Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Greekness of the kingdom, again

The proposal is for a more nuanced description in the lede, which might then begin:

Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Greek pronunciation: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece. Its dominant culture was closely related to the Greek culture of more southerly states, and even the early kingdom was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world. Later it was the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece.

Our section on the identity of the Ancient Macedonians is probably worth reading. It's worth reminding ourselves that although the ancient Macedonians had allegiances and cultural identifications to many people and concepts, they had none to any modern nations. (It is perhaps unfortunate that we use the English word "Greek" here, a word derived from a later Roman identification.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Richard, you make a valid point about the English word "Greek" therefore the sentence should read "was an ancient Hellenic kingdom" or even better "a kingdom of the Hellenes". Although the Hellenes, which comprised of many "tribes"/city states such as the Spartans (also a kingdom), Thebans, Corinthians, Macedonian's etc, all had slightly differing Hellenic dialects & Hellenic customs etc which had no nation but still considered themselves as Hellenes, much in the same way the Slavic people were & still are considered today. The Slavs too did not have a nation in early times but all spoke/speak the Slavic language with slightly differing dialects & share the same culture/customs albeit with slight differences depending on the area or region they're from. So, I can see how some here would have a problem with the word "Greek", because today Greece is a nation, therefore it can emotionally be seen as "belonging to Greece". "A kingdom of the Hellenes" is quite fitting as its basis is of a group of people & not a nation. N.Panamevris (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The following proposal is for a more accurate description of what the article's main body says about that kingdom:

Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Greek pronunciation: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was an ancient Hellenic kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece. It was ruled during most of its existence initially by the founding dynasty of the Argeads, the intermittent Antipatrids and finally the Antigonids. Home to the Ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south.

References

Some editors here said they mind about using the term Greek to describe the kingdom. So be it. We will replace this problematic term with the more accurate one: Hellenic, which the ancient historians recorded as being a term used by the heads of the Macedonian state themselves. Since it is documented that the Basileus defined their kingdom and themselves as Hellenic, then who are we to argue? :)

My proposal is a good one for the following reasons: the use of the term "Hellenic" over "Greek", avoids linking the kingdom with the modern Greek state, which soothes the concerns certain editors here have about the connotations the term Greek bears, and at same time, takes in account how the ancient Macedonian kings and heads of state self-defined. In Wikipedia, self-definition of people and tribes is always taken in account. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Modern nationalism is often a serious problem when discussing ancient identities. I note that changing the word to "Hellas" or a derivative here is not likely to help, because Hellas is also the endonym of the modern Greek nation. I'd be happy to use it, but it doesn't solve the problem.

In this case it's important to give some idea of how the kingdom came to be considered as unequivocally included in Hellenic / Greek culture, while allowing for the ways (including slanderous rants from political enemies) that it was at times seen as something significantly though not very different. I hope that the proposal above does this. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I am not satisfied with the lack of explanation and arguments by those editors who are opposing the term "Greek", I can't help but see that some people here are never going to make up their mind on that term. I am not a stupid woman. That led me to re-consider it and so, for the above proposal, suggest the use of the ancient term "Hellenic", instead. Note: the term "Hellenic" is not meant as the exonym of the modern Greek state, but the word which the Macedonians themselves used as their exonym back then. In the same sense that the term "Roman" is the exonym for the Ancient Romans and not necessarily confused with the modern residents of Rome who also happen to use the term Roman. The term Hellenic should not be confused with the modern Greek state.

I do mind when people make bold statements which they fail to explain and provide no sources for them. But this has to be solved somehow. Instead of saying that Macedon was "culturally close to Greeks" or "Culturally Greek" or "Culturally not a Greek initially", I propose as a solution the use of the exonym the Macedonians described with, themselves. However, I doubt certain editors here will be reasoned or ever agree with the new proposal. No doubt certain editors around here became so defiant and blind on this matter that they will treat and judge, even the ancient terms such as "Hellenic", from the scope of their modern association with the Greek state and refuse, because of that, to accept exonyms the ancient Macedonians themselves called their kin with. A very unecyclopedic approach, if you ask me. This couldn't surprise me, as this is nothing new. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. From the Third Philippic, about Philip II: "...not only is he no Hellene, not only has he no kinship with Hellenes, but he is not even a barbarian from a country that one could acknowledge with credit;--he is a pestilent Macedonian, from whose country it used not to be possible to buy even a slave of any value." Demosthenes wasn't interested in NPOV or anthropology, but he did know what would resonate with his audience. I repeat the proposal:

Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Greek pronunciation: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece. Its dominant culture was closely related to the Greek culture of more southerly states, and even the early kingdom was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world. Later it was the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece.

References

User:Richard Keatinge's proposal is still superior (and reflects the long-standing consensus and status quo) that Macedonia be called "an ancient kingdom" in the first sentence without labelling it as "Greek" (which "Hellenic" is only a thinly-disguised attempt to do since modern Greece calls itself "Hellas"). The two terms, "Hellenic" and "Hellenistic" are different. The former makes it "Greek". The latter makes it more broadly "Greek-influenced", but not necessarily "Greek". That's why Alexander's empire is never called "Hellenic", but "Hellenistic". --Taivo (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Richard Keatinge's proposal is weaker than those suggested by using the word "Hellenic" etc because no evidence is given to support that ancient Macedonia & Macedonian's were not Hellenes. A proposal such as his without the word or "Hellene, Hellenic or Hellenistic" is only a disguise to appease the Slav-Macedonian readers & editorial sympathisers. Wikipedia is about facts & in this case about recorded historical facts & truths, not about appeasing ones misinterpretations of facts or using lawyer like tactics to cherry pick quotes (Demosthenes) & twist facts to suit an agenda in order to acquit on a slight technicality when the evidence is abundant. N.Panamevris (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well said! To me it appears that the Macedonians self-determining themselves as Hellenes must be silenced or obscured from the article for the sake of appeasing ethnic Macedonian sympathizers and readers. This is is a serious violation of Wikipedia's core rules and policies. But this violation is maintained instead of being resolved, by refusing to change attitude and insist with faulty positions, and by not providing the necessary numerical support needed for reaching a consensus, which makes me think that intervention by a uninvolved party may be deemed necessary. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Some editors here are acting just like that, as lawyers defending a murderer clearly guilty (& they know it) of his act which was witnessed by many, only to call in their witness who claims to have seen the event differently in order to use it only for the sole purpose of instilling doubt in the jury's minds. Clearly, these issues need to be addressed & resolved. N.Panamevris (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We now have four different suggestions for changing the lede in addition to the status quo solution preferred by some. Anyone have any ideas on how to continue this discussion without getting lost in walls of text and diverse statements about the different suggestions all mixed up? --T*U (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Richard Keatinge, please do not repeat what Ethnic Macedonians nationalists do. Their number one argument is Demosthenes. Every time. Please do not do this mistake again, otherwise I can't help but consider you as biased and picking side with the Ethnic Macedonians. The Ethnic Macedonians unfortunately have a record for always starting their arguments by bringing up a politician's words as an assessment about what the King of Macedonia was and was not (Note: Demosthenes was referring to the king of Macedonia only, not to the people). I am sorry to disappoint you but Demosthenes was an Athenean politician, not a Macedonian politician. Who could have more weight in determining the kingdom of Macedon? The Macedonian politicians, or the Athenean politicians? In Wikipedia, self-determination is of out most importance and tremendous value and the King of Macedonia considered himself a Hellenic person. I recommend you refrain again from citing Athenean politicians who are notorious for claiming that the Athenians are the "only true sons of Helen" while framing out even the Spartans from that.

I very kindly and politely ask you to not go into such courses. I am sure you don't want to dispute Spartans as non-Hellenes too, my dear friend. I am sure you do not want now to go to the article Ancient Sparta and claim that the Spartans are not Hellenic people just because the Athenians believe to be the sole owners of that title. Please, stick to the discussion and don't meddle politics, ancient or modern, into that. This is dangerous. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with you, User:Richard Keatinge. In your User Page you have wrote: "Feel free to point out if you think I'm deviating from NPOV. But you may safely assume that I'm doing my best.". If you really meant to be NPOV on this, then please do not replicate the number one argument used by Ethnic Macedonians on this matter as they are biased and have no place here. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm obviously not getting through to at least one editor here. T*U, should we wait for a few days, without repeating ourselves, to see if we nevertheless have a working consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am against 3 biased editors who are adopting the nationalist Ethnic Macedonian POV on the matter, that the Macedonians were not Hellenic people. How disappointing. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Now you lost me. Can you please point out which three editors have claimed that the Macedonians were not Hellenic people. --T*U (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Taivo, Richard Keatinge and an Administrator, all have expressed, either directly, either indirectly, a POV not very different from that held by certain Ethnic Macedonian nationalist circles. This became very evident now. I am utterly disappointed. What more to say? -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can point out where the three named editors have claimed that the Macedonians were not Hellenic people, I would suggest that you strike out your allegations about "nationalist ethnic Macedonian POV". Please see WP:NPA. --T*U (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless these editors cease opposing the term Hellenic for Macedonians and their kingdom, I believe it is not WP:NPA to acknowledge this. Taking note of their stance and noting how this draws similarities with a certain POV, is acknowledgement of WP:POV. And my dear friend, this is a big problem here. While Wikipedia acknowledges that the editors are ALLOWED to hold their personal opinions about matters concerning its articles, Wikipedia by no means permits the content in the articles to be affected by that Editorial bias. Wikipedia only permits scholarly bias and only when this scholarly bias is neutrally attributed in the article. And if you ask me, scholarly bias is a completely different thing than editorial bias. The one is allowed in the articles, the other is not. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If some editors here believe they are not nationalists, they can prove it by supporting the following proposal which reflects the official statements by the heads of the Macedonian state:

Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Greek pronunciation: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was an ancient Hellenic kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece. It was ruled during most of its existence initially by the founding dynasty of the Argeads, the intermittent Antipatrids and finally the Antigonids. Home to the Ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south.

References

And no, no one should ever argue that the term "Hellenic" is a Trojan Horse for the word Greek, or that there is a hidden Greek flag. Whoever insists on such unecyclopedic approaches, they should question themselves whether such a stance really befits the members of Wikipedia. I have nothing more to say. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, "Hellenic" and "Greek" are synonyms. If "Greek kingdom" is acceptable or unacceptable, then so is "Hellenic kingdom." That being so, if we are going to use one of them, I'd prefer "Greek" to "Hellenic", since the former is a more familiar term. Furius (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Facts outrank familiarity here on Wiki (supposedly). Hellenic was widely used back then when the kingdom was around! N.Panamevris (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Dear Furius, the fact still does not change, I am afraid: Macedonia called itself Hellenic, and this should be the word describing them. Not "Greek", even if Greek is synonym to it nowadays. Because it is evident that if we want to reach a consensus, the term "Greek" which Taivo opposes, and the term "Close to Greek" which I oppose, have to be opted out and rather find a compromise using a different word. Otherwise we are never going to reach any consensus. Some editors here are opposing or are biased towards the term "Greek" and prefer "close to Greek" or "related to Greek" over it, for reasons stemming from the modern political connotations this word bears, if I understood well. But they say they do not oppose the term "Hellenic" which is the word the very Macedonians themselves were self-determined with. So I suggest we use that instead. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you again, SilentResident, but I need som more explanation. You say "Some editors here are opposing or are biased towards the term 'Greek' ... But they say they do not oppose the term 'Hellenic'". I have tried to reread the discussion, but I cannot find anyone matching that description. Could you please explain what editors you are referring to. --T*U (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear TU-nor, I don't know if you have noticed, but Taivo and Richard are refusing to be reasoned with and/or present any valid arguments whether the kingdom was not Greek. As you see, I have repeatedly called for them to explain their positions so I can understand what their concerns regarding the ancient Kingdom are, and how I can reach a consensus with them. However, Richard preferred to resort to the classic Demosthenes argument and Taivo to the classic "was non-Greek at some point" argument, which are nothing new, usually the arguments used by Ethnic Macedonian nationalists who believe that the Ancient Macedonians were either Slavs, or at least non-Hellenic folk. My apologies if I am wrong in my impressions, feel free to correct me, because it certainly seems like POV and I have problem with that, as they are using these arguments instead of trying to find a compromise that reflects the historical reality about the hellenic kingdom. You may have noticed already, but I repeated my proposal below, and I hope we all can agree to call Macedonia, not what everyone here wants, but what the Macedonians themselves did. I am sure, this way, none can believe or claim that there is POV. Right? :) -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. I want you to explain who the editors are that you claim "are opposing or are biased towards the term 'Greek'" but "do not oppose the term 'Hellenic'". --T*U (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

T*U, I see, you were concerned that I might been referring to you as one of the three editors? Nope, not. I was referring to Taivo, Richard and Kahastok. But I am realizing now I did two mistakes. The first mistake is misreading Kahastok's statement for meaning something different than it actually did about the term "Hellenistic". The second mistake is that I have made two contradictory statements on my own. More specifically: 1) "I am against 3 biased editors who are adopting the nationalist Ethnic Macedonian POV on the matter, that the Macedonians were not Hellenic people. How disappointing.", and then: 2) "Some editors here are opposing or are biased towards the term "Greek" and prefer "close to Greek" or "related to Greek" over it, for reasons stemming from the modern political connotations this word bears, if I understood well. But they say they do not oppose the term "Hellenic"".

My apologies for the confusion this may have caused, and frankly, I am STILL confunsed on whether they are against or pro towards the term "Hellenic". Still I'm trying to understand how much support the term can get and or if the editors here are opposing (or not) to the proposal. I am sorry for the inconvenience, it was not my intention to confuse you too. Well, the proposal still stands, So I can see in there how much support it gets, eventually. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So in fact you have nobody that are opposed to the term "Greek" and at the same time say they do not oppose the term "Hellenic". Thanks for clearing that up. --T*U (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish this was more evident, my dear friend. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge: Whoever has basic knowledge of the political vocabulary of fourth century Greece knows that the terms "Greek" and "barbarian" were regularly used as synonyms for "civilized" and "uncivilized"; if we were to take them literally we would reach the strange conclusion that the Ancient Greeks never existed since every Greek state including Athens had been "accused" of being "non-Greek" and "barbarian"! It was the Athenians who called Macedonians "barbarians" and in fact not all the Athenians, just the pro-democrats like Demosthenes, because Macedonia was a monarchy while Athens a democracy. Other Athenians such as Isocrates and Aeschines proclaimed the Greekness of the Macedonians, something that the Macedonians themselves did anyway. As we know, Demosthenes harboured a personal grudge against Philip because of the humiliation he suffered when he lost his power of speech at the Macedonian court (Aeschines, On the Embassy, 34 – 35) and, additionally, he was calling anyone he did not like “a barbarian”, including fellow Athenians: “And yet, though he has thus become the possessor of privileges to which he has no claim, and has found a fatherland which is reputed to be of all states the most firmly based upon its laws, he seems utterly unable to submit to those laws or abide by them. His true, native barbarism and hatred of religion drive him on by force and betray the fact that he treats his present rights as if they were not his own—as indeed they are not.” (Against Meidias, 21.150). The word, “barbarian”, at least in some uses by Demosthenes and others, should be understood as a generic insult.

Modern historians and experts on Macedon clearly revealed the Demosthenean corpus as simply “a form of political rhetoric designed to formulate public policy” (Eugene Borza, "In The Shadow of Olympus", Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 5-6.) or as just “an insulting speech” (Nicholas Hammond, "The Miracle that was Macedonia", St. Martin's Press, 1991).

"By Demosthenes the interval was spent rallying Greek opinion against 'The barbarian', as he unjustly and inaccurately called [Philip] the Macedonian." (“The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World", p. 148)

And as Malcom Errington and A.R. Burn pointed,

"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II. Then as now, political struggle created the prejudice. The orator Aeschines once even found it necessary, in order to counteract the prejudice vigorously fomented by his opponents, to defend Philip on this issue and describe him at a meeting of the Athenian Popular Assembly as being 'entirely Greek'. Demosthenes' allegations were lent an appearance of credibility by the fact, apparent to every observer, that the life-style of the Macedonians, being determined by specific geographical and historical conditions, was different from that of a Greek city-state. This alien way of life was, however, common to western Greeks of Epirus, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the Macedonians, and their fundamental Greek nationality was never doubted. Only as a consequence of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the issue raised at all." (Malcom Errington, “A History of Macedonia", Philipps-Universitat in Marburg, Germany, University of California Press, 1993, p.4)

“Macedonian kings were proud of their Greek blood, and it was only jaundiced opponents like Demosthenes the Athenian who ventured to call them 'barbarians.' They claimed descent from Hêrakles through the Dorian Kings of Argos, and they learned the tales of Troy and of Odysseus, and the songs of the Greek lyric poets, as they learned their letters.” (A. R. Burn, "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Empire", Macmillan, p. 4)

“The speeches of Demosthenes that deal with Philip as the enemy, should not be interpreted as an indication of the barbarian origins of Macedonians, but as an expression of conflict between two different political systems: the democratic system of the city-state (e.g.Athens) versus the monarchy (Kingdom of Macedonia).” (Nicholas Hammond, British historian and expert on Macedonia, in an interview with the magazine “Macedonian Echo” in February 1993)

To sum up, “barbarian” was a political distinction, not an ethnic one. Ancient Greeks used the term "barbarian" (ancient Greek: βάρβαρος - "barbaros") for the people of different cultures but also to mock and deride other Greeks: “It is worth noting that the term 'barbaric' referred primarily to the Greek's incomprehension of non-Greek tongues. Greeks, particularly the Athenians, would also use it to deride other Greeks.” (Baracchi, Claudia, “The Bloomsbury Companion to Aristotle”, Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. p.292) For instance in Plato's dialogue “Protagoras” (341c) Prodicus labeled the Aeolic dialect (one of the major Greek dialects) as barbarian, while referring to Pittacus of Mytilene: “He didn't know to distinguish the words correctly, being from Lesbos, and having been raised with a barbarian dialect.” Macedonian (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Macedonian for this brief surf through some of the ancient arguments over identity, and I'm sorry to have brought up Demosthenes' well-known rhetoric in the form of a brief and context-free remark. To repeat, the suggestion is to reinforce the way that the article describes the Greekness of the kingdom, without descending into romantic nationalism, and the suggested phrasing is:

Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Greek pronunciation: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece. Its dominant culture was closely related to the Greek culture of more southerly states, and even the early kingdom was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world. Later it was the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece.

References

Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Richard Keatinge, if you look at my proposal, you will find that it is not a case of romantic nationalism but self-determination. Why are you not supporting my proposal? Why are you insisting so much to portray the Macedonians as having a "dominant culture that was closely related to the Greek culture" when the Macedonians had a hellenic culture and described themselves as Hellenes? Please? Your proposal is problematic at best, because Macedonia in it is portrayed by what you believe about them, and not by what they believed about themselves. -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SilentResident. Romantic nationalism is rather irrelevant, as we are talking about an ancient kingdom per se. But I guess the continuity of the term "Greek" has turn political correctness from a servant to an idol. Macedonian (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside the polemic insults hurled at the Macedonians by certain Athenians who had a habit of using such politicized language and calling even Spartans as non-Greeks, from an anthropological perspective the ancient Macedonian people were "Greek" (or better yet Hellenes) not only because they self-identified that way, but also because their spoken language was a Northwestern ancient Greek dialect. On top of that they also adopted Koine Greek pretty much wholesale, seeing how it was the lingua franca of the day. These people worshiped the same pantheon of gods as other Greeks as well, and more or less retained other Greek cultural attributes that one could use to categorize them within this supranational culture of Antiquity. That is different from, say, a Hellenized population of Persians (or in the wider sense Iranian peoples) who still retained non-Greek cultural practices such as building Zoroastrian fire temples and speaking non-Greek languages such as one of the many Iranian languages at the time. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This thread has, as it always does when User:SilentResident is involved, become an incomprehensible wall of repetitive nationalistic bravado. The RfC above was conclusive. The opposition to "Greek kingdom" by actual Wikipedia editors was clear. The few cogent comments from editors not named SilentResident have been lost in the din. User:Richard Keatinge's revision is acceptable, well-worded, and effective in stating the complexity of the relationship between ancient Macedonia and ancient Greece. Otherwise, the status quo wording stands as the clear preference. A clear consensus would be required to change the first sentence to say "Greek kingdom" (or its synonym "Hellenic kingdom"). Such a consensus clearly does not exist. --Taivo (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was about Greek Kingdom. Here I am proposing Hellenic Kingdom. Do you object to that, Taivo? Do you have problem that Macedonia considered itself to be Hellenic? Do you, a linguist and editor who is very familiar with the history of Macedonia, living 2.000 years later, could deny ancient Macedonia their right to self-determination? Please be straight to me. Yes or No? -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors here are hell bent on using an ancient politicians (Demosthenes) recorded words as evidence after his POV has been debunked several times, then don't disregard the words of the ancient kings who they themselves self-identified as Hellenes... as you all know. N.Panamevris (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Any attempt to differentiate "Hellenic" from "Greek" is utter nonsense. They are one and the same, synonyms. Your attempt to slip "Hellenic" under the door as if it is some sort of "compromise" is only thinly-disguised Greek flag-planting. You and your WP:SPA-friend User:N.Panamevris continue to forget in your zeal to label anyone who objects to your POV as "Slavo-Macedonians" that the overwhelming majority of actual Wikipedia editors object to using "Greek" in the first sentence. Are we all "Slavo-Macedonians"? Your righteous zeal to promote the Greek cause here is misplaced in your failure to understand the simple Wikipedia requirement of WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Any attempt to remove or disagree to use the word "Greek" or "Hellenic" is utter nonsense due to the overwhelming evidence that supports it. You & other "Slav-Macedonian" sympathisers forget in ur zeal to label anyone who objects to your POV (supposedly neutral-pfft) as "Greek flaggers". Your right to promote the Slav-Macedonian cause here is misplaced in your failure to understand the simple Wikipedia requirement of WP:NPOV, yours Taivo is looking more & more biased by the day. Please do tell, are you of Slavic ethnicity or just a Slav-Macedonian Sympathiser. N.Panamevris (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Taivo should consider taking a break. If his sole purpose here in this discussion is to censor the information regarding Macedon and dismiss or block from the article anything they did or said 2.000 years ago that might classify them as Hellenic, to such levels of paranoia that he could tag everyone who disagrees with him as "Greek flag carrier" or "Greek Trojan Horse", then he should really consider taking a break from the discussion. Such attitude just because he WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, is very unecyclopedic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to the readers, not to describe only what he likes and the way he likes. The ancient Kingdom self-determined itself as Hellenic, like it or not. Period. Taivo has no right to dictate what the Macedonians shall be. -- SILENTRESIDENT 05:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL @ "take a break". WP:POT. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand WP:NPOV. You don't understand WP:CONSENSUS (which you have done nothing to build). You have written walls of nonsense that no one is reading. Taivo (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you can't hid yourself behind Editor Consensus to block what information may not suit your POV regarding the kingdom of Macedon, Taivo. As per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. -- SILENTRESIDENT 05:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me summarize what has happened here.

1) An overwhelming number of actual Wikipedia editors rejected adding "Greek" before "kingdom" in the first sentence.

2) Not satisfied, you then embarked on a pages-long effort to change their minds by:

a) Calling them Slavo-Macedonian puppets

b) Claiming they were ignorant of the facts

c) Trying to convince them that "Hellenic" doesn't mean "Greek"

d) Trying to shout down anyone who opposed you

3) In the end, not a single solitary editor who opposed adding "Greek" before "kingdom" in the first sentence has changed their mind.

4) Richard Keatinge attempted to assuage your concerns with a thoughtful, well-worded compromise that would satisfy all concerned, except

5) you rejected it out of hand because it didn't put the word "Greek" (or its precise synonym "Hellenic") in front of "kingdom".

I'm not the one who needs a break. --Taivo (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me summarize what has happened here.

1) None rejected "Hellenic" before "kingdom" in the first sentence.

2) Not satisfied that this story didn't end for you, you then embarked on a pages-long effort to discourage us by:

a) Calling us Greek Flag Carriers

b) Claiming they were ignorant of your logic

c) Trying to convince us that information about seld-determination has to be bruised off because of modern-day synonimity of words "Hellenic" and "Greek"

d) Trying to call others as WP:SPA friends of mine

3) In the end, not a single solitary editor who opposed not adding "Hellenic" before "kingdom" in the first sentence has changed their mind.

4) I have attempted to assuage your concerns with a thoughtful, well-worded compromise that would satisfy all concerned, except

5) you rejected it out of hand because for you "Hellenic" is a "trojan horse" for the word "Greek".

I'm not the one who needs a break, my dear friend. I am not the one who tries to censor Wikipedia just because I don't like certain information to be added. This has gone too far. If Taivo refuses to be reasoned with, so be it. -- SILENTRESIDENT 06:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "ancient Hellenic kingdom" for the same reasons as I opposed "ancient Greek kingdom". The words "Greek" and "Hellenic" are synonyms in English. The argument that the Macedonians called themselves "Hellenic" is false. They did not speak English. They will have used Έλληνες, ελληνικός, as do the Greeks of today. The English words "Greek" and "Hellenic" both translate into Greek Έλληνες, ελληνικός, covering ancient and contemporary use.

Oppose also (just for the record) "essentially an Ancient Greek Kingdom" for essentially the same reason.

Conditionally support Richard Keatinge's proposed compromise solution. If that is what it takes to create a consensus, it is fine.

My first preference will still be the current wording, which convey the message that Macedon was "to a certain degree Greek". --T*U (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed I remain, to any of the changes to the current wording that have thus far been suggested. Hellenic means exactly the same thing as Greek. "Essentially" is a weasel-word that leaves unclear what that "essence" is. Richard Keatige's latest proposal is fine, I guess, but suggests that the article will deal with the kingdom's culture in a way that it doesn't actually do. The lead as it stands already represents a good compromise - in particular, "on the periphery" is quite an elegent way of explaining the situation. Furius (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed all the solutions proposed here (seriously, which of them is the present section about now?). I agree with Furius. The proposals by Richard Keatinge are a valiant attempt and the wording itself isn't bad, but it's a bit of a solution in search of a problem and I'd prefer the current wording as is. All the other proposals are plain unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed, just in case it wasn't obvious already, for all the reasons stated previously. --Taivo (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Cool my apologies for my obvious failure to help, and for the unfortunate way I seem to have pulled the chains of various other editors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I just came back to make a Request for Mediation but I am surprised to find the usual suspects here who are having a notorious record for opposing information (see Archive and RfC) which is relevant to the Ancient Kingdom which could not fit well with their POV, from being added to the article. But for some reason I didn't expect them to oppose the use of historically accurate term "Hellenic" which the Ancient Macedonians used themselves, for reasons, not related to the ancient period, but for reasons related to the modern period. For reasons not related to Macedonians themselves, but for reasons related to the terminology of the word "Hellenic" which, unfortunate that it may be, today is synonymous to the word "Greek" and its political connotations that it bears. I wonder how Wikipedia could have reacted if the exact same reciprocity is used i.e. for the Republic of Macedonia. How about denying the modern-day Macedonian republic its right of calling itself Macedonian just because the word Macedonian bears historical and contemporary political connotations? You are dictating the ancient Macedonian kingdom to be called how YOU like, in the exact same manner Greece tries to dictate the Republic of Macedonia to not be called by a name SHE doesn't like. I can't help but note how by opposing the Kingdom of Macedon its right of self-determination as Hellenic "just because a word it used 2.000 years ago bears some... political(!) connotations due to its synonymity(!) nowadays with another word(!), which is like opposing the Republic of Macedonia's right to its self determination as Macedonian republic using the exact same argument, a very unecyclopedic approach which goes against Wikipedia's rules. Opposing the right to self-determination to a group of people who are nowadays dead and buried in soil and by no means they can arise back to life to defend themselves, is the most absurd case I have ever seen in Wikipedia. Scandalous. Shame, my dear friends. Shame. I am speechless.

Wikipedia is not democracy but now it appears we turned the site into a democracy, where majority can rule at the expense of the site's laws, right? By using the "no consensus" leverage, you are blocking and violating the Wikipedia's core policies. I assume, for the same reason everything, such as addition of information or RfC, are denied here or blocked, a Request for Mediation too will be denied or blocked, right? Seeing the fate of the RfC, no one of you is going to ever let a uninvolved party to evaluate the situation to make sure that the Wikipedia's rules are not being violated due to certain POVs here, correct? I am sorry if I am wrong, because you are not helping. Seeing past discussions and the history log, it is like as if you - with Taivo taking the lead - reverted hundreds of edits in the past, edits by dozens of people who may not agree with your particular point of view regarding information that should be present in the article. Really, what can I conclude? I am dropping the case. The lead section of the article stays as is and no changes will be requested. Since it is a futile effort. Not because you are "right" and I "wrong", as new information is never wrong to add to the article. But because you have imposed your POV using a numerical superiority which censors and filters information the way you like it. I am saying it, so you can make a note of how this unfortunate situation seems like. Very grossly, my dear friends.

I wonder now... I am thinking to add the information about Macedon's self-determination in lower parts of the article (instead of the lead as proposed above). But why do I have the impression that you will object to this too? Will you ever object from being added to lower parts of the article? I wonder. But I think I know the answer already before I ever make the question. Taivo could argue that "adding it to lower parts of the article, is a trojan horse for adding it to the lead using WP:Lead, right? Much like, how, in his view always, "Hellenic" constitutes a trojan horse for "Greek". Right? :)

To end this, I personally hope you are proud of your decisions and actions, my dear friends. The whole community will see this as a precedent for future censorship of information in other Wiki articles; where politics behind words have MORE weight than facts about people themselves. What else can I do or say? At least I have tried. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the only things that matter here, not our opinions

@User:SilentResident: instead of ranting and raving with multiple large paragraphs that your contractors probably aren't going to read, why don't you provide a crisp, substantive argument for your case? That could be easily made, considering the modern scholarly consensus about the Macedonians. Some debate about their ethnic identity still continues today, but from what I have seen the dominant and accepted theory is that they were indeed a Greek people, speaking a native northwestern Greek dialect (with Attic and then Koine Greek as administrative languages), and not only worshiped the same deities as other Greeks, but also continued burial practices that were archaic but nevertheless Greek when comparing them to the traditions of their southern neighbors. We can argue about the semantics of the opening sentence from sunrise to sundown, but that doesn't change anything if you are unwilling to back up your contributions with citations mined from WP:Reliable sources.

A majority of editors at any given moment can come to some agreement about what goes into an article, usually by a democratic vote as we see above, but they do not have the power to override what a majority of reliable sources have to say on the matter. At Wikipedia reliable sources are king, and I'm afraid to say for the other editors involved here that the reliable sources (at least those I've consulted) refer to the Macedonians as a Greek people (while also mentioning the ongoing debate about their "Greekness", stemming almost entirely from hyperbolic polemics aimed at the Macedonians by their contemporary political rivals in city-states such as Athens). Just because the Macedonians were considered the northern hillbillies of the Greek world (so to speak) does not change the facts about their religion, language, burial practices, architecture, institutions, clothing, participation in pan-Hellenic games and religious rituals, and other markers of Hellenic culture. The one strong point that detractors could make is the point produced by Gandeto (2002) that Macedonian soldiers were keen to stress their ethnic identity as being apart from the Greeks (or should I say "other Greeks"), by excluding Greeks from Alexander's major battles, keeping them in reserve. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:TU-nor, User:TaivoLinguist, User:Richard Keatinge, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: I feel as though the current wording "an ancient kingdom on the periphery" merely dances around the issue of who the ancient Macedonians were essentially. This careful omission also does not reflect the bolder language found in the following sources that argue for a Greek identity for the Macedonians: Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Roisman, Joseph; Worthington, Ian (2010). A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 1-4051-7936-8.
• Worthington, Ian (2008). Philip II of Macedonia. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-12079-6.
• Worthington, Ian (2014) [2004]. Alexander the Great: Man and God. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-86644-2.

The following sources mention that the ancient Macedonians had some key distinguishing characteristics from their Greek neighbors, but that the distinction were mostly a political one:

• Sansone, David (2011). Ancient Greek Civilization. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4443-5877-3.
• Malkin, Irad (2001). Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University. ISBN 0-674-00662-3.
• Hatzopoulos, M. B. (2011). "Macedonians and Other Greeks," in Fox, Robin J. L., Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD. 43-51. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-20650-2.

The Hazopoulos book chapter is my personal favorite, since it brings up so many prescient points. For instance, the Macedonians were treated and spoken of as barbarians by members of the Hellenic League of city-states in the same way that the city-states of Cyprus and Kingdom of Epeiros were derided (pp 71-72). This despite the fact that the latter two participated in the Olympic games, practiced Greek religious rites and partook in Greek cults, had traditional Greek monarchical institutions, and spoke different dialects of Greek (the Epeirotes speaking northern Doric like the Macedonians, and Cypriots speaking a Greek dialect from ancient Mycenaean, pp 72-73). In fact, the political distinction between Macedonians and Greeks of the Hellenic League more or less faded once the Macedonians joined the league, and certainly by the time the Romans conquered and unified the entire region under their dominion (pp 73-74).

There are others who even posit the idea that the Macedonians were originally non-Greek peoples in the Archaic period who were gradually Hellenized by the time of the Classical and certainly the Hellenistic period.

• Danforth, Loring M. (1997). The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04356-6.
• Barr-Sharrar, Beryl; Borza, Eugene N. (1982). Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. National Gallery of Art. ISBN 0-89468-005-6.

There are some scholars who say we do not have sufficient evidence to say either way if the Macedonians were ethnic Greeks or not, such as the following source which highlights this idea by focusing on the scant linguistic evidence of the ancient Macedonian language (mind you, this article was written over 20 years ago, research seems to be a bit more fleshed out on the matter):

• Eugene N. Borza. "The Ancient Macedonians: a Methodological Model," in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. 7 (1994), pp. 17-24.

However, Borza is contradicted by the following sources which argue unequivocally that the Macedonians spoke a northwestern variety of Doric Greek, implicitly lending credence to the idea of their ethnic identity as Greeks:

• Masson, Olivier; Dubois, Laurent (2000). Onomastica Graeca Selecta. Geneva, Switzerland: Librairie Droz. ISBN 2-600-00435-1.
• Masson, Olivier (2003) [1996]. "[Ancient] Macedonian language". In Hornblower, S.; Spawforth A. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (revised 3rd ed.). USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 905–906. ISBN 0-19-860641-9.
• Hammond, N.G.L (1993) [1989]. The Macedonian State. Origins, Institutions and History (reprint ed.). USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814927-1.
• Meier-Brügger, Michael (2003). Charles Gertmenian (trans), Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-017433-2.
• Brixhe, C.; Panayotou, A. (1994). Le macédonien," in Bader, F. (ed), Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS éditions, pp 205-220.

The only article I can find that agrees slightly with Borza about inconclusive linguistic evidence is one by E. Badian, but it is even older ("Greeks and Macedonians," 1982: pp. 33-51) and admits openly that its focus is not on language, but on the political ideas of other contemporary Greeks about Macedonians and whether they perceived them to be Greeks or not (it's a mixed bag, of course, but the author underscores the fact that the ancient Greeks generally accepted the ruling of the Hellanodikai, judges of the Ancient Olympic Games, when they confirmed the Temenid lineage of the Argead royal family of Macedonia).

Also, it is worth noting that Hatzopoulos is less than impressed with Borza's research methods, which seem rather sloppy and perhaps selectively ignore critical data, at least in regards to showing the full list of ethnic groups mentioned by Arrian for Alexander's trierarchs that should have also included (undeniably ethnically Greek) "Cypriots" along with "Greeks", "Macedonians," and "Persians" ("Macedonians and Other Greeks," 2011: p. 71).

Then we come to the following source that explicitly states that it will ignore the issue of language altogether to piece together a narrative from various primary sources arguing that the Macedonians viewed themselves as an ethnicity and nation apart from the Greeks:

• Gandeto, J.S.G. (2002). Ancient Macedonians: Differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. San Jose, New York, Lincoln, Shanghai: Writer's Showcase. ISBN 0-595-23306-6.

Notice, however, how the publisher for this source is not a strictly academic one by a university press or similar institution. In fact, Writer's Showcase is an imprint of iUniverse, a self-publishing, print-on-demand vanity press. Not a very reliable source, certainly not vetted by the academic community. The only source I could find that even slightly seems to agree with this position (and only indirectly) is the following journal article published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association:

• James L. O'Neil. “The Ethnic Origins of the Friends of the Antigonid Kings of Macedon,” in the Classical Quarterly. Vol. 53, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 510-522.

…and by “agree” I mean, for the sake of clarity, the author distinguishes between soldiers, administrators, and royal favorites from the Kingdom of Macedonia and those from other parts of Greece in order to piece together as best as he can a statistical analysis of the origins of the friends and courtiers of the Macedonian kings. The reason his article has "ethnic origins" in the title at all is due to the fact that he also examined the roles of non-Greek peoples such as Persians in these affairs. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And another thing to take into account are the Greeks who lived throughout the Mediterranean, from Sicily to southern Italy, from France & Spain to North Africa. Colonists or descendants of colonists, these diaspora Greeks were also sometimes excluded by mainland Greeks. Hell, even Greeks in Anatolia (i.e. Asia Minor, modern Turkey), especially Pontic Greeks, were sometimes excluded by mainland Greeks as being less than Greek, despite their culture, customs, language, religious beliefs, burial practices, clothing, art, architecture, etc. The same can be said of the Greeks in Ukraine, or rather the Greeks in pre-Roman Crimea. In essence, our Wikipedia article here should not be reflecting the attitudes of contemporaneous political rivals and ancient polemic primary sources with a "political axe to grind" as Hatzopoulos deftly notes (pp 71-72). A modern encyclopedia like ours should instead turn to historians who have at least a cursory understanding of cultural anthropology. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gandeto (real name Joseph Grezlovski) is a known Slav Macedonian propagandist, not a historian or an expert at any field. Absolutely unreliable. Macedonian (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Macedonian: I really don't know anything about Gandeto and I don't think his personal background or apparent biases are as important as the fact that he's just clearly wrong. Lol. He's basically refuted handily, albeit indirectly, by Hatzopoulos (2011), and seems to have scoured his ideas from various works by Borza, yet manages to twist and mangle them. Whether this was done to bolster some sort of personal agenda I cannot say, but that's almost an afterthought when considering the non-academic, non-reliable publisher of his book as well as the general disagreement he seems to have with mainstream scholarship on this issue (placing his work within WP:FRINGE). He seems to be basing his hypothesis about the entire Macedonian ethnic identity largely on the haughty attitudes of Macedonian phalanxmen and how Greeks from other city-states were seemingly denied glory in some of Alexander's battles, relegated instead to supporting roles. Yet this is a somewhat silly basis for determining ethnicity, considering how Greek city-states such as Sparta and Athens treated the forces of other Greek states in similar fashion when fighting in a coalition. More importantly, most other scholars do not use this as a bedrock for determining the Macedonian ethnicity and take the approach used by Badian (1982), for instance, when he looked at this through a multitude of different angles. Yet others have gone much further than Badian, who tip-toed around the issue of the native ancient Macedonian language, at least in the work that I've seen. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well said. As Otto Hoffmann ("Die Makedonen, Ihre Sprache und Ihr Volkstum", Göttingen) pointed: "Whoever does not consider the Macedonians as Greeks must also conclude that by the 6th and 5th centuries BC the Macedonians had completely given up the original names of their nation - without any need to do so - and taken Greek names in order to demonstrate their admiration for Greek civilization. I think it not worth the trouble to demolish such a notion; for any hypothesis of historical linguists which is put forward without taking into account the actual life of a people, is condemned as it were out of its own mouth." Macedonian (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Pericles of Athens, you have asked me why "instead of ranting and raving with multiple large paragraphs that your contractors probably aren't going to read, why don't you provide a crisp, substantive argument for your case?". That's because dozens of users before you have tried to provide substantive arguments supported by the academic fieldwork. What does made you believe that now things will be different? Haven't others already tried before us? Isn't scholarly fieldwork already known? Of course. The problem here is political: the Ethnic Macedonian position sympathizers never ever cared really much about substantial arguments. Seven years now, did they ever moved from their original position? Nope. They block the changes by claiming that "some scholars support this theory, but some others oppose this". Macedonia's self-determination is always obscured by this classic and overused argument. The article has never really changed in past 7 years. See the history log. Even when academic consensus is getting increasingly pro-Greek in recent years.

That's why I tried to present a different strategy/philosophy here for a compromise between the two editorial sides: "Why not just leave what the one side (Taivo's side) and the other side (you, me, etc) say, aside, and find a solution based on what the Macedonians themselves said on this matter?" Isn't the self-determination of these ancient people and their kindgom as equally important as academic opinion about them (if not more)? If yes, then why this article 1) Takes editorial opinion in account (which normally shouldn't), 2) Takes reliable academic sources in account, such as scholarly opinions, archeological and epigraphic data and evidence, but 3) Ignores what Macedonians considered themselves?

Imagine how problematic this looks. This is very very unecyclopedic. And my plea for taking account the facts about Macedonian self-determination was perceived by Taivo (and his friends) with political criteria instead of historical criteria (Taivo called my proposal a "Greek Flag Carrier" in case you haven't noticed). They ignore me when I am saying information in the article shouldn't reflect the editorial opinion and POV, but the academic sources, and certainly the Macedonian opinion since the article is about them. Am I wrong? For asking the OBVIOUS here? Is it wrong to make note of Macedonia's self-determination in the article about it? -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear SILENTRESIDENT: I understand your frustration with this, especially since it seems like you feel others are talking over you instead of with you in regards to this (needlessly) contentious topic. I agree with the notion wholeheartedly that academic works and WP:reliable sources must be given paramount importance in regards to how we fashion the introduction (to say nothing about the rest of the article). That being said, we shouldn't rely entirely on what various Macedonians said about their ethnic identity, just how we shouldn't rely entirely on what their political opponents, detractors, or even their supporters had to say throughout the rest of Greece. We should take a very cautious approach ala Hatzopoulos (2011), Sansone (2011), Malkin (2001), and Badian (1982) as cited above, noting the absolute political nature of the Greek city-states labeling Macedonians as either Greeks or barbarians at different times throughout antiquity, and how this standard was applied to other Hellenes deemed at various times to be outside of the mainstream Greek ethnos, such as Greeks of Epirus, Cyprus, Pontic region, and other territories outside of the Greek heartlands centered in the Peloponnese and Attica. Most importantly I think we should stress the importance of concrete anthropological data regarding the Macedonians' culture, customs, language, religion, and other attributes of ethnic identity, a point that is highlighted in various academic sources. We should most certainly not rely upon the words of primary sources alone. That would non-encyclopedic and against the policies of Wikipedia, the content of which depends on how modern secondary sources interpret the ancient originals (taking note of scholarly consensus and disregarding WP:fringe theories or ideas that have WP:undue weight). Please keep all of this in mind as we move forward in this discussion. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Pericles of Athens, you got a valid point here. Trying to undo something unecyclopedic here such as censorship of information, I have resorted to unecyclopedic logics and arguments. I am sorry. You have my apologies. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

SILENTRESIDENT: it's no big deal, no need for formal apologies. You seem to have a sincere approach in editing this article as you see fit, and more importantly, in reflection of how this topic is handled in reliable academic sources. Just try to refrain from saying that other editors here possess a bias or are pushing a particular point of view. Instead try to focus entirely on their arguments alone and how to convince others that your ideas are correct/are in line with scholarship. It's best to make this whole process as impersonal as possible, even though it may be an emotive topic for some. All the best, Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)