Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retroactive break: larger picture (LEDE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed irrelevant diatribe

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

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

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

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

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

Eordaians, Mygdonians etc

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

New Introductory Map

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

Terminilogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with this article and the discussion pages is that

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

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

Let me explain these points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The map of the ancient Macedonia is not correct. The northern borders of ancient Macedonia were much nothern, up to Skopje, and this twisting of history (showing Macedonia only in parts that are administrered by greeks since 1912) without realistic facts is not a way to teach future generations. Paonia was part of ancient Macedonia, the same as other parts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.217.26 (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)