Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Greek Peninsula?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

albanian etymology of the name macedonia

The most reasonable and logical explanation regarding the etymology of the name of the Ancient Macedonia is found in the language of Illyrians and Epirotes, who were the ethnic inhabitants of Ancient Macedonia. The very name of Macedonia, formerly known as ‘Emathia,’ derives in all probability from the Albanian word “E Madhia”, meaning “The Greatest”.(Larned et al 1922) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.223.56 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that the most reasonable and logical explanation? Sounds like a fringe theory to me. Simanos (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. These kinds of folk etymologies shouldn't be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you imposing your personal “opinion” here …! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.133 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

She then went to her house, the daughter of Zeus, Aphrodite, [225] but Hera darted down and left the peak of Olympus; on Pieria she stepped and lovely "EMATHIA", and sped over the snowy mountains of the Thracian horsemen, even over their topmost peaks, nor grazed she the ground with her feet; and from Athos she stepped upon the billowy sea, [230] and so came to Lemnos, the city of godlike Thoas.Homer Iliad Book 14 line 193[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.133 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And? Yes, there was a region called Emathia (just like the Greeks have been called, Danaans, Achaean, Argives, Greeks, Romoioi, Yunan, Yavana, etc). That bit of Homer you quote does not support your "E Madhia" theory. Simanos (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I prefer the theory of 'Ma Sedonia' which is a combination of ancient anglo-saxon and hellenised Latin meaning 'My sheets'. Though both I and User:95.107.223.56, could be completely off-side on this one... Politis (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe nice one :p Simanos (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but other variant also the greek one does not suit that is why ..becuase Emathia (greatness in Albanian ) was example of bravery of its people..

The Macedonian kingdom was created as a result of uniffication of illyrian & thracian tribes into an central kingdom, wich began hardly to conquest other tribes and their lands. If we looked at Ptolemey description about Macedonian territorial situation, we will see that Macedonia covering into illyrian tribes. According to him, into Macedonia covering these tribe: Taulants, Elimiots, Orestidians, Albanians, Eordians, Paionians, Dasaretians, Lyncestian. For more detail see 'PTOLEMAEI, GEOGRAPHIA, BOOK III, The Place when situated Macedonia'.

'Once a time Macedonia was called Emathia, according to name of Emathi, wich was first example of bravery in these place" (M.JUNIANI JUSTINI< EPITOMA HISTORIACUM PHILIPPICARUM POMPEI TROGI, Book VII, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.219.188 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my IP hopping friend but your English is too poor and your sentences are somewhat unintelligible. Your interpretation of ancient texts is also quite poor. Simanos (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand...! Even your name Simanos has less identity then my IP , my friend..

What? That doesn't make sense either. Anyway I'm not about to be dragged into a long talk with you and your fringe theories. Simanos (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What is exactly that you do not understand ...?! The relation of word Emathia ( meaning great in Albania) with territory expansion and bravery of its people ..It is so simple ...! What is the meaning of word Emathia in other version ..ancient “Greek” for instance, I wonder? Thanks for your comments anyway..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.252 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What I said was that your English was too poor. Do you doubt that? As for the etymology of Emathia read that article for it (Sandy terrain or something). This is the Macedonia article anyway Simanos (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No i doubt you and the name "sandy" for ancient macedonia..Cheers ..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.214.87 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Concensus among historians that Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe

^ Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek State, Methuen, (July 2000); Malcolm Errington, A History of Macedonia, University of California Press, February 1993; John V.A. Fine, The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History, Harvard University Press, 1983; Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1998; N G L Hammond, A History of Greece to 323 BC, Cambridge University, 1986; Archer Jones, The Art of War in Western World (University of Illinois Press, 2000); Robin Osborne, Greek History, Routledge, 2004; Jacques Pirenne, The Tides of History Vol. 1, E. P. Dutton, 1962; Michael M. Sage, Warfare in Ancient Greece, Routledge; Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, Oxford University Press, 1991; Hilding Thylander, Den Grekiska världen, (Svenska humanistiska förbundet, 1985); Arnold J. Toynbee, The Greeks and Their Heritages, Oxford University Press, 1981.

Before some editor says the protecting lines 'this has been done to death..' If there is a Concensus ie most historians call Ancient Macedon a Greek state with Greek origins as even the Ancient Macedonians article states clearly, why do we follow any other agenda on Wiki? The new country macedonia is allowed to be called such on wiki according to certain editors..because most people call the country Macedonia. So if most historians agree Ancient Macedon was greek in origin and culture, why does this article call it an ancient kingdom strongly omitting the word 'Greek'? Is it because a few historians are not sure and there are more pro Republic of Macedonia editors than neurtal or Greek? Reaper7 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

it should be called ancient Greek kingdom. Just as the article on Alexander the Great calls him an Ancient 'Greek' King.... The sickness of modern day slavs living in their so called 'republic of macedonia' that is trying to erase history and trying to convince people that 2500 years of history is wrong is spreading onto wikipedia and completely perverting history. I hope reason and logic will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.149.42 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We do too. However wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such it tries to maintain a neutral point of view. A Macedonian (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a point of view that Ancient macedonians are greek, it is a Fact. Reaper7 posted many sources above. Not to mention, that without stating that this article is about the ancient greek macedonians, people will be confused and think that this article has something to do with ancestors of the modern 'republic of macedonia'. Should we instead create a page to disambiguate between 'Ancient Macedonians (Greek), and Ancient Macedonians (Republic of Macedonia)?' This has been going on way too long on wikipedia and is still unresolved. I have come to this page to learn about Ancient Macedonians, and I THOUGHT I was reading about people from the Republic of Macedonia, but it appears that this article is about ancient greeks (such as alexander the great, whos wikipedia page calls him a 'Greek' king on the first line. What can the editors of this page do to fix this problem?

I am Slavic Macedonian from Republic of Macedonia. I came to this page to read about Ancient Macedonia so I can learn about my ancestors, but it is just about ancient Greeks. Why does it not state this on the fist line or paragraph? I have to spend quite some time to read this article, and then I realize that it has nothing to do with the Modern day Republic of Macedonia, but it's called 'Ancient Macedonia', and describes Greek people, greek kings, and greek rulers. This is an Insult to modern day Slavic Macedonians like me. Either call the ancient Macedonians Greek, or call them Slavic, but don't call them just 'Macedonian' because then it needs to be disambiguated, and if you are not going to disambiguate it in the article, then it is written poorly. Does anyone disagree that by not stating the ancient macedonians are greek we are ignoring thousands of years of history and sources?--173.209.149.42 (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You must be kidding, right? Anyways, there are no other ancient Macedonians so what you are proposing is anyways not reasonable...GK (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GK1973, There is a country called 'Republic of Macedonia'. There is also a Greek land known as 'Macedonia'. Like it or not (I don't), there are two cultural and political Macedonia's. Ergo, the question of ancient Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia is valid. The question of Ancient Macedonians from the province in Greece is also valid. There are therefore two Ancient Macedonias. Almost everyone would think of the people living in Greece in the vinicity of Pella when thinking about the term 'Ancient Macedonia'.

BUT, since a country called Macedonia exists that is not from this geographical location or shares its history, and is not made of people of the same culture or identity, it too must have an Ancient history, as there were ancient people living in the land near the Vardar river... you agree, right?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? There needs to be a page for Ancient Macedonia (Greece), and Ancient Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia), with 'Ancient Macedonia' pointing to a disambiguation page linking to either.

The other alternative of course is that Ancient Macedonia is described as a Greek kingdom in the lead of this page, so there is no confusion. The 'Greek' identifier obviously would not be needed if the Country Macedonia did not exist, but unfortunately that is not the case, and as much as I would like it not to be there, it must be added to maintain the editorial integrity of this page.... Sadly it seems like a group of anti-greek POV editors has unfairly editorialized this page. If anyone disagrees please feel free to discuss. I am in the process of Registering an account and making 10 posts elsewhere so that I can edit this page as it appears to be protected.--174.117.97.72 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the current text is the result of much previous discussion and consensus, you should not attempt to edit the text without discussing it here and getting a consensus first. Based on past discussions, however, don't get your hopes up on pushing "Greek" into that first sentence. --Taivo (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this Draganparis or his "son"? Can't recall the IP. Simanos (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an IP from Toronto, so I don't think that it could be DP... anyways, dear IP, this issue has been discussed extensively and we have reached a widely accepted consensus. I would advise you to be very careful regarding any changes you might want to do in historical articles regarding the ancient Macedonians as they are monitored by many users of many opinions who have participated in countless discussions. Try to avoid argument such as the ones you used above regarding how people might get perplexed from the many Macedonians and refrain from characterization of the editors. Try to stick to Wikipedia rules in any change you will try to make and be ready to see many reverts if you get too bold and challenge acceptable consensus or make it political. Like Taivo said, it would be advisable to first discuss here any changes you would like to see but base your proposals on current English language usage and sources. Furthermore, the fact that you started this discussion by claiming to be an ethnic Slav Macedonian, a fact that might be true but seems awful strange if you are, does look like you want to talk politics instead of history... 00:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I think our friend was looking for information on ancient Paeonia. Furthermore, he might be looking for stuff in the fragments of ancient history of territories included in what was once referred to as upper Macedonia, but not referred to as just "ancient Macedonia", namely Elimeia, Eordea, Orestis, Lynkestis, Pelagonia and Deuriopus - So there, I linked to them all for any passer-by's convinience. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Should Early History and Legend be further expanded, and corrected?

I have only two remarks to pose:

1. For instance, instead of the short and unclear passage:

"The lands around Aegae, the first Macedonian capital, were home to various peoples. Macedonia was called Emathia (from king Emathion) and the city of Aiges was called Edessa, the capital of fabled king Midas. According to legend, Caranus, accompanied by a multitude of Greeks came to the area in search for a new homeland [5] took Edessa and renamed it to Aegae. Subsequently, he expelled Midas and other kings off the lands and he formed his new kingdom."

You could put the following extract from "The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians" by Apostolos Dascalakis, University of Athens(Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessalonike, 1965):

"The founding of the Macedonian kingdom and the ancestor of its royal house are both veiled in the mists of prehistoric Greek antiquity. Greeks belonging to the 5th century B.C. city-states first came into direct contact with their brethren who were isolated among the barbarians north of Olympus and Pindus, mainly after the Persian Wars (499-479 B.C.) and more so during their subsequent quarrels during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), many events of which took place on Macedonian soil among the Chalcidice colonies.

But this was some centuries distant from the foundation of the state of Macedonia. During the centuries, poetic legends and traditions had arisen and given the classical Greeks a basis on which to account for and interpret Macedonia's historical past. Herodotus and Thucydides, the foremost historians of the 5th century, limit themselves to these traditions whenever they happen to speak of the Macedonians' past and the foundations of their realm, while Euripides makes of the Macedonian legend, as he does of others belonging to Greek prehistory, a subject for dramatic poetry. Historians, chroniclers and biographers from the middle of the 4th century on, caught up in the dazzle of events almost beyond human ken, which occurred during the reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great, destined to change the fate of Greece and the whole course of her history, had but to collect, or on occasion to link in a more fascinating way, the legends and traditions concerning the founder of the glorious, and by then renowned Argaed dynasty, to the beginning of the state, for which so splendid a destiny has been reserved.

As was natural, modern historical research has been devoted since the last century to studying this question of the founding of the Macedonian kingdom and the origin of its royal house with the keenest interest, the more so for its close affinity with the whole ethnological subject of ancient Macedonia and its people.

Greek popular legends of antiquity, which reflect beliefs and in many cases facts whose historical root is lost in centuries past, attributed divine origins to the most prominent royal houses of the prehistoric and early historical period. Traditions developed from these myths placed the kingly house of Aegae (Vergina) in Macedonia among the Heracleid Temenids, thus linking it "warp and woof" with the full cycle of archaic Hellenism's sagas.

It can be considered certain that the kings of Macedonia did not shape these traditions of their descent from the Heracleids of Argos, drawing them from Greek literature of classical times, nor made them up to imitate the myths current in Greek cities about the divine descent of their most illustrious regal families, but had cherished them, handed down from one generation to another since time immemorial, as the Lares and Penates of their hearths and folk. In fact, when shortly before the Persian Wars the kings of Macedonia appeared on the Greek historical scene, they themselves announced their origin, proudly proclaiming the Argaead legends as their very own, unquestionably so on the ground of a family tradition centuries old."

2. And instead of the vague reference to Herodotus' Histories such as the following:

"According to Herodot, it was Dorus, the son of Hellen who led his people to Histaeotis, whence they were driven off by the Cadmeians into Pindus, where they settled as Macedonians. Later, a branch would migrate further south to be called Dorians."

You could provide the full text with a clear reference such as the following:

Excerpt from Herodotus' Histories (1.56.1-3)- A. D. Godley, Ed. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.:

"[1]When he heard these verses, Croesus was pleased with them above all, for he thought that a mule would never be king of the Medes instead of a man, and therefore that he and his posterity would never lose his empire. Then he sought very carefully to discover who the mightiest of the Greeks were, whom he should make his friends.

[2] He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far.

[3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.2

1 Deucalion and Pyrrha were the survivors of the Deluge as known to Greek legend.

2 The localities mentioned in the story of the migration into the Peloponnese are all in northern Greece."

This text should give a clear picture that it is not the ancient Macedonians that are discussed within this passage by Herodotus, but the Dorians, who were a wandering tribe, unlike the Ionians. Herodotus here discusses the origin of the two Greek races. The roots of the ancient Macedonians should be discussed within a wider context, most probably related to the native people of the region prior to the Greek tribes, known as Pelasgians to the ancient Greeks. After the first migration of Semitic tribes in Greece, the Danaos from Egypt (ref.Martin Bernal, Black Athena)around 1720 BC, which coincides with the Hyksos period in Egypt, some of the native tribes got assimilated, which created the Ionian race, while those who would not accept the new rulers from Egypt, moved to the north. This is where the legend about Caranus comes in focus, since this legendary king took his people from Argos in Peloponnese, which is where the Danaos established their rule, across the Olympus, which was a sacred mountain to the natives before it was used by the newcomers. According to the plays of Aischylos and Euripides, written around the time of Herodotos' Histories, the Pelasgians were the indigenes, encountered and somehow overcome by Danaos in the Argolid:"Danaos, the father of fifty daughters, on coming to Argos took up his abode in the city of Inachos and throughout Greece (Hellas) he laid down the law that all people hitherto named Pelasgians were to be named Danaans."

Therefore, the origin of the ancient Macedonians can be traced back in the pre-Greek cultures of the Balkans, such as the Great Mother Goddess cult, the Dionysian Mysteries, and the 'barbaric' - as often referred to by the most prominent Greeks such as Demosthenes - peoples to the north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petro Invictus (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you are saying here it's just WP:OR. Furthermore, Black Athena is a highly controversial work and it's not considered a reliable source. Can you provide a reliable source for your claims? A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative views: Meaning of the name Macedonia

The Great Mother Goddess was a central cult to the ancient Macedonians,know as Dione at Dodona, the famous Oracle of the ancient world. This cult, now confirmed by a significant amount of archeological findings particularly in the northern regions of Republic of Macedonia, had spread all across the Balkans and is considered to have been the first cult of the indigenous population.

If we are to explain the etymology of the name 'Macedonia', which has its roots in Roman or Greek historiography, we can assume that it derives from "the ancient Greek word μακεδνός (Makednos). It is commonly explained as having originally meant 'a tall one' or 'highlander', possibly descriptive of the people." Unfortunately, the ancient Macedonians were never depicted as tall people, neither have there been bones of tall people excavated anywhere in Macedonia. They were of medium height, as noted by many historians.

Instead, we could assume that the name Macedonia (Makedonia) could be related to its indigenous cult, and since Dione represented the Goddess, if we break 'Make-Donia' and compare it with 'Make-Dione', the result is Mother Goddess, 'Make'corresponding with 'Majka' or 'Makea'(foster/mother) in Slavic languages. Interestingly in Hindi the translation for "Mother's World" sounds something like: "Makedonia"! Check it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.25.212 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet more WP:OR! A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, not meaning to WP:BITE but dear anonymous, interesting personal views you have here. However those have no backing to be included in any article. If I am not mistaken, the standard accepted etymology is provided in the article. Consider also that is because Makednos etymology appears in Homer. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

typo in Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Typo:

Herodotus, being one of the foremost biographer in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power

should read:

one of the foremost biographers

14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The sun symbol labeled as a coat of arms is not a coat of arms. That would be an anachronism. It should be labeled as an insignia or emblem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinynanorobots (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia, power or largest and Herodotus on Greek Hellenicity

Athenean, can you please explain why you reverted my edit? Here are my explanations.

My explanation for the edits are:

1) Was Macedon briefly the most powerful country on Earth?

Firstly, Macedonia under ATG can probably lay claim to being the largest country on Earth at the time under one theoretical government. However land area and power are not the same thing. For example Somalia has roughly two and a half times the land area of Great Britain but their power levels are vastly different. I would question how strong Macedonia really was. They defeated the Persian empire but apart from that there was no significant opposition in that area of the world and it seemed to require ATG personally for anything to happen. When ATG died the kingdom fractured into multiple kingdoms starting the Diadochi period, not exactly the description of the most powerful long-lasting country. In comparison Qin China the joint leader in the Warring States period at the time and would go inexorably on to win. Qin was more organised, had better technology and a better utilisation of its populace. It must also be remembered that the Qin empire that came out of the Warring States period by one measure was 12.5 million km squared compared to 5.4 million km squared for ATG at its height. Therefore, I move that the word powerful is changed to largest.

2)

Herodotus and context

Imagine if William the Conqueror who essentially created modern England had said he was French. Nothing unusual at the time, everyone would agree with him. However that does not mean that a thousand years later all English are actually French. By the end of the Hundred Years Wars many places which thought of themselves as Norman English at the start now thought of themselves as French. I mention this because cultures change and I feel this should be reflected. Herodotus was writing over a century before the birth of Macedonia's most famous son and this time lag should be mentioned. Why? Because the section in effect is in effect asking whether Macedonia was just another Greek city state or whether it was a separate country. The state under Alexander I was just out of direct Persian control without time to effectively form a separate identity. I see no other evidence that Macedonian Olympic Games attendance was at all regular hence I want to put in context that firstly Herodotus is not an impartial observer and secondly the time when he was writing.

Nath9091 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Greek word Makednos, meaning Tall Guy?

stop imagining stuff. it's on pra-balcans indo-european language. dunya is world. ma ki is mother of the. if you open translate google and write down "world of mother" and translate it to hindi and than press the speaker sign you will be pleasantly surprised. now, that you can not falsify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.227.141 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have resources that can back this theory? Because in reality, nor the Greeks, nor the neighboring tribes in the Balkans claimed a connection of this word with the ancient Macedonias. The historians on the other hand, noted the meaning of the term Makednos which was in use during this period, which highlights a characteristic of the Ancient Macedonians: they were tall people, as confirmed at least for Alexander the Great. Between a disputable word "Dunya" and the written-in-documents-of-that-age word "Macednos", of course personally I could think the second. --85.75.180.103 (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

dunya is an arabic word...Lets start with that... You might mind to check a dictionary before making such bold statements http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmakedno%2Fs Fkitselis (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

duniya is a sanskrit word. not arabic. even now if you open google translate from hindi to english and type "ma ki duniya" and press enter you will see my claim. as for the ancient kingdom mygdonia, type from hindi to english "mukh duniya" and press enter. you will be pleasantly surprised :). i was wondering. half the world was hellenic back then. how come, nowhere in the world is speaking greek? not persia, not bactria, not indus valey, not egypt, not afghanistan, not armenia, not turkey, not in any point of the mediterrane, not even albania as the first neighbour. on the other side, half of the world is speaking macedonian.79.126.251.234 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no single inscription in Macedonia where Macedonia is written Ma ki duniya (or with Greek letters MA KI ΔΥΝΙΥΑ), therefore your Ma ki duniya has nothing to do with ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ. Period! The fact that the word exists in Ancient Greek is irrelevant to you (e.g Homer Οιά τε φύλλα μακεδνής αιγείροιο)? Can you quote one academic who claims Macedonian is Sankrit? I think not... As for google translate, I can turn it into a German beatbox if you want. The fact that you cut and separate words as it fits you, doesn't make the word Macedonia Sanskrit. Fkitselis (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

you missed out one thing. the indo-european tree of languages. why do you think they call it that way?79.126.204.223 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a term for this: folk etymology. It's also why no serious etymologist pays any attention to it... Neither should we. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

ok than. "os", "as", "is", "us", are roman, latin adds to the original words. how you call it in English? adverbs? and they are used after the period of the Macedonian kingdom. without "os" how would you call a tall guy? makedn? and what is the meaning of donia if it's not the same indian/persian donia?79.126.196.235 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

-ος (os), -ας (as) and -ις (is) are in fact ancient Greek: you call a tall guy μακεδνός (makednos). The *donia that you are talking about is not a viable division of Makedonia, as the -ία is independent from the root: it is a common suffix in the formation of country names, e.g. Aetolia, Lacedaemonia etc.  ^davidiad_.: 15:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

than why the original name of alexander is not alexandros? and why on hebrew is "alexander mugdon"? similar to mygdonia or mukhduniya don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.196.235 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You're pretty far out of your depth here. Alexander's name was Ἀλέξανδρος (Alexandros) and the treatment in Hebrew of the Greek consonant cluster -νδρ- (-ndr-) or the outcome of a weak stem like one ending in -ked(o)n- would have nothing to do with etymology. This talk page is for discussions aimed at improving the article, so unless you have some reliable sources—and there won't be any because this is WP:FRINGE nonsense—for what you're proposing, I think this thread can be considered closed. If you'd like to ask further questions about this topic, try Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language or Wiktionary.  ^davidiad_.: 16:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. thanks for raising up so many users to convince me. i'm just wandering why, when king Otto came to power said:"-these are not greek, they speak albanian", and all the sudden you are experts in depth, in linguistics and etymology.79.126.196.235 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013

Infomation provided is historically inaccurate in claiming that Macedon was a Greek kingdom where it was not, largely anything linking Macedon to Ancient Hellas is incorrect or not entirely true 125.209.134.247 (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, just because you say so it doesn't make it historically inaccurate. It takes much more than ones personal opinion to make a change on this article. The kingdom is generally regarded as Greek kingdom, a view supported by major history scholars (and those are not few nor Greeks). Fkitselis (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's inaccurate where there is no source of the claim that it was Greek kingdom, scholars do refer to the kingdom as Macedonian and separate from Greek ,same to Macedonian people as separate from Greeks. Check the first reference in the article, from Britannica, it is quite well written. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/354266/Macedonia Daci92 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is inaccurate, then you should explain why Kagan in his Yale lectures is so confident saying they were Greeks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuOxGMoHMMY (see 1:36). I could list a bunch of other authors stating the same. I think you have been doing some selective readings from the past (e.g. Badian). The dispute on this issue is not whether Macedonians regarded themselves as Greeks or not, but whether the Indo-European language spoken in Macedonian, before Attic Koine was Greek. On this issue currently some scholars are not sure because of scarse evidence, while others are. It is not more complicated than that. Fkitselis (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is not reliable source as i know, yet some historians claim that he was Greek or opposite ,no matter what there is no reliable source according to me because of the scarce evidence, so most of the claims are based on opinion. If we go according to that opinion most of the modern scholars has formed opinion because of scholars of the previous generation ,but in fact most of the scholars in the past and in the present regard to the Macedonian Kingdom as separate from the Greek or Hellenic Kingdom or City States until there is strong physical or written evidence. But if we speak about Hellenistic influence or culture then it is totally different because is certain and confirmed that the most known king (Alexander III of Macedon or the Great as you prefer) to the world, accepted and spread the Hellenistic culture because he was fascinated from the culture.Same as we known that half of the Balkan Peninsula was Hellenized few hundred years before he was born (Jirechek line). So again i would ask the admins of this page to rethink on this because they should rely on reliable sources especially when they use reliable source partially then they should use it completely.Daci92 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The youtube link is a lecture of Proffessor Kagan from the channel of Yale University ( www.yale.edu ). Youtube is not the source. The owner of the channel is an renowned academic institution. Anyway, I think you've missed the fact that all foreign nations in Asia refer to them as Greeks (Yauna, Yona, Jawan) and not something separate (separate in this case depends on how you understand the Ancient Greek world). Caranus who was the first King to establish the Kingdom of Macedon came with a large band of Greeks (Justin 7.1). The cities established such as Alexandria are called Hellenic by ancient authors (e.g. Plutarch). Also, already from the 8th century B.C. you have Greek writing in Macedonia (the cup of Akesandros), which is a bit early for a 'non-Greek' kingdom. Those arguments you present have been analyzed to death by many historians and a very good resume of it is done by N.G.L. Hammond in his book "History of Macedonia" amongst others. The matter is rather complex to discuss in this page, but Hammond is the one who dealt with it best in terms of historical analysis, archaeology and language (as this is also a linguistic issue). Fkitselis (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia should be considered part of Greek culture and history because that's what the general historical and linguistic evidence points to. HOWEVER, there is, on the other hand, much evidence that points to a 'barbaric' origin for Macedonians, or at least to a mixed Hellenic-Barbarian ethnos that cannot be ignored. This evidence is given to us directly from quotations of Greek ancient historians and there are scholars (neither few nor irrelevant) who have mentioned this. Linguistically they were surely mixed (Macedonian displays the initial -b-, typical of non Greek dialects of the region, where Greek, as well as Latin has -v-, word initial -gh- against Greek -b- etc.). Ironically enough, even the fact in itself that Alexander had to prove his 'Greek lineage' (and the relevant fact that the Greeks held him for or called him 'barbarian') in order to compete in the Hellenikades is evidence of his not quite clear or possibly even non-Greek origin. Otherwise, why so much fuss about demanding a 'blood-prove' for someone who is supposed to be so 'definitively' Greek? I think this other side should be mentioned in the 'Origin of Macedonia' part!! Etimo (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Just two things there: a) The Hellenodikae were not an assembly that was exclusively setup for Alexander I. They were Eleans, a tribe that was been mocked most of all Greeks for being barbaric, ironically they were the ones to measure Greekness. Is that a paradox or a missunderstanding of how that world worked? Second, as Dosuna (2012) showed, Spanish developed similar internal phenomena e.g. Estephan becomes Estaban in certain dialects. In any case there were for sure "Brygian" remains (see Brixhe 1994) on the north west and Thracian on the north East (Mygdonia, Kallindia). How much or if the first affected the language is beyond measurement at the moment. As you say, it is not be ignored, but it is not to be used for purposes other than history and historical linguistics either. Fkitselis (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see misunderstanding I see contradiction. How is it that a tribe who is repeatingly mocked for his 'barbaric nature' is supposed to be the measure of 'Greekness'?? Because this looks to me as sheer political convenience not at all unknown even to the Romans. As far as a foreign people serve 'Hellenism' or 'Romanism' with fanatical devotion they are considered the archetype of this civilization but in internal circles they are mocked for their foreign origins!!? I think there is more than just 'Brygian' remains in the Macedonians, the -b- displayed in Ancient Macedonian has nothing to do with the Spanish -b- -v- phenomenon. Greek and Latin reflect regularly initial -f- of PIE *b and often *d, and -b- of PIE *gh. In Greek you have boton for 'pig' but gotan, in Macedonian, reflecting directly PIE *gwou 'cow'. Macedonian displays initial -d- of PIE *dh, something strange to every Greek dialect. Some Macedonian words, like baskioi or bathara, for instance, seem more close to Albanian (a supposed Ancient Balkan language) bashkë 'fleece' and bathë 'lentlil', than to Greek faskolos, Latin fascies 'bundle', or Greek athare 'porridge'. Different anlauts are not considered 'dialectal variants' in Indo-European linguistics, but different treatments of labials from different languages (e.g. between Latin 'piscis' and Gothic 'fiskas' there's only a 'p-f' shift which marks different language families). A great bulk of words has no Greek parallels, and those words which are very close to Greek look more like Greek borrowings uttered according to 'lokal' pronunciation. I think we will never know whether ancient Macedonians were in fact helenized 'barbarians'or 'barbarized' Helenes, but considering the superior Greek culture and its almost irresistible power of assimilation the former possibility is by far the most realisticEtimo (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

About Hellenodikae: do a background check. They are Eleians. As for the phonology, Brixhe, Dosuna and Crespo amongst others are the ones that have recently contributed with material on that. Can you prove that AM -b- is different than the spanish phenomenon? I think not. Can you explain how Greek displays internally such variations (often omitted by many) such τάφος and τύμβος, κύβος and κύφωσις, σκυδμαίνω and σκυθρός, κρυφηδόν and κρύβδην etc? I think that there is much more to explain within IE linguistics before making bold statements. That is why certain linguists (e.g. Adrados) refrain from making comments on the language and focus mainly in the cultural elements. I do support C. Brixhe's view on Brygian influence, however, there is no way to prove he is correct. Kind Regards Fkitselis (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not contesting what they were called (the genealogy from the Gods has little historical value), I'm contesting how and why they are considered of 'barbaric' origin and are mocked for that. Barbarian in Greek and Roman world means foreign people, non-Greek or non-Roman folk. The variants of the words you provided are different ablaut grades, something common to every IE language, in Greek are more marked due to its numerous tempora and modi. The -b- -f- shift has nothing to do with the 'spanish phenomenon', since, as I already stated, Greek treats PIE *bh as -f- in every dialect and in all of its inherited lexicon, and there are no exceptions in linguistic laws. The treatment of one sound can tell a language from another, that's what linguistics is all about. The initial PIE *bh is typical of 'barbaric' languages north of Greek speaking area (Illyrian, Thracian etc) and cannot be in any way assigned also to Greek as a dialect variant (without considering the Macedonian words which have no link to Greek words). Exceptions can be made perhaps in internal position or in the auslaut ,but even there an external influence has to be seriously taken into account. The 'Brygian' influence, or that of an Illyrian or Thracian dialect, from a linguistic point of view is very plausible. And we are only talking about language here, without considering culture, mythology, customs and other important aspects which make Macedonia the measure of Hellenism a bold statement Etimo (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you should revise Hesychius wordlist on 'barbarians' and 'barbarophones' http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%93%CE%BB%CF%8E%CF%83%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%B9/%CE%92. As you will see, Eleians are included. On the spanish phenomenon it is clearly your point of view, but not the view of certain academics. The examples where there is partial sound change (κύβ-, κύφ-, κυπ- etc), are not part of 'all' the inherited lexicon that you mention. Anyway, we do not disagree here exactly, we just having certain lines that do not go in par. What I strongly disagree with though is the old good Thraco-Illyrian theory. For Thracian, their names are distinct and easily traceable in western Macedonia. The Illyrian influence is a overated remnad of the Pan-Illyrian theories. Both have been a rather inresponsible bablin, considering that we're dealing with languages that are even less attested than Macedonian and in many cases largely reconstructed based on names. Brygian or proto-Phrygian or any early language from that group that didn't survive, has exactly the features you describe. That means, that languages from the same PIE ancestor of Greek (that is Phrygian, Armenian(?) and those languages that didn't make it) do demonstrate the PIE *bh. That is exactly why I do agree with the analysis of Brixhe (1994). Such a language would have a large amount of shared lexicon with Greek, but not include this Greek phonetic 'innovation'. That's why linguists nowadays speak of this 'Hellenic' group of IE languages. I do not agree with the name of the group (Phrygian is not Greek nor Hellenic so to say), but the idea is correct and much more plausible than any other non-Greek theory out there. Have a nice weekend! Fkitselis (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"At the start of his reign, the 20 year old Alexander was the crowned king of only Macedon, a crude Greek nation north-east of mainland

Greece".AkiiraGhioni (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

References:

Ancient Macedonians

This subject of this article appears to be a copy of the better sourced Ancient Macedonians, which also contains the word ancient or refers to it as ancient".Cosprings (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article has only 18 sources compared to the main Ancient Macedonians article which has over 200. I've redirected this page after you input was received per its reason for existence. Cosprings (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked in detail the overlap of these two articles but I think the topics are sufficiently different to warrant separate articles. I am not comfortable with the redirect, given also that these articles are separate in many other wikis. I would welcome additional input from the wider community. Perhaps an RfC may be in order. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Greek Peninsula

Greek Peninsula gives it an inherently 'Greek' Bias and also southern parts of Albania can be considered on the Greek Peninsula. Maps as viewed on this article show that it is on the NE Aegean Sea,on the turning point where it becomes apart of the greater 'mainland' not the peninsua, bordering the Chalcidice which is not apart of the peninsula, and the phrase 'Greek Peninsula' is rarely used elsewhere. I shalt await thy response Luxure (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Macedonia was never on the northeast corner of the Aegean. It was on the northWEST corner of the Aegean. As far as "Greek peninsula" is concerned, what other name are you going to give that peninsula? --Taivo (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo Luxure (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

But my question still persists. What do you propose calling that peninsula if not "Greek peninsula". I did a cursory look at other Wikipedia article and the subsection of the much larger Balkan peninsula that comprises the nation of Greece and its northern periphery isn't named. Is there another name that you are aware of? --Taivo (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than Greek peninsula(inherent bias by inferring it's Greek), North Eastern Aegean Sea is unbiased and gives a proper geographical view, rather than 'Greek Peninsula' (eg, the Greeks in Australia all live on a Peninsula, lets say, Cape Green, that place could now be called a 'Greek Peninsula' due to the amount of Greeks living there) Luxure (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that, contrary to the neologism you propose, "Greek peninsula" is an actual and widely used term for the southern part of the Balkans. Constantine ✍ 10:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Kingdom?

Now, I will be going against the Greeks here, but there is only one reference saying it is a Greek Kingdom in the article, and it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia as a separate Kingdom from Greece. Ancient Greece didn't have Kings, but thats not the point. There are many sources saying it is/isn't Greek, so I am going to change the subject line as it shows bias to one side of the argument. Also, the writing is inscribed in Greek, even though we do not know the runes/lettering system the Ancient Macedonians used. I await thy response and look forward to it. Luxure (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ancient Greece didn't have kings" and "runes"? Given that these statements show astonishing ignorance of the area's history, and given that you fail to provide any of the many sources that say it isn't Greek, while removing a source that clearly says the opposite, I am reverting you. There are many arguments that can be made considering whether the Macedonians qualify as fully Greek, whatever that means, but "runes" or the kingship is not one of them. Come back when you have an informed argument based on sources. Constantine ✍ 11:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times in the past (for example, here) and the consensus has always come down on the side of "ancient kingdom" without specifying its alleged "Greekness". "Ancient kingdom" is NPOV. The article itself specifies the relationship between the Greek city-states and the Macedonian kingdom in more detail. Placing a red flag in the first sentence of the article is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo: Great, if the discussion has been held before and s definite consensus reached, that is it. I hope you do understand though why I reverted a change made on the basis that "Ancient Greece didn't have Kings". Constantine ✍ 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought this topic was closed, unfortunately we are becoming again victims of hotheads from the aegean and vardar macedonian parts. At least make a resolution here and dont affect the quality of the site with edit wars. and good luck guys with your wasting of enormous amounts of hours fighting here. I will only make one humble comment: winning such an internet debate is like wining the paraolympics. You might win it but you remain disabled. Stevepeterson (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are in violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA here, Stevepeterson. The key here is a neutral first sentence to the article. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia doesn't take sides in a nationalistic dispute, but tries to maintain neutral wording. Ancient Macedonia's cultural, political, and linguistic relationship to the Greek city-states is clearly spelled out in detail in the article--including both its Greek aspects and its non-Greek aspects. Throwing a POV red flag into the article in the first sentence is a violation of Wikipedia neutrality. --Taivo (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't supposed to hide or distort the truth. All the reliable sources and historical evidence clearly show that Ancient Macedon was a Greek kingdom. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Can you provide a shred of reliable evidence that ancient Macedonia wasn't Greek? I don't know what your motives are, but after reading comments like: "Ancient Greece didn't have Kings", "Macedonia's alleged "Greekness" I understand that some people here aren't only biased and historically ignorant, but they are in fact trying desperately to push a FYROM/Skopije pseudo-historic agenda that has no place in an encyclopedia like this. Writing down the truth based on countless reliable scientific historical evidence is not a violation of wikipedia's neutrality. I really couldn't believe that such blatant distortion of history and cheap pseudo-historic propaganda could ever permeate wikipedia. I sourced the "Ancient greek kingdom" phrase with historical evidence and reliable sources. Every unjustified removal of those sources would be considered as blatant and old-school vandalism. Furthermore, let me ask you this Taivo: Let's say for the sake of the argument that tomorrow morning Turkey starts advocating that Napoleon wasn't French but Turkish. Will you start forbiding wikipedia users to write down that Napoleon was French because they would be in violation of Wikipedia neutrality? Would you suggest that "Wikipedia doesn't take sides in a nationalistic dispute, but tries to maintain neutral wording" in that case? I don't think that you are trying to maintain neutrality here. I think you are giving FYROM/Skopije propaganda some vital space to grow, by showing blatant disregard for the reliable sources and by using neutrality as an excuse. Gtrbolivar (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The unbiased statement stands as it being an ancient kingdom on the NW Aegean Sea. I don't know where you are getting this 'FYROM' crap from. It seems that your a being biased to push your nationalistic views. Please re-read WP:NPOV if you want a Greek translate just ask Luxure (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Gtrbolivar, like Stevepeterson, is apparently afraid that every attempt at neutral wording is a cover for a Macedonian invasion of Greece (like the Commie behind every bush fears of the Cold War). Gtrbolivar's ridiculous Turkish/Napoleon example is simply a red herring. We're not talking about facts within the article, which is balanced and clear. We're talking about a summary sentence. Summary sentences must be balanced and NPOV. Macedonia was not a 100% Greek kingdom, it was a blended kingdom with Greek and non-Greek elements. As such, labeling it "Greek" in the first sentence pushes a single POV--which, especially in the current geopolitical climate--is not NPOV, but highly charged emotionally among a segment of our readers. Leaving the issue neutral in the first sentence allows readers of both persuasions to read the verified facts in the remainder of the article and to make their own determination as to whether Macedonia had enough "Greekness" to make it Greek or not. --Taivo (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Macedonia was not a 100% Greek kingdom". Who says that for God's sake? Was it 90% Greek? 82% Maybe 75%. What does that even mean? This is absolutely ridiculous. Even the wording and the whole spirit of that sentence is unscientific and totally subjective (to say the least). Are you a historian? What were the non-Greek elements of ancient Macedonia? Are we to take your word over Herodotus, Arrian, Strabo, Hummond and many other distinguished and acclaimed historians? Who gives you the right to remove sources and historical evidence? Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They spoke Greek, they participated in the Olympic Games, they worshiped Greek gods, they identified themselves as Greeks, they were members -by their own admission and according to every historian- of the Greek race, their culture, their civilization, their customs, everything was Greek. They even spread Greek civilization all over the world. And those facts are backed up by every acclaimed historian and by hundreds of reliable sources. Gtrbolivar (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To Luxure: I'm not gonna dignify your crap with a response, you are an ignorant who doesn't know the first thing about history ("Ancient Greece didn't have kings"). My advice to you: Go back to the elementary school or try to read Herodotus or Arrian at least. This could work miracles on you, take my word for it. Finally as far as the WP:NPOV is concerned, my English is very good (unlike yours apparently: "it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia...", "It seems that your a being biased") and I don't need a "Greek translate". Maybe you need a Slavic translation (or whatever) to read that (quote): "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (...) Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." By removing the sources and the historical evidence I provided, you are in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and you committed old-school vandalism. Gtrbolivar (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Read Demosthenes YOU are going against consensus, not one person has agreed with you. Stop vandalising. Also stop insulting intelligence of people you have never. YOU have not met a consensus so the original statement stands. 1 more revert and you WILL be blocked for violating the 3-revert rule Luxure (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Luxure not only you are a vandal (you even edited my comment in this page) but it appears that you are also a sockpuppet of someone else (under investigation). Stevepeterson (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

He is not only a vandal and an ignorant, but it's pretty obvious that he is here to sneak his ridiculous POV pseudo-historic propaganda through the back door. The next time he removes reliable sources without justification, I am taking this matter to the administrators. The worst thing here is not the propaganda and the agenda of users like Luxure. The worst thing is that wikipedia allows users like him to vandalize, remove reliable sources & solid evidence and impose their agenda with impunity. Gtrbolivar (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)