KB must at least have three paragraphs (and probably four of them for good measure). I'll see what I can do to remedy this right away. There is much to summarize in the article, so there's certainly not a lack of material at my disposal. I'll be able to whip up a paragraph in no time. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Sure thing, I will comment that I usually only post the full GA criteria if their is something lacking. Here is the full GA criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b N until lead concerns are fixed, which should be soon.
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y
3
3.a Y

3.b Y (although it is a huge page)
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

My bad on not catching the lead length MOS.-- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: @BlueMoonset: in order to fix this problem as speedily as possible, I have just now added a new paragraph to the lead section. I look forward to your review of that, but from what I can tell it looks just fine. The article is very big, but then again so is the scope of the article (covering not just the reign of Philip II and the beginning of his son's reign, but also events in Greece over a span of decades and for that matter the historic unification of most of Greece in ancient times). Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me but I'll see if BlueMoonset has any objections before reinstating the GA. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to take the time to read through the entire article, something I won't be able to do for a day or two, before the review is concluded. It looks like it will be an interesting read, so I'm looking forward to it. In the meantime, the lead is supposed to summarize the top-level sections of the article, and while I see two sections with "Thrace" in their titles, there's only a single mention of "Thracians" in the lead. This is a huge article, and I think the lead could still be longer to cover more of the major highlights. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime I have expanded the introduction to talk a little more about Thrace and Illyria. However, I request that you please review this article as soon as humanly possible, because before you reverted its GA status, I nominated this article for DYK. The DYK nomination can continue so long as this article quickly regains its GA status. Otherwise I'll have to nominate it again, which is tricky if not impossible (they might deny a second nomination due to the technicality that a GA DYK was already lodged). Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional work, PericlesofAthens. I don't think you need to worry about DYK—I'm very active there, and will be happy to intervene on the nomination page if necessary to point out that this needs a little more time before a final decision is made. I doubt I'll need to, however, since your reviewer is unlikely to return until you've pinged him. In the interim, as the reviewer notes, you will want to propose different hooks: the absolute limit for a hook is 200 characters including spaces, and yours are 313 and 295 respectively. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I will fix the DYK hooks, but are you still reviewing this article? I'm assuming you've just been busy these past few days. Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: hello? You still around? Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, still around, but with not enough concentrated time to read and review an article this long. I'm hoping things get better later in the week, or this weekend at the latest; I apologize for the delay, and for not seeing your previous query. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: hello again. It's okay if you don't have enough free time to tackle this article in earnest. I distinctly remember this happening with the GA nomination process of my article on Sino-Roman relations (which is now a featured article, btw), where you had to give up and let someone else take a look at it. That seems to be the case once again, which is almost certainly not your fault given your responsibilities, but I think you should either expedite this article or pass it off to someone else. To be honest, User:Iazyges did a fine job reviewing the article already; it's just that he forgot one of the fundamental requirements, that being the length of the lead section. Hell, even I forgot about that rule! And I've been editing Wikipedia for roughly a decade, with tons of featured articles under my belt. I think that you'll find that his original judgment that this article should be passed was the right one. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens, I apologize for not responding sooner; I have finally squeezed out the time to carefully read through the article, which is—as I know to expect from you—well written and interesting. Because perfection risks angering the gods, I found a few glitches here and there; you'll see that I have also done some minor copyediting. There are also a few points that I think should be addressed:

Sources section: the third paragraph is itself unsourced, which is a problem, especially with such characterizations as "very negative" with regard to Justin. Also, if the Trogus Philippic History does not survive, please make this clear; if it does, then specify that. Thanks.
Battle of Crocus Field section: in the Buckler quote near the end, the phrase "dead that alive" is given. While I imagine it's "than" rather than "that", I think you should be the one to change the quote, since you'll have access to the actual source.
Fourth Sacred War section: in the second paragraph, I believe "the Persian marching into Phocis" needs to be revised in some way; since I don't know the details, it could be as little as adding a letter or as much as a sentence recast.

Also, please check to be sure that my edits work. Once these are done, the article should be ready for GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: hello! Thanks for responding. I have removed the statement about Justin viewing Philip very negatively since I can't seem to find a definitive statement for it in my sources. However, I have been able to provide citations for everything else. I have also fixed the Buckler quote that you mentioned and the statement about the Persians being blocked from entering Phocis by the Phocian army. I hope that these changes are deemed suitable enough for awarding this article GA status. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens, it looks great. I did make a minor edit following yours; I did want to clarify that while Justin survives, the book he epitomized did not (it's implied in the previous paragraph, but I thought it could do with clarification), and I fixed the page ranges in the new sources. As far as I'm concerned, it's ready to be listed, but as the official reviewer, that step is up to Iazyges. Thanks again for your quick work on the latest edits, and best of luck should you eventually take this to FAC. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully Iazyges will respond promptly. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Passed and listed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

About the definitive statement about Justin viewing Philip very negatively, I can not find sources on internet or in books. Other than that, the article looks great. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: thanks once again for reviewing the article! @SilentResident: thank you as well! --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Congrats once more! :) @Iazyges:, @PericlesofAthens: you are awesome. On my part, updated the article with ARBMAC so people can be careful and refrain from edits that could damage or undo these GA efforts. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Macedonian Tribe

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Information need to be added that Alexander the Great and his people were from an ancient Greek tribe which lived in Ancient Hipirus (Greece) called "Mollosoi". Yeepas69 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rise of Macedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rise of Macedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Original WP:CONSENSUS confirmed with slight change in wording after two weeks of discussion. "Greece", "Greek", and "Hellenic" will not occur near the word "kingdom". "Periphery" is the preferred way to describe Ancient Macedonia's relationship to Classical Greece. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-time consensus violated

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

The long-standing WP:CONSENSUS wording at this article is that Macedon was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of classical Greece. This wording is stable and has worked for several years now. Any changes to this article must go through a consensus-building process, especially since it has been listed as a "history good article". --Taivo (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TaivoLinguist on this one. I would also like to note that the same long-standing consensus wording has also been changed in the article History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) to similar end. I would revert the introduction to that article back to the consensus wording, but I am afraid I will be sanctioned if I do. --03:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Katolophyromai (talk)

The key to the wording "an ancient kingdom on the periphery of classical Greece" is that "on the periphery of" is that it's a bit ambiguous as to whether it's on the Greek side of the line or not. That was why both Greek-leaning and non-Greek-leaning editors originally preferred it. Both sides of the issues could take solace in it. That's why it's been so stable over the years that it's been in effect. --Taivo (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should reflect what the sources say, not what gives solace to Wikipedia editors on a particular side (or even both sides) of an issue.

I've long been supportive of the existing wording -- see previous recent history of this article -- but when the IP contributor provided a source for "Hellenic", it reminded me that although it's quite clear that Macedon was on the periphery of things in the time of Philip, it's also quite clear that, even then, Macedon was Greek, unlike say Thrace or Scythia or Illyria. And, again, we do need to be looking at the situation (supported by sources) at the time the article covers, not worrying about modern geographical boundaries and about which modern political sensibilities might be upset by what we say about matters in the 4th century B.C.

The repeated mention of long-standing consensus needs to point to a talk page discussion where such consensus was established. Endless edit-wars with unregistered editors, supported by intermittent page protection, does not establish consensus. There can be no consensus without discussion, and discussion happens on talk pages, not in edit summaries.

Good article status is the opinion of one reviewer, and is not binding on content. MPS1992 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the beginning of the discussion, but I don't have time to double-check to see whether the conclusion and compromise is included. I will find it for you. And you don't understand the point of the first sentence. All the detail of the article does not have to occur in the first sentence, especially WP:POINTy edits just to urinate on other points of view. --Taivo (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

But you completely misunderstand the nature of the WP:CONSENSUS here. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reliable sources and everything to do with pushing a POV against WP:NPOV. It's about WP:POINTy editing and not about a neutral presentation of facts. If you read the articles (including Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)), you'll see that they clearly (and with plenty of reliable sources) delineate the Greek aspects of the ancient kingdom, as well as the aspects that aren't so Greek. A reader of the articles has no doubt about the complex cultural and political relationship between Macedonia and the ancient Greek city states. It's all about the first sentence and the first sentence only. And it's all tied to modern world events and the Macedonia naming dispute. You can set your watch by it. Something happens in the real world between Greece and Macedonia and the anonymous IPs show up within 24 hours insisting that the word "Greek" must be one of the first five words of the sentence in one or more of these articles. Then a couple of other editors who have never before been involved in the issue show up to "support" the IPs with a reliable source (that they think has never been found before). But none of them read past the first sentence to see that abundant reliable sources are already in the article and the article already states the complexity of the situation in clear English prose. Then after a week of editing and reverting of the first sentence (all in violation of WP:BRD, WP:NPOV, and WP:POINT), they disappear again. Until the next event in the real-world dispute. That is the very definition of WP:POINTy editing--pushing a POV unnecessarily in the first sentence without regard to other points of view. (As promised, I will find the actual point where consensus was reached on "an ancient kingdom on the periphery of classical Greece" in these articles. It was about 2010.) --Taivo (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Locations where a WP:CONSENSUS was reached on leaving the word "Greek" out of the first sentence and the first sentence only include:

Here, 2009/2010, where toward the end all the major involved editors, some of whom favored "Greek" and some of whom did not, agree that in the first sentence "Greek" was best left out because of the complexity of the issue.
Here, 2009, which is prior to the preceding discussion, but in the middle of which I made the comment, "This sentence hasn't said "Greek" for a long time", so the original consensus was clearly before then and the discussion at this link was a subsequent one. But note again, that the original consensus was maintained (the end of the above link)
This (2005) is the earliest mention I've found of the current "ancient kingdom" text. It seems to have been an edit in 2005 which has stayed stable until now (the sentence following "kingdom" was changed from the "Greek peninsula" reference to "periphery" shortly after the 2010 discussion cited above). There have been no subsequent changes to the sentence based on any consensus since. But, as I stated in my previous comment, the WP:POINTy nature of "Greek kingdom" is clear from the simple fact that it shows up within 24 hours of some real-world event surrounding the Macedonia naming dispute. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, this article has never started with "Greek kingdom". This is the article at its birth in 2009. I sampled several other versions randomly through its history and it has never had the word "Greek" in the first sentence. While "consensus can change", per WP:BRD you must build a consensus before you change the status quo if your edit is controversial. --Taivo (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hellenic kingdom^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. That is original research and thus a violation of Wikipedia editing policy. It also violates WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Greek State^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-Star01 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. That is original research and thus a violation of Wikipedia editing policy. It also violates WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Taivo my sources (Strabo and Arrian) clearly describe the ancient kingdom of Macedonia as part of Greece. It is enough to add the word "Hellenic" in the first sentence and make NEW WP:CONSENSUS...a consensus of science and real History's. Thank you!

Hellenic Kingdom^[4]^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

1) You don't know what you're talking about with WP:CONSENSUS. READ it. A consensus is a consensus among the involved editors.

2) You don't know that you are in violation of original research. You are basing your comments on your own original research and not upon reliable sources.

3) You don't know what a reliable source is. A reliable source is not a primary source (Strabo et al.).

4) You have ignored the existing WP:CONSENSUS because it doesn't match your POV.

5) You have failed to discuss anything here on the Talk Page. A discussion must occur and a new consensus built BEFORE you continue to insert the content that has been determined by WP:CONSENSUS to be the appropriate content.

6) You have failed to build a new consensus here because the older editors on this page, who are reverting your POV-pushing edits, do not agree with your additions. It's as simple as that. The status quo wording, which is based on a solid and stable consensus built in 2010, has priority until you manage to convince the other editors that there is a reason to change.

--Taivo (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

^ Strabo, Geographica, Book VII, Chapter Fragments - Section [9], Line 5: "Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece" [1]
^ Strabo, Geographica, Book VII, Chapter Fragments - Section [9], Line 5: "Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece" [2]
^ Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 4, Lines 3 - 4, Alexander's Letter to Darius III: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece...", ("οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι ἐλθόντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα...")[3], [4]
^ Strabo, Geographica, Book VII, Chapter Fragments - Section [9], Line 5: "Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece" [5]
^ Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 4, Lines 3 - 4, Alexander's Letter to Darius III: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece...", ("οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι ἐλθόντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα...")[6], [7]

The failure of "Greek" and "Hellenic" in the first sentence

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There are several reasons why neither "Greek" nor "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence.

The issue is a complex one, thus the simplistic attachment of "Greek" in the first sentence is not accurate from a technical sense. Thus, in 2010, both Greek-leaning editors and non-Greek-leaning editors felt that the first sentence was no place for such simplification. The rest of the article then goes into great detail as to the precise relationship between Macedonia and the city-states of Greece. There is no ambiguity or inaccuracy when you actually read the whole article and don't stop on the 10th-word.
The placement of "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence before "kingdom" is a pointy edit to many editors because of its over-simplification of a complex issue and because it has been intended as a stick in Macedonia's eye, not as an honest attempt to convey accurate information. The first sentence of this article has remained stable since it was written in 2009 without the words "Greek" or "Hellenic" on any permanent basis. The only times that editors show up to plant the Greek flag there is within 24 hours of some real-world event in the Macedonia naming dispute. Then you can set your watch by the arrival of anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts who might have been summoned by illegal canvassing or might be sock puppets of previously banned users. That is the very essence of pointy editing--to make a political statement, not to improve the encyclopedia.
The so-called "proof" that these anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts offer isn't valid evidence in Wikipedia's scheme of things. Reliable sources are not primary sources. Using primary sources (Strabo, Arrian, et al.) is considered to be inappropriate original research. No one is doubting that there are reliable sources (not Strabo et al., but modern academic sources) that state that Macedonia was Greek (and many are cited in the article), but there are also reliable sources that state that Macedonia wasn't purely Greek (and many are cited in the article). That's why calling ancient Macedonia "Greek" in the first sentence is an over-simplification and inappropriate as the initial characterization of the nature of the kingdom. It doesn't really matter that Strabo or Arrian or Demosthenes or Harry of Thebes said so. What matters are reliable secondary, academic sources. And they point to the complexity of the issue.
Per WP:BRD, an editor should be bold to edit. But then if that edit is reverted, then it is required that the discussion move to the Talk Page and be discussed. If, and only if, a new consensus is built should the edit then be actually placed in the article. Until then, the article text should not be touched after the new edit was reverted. I repeat, per WP:BRD, the new material should never be placed back in the article until a new consensus is reached on the Talk Page. Such a consensus has not been reached. Far from it. User:MPS1992, you've been around long enough to know that you don't reinsert new controversial material that's been reverted until you've reached a consensus on the Talk Page. Until then, the status quo ante stands, especially when that status quo is based on a clear, stable, and documented (above) WP:CONSENSUS.

--Taivo (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a useful approach to many situations, but it's not policy. Saying "Per WP:BRD" is both meaningless and misleading. MPS1992 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The alternative to WP:BRD is what you have done--ignore WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. --Taivo (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's what happened here on the Talk Page. You failed to start a discussion. I started the discussion and was backed up by User:Katolophyromai. I delineated the precise reasons why the WP:CONSENSUS wording was agreed to back in 2010. You finally responded with "What consensus?" and "The other guy finally had a source". That was your only comment in the previous thread--in other words, you ignored "Discussion" and "Consensus building" as part of the Wikipedia process. I provided you with links to the consensus and the discussions which led up to that consensus. And I also showed that your comment about "reliable sources" was rather ill-advised because the article itself is filled with all kinds of reliable sources on both sides of the issue, demonstrating its complexity. So the only conclusion that one can draw about your failure to discuss the issue and your failure to actually read and consider the facts of the issue at hand in the first sentence, is that you are determined to insert a pointy edit where over-simplification is precisely what all involved editors wanted to avoid back in 2010. This thread, started after the article was locked to editing was, again, initiated by me, not the editor (you) who wants to make a change against WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps you don't care about pushing your pointy POV despite the evidence. Perhaps you're just inexperienced in such matters. Perhaps you just don't care. We don't know your motivations because you have posted only one comment in this thread and only one comment in the preceding thread, and those comments only dealt with peripheral issues, trying to justify your continued attempts to ram your wording through in the article rather than even trying to reach a consensus here on the Talk Page. I have given a detailed account of why the words "Greek" and "Hellenic" have no place in the first sentence because they are an over-simplification of a more complex issue and their presence among the first 10 words of the first sentence is nothing more than POV-pushing, pointy editing. You have addressed none of these points except to give two I don't like it responses. --Taivo (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New WP:CONSENSUS Building -->Hellenic Kingdom. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence based on sources.

Latest comment: 6 years ago75 comments10 people in discussion

The phrase: "Macedonia from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world" cunningly iplies a non-Greek origin state outside ancient Greece (like Rome or Persia - distand from Greek affairs) which finally managed to dominate entire hellenic world.

All my sources given below places Macedonia as Greek or as part of Greece. So, emphasis should be placed on the Greekness of this state. Greek or Hellenic precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence.

PROPOSAL FIRST:
"Macedonia from a small Hellenic kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world"

The word periphery cunningly and on purpose indicates a non-Greek origin of this ancient State something which is against all sources given below, against science of History and must be banned. History is not as HOW we would like to see facts but as it really are.

From Cambridge English Dictionary
Periphery Meaning[8]
1. the outer edge of an area
2. the less important part of a group or activity

In our case:
1. the outer edge of an area matches with the opinion of this user: Thus, the word "periphery" is a perfect way to describe ancient Macedonia and the ancient Macedonians--if you look at them from one side, they are "in", but if you look at them from the other side, they are "out". That's a perfect description of being on the periphery. --Taivo (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
That's why the word periphery must be banned

Otherwise periphery meaning (According the Cambridge English Dictionary):
2. the less important part of a group or activity
the less important matches with small and
part of a group matches with kingdom of ancient (or archaic) Greece

So based on Cambridge English Dictionary the phrase could be attributed with accuracy as:

PROPOSAL SECOND:
"...from a small kingdom of ancient (or archaic) Greece to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world"

PROPOSAL THIRD: (of User:T8612)

It could be ok by replacing Ancient Greece with Southern Greece (The sources below clearly refer to Macedonia as part of Greece)

"Under the reign of Philip II (359-336 BC), the kingdom of Macedonia, initially at the periphery of classical Greek affairs, came to dominate Southern Greece in the span of just 25 years, largely thanks to the personality and policies of its king."Dragao2004 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. For all the reasons that have been stated already below. The addition of "Greek" or "Greece" to the first sentence (beyond what is already there) is pointy editing and an oversimplification of the situation. The current status quo wording is stable and has been the unchanged consensus wording for nearly ten years. None of the proposer's arguments are new or unique and he/she offers no evidence or coherent arguments that the previous consensus is unsatisfactory or even inaccurate. The proposer has also taken my quote completely out of context. He was, at the time, insisting that "periphery" nefariously implied just "outside" and I was clarifying that it did no such thing, that "inside" is also part of the definition. --Taivo (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as no source is given, as long as a non-Greek origin of the state is implied, then the more it is necessary to emphasize Greekness!

Below I quote my sources, on which my three suggestions are basedDragao2004 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read any of my comments. I have already stated many times that the sources are already in the text--here, at Ancient Macedonian language, at Macedonia (ancient kingdom), at History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), at Ancient Macedonians#Modern discourse, etc. But since you refuse to read, then it's not my requirement to provide them for you here. There's not a single, solitary one of your sources that isn't already listed here or at these other places. Finally, all your work finding original sources is actually immaterial because Wikipedia prohibits original research and none of your primary sources are valid as reliable sources. If you were more experienced you would know that. That's also why none of the other editors care about your long lists of primary sources. You have wasted your time. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with your deep love of your home country and all things that you think are related to it. It has everything to do with not pointedly planting the Greek flag in the first sentence of this (and every other relevant article) just to push your POV. You have failed to build any consensus for your edits here after two weeks of begging and refusing to listen to any other editor, especially the more experienced ones--the ones who have been here since the current stable consensus was built 10 years ago. --Taivo (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. For the reasons highlighted in the rest of the thread. I know that you think Macedonia is Greek, but this was really not that obvious in Classical Greece. I gave you two citations from ancient authors showing the difficulty of saying "Macedonia was Greek/Hellenic". Greekness was principally a cultural thing, and the Macedonian tribes lacked this (no real polis organisation). However their kings were Greek and accepted as such by the Greeks (they were invited at the Olympic Games for example). There is no doubt that Macedonia was considered "Greek" during the Hellenistic era, but this article deals with the end of the Classical era, hence my opposition to describe it as "Greek" at this moment. The current formulation is perfect because it avoids the ambiguity. It's exactly the same situation as with the Epirote tribes. T8612 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, all the tribes mentioned by Thucydides but the Atintanians are defined as "Greek" in their respective article. The citations that are given somewhat misinterpret the sources (deliberately?)...also what is called Pseudo- means "fraud", "lie"...so, please find a reliable source...just ONE, only a sigle one is enough...Dragao2004 (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We've told you where there is an excellent discussion several times already: Ancient Macedonians#Modern discourse. You don't realize that all your WP:OR is pointless because we are discussing not whether or not the Ancient Macedonians were or were not Greek, but about whether to allow you to plant a big Greek flag in the first 10 words of the article. Most of us agree that your edit is inappropriate politically-motivated POV-pushing WP:POINTy editing. The issue of ancient Macedonian ethnicity is complex, but your mindless and unceasing insistence that "the Macedonians MUST BE labelled as Greek!!!!!" is a clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. --Taivo (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't realize too that i don't plant any flag as far as the phrase does NOT iply cunningly and on purpose non-Greek origin of the state placed somewhere outside ancient Greece. Also, here we discuss about the rise of Macedon not about Ancient Macedonians. So, give reliable sources as i do below ok? Thank you!Dragao2004 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We have explained to you the meaning of "periphery" over and over in English. It's not our fault that you refuse to learn the meaning of words in a language that you don't speak well enough. Your problem, not ours. And just because you repeat the same sources that we've been seeing for 10 years doesn't mean anything. The first sentence isn't about how much original research you do, it's about the political nonsense that you are pushing to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence. There's a reason why you are convincing no one. The consensus is against you. The sources you seek are in the location that I provided. I'm not going to repeat them here because that's not the point. The point is that you are pushing your Greek political agenda because of real-world events in the Macedonian naming dispute and your comments "Macedonia must be called Greek!!!" simply show your political agenda. There is already a consensus against you here so the text is as it is and will remain so. You have convinced no one. --Taivo (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have explained you 1000 times that I have no political agenda, i support the North Macedonia solution and i am fun of Central left party and i don't think everything is Greek! I repeat:
The new phrase: "Under the reign of Philip II (359-336 BC), the kingdom of Macedonia, initially at the periphery of classical Greek affairs, came to dominate Ancient Greece in the span of just 25 years, largely thanks to the personality and policies of its king" leaves no room for misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world.
So, i propose:
"Under the reign of Philip II (359-336 BC), the kingdom of Macedonia, initially at the periphery of classical Greek affairs, came to dominate southern Greece in the span of just 25 years, largely thanks to the personality and policies of its king
Macedon as the sources confirm below was Greek, or part of Greece
This is history and geography, not POLITICS ok?
Edit your sources there is ΝΟΝΕ! Thank you!Dragao2004 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia came to dominate all of Greece, not just whatever you think "southern Greece" is. The sentence without "southern" means, in English, that Macedonia dominated all of Greece, whether you think that Macedonia was part of Greece or not. Don't try to apply your non-native understanding of English to here. Without "southern" the sentence is more accurate. And, as we have said multiple times, all your sources, that we've seen a dozen times before over the last ten years, are pointless. The problem with your edit is that you're demanding to plant a Greek flag with no other reason than to make your political point. I'm not the only editor pointing this out to you and the evidence is that you have convinced no one of your point of view. This discussion is really over--you have lost, the consensus is to keep "Greece", "Greek", and "Hellenic" away from the word "kingdom"; to keep "periphery" as a description of Macedonia's place in Greek affairs; and to state that Macedonia came to control "all" of Greece and not just "southern" Greece. Your time on Wikipeda can best be spent elsewhere, assuming that your interests really are not just pushing politics at articles about ancient Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You're suffering from delusions...Dragao2004 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

BEFORE PHILIP II & ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Homer (Between 800 BC and 700 BC)

1. Odyssey, Book 7. Line 106: "ἥμεναι, οἷά τε φύλλα μακεδνῆς αἰγείροιο"[9]

Hesiod (Between 750 BC and 650 BC)

2. Catalogue of Women - Ehoiai, Fragment 3, "MAGNES AND MACEDON": "And she (Thyia) conceived and bare to Zeus who delights in the thunderbolt two sons, Magnes and Macedon, rejoicing in horses, who dwell round about Pieria and Olympus..."[10]

Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 400 BC)

3. History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 2, Chapter 99: "The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos. This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon; of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbours of the Chalcidians, from Bottia, and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea"[11][12]Dragao2004 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Herodotus (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC)

4. The Histories, Book 1, Chapter 56, Lines 7 - 15: "These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first (Ionians) a Pelasgian and the second (Dorians) a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic (Dorians) has wandered often and far. For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it (the Hellenic people) settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it (Hellenic people) took the name of Dorian"[13]

5. The Histories, Book 8, Chapter 43, Lines 3 - 6: "...the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region..."[14]

6. The Histories, Speech of Alexander I, Book 9, Chapter 45, Section 2, Lines 1 - 2: "I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery" [15]

7. The Histories, Book 5, Chapter 22, Section 1: "Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history. Furthermore, the Hellenodicae who manage the contest at Olympia determined that it is so"[16]

GEOGRAPHERS:

8. "...secondly, Greece; and thirdly, the Islands that are close by. Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece..."

Strabo, "Geography", VII, Frg. 9, Loeb.

9. " The Aegean sea washes Greece on two sides: first, the side that faces towards the east and stretches from Sunium, towards the north as far as the Thermaean Gulf and Thessaloniceia..."

Strabo, "Geography", 7.7.4-5.Dragao2004 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

HISTORIANS:

10. Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 6: "Parmenion advised Alexander to make a naval battle with the Persians immediately. He hoped the Greeks would defeat the Persian fleet because he was persuaded by something divine he saw. An eagle sitting on the beach to the sterns of Alexander's ships"[17]

11. Plutarch, Moralia, Chapter 1, Section 10: "...the blessings of Greek justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me, Diogenes, that I imitate Heracles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysus,8the divine author and progenitor of my family and desire that victorious Greeks should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Caucasus. Even there it is said that there are certain holy men, a law unto themselves, who follow a rigid gymnosophy10 and give all their time to God"[18]Dragao2004 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

12. Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Alexander, Chapter 37, Section 4: "And it is said that when he took his seat for the first time under the golden canopy on the royal throne, Demaratus the Corinthian, a well-meaning man and a friend of Alexander's, as he had been of Alexander's father, burst into tears, as old men will, and declared that those Hellenes were deprived of great pleasure who had died before seeing Alexander seated on the throne of Dareius"[19]

13. Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Alexander, Chapter 17, Section 2: "Now, there is in Lycia, near the city of Xanthus, a spring, which at this time, as we are told, was of its own motion upheaved from its depths, and overflowed, and cast forth a bronze tablet bearing the prints of ancient letters, in which it was made known that the empire of the Persians would one day be destroyed by the Greeks and come to an end"[20]

14. Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 1, Chapter 12, Section 4, Line 3: "There is no other man amongst the Greeks or the barbarians who has shown so many or so great achievements than Alexander"[21]

15. Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 7: "Alexander, the son of Philip, and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, devote these panopies, from the spoils of the barbarians inhabiting Asia"[22]

16. Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 7, Chapter 16, Section 1: "After that, Alexander sent Heraclides the son of Argaeus to Hyrcania and ordered him to cut woods from the mountains and built warships according to the Greek shipbuilding"[23]

17. Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 4, Lines 3 - 4, Alexander's Letter to Darius III: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece..."[24], [25]

18. Polybius, Histories, Book 7, Chapter 9, Section 3: "in the presence of all Gods who possess Macedonia and the rest of Greece in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath"[26]

19. Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 4, Chapter 11, Section 7: "οὔκουν οὐδὲ αὐτῷ τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ ζῶντι ἔτι θεῖαι τιμαὶ παρ᾽ Ἑλλήνων ἐγένοντο, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τελευτήσαντι πρόσθεν ἤ πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐπιθεσπισθῆναι ὡς θεὸν τιμᾶν Ἡρακλέα. εἰ δέ, ὅτι ἐν τῇ βαρβάρῳ γῇ οἱ λόγοι γίγνονται, βαρβαρικὰ χρὴ ἔχειν τὰ φρονήματα, καὶ ἐγὼ τῆς Ἑλλάδος μεμνῆσθαί σε ἀξιῶ, ὦ Αλέξανδρε, ἧς ἕνεκα ὁ πᾶς στόλος σοι ἐγένετο, προσθεῖναι τὴν Ἀσίαν τῇ Ἑλλάδι[27]Dragao2004 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

THE HOLY BIBLE:

20. "Now Alexander [the Great], when he had taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem [...] And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended." [The Bible verses showed Alexander might be Daniel 7:6; 8:3-8, 20-22; 11:3. Some or all of them are plain predictions of his conquests and successors.].

Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" (Book 11, Chapter 8, Paragraphs 4&5).

THE NEW TESTAMENT:

21. Chapter (16:9) "And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. [...] (17:1) Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: (17:2) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, [...] (17:4) And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. [...] (17:10) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. (17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (17:12) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few"

New Testament (Holy Bible KJV), Acts of the Apostles 16:9; 17:1-2, 4, 10-12.

THE VATICAN:

22. Pope John Paul II of the Vatican in an interview he gave on the 21st June 1992 to the journalist Mrs Pinni for the Greek Centre-left politics newspaper KYRIAKATIKI ELEFTHEROTYPIA: «Macedonia is the country of Philip, of Alexander, of Methodius and Cyril and Macedonia is Greek»

MODERN SOURCES:

23. "...for the first time he (Phillip) started to understand how Macedonia's outdated institutions of feudalism an aristocratic monarchy so despised by the rest of Greece"

Peter Green, "Alexander the Great", page 24.

24. "...King Philip of the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon perfected this system, and his son, Alexander the Great...

Archer Jones, American historian, "The Art of War in Western World" (University of Illinois Press, 2000), p. 21.

25. "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 panHellenic unity possible..."

Vilho Harle, Professor of International Relations at University of Lapland in Finland, "Ideas of Social Order in the Ancient World", p. 24.

26. "The king [of macedon] was chief in the first instance of a race of plain-dwellers, who held themselves to be, like him, of Hellenic stock"

David George Hogarth, "Philip and Alexander of Macedon", p. 8.

27. "Philip II, at least from the time of his victory over Phocis, Athens, and their allies in 346, prepared to proclaim himself the champion of a United Greece against the barbarians"

Ernst Badian, "Cambridge history of Iran", p. 421.

28. "Macedonia (or Macedon) was an ancient, somewhat backward kingdom in northern Greece. Its emergence as a Hellenic (Greek) power was due to a resourceful king, Philip II (359-336), whose career has been unjustly overshadowed by the deeds of his son, Alexander the Great"

Mortimer Chambers, Professor of History at the University of California at Los Angeles, "The Western Experience", p. 79, Mortimer Chambers et al, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2nd edition, 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

29. "Soon after Athens had reached the height of its glory under Pericles in the Fifth Century, B. C., and had started on its decline, the rise of Macedon under Philip carried Greek influence into new regions. The glory of Athens had been based upon sea power, but the conquests of Macedon were the work of land armies— Philip invented the invincible phalanx. Upon Philip's death his son, Alexander the Great, set forth to conquer the whole of the then known world, and as that world in his day lay to the east, his marches were in that direction. In a few years he had overrun the fertile plains and opulent cities of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia, and had carried his conquests to the gates of Delhi. In all the cities in the intervening countries he left large garrisons of Greek soldiers. In many of these countries he founded flourishing new cities. In every place his soldiers were followed by large colonies of Greek civilians. The result was that the whole of western Asia, and of what we call the Near East, including Asia Minor Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Persia, and northwestern India, was saturated with the Greek influence and with Greek colonies"

Henry Morgenthau, "I was sent to Athens", Doubleday, Doran & Company, inc (1929).

SLAVIC SOURCES:

30. "We are Slavs, we came to this area in the sixth century (AD), we have no connection with Alexander the Great" Kiro Gligorov, Tirana, 03.06.1992.

31. "From a historical point of view the term Macedonia had no clear ethnic meaning (it is because of thousands of years of mixing of various tribes and peoples), although it is clear that in ancient times Macedonia was considered a Greek state and Macedonians [were] Greeks living in Macedonia...". Slavenko Terzić, "Stara Srbija: Drama of a European Civilization", Moscow 2015, p. 38

32. "When Athens falls, when spreading of Greeks beyond the area of Greece starts, as many know, after the conquests of Alexander of Macedonia, new Greek states are established and Egypt becomes the main centre of Greek civilization, with the centre in Alexandria. Greeks winning over Asia, that is the main idea of Alexander" Nikolaj Pavlovič Grincer, professor at the Institute of Eastern Cultures and Antiquity (IVKA), Moscow, Lecture “Literature and politics in European antiquity", 2014

33. "...Certain proto-populations occupying distinct areas of the Balkans could be distinguished on the territories of the cultural groups: in western part of the Balkans the proto-Illyrians, in the east the proto Thracians, in the south the Hellenes (i.e: Greeks), in the northern part of the Balkans the proto Daco-Mysians and in the southwest of the Central Balkans the proto Bryges" "Arheologija" magazine, No 1, Skopje 1995, "Bryges on the central Balkans in the 2nd and 1st millennium b.c." (summary).

34. "Paeonians, a people who during the first millennium BC inhabited the border area between the three great Paleobalkanic peoples - Illyrians, Thracians and Hellenes. (i.e:Greeks)" Fanica Veljanovska, FYROMian anthropologist, "An Attempt at Anthropological Definition of the Paeonians", Skopje, 1994.

35. "Philip V (220-178 BCE), carried a struggle against Romans trying to halt their penetration into Balkans, but he was defeated in the battle of Cynoscephalae, after which he was forced to renounce all Greek lands, with the exception of Macedonia..." Enciklopedija Prosveta, "Filip V", Vol. 2, Beograd, 1968, p. 869

36. "Greek epigraphic monuments created before definitive Roman domination of our area are to be found in modest quantity"

Vera Bitrakova Grozdanova, ethnic Macedonian archaeologist, "Hellenistic Monuments in S.R.Macedonia", Skopje, 1987, p. 130.

Comments

Τhe home of Zeus and the rest of the gods was the peak of Olympus (nowadays Mytikas, Μύτικας) in Macedonia. If this point was not part of Greece, then these gods would not be Greek...

Read Ancient Macedonians#Modern discourse for the complexity of the situation. I'm not going to replicate the thorough job of documentation and discussion that is presented there. You can read it yourself. But the simplicity of User:Dragao2004's presentation is completely misleading. --Taivo (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004, You are again illustrating your ignorance of the issue. This isn't about quotes from antiquity or even about your carefully chosen selection of quotes from contemporary authors. It's about what we write in the first 10 words of the article only. Your agenda is crystal clear--to poke a stick in the eye of Macedonians at a time when they are engaged in a national debate over their recent proposed name change. If you look in the rest of the article, you will see an abundance of reliable sources that discuss the complexity of the issue as well as an abundance of sources that ignore the complexity like you have. But your continued posting of sources is irrelevant to how we word the first sentence of the article to avoid your insistence on pointy, partisan, POV-pushing editing. I suspect that you haven't read a word of the article past the first sentence. --Taivo (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004 and User:Red-Star01, you are brand-new editors. How did you find out about this article and the discussion here? --Taivo (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And since you seem to have ignored my reasoning in the preceding section I'll repeat it here:

There are several reasons why neither "Greek" nor "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence, nor should ever precede it.

The issue is a complex one, thus the simplistic attachment of "Greek" in the first sentence is not accurate from a technical sense. Thus, in 2010, both Greek-leaning editors and non-Greek-leaning editors felt that the first sentence was no place for such simplification. The rest of the article then goes into great detail as to the precise relationship between Macedonia and the city-states of Greece. There is no ambiguity or inaccuracy when you actually read the whole article and don't stop on the 10th-word.
The placement of "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence before "kingdom" is a pointy edit to many editors because of its over-simplification of a complex issue and because it has been intended as a stick in Macedonia's eye, not as an honest attempt to convey accurate information. The first sentence of this article has remained stable since it was written in 2009 without the words "Greek" or "Hellenic" on any permanent basis. The only times that editors show up to plant the Greek flag there is within 24 hours of some real-world event in the Macedonia naming dispute. Then you can set your watch by the arrival of anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts who might have been summoned by illegal canvassing or might be sock puppets of previously banned users. That is the very essence of pointy editing--to make a political statement, not to improve the encyclopedia.
The so-called "proof" that these anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts offer isn't valid evidence in Wikipedia's scheme of things. Reliable sources are not primary sources. Using primary sources (Strabo, Arrian, et al.) is considered to be inappropriate original research. No one is doubting that there are reliable sources (not Strabo et al., but modern academic sources) that state that Macedonia was Greek (and many are cited in the article), but there are also reliable sources that state that Macedonia wasn't purely Greek (and many are cited in the article). That's why calling ancient Macedonia "Greek" in the first sentence is an over-simplification and inappropriate as the initial characterization of the nature of the kingdom. It doesn't really matter that Strabo or Arrian or Demosthenes or Harry of Thebes said so. What matters are reliable secondary, academic sources. And they point to the complexity of the issue.
Per WP:BRD, an editor should be bold to edit. But then if that edit is reverted, then it is required that the discussion move to the Talk Page and be discussed. If, and only if, a new consensus is built should the edit then be actually placed in the article. Until then, the article text should not be touched after the new edit was reverted. I repeat, per WP:BRD, the new material should never be placed back in the article until a new consensus is reached on the Talk Page. Such a consensus has not been reached. Far from it.

--Taivo (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a useful approach to many situations, but it's not policy. Saying "Per WP:BRD" is both meaningless and misleading. MPS1992 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The alternative to WP:BRD is what you have done--ignore WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. Here's what happened here on the Talk Page. You failed to start a discussion. I started the discussion and was backed up by User:Katolophyromai. I delineated the precise reasons why the WP:CONSENSUS wording was agreed to back in 2010. You finally responded with "What consensus?" and "The other guy finally had a source". That was your only comment in the previous thread--in other words, you ignored "Discussion" and "Consensus building" as part of the Wikipedia process. I provided you with links to the consensus and the discussions which led up to that consensus. And I also showed that your comment about "reliable sources" was rather ill-advised because the article itself is filled with all kinds of reliable sources on both sides of the issue, demonstrating its complexity. So the only conclusion that one can draw about your failure to discuss the issue and your failure to actually read and consider the facts of the issue at hand in the first sentence, is that you are determined to insert a pointy edit where over-simplification is precisely what all involved editors wanted to avoid back in 2010. This thread, started after the article was locked to editing was, again, initiated by me, not the editor (you) who wants to make a change against WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps you don't care about pushing your pointy POV despite the evidence. Perhaps you're just inexperienced in such matters. Perhaps you just don't care. We don't know your motivations because you have posted only one comment in this thread and only one comment in the preceding thread, and those comments only dealt with peripheral issues, trying to justify your continued attempts to ram your wording through in the article rather than even trying to reach a consensus here on the Talk Page. I have given a detailed account of why the words "Greek" and "Hellenic" have no place in the first sentence because they are an over-simplification of a more complex issue and their presence among the first 10 words of the first sentence is nothing more than POV-pushing, pointy editing. You have addressed none of these points except to give two I don't like it responses. --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Now, what that user is doing in my own Talk Page? [28] As if I didn't have had enough of Macedonia-related IP disruptions lately, now this? Enough! This is too much. Just leave my talk page alone! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe that constitutes partisan canvassing, and as such, is a violation of Wikipedia standards ;) Sorry that you were summoned without your consent or interest, User:SilentResident. We have a POV-pushing WP:SPA busy here. --Taivo (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I was summoned as well, but I honestly don't care about the wording of the first sentence. I care about the wording of the article as a whole, and even then I don't really care to touch this article any more. It looks fine the way it is. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You worked damned hard on these articles and they are, indeed, of excellent quality. --Taivo (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I think there is no point in fighting over this. If everyone here really wants to call them "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence, I will no longer try to fight that. The ancient Macedonians did, after all, speak a dialect of the Greek language (albeit a very obscure and epichoric one), consider themselves "Greeks" (though other Greeks did not always reciprocate this consideration), and have an overwhelmingly Greek culture (albeit with quite a few idiosyncrasies particular to them alone). The main problem I have with calling them "Greek" is that, since national identities are inherently made up and ultimately meaningless, whether the ancient Macedonians were "Greek" is ultimately determined by whether or not people say they were "Greek." Therefore, us calling them anything other than Macedonians in the first paragraph of the article is a needless invitation for controversy. The current opening line ("The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world (and beyond)") serves the same purpose without unnecessarily antagonizing either side in this dispute; it is perfectly neutral, because it does not label them as "Greek" or "not Greek." Unfortunately, if people are going to wage such a ferocious war against even the current wording, it ultimately becomes a fruitless endeavor to try to please everyone. I conclude with this statement: I personally prefer the current wording, but I will no longer try to argue against the addition of the word "Hellenic," if that is what the sources support and if that is what consensus favors. If that is what ends up happening, though, we should leave a footnote qualifying the word and explaining the difficulties with assigning this name to the ancient Macedonians. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration, User:Katolophyromai. You have offered a voice of reason in the cacophony of drive-by anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts. The sources are by no means as united as User:Dragao2004's cherry-picked list indicates. But the important part of your comment is still that it's not a good idea to draw a bright line around "Greek" in the very first sentence (which has always been the point of this). Indeed, you agree with this when you write that any use of "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first 10 words must be accompanied by a footnote that expresses the complexity of the issue (and not the WP:POINTy list of sources that Dragao2004 was adding). --Taivo (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone interested in a well-written and thoroughly referenced description of the issue's complexity should read Ancient Macedonians#Modern discourse. That should be the foundation for this discussion. --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Are you even trying to argue the subject matter? It seems like you are just making ad hominem allegations of ulterior motivations and cherry-picking. You can't just dismiss the proposal solely because the proposer is new. I have no opinion on the subject matter yet, but I'm just frustrated as to how the discussion is going so far. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the proposer (who finally came to the Talk Page after being warned about edit warring and after I had initiated discussions here on the Talk Page) is not discussing the actual issue. The issue at hand, that the original WP:CONSENSUS was built on, has nothing to do with the scholarship on the Greekness of Macedonia, but with the WP:POINTy editing of trying to place the word "Greek" in the first sentence. (I have provided links to the discussions that led to the current consensus above.) It really isn't about sources. The "subject matter" actually is whether or not the word "Greek" is WP:POINTy editing or an oversimplification of the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic status of ancient Macedonia. That is the actual point of the Consensus that was built in 2010 and has been stable until now (not just in this article, but across multiple articles on Ancient Macedonia). When do editors come to this article (and other Ancient Macedonia articles covered by this consensus) to try to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence? Within 24 hours of something happening in the Macedonia naming dispute. But if you're actually interested in the complex subject matter, then I have, indeed, provided a link above to a thorough and well-referenced section, Ancient Macedonians#Modern discourse. It does an excellent job of discussing the temporal and documentary complexity of the issue. It's not simple at all, which the proposer's post implies with a long list of carefully cherry-picked primary source and scholarly quotes. I have been arguing the actual subject matter--the pointy nature of oversimplifying a complex issue in order to put the word "Greek" front and center in this article. (And despite the impression that the proposer might be giving, this whole proposal against a long-standing consensus is only about the first sentence, and nothing more.) --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2018

I too was canvassed to come here by the proposer. The proper way to invite contributions to a discussion is to post neutral notifications on WikiProject Talk Pages.

I imagine that proposer thought I might support their view. Well, tough luck. I have read this discussion and the two which immediately preceded it. In my opinion, the article's opening sentence is very good. Adding 'Greek' or 'Hellenic' to it would be an anachronism. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Rise of Macedon, inviting input from other editors. Narky Blert (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004 wrote: "The home of the Greek gods is Mount Olympus in Macedonia. That's why they are Greek Gods..." By that logic, the Jews must be Egyptians because Mount Sinai is in Egypt ;) --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I wrote The Home of the Greek gods is Mount Olympus in Macedonia. Is The Home of God of Jews Mount Sinai or Egypt? Of course not, because as far as we all know The Home of the God of Jews and our Lord is Heaven...Jews don't claim that they come from Heaven... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to be a native speaker of English, perhaps you don't understand sarcasm, clearly marked by the ";)" sign. But then you also may have forgotten that Mount Sinai is consistently called, "The Mountain of God" ;) (That's sarcasm as well.) (Some of us are atheists and some are Hindus and some are Buddhists, so we don't "all know" and he's not "our Lord".) --Taivo (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In the collection of citations listed above, The Pseudo-Scylax and Thucydides are missing. It seems that Thucydides considered all the tribe-peoples as barbaric and clearly separated them from the Hellenes.
Pseudo-Scylax: "Ambrakia. After Molottia, is Ambrakia, a Greek city. It is 80 stadia from the sea. There is also a wall along the sea and a closed harbour. Greece begins there and continues until the Peneios river and the Magnesian city of Omolios, which is next to the river. The voyage past Ambrakia is 120 stadia." (33) Macedonia is thus not included in Greece.
Thucydides:"The Hellenic troops with him consisted of the Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactorians, and the thousand Peloponnesians with whom he came; the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photys and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided. With the Chaonians came also some Thesprotians, like them without a king, some Molossians and Atintanians led by Sabylinthus, the guardian of King Tharyps who was still a minor, and some Paravaeans, under their king Oroedus, accompanied by a thousand Orestians, subjects of King Antichus and placed by him under the command of Oroedus. There were also a thousand Macedonians sent by Perdiccas without the knowledge of the Athenians, but they arrived too late." (ii. 80).
Interestingly, all the tribes mentioned by Thucydides but the Atintanians are defined as "Greek" in their respective article. The citations that are given somewhat misinterpret the sources (deliberately?). @Dragao2004:@TaivoLinguist:.T8612 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course User:Dragao2004 eliminated (or ignored) all the ancient sources and all the modern scholars who do not include the Macedonians among the Greeks. That would spoil his political WP:POINT. --Taivo (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If these sources really existed, you would have written them yourself...of course...Dragao2004 (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to write them here because they are already written in this article and related articles. You're just too unwilling to look at the other articles that I have already referenced and unwilling to listen to anyone else's point of view. Also, you don't understand WP:OR and WP:RS. Here in Wikipedia we don't conduct original research so all these primary references that you've listed are irrelevant by Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. You've wasted your time. But it doesn't matter. With all your research in primary sources, that is not considered relevant in Wikipedia, you have failed to convince anyone that your edit is not a piece of WP:POINTy nationalism. What is also clear is that you have listened to absolutely no one else on this page. Native speakers of English have explained the meaning of "periphery" to you multiple times, but you refuse to listen. This discussion has virtually ended with the result that you have failed to build a new consensus. Thus, the old one stands. --Taivo (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, for clarification, which version does everyone prefer, and why? It's hard for me to take a side when I don't know what perspectives there are. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Repeating my comment as requested.) I like the current version, i.e. "The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world (and beyond)...". Adding 'Greek' or 'Hellenic' to it would be an anachronism. Narky Blert (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the long-standing consensus version: "The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs...". Adding "Greek" or "Hellenic" before "kingdom" is an oversimplification of the complex temporal, linguistic, and ethnic issues. I also consider the addition of "Greek" or "Hellenic" to be pointy editing directed at Greece's modern northern neighbor. --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The home of the Greek gods is Mount Olympus in Macedonia. That's why they are Greek Gods... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the price of fish?

You are cherrypicking, and are also misrepresenting the facts. In Classical times, Mount Olympus was not in Macedonia. It lay between Macedonia and Thessaly.

I haven't said this before, because I try to contribute to discussions like this as an independent – but, I completely agree with Taivo that this proposal is blatant WP:POV WP:POINT-pushing and has no place in Wikipedia.

BTW, would you please sign your posts? User:Sinebot does it for you, but it's not the same thing. No honest editor has anything to hide. Narky Blert (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to move on. It's clear that certain people really do not want to see the words "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence. So if we're ever to achieve any sort of lasting consensus concerning the lede, then the words "Greek" or "Hellenic" cannot appear in the first sentence. It's equally clear that "on the periphery of Greek affairs" (or whatever) is actually accurate for the Macedonian kingdom at the start of the period in question. So, can we just agree to have a sentence or part of a sentence, later in the lede, stating that the Macedonians considered themselves Greeks, and that some or other source mentioned they were Greeks, et cetera? What do you think? MPS1992 (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I am just going to note that the words "Greek" and "Hellenic" are, in fact, both used in the consensus version of the first sentence and that they are both used in ways that are completely accurate. The sentence says, "...a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world (and beyond)." Both of these uses of the words "Greek" and "Hellenic" are indisputably correct, because Macedon at the beginning of this period was definitely "at the periphery of classical Greek affairs" and, by the end of it, it had definitely come to "dominate the entire Hellenic world." The problem that this whole debate is raging over is over whether we should also call Macedon a "small Hellenic kingdom." For my part, I do not think we should. Furthermore, I do not see any need to add another statement later in the lead saying that the "Macedonians considered themselves Greeks" because I hardly think that is a key aspect of the rise of Macedon and the only reason we would say that would be to make a completely unnecessary political point. The fact that we mention Greek culture twice in the first sentence should be enough to cue the reader in that the Macedonians lived in a Greek cultural context. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 wrote, "Achieve a lasting consensus". You mean keeping the consensus that has already survived nearly ten years? As far as adding what you want later in the lead, User:Katolophyromai is right on target. --Taivo (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh my! So much for compromise. MPS1992 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Why fix something that isn't broke? The lead looks fine the way it is. Greece and Greeks are mentioned a gazillion times in the lead and the rest of the article. I think readers are smart enough to read beyond the first sentence and deduce what is going on. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as it is written that Macedonia from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world that iplies that there was a foreign kingdom outside Greece (like Rome or Persia) which finally managed to dominate entire hellenic world. All the sources given places Macedonia as part of Greece. Εmphasis should be placed on the Greekness of this state. Greek or Hellenic precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The word "periphery" does not mean "outside". It means "on the edge of"--not necessarily inside or outside, but on the edge of. This is perfectly true of ancient Macedonia. You obviously haven't read the section Ancient Macedonians#Modern discourse, where there is an excellent discussion of the complexity of the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians, how the ancient sources are either conflicting or ambiguous, and how their ethnic identity changed over time (with plenty of reliable sources based on the ancient evidence). "Greek" is, quite plainly, an oversimplification. Thus, the word "periphery" is a perfect way to describe ancient Macedonia and the ancient Macedonians--if you look at them from one side, they are "in", but if you look at them from the other side, they are "out". That's a perfect description of being on the periphery. --Taivo (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I repeat: The phrase small kingdom in the periphery iplies that there was a foreign kingdom outside Greece which finally managed to dominate entire hellenic world. All the sources given places Macedonia as Greek and as part of Greece. So I repeat again: Εmphasis should be placed on the Greekness of this state by Greek or Hellenic to precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. The word periphery must be banned because on purpose shows a non-Greek origin of this ancient State something against all sources given above and against science of History. History is not HOW do we like to see a subject. It is fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You clearly don't know the meaning of the word "periphery". It implies neither "outside" nor "inside". It only says "at the edge". Since Greek seems to be your native tongue, you are confused by the meaning of the Greek word, which, as you seem to indicate, apparently means "outside". The English word has no such restriction in meaning in a geographical sense and we English speakers are not bound by the original Greek meaning. Thus, both North Dakota and Sonora are on the periphery of the United States. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the current phrase is fine. I would be ok with the addition of "Hellenic" before kingdom, but not "Greek".
However, I have an issue with the rest of the sentence, when it says that "Macedon [...] came to dominate the entire Hellenic world". Hellenic world redirects to Ancient Greece, but is it exactly the same thing? Sicily and Southern Italy were Greek too, but never controlled by Macedon. So I would like to replace "Hellenic World" by "Ancient Greece". I'm also not fond of the title, which I find a bit vague. It essentially deals with Philip's conquest of Greece; I would therefore prefer this as title. T8612 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That irritates me as well! Even before the Hellenistic period or even the birth of Alexander, Greek civilization and colonies could be found in what is now Spain, France, Italy & Sicily, Albania, Libya, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, and even Naukratis in Egypt predating the Ptolemaic dynasty of Cleopatra. There's an article called colonies in antiquity but it's not exclusively about Greek civilization itself.

In either case, I would also be fine with the word "Hellenic" between the words "small kingdom" or "ancient kingdom", but it is not the job of this article to explain the ethnic identity of the Macedonians (which, personally, I would argue was culturally Greek for lack of a better term but a backwards archaic one without the polis civilization of Athens and other city-states of the south). The job of this article is to explain the meteoric rise of Philip II of Macedon and his territorial expansion in mainland Greece as well as in what is now Albania (Illyria) and Bulgaria (Thrace). I think this article does a good job of that and this article should have never been the battleground for this discussion about ethnic identity. Now that we are here, however, perhaps somewhere in the article there could be a little blurb about this, to satisfy both sides of the academic debate about the level of Greekness of Macedonians prior to the Hellenistic period. There's no question they were all viewed as Greeks by the end of the 4th century BC, though, because common Macedonians were finally allowed to compete in the Olympic Games, not just the Macedonian kings with their alleged Argive ancestry. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

periphery Meaning: the outer edge of an area. The phrase ...a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs... cunningly and on purpose inplies a non-Greek state outside ancient Greece. All sources place this ancient kingdom as Greek, inside ancient Greece, as part of it. So I repeat again: Εmphasis should be placed on the Greekness of this ancient state by Greek or Hellenic to precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. The word periphery must be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You really need to learn proper English. The "outer edge" does not mean "outside". North Dakota (look on a map) is on the periphery of the United States. "Periphery" implies "outside" only in your personal fantasy world of hyper-Greek nationalism. The consensus to leave Macedonia "a small kingdom on the periphery of classical/ancient Greece" was worked out by multiple Greek and non-Greek editors ten years ago and has survived since then. Despite the efforts of conspiracy theorists like yourself, it is a solid wording that allows the complexity of Macedonia's relationship with the Greek city-states to be revealed through the actual text of the article ("Greek kingdom" is just hyper-simplification). --Taivo (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: TaivoLinguist is completely correct that the word "periphery" does not mean "outside," nor does it in any way imply that the subject it is referring to is not a part of the thing that it is on the periphery of. I do not mean to be rude, but, in my opinion, the idea of banning the word "periphery" from our encyclopedia is simply downright ridiculous. @TaivoLinguist: You really could have explained what you said above in a more polite and considerate way. Another user simply misunderstanding the meaning of a word is not proper grounds for labelling that user a "conspiracy theorist"; as far as I have been following this discussion, I am not aware of Dragao2004 having actually made any claims whatsoever about any kind of conspiracies. (Nonetheless, this discussion has gotten so long, so dense, and so hopelessly convoluted that I suppose I could have easily missed some statements of that variety.) I will also have to disagree with your categorization of labelling Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" as "hyper-simplification" because I think it overstates the level of simplification involved. I agree that it would be an oversimplification, but I think that "hyper-simplification" is too extreme. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that I counted a demand for banning "periphery" three times coupled with "cunningly and on purpose implies a non-Greek state" as the "conspiracy theory". It does imply to me an imagined collusion on the part of every single previous editor who has joined the 10-year consensus to keep Macedonia from being simplistically the Greek state that User:Dragao2004 so desperately wants it to be. Yes, "hypersimplification" is probably overkill. And I do get impatient when I have explained the meaning of "periphery" at least three times already :p --Taivo (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The current first sentence is spot-on and should be retained. In the Wikipedia context, the fact that it has survived for ten years during a seemingly endless series of disputes demonstrates its suitability for the job it has to do. In the historical context, it works because the rise of Macedon was a political affair and yet Greekness played a crucial role in it. The genius of Philip and Alexander placed Macedonia at the centre of the Greek or Greek-speaking world, and that's exactly where it wasn't before. To call it a "Greek" or "Hellenic" kingdom in the first words, as if it were a given, conceals their achievement. Andrew Dalby 07:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Dragao2004, this is an article about the Greek kingdom of Macedon and the way the lead is worded, leaves little to no room for misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world. Your suggestions however constitute, not an improvement to the article, but a backdoor for bringing a modern day political dispute into prominence to an article about the ancient kingdom that ceased to exist 2.000 years before that modern dispute emerged. Which is what I find unecyclopedic. The lead is perfectly fine, as is the rest of the article, thanks to the good work and hard effort of the editors here which resulted in giving it the Good Article status, which, mind you, is not an easy goal to achieve. If you really care about the article, then you are welcome to contribute, as long as you leave the modern-day nationalist politics out of it. If you ask me, I believe that if the Macedonia naming dispute didn't happen at all, in an alternate reality in which the Republic of Macedonia didn't exist at all, (lets say Yugoslavia never disintegrated into smaller former Yugoslav countries), then, the current lead could be still very ideal to keep as it is now, unchanged. That's how good it is. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Periphery Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary[29] 1. the outer edge of an area 2. the less important part of a group or activity

In our case: less important matches with small and part of a group matches with kingdom of ancient (or archaic) Greece

So based on Cambridge English Dictionary the phrase could be attributed with accuracy as:

"...from a small kingdom of ancient (or archaic) Greece to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world", thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your comments by clicking on "Sign your posts on talk pages" below the textbox.

I would change the title to "Philip II's conquest of Greece" or "Macedonian Hegemony" to place it in the context of the fight for the leading place among the Greeks (Athens, then Sparta, and Thebes)

The phrase "Hellenic World" must be changed to "Ancient Greece". The current redirect should also be removed.

I would therefore reword the first sentence "The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world (and beyond), occurred in the span of just 25 years, between 359 and 336 BC." to "Under the reign of Philip II (359-336 BC), the kingdom of Macedonia, initially at the periphery of classical Greek affairs, came to dominate Ancient Greece in the span of just 25 years, largely thanks to the personality and policies of its king."

The phrase "at the periphery" is very correct. The kingdom of Macedonia only played a distant role in mainland Greek affairs before Philip II. The sources you gave on Macedonia were all written after Alexander the Great (except Herodotus, but he doesn't speak of Macedonia in your extract).T8612 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

At this point, User:Dragao2004, despite massive opposition to any of your suggestions, you continue to push your Greek agenda. First, your new proposal to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence is actually rather ridiculous. There was no such place as "ancient Greece" in a technical sense. It had no boundaries, no unified government, no flag, no army, no king or other head of state. It was a geographical region with no clear delineation on its northern edge. Second, your mental gymnastics to avoid the accurate geographic term "periphery" are even more laughable. Finally, it is crystal clear why you are here. You show up on Wikipedia just a week after the Macedonian popular referendum on "North Macedonia" was inconclusive, make two or three edits to minor articles, then show up here to start pushing "Greek" with all your heart and soul. You started canvassing other editors who you thought would support your nationalist agenda until you were warned that this was a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is a political quest on your part to make your small contribution to the Macedonian naming dispute just in case the results of the recent Macedonian referendum are deemed insufficient support for "North Macedonia" in the country's parliament. Listen to the solid majority of editors who have contributed to this discussion against your use of "Greek kingdom" (and its much more problematic "kingdom of Greece"). --Taivo (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Taivo, because of the fact that you are constantly referring to me personally, I would like to make it clear to you that I support the solution of North Macedonia and i am fun of Center Left Party. And please enough with your personal assaults and attacks. I am here to argue ONLY about history not about politics. Thank you!Dragao2004 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004, I never said or implied that you didn't support "North Macedonia". But that compromise hangs by a thread in Macedonia right now--and that's precisely when we have come to expect editors to show up to pointedly plant the Greek flag in these articles about ancient Macedonia. Just because you have marshaled the same old quotes and sources that we've seen a hundred times (and are already abundantly referenced here and elsewhere in these articles) doesn't mean that you are doing anything new or unique that we haven't already seen since the stable consensus wording was established ten years ago. You're just the latest in a string of editors trying to do this very thing, with no more success than you are experiencing. You can protest all you want that you are just here for "history, not politics", but the timing of your appearance is no coincidence. Our perception of history is based on our politics and your demand that "Macedonia must be Greek!!" tells us everything we need to know about your politics and why you are here. Apparently my honesty offends you, but it's part of the dialogue. That's why your edit is a violation of WP:POINT--it's a political oversimplification. --Taivo (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, User:Dragao2004, learn to sign your posts!!!!! When you have finished writing, then you can easily sign your posts by typing four "~" symbols at the end. Everyone is getting annoyed by seeing your unsigned posts which have to be signed by bots. Everyone else signs their own. You need to start doing that yourself. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in to say that I'm in favor of User:T8612's preferred terminology. In fact, when the lock is lifted I'm going to WP:BE BOLD and just change Hellenic world to Ancient Greece, because the "Hellenic world" (as I mentioned above) implies incorrectly that Philip II somehow miraculously conquered Greek colonies and territories as far away as Ukraine, Libya, Italy/Sicily, France, Spain, etc. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I also think User:T8612 makes a good point and the edit is completely in the spirit of this article. Moving the article to "Philip II's conquest of Greece" might also help to alleviate some of the political drive-by editing that articles with "Macedon(ia)" in the title are often subject to. During WP:ARBMAC2, or around that time (the late 00's), there was a long discussion about whether to call the ancient kingdom "Macedon" or "Macedonia". It was decided to standardize at "Macedonia" (sadly, I have no links to this discussion). This article has seemed odd to be entitled "Macedon" while there is History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Macedonia (ancient kingdom). If a move is agreed to, then we might consider changing "Macedon" to "Macedonia" for consistency. --Taivo (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello T8612! All my sources refer to a state that was part of Greece. Even after the death of Alexander all sources that mention the kingdom of Macedonia place it as part of Greece...it was Hellenic Kingdom and this must be emphasized...sorry my friend...Dragao2004 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I meant that all your sources mentioning that Macedonia was part of Greece were written after Alexander the Great, after which point there was no debate on this.T8612 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"Small kingdom"..."Periphery"..."on the outer edge"..."Greek affairs" (not Ancient Southern Greece)...as long as a non-Greek origin of the state is implied, then the more it is necessary to emphasize Greekness!Dragao2004 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Time to end this waste of time

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There's no need for argument here (other than a very brief statement of why you oppose or support the addition) since there's been nothing new said for at least a week. Should the word "Greek" or "Greece" or "Hellenic" be inserted before the word "kingdom" in the first sentence (or anywhere else in the first sentence besides the places they already occur)?

The current stable consensus text is: "The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery of classical Greek affairs to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world (and beyond), occurred in the span of just 25 years, between 359 and 336 BC."

--Taivo (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's just WP:POINTy editing. The current consensus text has been stable for nearly 10 years. Nothing that has been said here hasn't been said before and nothing justifies changing it. --Taivo (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Slightly oppose. I think this can be settled with a compromise by adding an explanatory footnote, with brief summaries of various scholarly opinions, like a condensed version of Ancient_Macedonians#Modern_discourse. It probably won't satisfy User:Dragao2004 and his insistence that his exact wording be inserted into the first sentence, but it will at least allow readers who may be interested in the topic to have further information at their disposal. I definitely don't think it belongs anywhere but a footnote, since this article isn't about the ancient Macedonian people per se, but about the political and military success of their late Classical-era kingdom and state under Philip II. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I have already stated my reasons thoroughly above. This is just editing to make a political point. I do not even really understand why we are having this whole massive argument to begin with, since the current consensus wording is neutral and carefully avoids saying anything that ought to offend either side in this dispute. This article is not even supposed to be about the national identity of the ancient Macedonians anyway. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus
"Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor..."Dragao2004 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, you will read in multiple places from multiple editors why the existing consensus is preferable to your reverted edit. --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004 starts editing when Consensus isn't going his way--ANI posted

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Then there is this from User:Dragao2004 as soon as page protection is lifted. --Taivo (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

An ANI discussion has been initiated here. --Taivo (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request: "ca." (circa) to "c."

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Greetings and felicitations. Would an editor with the correct permissions please be so kind as to change the instances of "ca." (circa) in the article to "c.", per MOS:CIRCA? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

N.B.: With the exception of the reference "Sealey, Raphael (1976). A History of the Greek City-States, ca. 700–338 B.C." per the title page (which contradicts the cover, which has no "ca."). —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind—the level of protection was lowered, so I did it myself. —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Hellenic world" to "Ancient Greece" in first sentence

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Independent of the issue that we are discussing above with User:Dragao2004, there was a general agreement to change "Hellenic world" in the first sentence to "Ancient Greece" since Phillip II did not control Sicily, North Africa, Spain, Crimea, etc., which were part of the Hellenic world, but not part of Ancient Greece. Perhaps this change should wait until the preceding is resolved, but if others think it can safely be done now without interfering with the other discussion, then that's fine with me. --Taivo (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I did it, since this change is not related to the Greekness of Macedonia. The title should also be changed to "Philip II's conquest of Greece", or something like that. T8612 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I took the bold move myself and moved the article. If others don't like it, we can do an RM. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not against the move or the new title. It is arguably clearer/more precise than the original title. However, I have to admit that the "Rise of Macedon" title sounded cooler in like a totally epic way, like a film title over a movie poster for a 300 sequel filled with a bunch of muscle-bound Greeks fighting each other with roaring faces, anachronistic weaponry and armor, and a bunch of CGI armies. LOL. ;) Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Gerard Butler could appear in a dream sequence? --Taivo (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Macedon will rise! AHOO! AHOO!T8612 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"MACEDONIANS: WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?" - Alexander III addressing his troops before the Battle of Gaugamela, October 1, 331 BC. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"MACEDONIANS: WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?" -- Damn. I thought you were setting up a Monty Python bit that I hadn't seen. Sadly, I can only hear Colin Farrell as the voice of Alexander forever more :( --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Unilateral page move

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:TaivoLinguist moved the page to "Philip's conquest of Greece", but without going through the proper motions. For anything remotely controversial, and especially for something this controversial, the only proper way to move this page is through a move request. Khirurg (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, three people basically agreed on it, but I guess that's not the same thing as a formal move request. That being said, controversy! How exciting! For the life of me I never thought this page would become so sexy and alluring back when I brought attention to it with my GA candidacy for it. I'm just glad it's getting attention at long last, albeit not entirely in a positive way. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

result A better proposed title came up during discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rise of Macedon → Philip II's conquest of Greece – 1) This article primarily focuses on the conquest of Greece by Philip II of Macedonia. 2) Throughout Wikipedia in a wide range of articles, the name for the ancient kingdom of Philip has been standardized as "Macedonia", not "Macedon". 3) Articles with the name "Macedonia" in them, especially articles about the ancient kingdom, are often lightning rods for nationalist editors to stake their claims any time there is movement in the Macedonian naming dispute. Removing "Macedon(ia)" from the title may alleviate that from this article. Taivo (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --Taivo (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Please see "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." at WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User:IJBall, some days I'll go a whole hour without breaking one of the 6,932 rules of Wikipedia. I guess today isn't one of those days. --Taivo (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No biggie – I just wanted to bring that to your attention... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh, sure, I'll support. LOL. I think it is fine the way it was but I see nothing wrong with this newly-suggested title. In fact, it's a more descriptive title that reveals specifically what the article is about, the conquest of Greece by Philip II. "Rise of Macedon" could mean many things, like its literal rise from obscurity for instance. Alternatively, I would even keep "Macedon" in the title somehow, like naming it "Conquest of Greece by Philip II of Macedon" or something like that. Or even just "Philip II of Macedon's conquest of Greece". Just some suggestions. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Support, for reasons highlighted above by Pericles and Taivo. "Rise of Macedon" was vague and a bit too sensational. It was suitable for a Hollywood film, but not really for an encyclopedia. T8612 (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Yet another WP:Pointy attempt by Taivo. The Spanish conquered the Americas and the Normans conquered England, but the Macedonians did not conquer what they claimed was their mother country. Philip aimed to unify the Greeks under his hegemony and then lead them in the conquest of Persia. "Rise of Macedon" is the perfect title to describe the article and has done well for years. Eugene Borza in his “Shadows of Olympus”, p.230, correctly argues: "His [Philip's] course seems to have been directed towards the establishment of stability in Greece, not conquest." Macedonian (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment Macedonian expansion was not just in the south; Philip conquered large parts of the Balkans to boot, and Illyria and Thrace were definitely not "Greece". I am perfectly happy with the present title, but perhaps something like Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II would be more accurate as a descriptive title? Constantine ✍ 19:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well said and nice proposition, I agree with that. Macedonian (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good proposal. I support it as well. Khirurg (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, if you actually read the discussion above, User:Macedonian, you would see that the title was not my invention and your personal animus against me is rather misplaced in this case. Nevertheless, the proposal Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II would be acceptable to me in general. It solves two of my points above. The third point, the nationalistic headhunting by Greeks for anything with "Macedonia" in the title whenever something happens in the Macedonian naming dispute is not solved, but that's probably unavoidable, sadly. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose None of the reasons listed by the proposer are valid reasons for renaming the article. We decide article names by WP:COMMONNAME, not by any other guidelines or speculation by users. A search on Google Books shows "Philip's conquest of Greece" is very rare usage in reliable sources [30] (only a handful of hits, the rest are false positive). On the other hand, "Rise of Maceon/ia" dwarfs "Philip's conquest" by orders of magnitude [31] [32]. This is the only criterion for deciding the article name. The reasons offered by the proposer are entirely non-starter, and seem dishonest, frankly. Regarding reason 1), Philips used a great deal of diplomacy to achieve control of Greece, it's not really a "conquest", it's nothing like the Greco-Persian wars (although there were a few battles). Regarding reason 2), if "Macedon" is a problem, we can use "Macedonia" instead. Reason 3) is total malarkey, changing the name of this article to "Macedonia" won't change anything as far as problems are concerned. The claim that changing the article title to "Rise of Macedonia" will cause more problems is not substantiated and is pure speculation on the part of the proposer. Khirurg (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I support Cplakidas's proposal to move this page to "Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II." The two most important qualities that the title of an encyclopedia article needs to have are clarity and accuracy. "Rise of Macedon" is too ambiguous for the title of an encyclopedia article, in my view, since, as PericlesofAthens has pointed out, it could refer to all kinds of things. It could be about the origins of the Kingdom of Macedon, the origins of the Macedonian people, the expansion of Macedon under Philip II, the conquests of Alexander the Great in Asia, or generally any events resulting in Macedon rising in prominence. TaivoLinguist's proposed title, "Philip II's conquest of Greece," however, is rather misleading, firstly because it implies that the expansion of Macedonia was achieved solely through conquest. If you actually read this article, though, it quickly becomes clear that that was not case and much of the expansion was also the result of shrewd diplomacy and negotiation. Secondly, we normally think of "conquest" as happening when an outside power invades a region and takes it over (e.g. Cyrus the Great's conquest of Lydia, Cambyses II's conquest of Egypt, Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia, etc.), so most readers are probably going to take the words "conquest of Greece" to mean that Macedonia was not Greek. The whole conclusion to the argument above, though, was that we should try to avoid making any explicit statements about the ancient Macedonians' national identity in the title or the first sentence of the article, since such assessments can only result in oversimplification and misunderstanding. Furthermore, I think that moving this article to "Philip II's conquest of Greece" is probably only going to generate more controversy and anger over whether or not the ancient Macedonians were Greek. "Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II" seems to be the most clear and accurate title for the subject of this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago71 comments14 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move as proposed. I had one concern/question but it was satisfactorily answered and I'm now convinced consensus to move to the proposed title is clearly in support. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Rise of Macedon → Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II – A more accurate title based on previous discussion: It's a more inclusive wording for the accomplishments of Philip II. It is superior to "Rise of Macedon" because the article covers only the reign of Philip II. Taivo (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support per my in-depth explanation in the section above. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Support. I was the original proposer of "Philip II's conquest of Greece", but this proposal is better as it also includes Thrace and Illyria. T8612 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Support, of course. Constantine ✍ 20:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Support, since it doesn't exclude Illyria or Thrace at all in this version. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Support. Not too enthousiast about renaming it, but I can't see any issues with that proposal. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 02:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Support good proposal, and vastly superior to the previous proposal. Khirurg (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Support for reasons above. Macedonian (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Both, the new proposed title and the first sentence leaves room for misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world. Dragao2004 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: What sort of title do you want? Do you want us to call this article, "Macedonia is Greek and always will be"? This article is not even about the Macedonians' national identity at all! This article is about the history of the expansion of Macedonia under Philip II for Pete's sake. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: If in the first sentence the place of Macedon in the Greek world is not clear, then the title strengthens this misinterpretation Dragao2004 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: You are being ridiculous. The title is not supposed to make a statement about the ancient Macedonians' national identity, especially because that is not the subject of this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I repeat: Due to the fact that the first sentence leaves misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world, the new title strengthens this misinterpretation Dragao2004 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Strengthens it how? I'd like to hear that explanation. If someone created an article called "the expansion of the Delian League", would you also have a problem with it because it doesn't contain the words "Greece" or "Greeks" in the title?! That's just silly. It's even sillier when you take into account that Greece wasn't the only place where the Kingdom of Macedon expanded, but also in Illyria and Thrace. One could write an article called "the expansion of Athens under Pericles" and it too would involve the expansion of power in mainland Greece without really having to explicitly mention that we are talking about Greeks, as if that's necessary in an article title (one that's not even about ethnic identity). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Guys, you are wasting your time. This is textbook WP:DENY. Constantine ✍ 21:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We can just assume from now on that User:Dragao2004 will accept no sentence or article title that doesn't include the phrase "Macedonia is, and always has been, Greek!". He's turned his talk page into a shrine to the topic. But if there's one thing I've learned in my years on Wikipedia, it's that no matter how reasonable or overwhelming the support for something, there will always be one supporter of a flat earth. --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the flat earth supporter is you, Taivo, who wish to disconnect everything Greek from Macedonia. :) User:Dragao2004's fault is that he doesn't understand consensus, not that he supports the obvious Greekness of Macedonia. Macedonian (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I simply don't know why I'm not convinced by User:Dragao2004's clear and concise argument that since the gods on Olympus lived in Macedonia, then the Macedonians must have always been pure Greek ;) I foolishly rely on reliable sources like those at Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Ethnic identity which talk about Macedonian ethnic identity prior to Roman times as a nuanced and complex issue. How silly of me. --Taivo (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Complex, yes, Greekness, yes as well. :) According to the vast majority of international scholars, of course. We know now that any distinction made in ancient sources between the ancient Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks should be seen as a political distinction, not an ethnic one. Macedonians self-identified as Greeks after all. Macedonian (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this debate since there is another topic at hand. You do your job well, flying that Greek flag high, ignoring or marginalizing all scholarly debate or support for any level of non-Greekness among the pre-Roman Macedonian population. "Complex" is, of course, the key word that renders the simplistic addition of "Greek" before "kingdom" in these articles inappropriate. I will, I know, never convince you that pre-Roman Macedonians were anything but 100% Greek and you will never convince me that their ethnicity was so simplistic. Your continued assertion that I reject any level of Greekness for the Macedonians is, of course, utterly false, but I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker on the issue. It's complex and changes during the time that the ancient Macedonians are on the world's stage as players. But this is not the place (a place where we actually agree on the move of the article). --Taivo (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We agree to disagree. The truth is that Macedon was indeed as culturally backward as it was linguistically remote from the rest of the Greeks. Scholars are now - more or less - agreed that the Macedonians were a group of north-western Dorian Greeks. As Worthington summarizes, there is more than enough evidence and reasoned theory to suggest that the Macedonians were Greeks. But yes, this isn't the place for this debate. Macedonian (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan butting in here for a second. That the Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect is without question in historian circles. That they were culturally 'alien' to the Greek city-states and looked down on by them is also without question. The 'rise of Macedon' technically would predate Phillip II by at least one reign, and personally I would agree with my colleagues that it was two. This article seems to concern itself with Phillip's building hegemony in the Classical Greece states, and the article should be named along those lines. Many textbooks have used 'the rise of Macedon' but always in context. Editors - these events took place more than 2000 years ago. To get your hackles up nationalistically over this is silly. Rise to the facts, only. Cheers!50.111.19.178 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, "that the Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect" is questioned by the only circle that actually matters--linguists. Historians are not experts on linguistic matters. Leave questions of language to the people who make language their only field of study. The Macedonians spoke, as their vernacular, either a dialect of Greek or a separate language closely related to Greek. Those are the linguistic facts and they are supported by detailed linguistic analysis of the available data by the experts--linguists. Which side of the line you end up on is entirely dependent on the relevant weights which you assign to the demonstrable linguistic differences between Doric Greek and Ancient Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But the problem is that your view of the "facts" depends on whom you think is more reliable--the primary sources are actually on both sides of the issue (100% Greek versus not-100% Greek, no one is claiming 0% Greek or even less than 50% Greek). So since different scholars' selections of "better" primary sources can lead to different conclusions, the secondary sources are divided as well on virtually every issue of ancient Macedonian culture, politics, ethnicity, and language. So it's not so simply about "facts" as HammerFilmFan wants us to believe. It's about the selection and weighting of the facts that exist and how individual scholars make different arguments based on their own selection and weighting of the sometimes contradictory facts that do exist. So, please, get down off those pedestals of your own making. Again, this isn't the place to have such discussions since there is virtual unanimity among editors from all sides of the issue on the change of name for this article. Let's simply enjoy the agreement for this moment. It comes so rarely when talking about ancient Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The home and the throne of Zeus was on the peak of Olympus in Macedonia. And he was a Greek God, because Macedonia was always part of Greece Dragao2004 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Demosthenes, Philip's Letter, Chapter 6: "In addition to these, you have come to such a degree of contempt for the law and so much enmity with me that you have sent ambassadors even to the Persian king to persuade him to declare war against me (Demosthenes, Philipic IΙΙ, Chapter 9.71 - 9.72: "we must lose no time in calling upon the other Greeks, and we must inform them by sending ambassadors in every direction, to the Peloponnese, to Rhodes, to Chios, to the Great King—for even his interests are not unaffected if we prevent Philip..."[33], Demosthenes, Philipic IV, Chapter 10.31 - 10.33: "There is nothing that the State needs so much for the coming struggle as money. Some strokes of good fortune we have enjoyed without our design, and if we make the right use of them, the desired results may perhaps follow. For first, the men whom the king of Persia trusts and has accepted as his “benefactors,” hate Philip and are at war with him. Secondly, the agent who was privy to all Philip's schemes against the king of Persia has been kidnapped, and the king will hear of all these plots, not as the complaint of Athenians, whom he might suspect of speaking for our own private advantage, but from the lips of the very man who planned and carried them out, so that their credit is established, and the only suggestion for our ambassadors to make is one which the king would be delighted to hear, that the man who is wronging both parties should be punished by both in common, and that Philip is much more dangerous to the king if he has attacked us first, for if we are left to our own resources and anything happens to us, he will soon be marching confidently against the king. I think you ought to send an embassy to put all these matters before the king...[34]). But the most amazing of all: before the Great King recaptures Egypt and Phoenicia, you decided to call me and all the other Greeks on a joint struggle against him, in case he would make an attempt against Greece" Dragao2004 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He calls Athenians barbarian boxes, Demosthenes, Philipic I, Chapter 4.40: "But you, Athenians, possessing unsurpassed resources—fleet, infantry, cavalry, revenues—have never to this very day employed them aright, and yet you carry on war with Philip exactly as a barbarian boxes. The barbarian, when struck, always clutches the place; hit him on the other side and there go his hands. He neither knows nor cares how to parry a blow or how to watch his adversary"[35]

He separates the Athenians, the Spartans and the Thebeans from the rest of the Greeks, Demosthenes, Philipic IΙΙ, Chapter 9.23 - 9.25: "Yet your hegemony in Greece lasted seventy-five years, that of Sparta twenty-nine, and in these later times Thebes too gained some sort of authority after the battle of Leuctra. But neither to you nor to the Thebans nor to the Lacedaemonians did the Greeks ever yet, men of Athens, concede the right of unrestricted action, or anything like it. On the contrary, when you, or rather the Athenians of that day, were thought to be showing a want of consideration in dealing with others, all felt it their duty, even those who had no grievance against them, to go to war in support of those who had been injured; and again, when the Lacedaemonians had risen to power and succeeded to your position of supremacy, and when they set to work to encroach on others and interfered unduly with the established order of things, all the Greeks were up in arms, even those who had no grievance of their own"[36] Dragao2004 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Set aside the previous discussion and the modern political echoes here. The proposed title is inaccurate independently of all that. Philip unquestionably produced a more powerful state; but most of that increase of power was not the "expansion of Macedonia"; Thebes and Athens fell into Philip's hands, but they were not, and are not, part of Macedonia; nor Illyria and Epirus, for that matter. Nor is the League of Corinth Macedonia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be interested in your suggestion for a new title for this article. At the minimum, it should be changed to "Rise of Macedonia" because that is the generally accepted form in all the other article titles on ancient Macedonia. But do you have something else in mind? --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The seven-day comment period has now expired and this page has been automatically listed at WP:RME. If there is an uninvolved admin looking over the fence here, then the WP:CONSENSUS was to move the article, so if you would be so kind as to do that, we would be grateful. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Note to closer. Who is this 'we' of whom you speak? You who suggest WP:CONSENSUS and closure are also the editor who proposed the move, and therefore may not be able to be entirely objective. Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose. 'Rise of Macedon' strikes me as accurate and descriptive, and it is exactly the sort of title which I, as an interested non-specialist who knows something of the history, would expect to find. The article is not about Philip's conquest of Greece; it is about the expansion of Macedon.

I also cite WP:TITLECHANGE: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."

I propose some sort of moratorium on WP:RMs for this article. Three or more proposals (I've lost count) within a calendar month is just ridiculous. Can anyone point me to one of those handy WP shortcuts, to the effect of "keep plugging away and plugging away until a handful of editors agree with you, and an unsuspecting admin who doesn't know the backstory makes the requested change"? Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Plugging away until" we get a good title should be the goal of every article. And "a handful" is a clear majority of the editors who seem to care (8-2 until you showed up). That's a WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not say "plugging away until we get a good title". Please do not put words into my mouth again.

WP:CONSENSUS is reached by WP:POLICY-based argument not by counting !votes.

The fact that my !vote changed the balance of !votes from 8-3 (which I would argue is by no means a consensus) to 8-4 is utterly irrelevant. One good argument outweighs any number of bad ones, and even the same bad argument repeated many times. Narky Blert (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: "The article is not about Philip's conquest of Greece; it is about the expansion of Macedon." The current RM is "Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II", so I thought you would support it. T8612 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The count is not 8-4 with your objection, it is 8-3. You misread my comment "8-2 until you showed up" (unless, of course, you count your own opinion as two, ;) ). But all of the supports above are based on subject matter discussions previous to this RM. There is usually no need to reiterate tedious discussions in an RM if they have been made previously. So the count is still 8-3. Additionally, the use of "Macedon" here is in contrast to the use of "Macedonia" throughout most of the other articles on the ancient kingdom (Macedonia (ancient kingdom), History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)). --Taivo (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! my bad! you're right! I should indeed have said 8-3 not 8-4!

However, my mistake does not undermine my argument, which you have ignored not addressed.

I found "8-2 until you showed up" rather amusing. It could be a line from a 1950s Western. On a more serious note: it has nothing to do with WP:POLICY, suggests a bad case of WP:OWNership, completely destroys your proposal that WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, and exposes your call for an admin to close this discussion in your favour for what it is: WP:AGENDA. Narky Blert (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, perhaps you need to actually read the history of this proposal (which isn't actually mine, I was just serving as the facilitator of the change which others had already discussed and agreed upon--in both cases). And this RM had already run for seven days, after which time it was automatically listed at WP:RME. My request for an admin to close was based on the very simple fact that after the first two days only one additional person had come to offer an opinion. Your accusations that I am somehow pushing an agenda is factually wrong and based on nothing more than your opposition to the proposal. But I'm certainly curious as to what kind of an agenda you think I would be pushing with this name change. My world must certainly be poor if that's the object of an "agenda". But as far as policy goes, there is a WP:CONSENSUS that the ancient kingdom should be referred to as "Macedonia" (see Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). --Taivo (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The title that this RM is over is "Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II," not "Philip II's conquest of Greece." "Philip II's conquest of Greece" was the last proposal, which was rightly rejected. I do not see why you are opposed to the current proposal, seeing as you literally used almost the exact words of the title we have proposed to move this article to in this comment, which you made above: "The article is not about Philip's conquest of Greece; it is about the expansion of Macedon." Furthermore, there have not been "three or more [move] proposals... in one month"; this is only the second move proposal. TaivoLinguist was not the one who proposed this title either; he proposed the previous one, but the title we are currently discussing was proposed by Cplakidas and has attained wide acceptance among nearly all the editors who took part in the previous move discussion (every one, in fact, except one, who stubbornly insists that we need to include something about "Macedonia is Greek" in the title of the article, which is ridiculous). --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

To give credit where credit is due, the first proposal was wording suggested by User:T8612. --Taivo (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Both, the old and the new first sentence leave misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world. Due to this fact, the new title strengthens this misinterpretation Dragao2004 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: Everyone else here has moved on from that old debate over the first sentence. I suggest you do the same. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: the proposed title is too specific. The article is not all about geographical expansion, it's partly about increasing influence; and although Philip is the leading figure, his achievement took full effect after his death. The existing title is shorter, which is good in itself. That brevity is partly achieved by using the name "Macedon", an English name normally only used for the ancient kingdom: so the reader understands the topic to be ancient history without the need to specify a date range or a ruler. Andrew Dalby 10:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

But precisely, the article is only about Philip II. The current title is vague and could also apply to other rulers that expanded Macedonia, especially Alexander III. "Macedon" is also inconsistant with the other featured articles on the subject, which use "Macedonia". T8612 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: You may want to take note of the fact, which T8612 has already pointed out above, that this article is only about events during the reign of Philip II and does not deal with the events after Philip's death. This is a large part of why we are having this RM to begin with; the current title, "Rise of Macedon," is so vague and ambiguous that even editors such as yourself voting on whether or not to move the article seem to be misinterpreting what it is supposed to mean. It is precisely this kind of confusion that is an unfavorable sign for the appropriateness of the current title of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Demosthenes himself (second Philippic) says exactly what Andrew Dalby claims: Demosthenes, Philipic IΙ, Chapter 6.6:"....if anyone imagines that all this imports no danger to our city (Athens) and that you are not the object of his (Philip's) preparations, I must express my astonishment (to him)..."[37] Dragao2004 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: I have no idea what you are getting at now; your quote from Demosthenes's Second Philippic is about the danger that Demosthenes claimed Philip posed to Athens's security in the fourth century BC and, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with anything Andrew Dalby said above. In fact, it seems completely irrelevant to our current topic of conversation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Even Demosthenes places Macedon as part of Greece. The new first sentence leave misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world. Due to this fact, the new suggested title strengthens this misinterpretation. Both must be change. Demosthenes, On the Chersonese, Chapter 8.6 - 8.7:"...and that he (Philip) is all the time repeatedly seizing the property of the other Greeks and of the barbarians, and so equipping himself for an attack upon us (Athens), what do they mean by saying that we must either make war or keep peace?"[38] Dragao2004 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with how Greek (or not) ancient Macedonia was. Unless you have something of relevance to add to the discussion about the proposed change of name, then this needs to be placed elsewhere. Your continued refusal to accept WP:CONSENSUS is inappropriate and disruptive. If you are going to be a Wikipedia editor, then you need to learn how to accept "defeat" when you have lost the argument. --Taivo (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

At least I have arguments and I have brought 50 sources...you have 0 arguments, 0 sources... Dragao2004 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You have arguments and sources for a discussion that is over and is not being discussed here. You need to read User talk:Dragao2004#Advice. You have apparently not read it or, if you did, you have not understood it. Read it again. It is good advice that you need to heed. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am totally opposed to the new proposed title and the reason is obvious: All the sources I quote place ancient Macedon as part of ancient Greece. On the contrary, the first sentence leave misperceptions about Macedon and its place in the Greek world. Due to this fact, the new proposed title strengthens this misinterpretation. Dragao2004 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: So far all you've done is cry and whine about this without any constructive criticism or offering of solutions whatsoever. What exact title would you like to see for the article, then? Something like "Macedon was the most Greek kingdom of all time, more Greek than Athens"? Would that make you happy? I somehow get the feeling you wouldn't even be satisfied then and you'd come back to the talk page saying something like "the new title strengthens the misconception". Well then what do you propose? It seems like you don't like anything and at this point you're just here to offer contrarian input no matter what. Why don't you offer us one suggested title, if you're so upset about this, because it seems like we can't get a clear consensus on anything given the wrangling above about the newest proposal. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004 is a classic single-purpose account. When you look at his editing history, apart from a few edits to minor articles when he first showed up, every single one of his edits are dedicated to this page and the single, solitary issue of inserting the word "Greek" in this article against WP:CONSENSUS. His entire user page is devoted to this agenda. I have no problem with the editors here who have expressed honest opposition to the Request for Move, but User:Dragao2004's opposition is approaching (if it hasn't already reached) uncooperative disruption. --Taivo (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:PericlesofAthens i prefer to answer with the phrase of Green "...for the first time he (Phillip) started to understand how Macedonia's outdated institutions of feudalism an aristocratic monarchy so despised by the rest of Greece..." in order to realize how this ancient kingdom and its institutions is placed into the Greek world and how the first sentence could be listed as: "Under the reign of Philip II (359–336 BC), the kingdom of Macedonia, initially at the periphery of classical Greek affairs, came to dominate the rest of ancient Greece in its entirety in the span of just 25 years, largely thanks to the personality and policies of its king..." If the first sentence is shaped like this, then the new proposed title is wonderful. Thank you very much... Dragao2004 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004:, you still haven't read User talk:Dragao2004#Advice, which was written by User:JamesBWatson, one of Wikipedia's administrators, directly to you about your refusal to accept WP:CONSENSUS, have you? --Taivo (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sparta and Crete were not dominated by Philip II. Your phrase "in its entirety" would be contradicted by the map on the right. Moreover I showed you an ancient source saying Macedonia was not part of Greece. Your constant POV pushing has made an absolute mess of this page. T8612 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:T8612, i would like to remind you that during the winter of 338 / 337 BC Greece was unified under Philip and Crete was part of the alliance. Sparta became member of the Hellenic League after the Battle of Megalopolis. Of course, I have many many many sources to quote on the subject, but if i do it, you will probably get angry again... :( ...by the way, in this article, you have not quoted any source...you will obviously be confused with another article. Here your score is 0...sorry my friend... Dragao2004 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Dragao2004, I would like to remind you that the article has 181 footnotes and about 4 dozen named sources in the references section. We're not stupid enough to think that endlessly repeating them here on this page like children is of any value. If the article had no references, that would be another matter, but the article itself is our source. --Taivo (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Megalopolis took place under Alexander III, not Philip II. "The Cretan cities were not apparently signatories to the Corinthian League" (Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6, p. 853). T8612 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Each city of southern Greece, Crete and the islands would retain its autonomy, but they would all enjoy "common peace into the League"[39](To Vima, by Greek standards, is considered center-left newspaper and is politically aligned with the centrist (reformist) wing of the Greek social-democratic party) Dragao2004 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragao2004, this is not the place to revisit the first sentence in any sense. If you want to keep rejecting the WP:CONSENSUS, then do it in another thread. This thread is only for changing the name of the article. --Taivo (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment/Question. I was going to close this discussion in favor of moving but then noticed Pmanderson's poignant opposition has not been refuted. If the proposed title is misleading we should not use it. If much of Philip's expansion, which is the subject of this article, did not expand Macedon, then our title should not say it did. Is that the case? --В²C ☎ 19:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, this discussion has been hard to follow with the carpet spamming of Dragao2004. Regarding the opposition of Pmanderson, I would say that "expansion" does not necessarily means direct control, most empires used some puppet states to control territories at some point, which was exactly what Philip II did with the League of Corinth. Philip II was the undisputed leader of the League, and also kept military garrisons in Greece. The fact that Thebes revolted at the news of his death shows that they considered the League of Corinth to be a Macedonian occupation. It was not a friendly alliance between Macedonia and Greek cities. T8612 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What T8612 said. I chose "Expansion" precisely because it was vague enough, as opposed to "conquest", to include political vassalage and hegemony. And Macedon definitely did expand massively in territory under his reign as well. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: T8612 and Cplakidas are both right. "Expansion" is a vague enough term that it can easily include not just expanding territory, but also expanding political influence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And I agree with the others on all points about the vagueness and, therefore, appropriateness of "expansion". --Taivo (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rise of Macedon?

I see I have neglected a question above: What name would I prefer?

Rise of Macedonia was suggested, and seems a good choice - as usefully vague as Expansion - and without the implication that Macedonia came to include most of Hellas. But Rise of Macedon - meaning specifically the ancient kingdom, not the Roman Province or any modern body - would be even better. Can we have a quiet and non-political discussion, now the contemporary controversy about North Macedonia no longer is on the front pages? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Macedonia v. Macedon issue has been problematic for years. Any change in the usage in this article must necessarily involve a change through Wikipedia and a change to WP:MOSMAC. I don't have a dog in this race, but it's important that the wider ancient Macedonian world be included in any decision. --Taivo (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The article only deals with the subjugation of Greece and other lands by Philip II. "Rise of Macedon" could also refer to the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander, or any other Macedonian conquest. Read the discussion above. T8612 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

[1] Strabo, Geographica, Book VII, Chapter Fragments - Section [9], Line 5: "Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece" [1]

[2] Strabo, Geographica, Book VII, Chapter Fragments - Section [9], Line 5: "Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece" [2]

[3] Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 4, Lines 3 - 4, Alexander's Letter to Darius III: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece...", ("οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι ἐλθόντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα...")[3], [4]

[4] Strabo, Geographica, Book VII, Chapter Fragments - Section [9], Line 5: "Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece" [5]

[5] Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 4, Lines 3 - 4, Alexander's Letter to Darius III: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece...", ("οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι ἐλθόντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα...")[6], [7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]