Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Greek states"

I wrote the Macedonians turned against the Greek poleis becuase it refers specifically that it had wars with Athens, etc. They already had an alliance with Epirus and Thessaly, had it not ? The above sentence does not imply that Macedonians were not Greeks, but they certainly were not a city -state. So the nomenclature is strictly 'political', not 'ethnic' Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Macedonians turned also against the Boeotian League, a League isn't exactly the same political structure as the polis (Thebes the center of the League was raised to the ground). So, the term 'Greek states' encompasses all these entities.Alexikoua (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can leave it as Greek states, but I the "other" might be questionable, given that the Macedonian monarchy differed to the Greek poleis and confederacies. A not insignificant number of sources, including the one referred to in the in line reference of the sentence in question, do not necessarily view the Macedonian monarchy as a "Greek state" in the true sense of the word, whether one views the Macedonian people as Greeks or not. (So your edit has changed/ misrepresented what the cited source actually states: The Macedonian Empire "originated on the edge of the Greek world and (was) heavily influenced by Greek civilization even to the point of copying the Greek phalanx but developing it according to their own preferences...As the Macedonians became infused with Greek civilization they developed a larger and stronger state than any in Greece proper...The Macedonians only became important players in the Greek system after they had used what they had learned from the Greeks to expand into barbarian Europe.")

Not a big issue, but we have to be precise Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The river Haliacmon

Wikipedia has an article on Haliacmon, which seems to be the river referred to here, but it has been spelled 'Heliacmon' in the article. Does anyone object if I correct the spellings and wikilink to our article? The ancient Greek name for the river is Ἁλιάκμων so I don't know why the first vowel should be rendered as 'e' in English. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Imported" vs "Native" customs

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing regarding what was imported and what native. My suggestion is we either leave this out, or correctly state the facts. Some editors have argued that the "Greek" elements, however defined, were native, whilst others were imported.

Apart from being a rather meaningless division, this is (if anything) inaccurate and opposite to actual fact.

Snodgrass Altogether the graves of Macedonia, like their contents, are best explained by the durability of the non-Greek cultural element here, in which the phenomena of Greek influence - the Protogeometric pottery, and perhaps the rare cremations at Vergina - are fleeting.

Krisstianson As the Macedonians became infused with Greek civilization

Whitby But, if Macedonians were beginning to make use of some central Greek objects, they were otherwise sticking to their peculiar Macedonian ways

Lemnos It has already been noted that the community at Vergina had stronger links with northern regions, but contacts with southern areas in Greece are also indicated by the few imported vases...

Borza From the archaeological record it is clear that Macedonians were a non-Greek people who became increasingly Hellenized.

I thus propose either leaving simply "fusing GReek and Thraco-Illyrian", or "indegenous Macedonian elements became increasingly Hellenized".

Slovenski Volk (talk)

I haven't decided on this, but "Thraco-Illyrian" needs to go. It is a dated term that is no longer used in the literature. For example, it doesn't appear once in the Companion. Athenean (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to concur that the term is somewhat archaic and too broad. A further few suggestions from the literature:

Theodossiev (Dead with Golden Masks, Ox J Arch) close examination of the archaeological finds in the lands between the Aegean and Adriatic coasts, shows well that identical grave construction, burial ritual and similar kterismata were widespread among different Illyrian, Epeiran, Paionian, Thracian and Macedonian tribes during the Late Antique..Testifyinf strong interrelations and interractions amongst different ethne in north Balkan lands

Archibald The immediate and continuing background to the rise of Macedonia kingdom is marked by the cultural continuity and stabilty since LBA, ones whose primary orientation appears to have been with Thrace. Greek and non-Greek might may not be helpful terms in trying to clarify the material culture of these northern zones, irrespective of linguistic evidence Yet, well into historic period, the nature of Macedonian pit graves and their repertoire of jewellery and weapons is decidedly "un-Greek" in nature which appear at the very heart of the kingdom - Vergina, Sindos, etc.

Butler My evidence suggests that as the Balkan tribes of northern Greece were integrated into the Aegean world during the fifth century BCE. Selected Greek burial practices were integrated into Balkan death-ritual as the loosely-organized Balkan tribes looked to exogenous sources for cultural models.

So then I propose something like, The rise of the Macedonian kingdom was marked by the integration of the region's strong Late Bronze Age 'central Balkan' cultural traditions into a Graeco-Aegean beurocratic and economic system" Slovenski Volk (User talk:Slovenski Volk

No need to make this more and more complicated. Frankly, I think the original "Greek and non-Greek" wording is the least objectionable, barring that it might be best to avoid using ethnic labels altogether, i.e. just "native with imported". Athenean (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

agree with simplicity; How about Generally described as an ancient Greek people, they emerged from a north Aegean and central Balkan cultural zone incorporating heterogeneous but predominantly indigenous linguistic and cultural elements. ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the reservations and complexities voiced by specialist literature about their exact position as "Greeks", perhaps it might be best if we state that the Macedonians were part of the Greek world, whilst also having their particular regional culture. This follows the literature best and avoids misunderstandings. See new lede Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Balkan" is first of all highly anachronistic. "Generally described as an ancient Greek people" was just fine. Athenean (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Balkan" and "Aegean" terms are is moreover technical jargon used by the archeological literature. This is an encyclopedia article that needs to be accessible to the general public. It is already riddled with technical jargon and hard enough to understand, let's keep the lede non-technical at least. Athenean (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkan refers to the region, not necessarily any distinct cultural characteristics. I don't think using terms such as Balkan or Aegean requires a PhD in Archaeology to understand. I would argue that the average reader, especially given those reading this article, would understand what they refer to. So i fail to see your logic as to the term Balkan being anachronistic

If we are to leave the "generally referred to as an ancient Greek people" sentence, then this invokes possibly incorrect information. As I have previously stated, a lot of those sources which are 'claimed' to support this position do not in actual fact, or do so under a greatly modified premise (eg Fine's Ancient Greece states that they spoke ancient Greek but were not considered Greek), and a large body of the specialist literature does not either. Wikipedia has a policy of source heirarchy: ie better quality, more detailed and more recent studies trump those written in 1976 about the "Life of Phillip II". That is why my amendment which you reverted was a more sensible solution Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I prefer the previous version. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and let's not forget, a large body of the specialist literature does consider them Greek (e.g. Roisman and others in the Companion). Athenean (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after the 4th century (Anson and Engels), or Roman times (Baidan, Danforth, Borza). This is a not insignificant qualification Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, before the 4th century (Roisman, Christensen, Murray, Hammond). And besides, it is only significant to those obsessed with "proving" that the Macedonians "were not Greeks". This was your own wording, by the way. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for sensationalism and making unjustifable suggestions of personal motives here. I have highlighted why there is need for a slight amendment to the lede given my concern with sourcing and need for NPOV according to current scholarly opinion. You seem intent on flat rejection of my suggestions, so I suppose we need opinions from WP:RSN Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove from the lede my additions about their expansion? Uncool. The Illyrian and Thracian admixture is now mentioned. I trust this resolves the issue. Athenean (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

it is , sorry, that was accidental Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

yauna takabara

This paragraph is just one POV:

The Persians referred to both Greeks and Macedonians as Yauna ("Ionians", their term for "Greeks"), though they distinguished the "Yauna by the sea and across the sea" from the Yaunã Takabara or "Greeks with hats that look like shields", possibly referring to the Macedonian kausia hat.

But see Robert Rollinger's chapter in Blackwell's Companion to the Classical Greek World (ed. Konrad H. Kinzl), p. 204 and 205:

According to external criteria two groups of 'Greeks' are distinguished, both of which find expression in a representation differently depicted each time on royal tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. The distinction between Yaunā and Yaunā takabarā becomes clear in the first place because of the headress. This seems to be confirmed by terminology, although the difficult-to-interpret Old-Persian takabara and the corresponding Babylonian terminology - the other 'Greeks' (Yamanāja šanūtu) who wear maginnāta (plural) on their heads - still pose problems. Klinkott on one hand suggests that the term refers to a headress, specifically, the petasos, a felt hat with wide brim. Schmitt on the other hand raises the possibility that it refers to a shield, the pelte, because the wide brim does not seem to be a characteristic iconographic element. [...]

[I]t might be instructive to distinguish two models of interpretation, which have been presented recently. In one case the meaning of Yaunā is understood as a homogenous ethnic term and is the equivalent of the Greek world. Therefore Yaunā, with its various attributes, would refer to the regions that lie in the west and northwest of Asia Minor. The second interpretation construes the original meaning of Yaunā in a broader sense and interprets it as multiethnic. It refers to far-distant peoples in the west, who are to be found both in Asia Minor and in the northern Aegean. In addition to the Greeks this included the Phrygians, Mysians, Aeolians, Thracians, and Paionians. [...] However much one wishes to judge this incongruity, it is possible nevertheless to regard a few observations as certain. Yaunā refers to an ethnos or a conglomeration of peoples, who lived at the western fringes of the empire and possibly beyond. It is therefore likely that the various terms may go back to different situations of conquest. The terminology may betray a constructed artificiality striving for order.

Rollinger authored also "Yaunā takabarā und maginnāta tragende 'Ionier'. Zum Problem der 'griechischen' Thronträgerfiguren in Naqsch-i Rustam und Persepolis", challenging the widely held view that Yaunā takabarā were Greeks wearing a petasos, i.e. Macedonians and Thessalians. He also suggested it is possible that takabarā is a representation of "die Kampftechnik der griechischen Phalanx" Daizus (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is consistent with the term Ioanians being adapted to refer to all western (from the Persian viewpoint) inhabitants deemed to live in the Greek oikumene, not unlike the term "Latins" or "Franks" was used by the Byzantine Greeks to refer to a variety of Catholic, western European monarchies in medieval/ early modern times. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Identity

I am sorry to say, but this section has a POV and editorialized feel to it. It seems that most paragraphs here have been picked-and-placed in order to paint a central theme -- namely that the editor seems to be doing the best he can to call into question the greekness of the macedonians -- I don't have a problem with views of borza and others, but they should not be presented in such an editorialized fashion. Frankly it seems like a long-winded, one-sided essay, with a lot of contentious statements in it.... can anyone really argue that the tone of this section is not even slightly skewed?

Over the next few weeks I'll be making changes to this section that I feel will give it more of a neutral point of view. Everything of course, can be discussed here on the discussion page, and I hope to have some constructive engagement from the other editors of this page.

I will be making edits in good faith under WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. I would appreciate other editors also using good faith, and not simply reverting changes without discussion. Lets work together to make this a fair and useful NPOV article for all readers.

Three things in my current edit are:

1. The beginning of this section opens quite poorly. As it is a very long section, the first few sentences should act as a summary and introduction to the section. It would be prudent to restate the following summary from the lead regarding the identity of the macedonians, that the macedonians were 'Generally described as an ancient Greek people,' (using the 17 existing references). Restating statements from the lead in their appropriate sections is good practice, and is commonly followed on wikipedia.

2. Changing "The earliest version of the Temenid foundation myth was circulated by Alexander I, via Herodotus, during his apparent appearance at the Olympic Games." To: "Herodotus, one of the foremost biographers in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, writes that Alexander I stated his descent from the Argives during his appearance at the Olympic Games."

It is generally accepted that Alexander I appeared at the Olympic Games. This article is not the right place to argue about whether or not he appeared there, as is insinuated by the 'apparently'. (This is just one example of the current state of the state of the article, which puts a conspiratorial question over every historical source that does not agree with the most recent editor..)

Changing "Despite protests from some competitors, the Hellanodikai ("Judges of the Greeks") accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy, as did Herodotus himself, and later Thucydides." To:

"The judges of the Olympic Games (Hellanodikai) accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy although there were some protests from competitors. The competitors either did not believe Alexander I, or simply called into question his Greekness in an attempt to lessen the field of competition."

Removing the following passage, for reason given below: "The judges were either moved by the evidence itself, or did so out of political considerations - as reward for services to Hellas. The historicity of Alexander I’s participation in the Olympics has been doubted by some scholars (Alexander’s name does not appear in any list of Olympic victors), who see the story as a piece of propaganda engineered by the Argeads and spread by Herodotus.[134] Moreover, that there were protests from other competitors suggests that the supposed Argive genealogy of the Argeads "was far from mainstream knowledge";[135] and the appellation "Philhelene" was "surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek".[135][136] Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]"

This entire passage is (as the editor states), the view of "some scholars", (i.e, not the view of MOST scholars). It is certainly not the mainstream view. The editorializing tone of this passage is summed up purely by the last sentence quoting hall: "Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]

Removing "The emphasis on the Heraklean ancestry of the Argeads served to heroicize the royal family and to provide a sacred genealogy which established a "divine right to rule" over their subjects.[138] The Macedonian royal family, like those of Epirus, emphasized "blood and kinship in order to construct for themselves a heroic genealogy that sometimes also functioned as a Hellenic genealogy."[139]"

The above does not flow well with the previous paragraph removed, and does not talk directly to the macedonian identity in general...

REMOVING: Although most contemporary Greek writers accepted the Argeads as Greek, they nevertheless expressed an air of ambiguity about them (specifically their monarchic institutions and their background of Persian alliance) often portraying them as a potential "barbarian" threat to Greece. For example, the late 5th century sophist, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, objected "we Greeks are enslaved to the barbarian Archelaus" (Fragment 2).

OFF TOPIC. This does not belong here. The identity of the Argeads, and how other Greeks felt about them can be discussed in a section on the Argead page.

REMOVED: "What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians."

OFF TOPIC & editorializing. This does not belong here. It does not talk to the identity of the Macedonians. The spread of Hellenism via Greco-Persian campaigns under alexander is not an appropriate discussion here.

3. In his book 'Phillip II of Macedonia' Ian Worthington makes a statement that talks directly to the identity of the Macedonians,: 'not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable.' ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008). This is an important statement, and his overall must be expressed considering that Worthington is also referenced about 20-30 times in this article by the current author.

---

There is already too much noise and POV tone to this section. It needs some serious work. I tend to find the way that it is currently written is as follows: (being slightly facetious of course)

"Most contemporary greeks considered the Argives greek" (1 sentence) "Though some contemporary greeks felt otherwise..." (followed by 30 sentences outlining why some felt otherwise).

"Most modern scholars consider the macedonians to be a greek people" (1 sentence) "Though some scholars feel otherwise....." (followed by 90% of the remainder of the article discussing why some feel otherwise).

Unfortunately most of this article is focused on the view of the 'some', and the reader has barely any information on the view of the 'many'.... For example, why is it that most contemporary greeks considered the Argives to be greek?? This is not discussed at all in the article, only the contrary point. That is the common theme is see here.

My goal over the next few weeks will be to add content and sources (Both contemporary and modern views) that will even out the article, and present the reader with a more balanced viewpoint.

I hope to engage in a positive collaboration with other editors!

Cheers!

99.231.167.199 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically you want to say Ancient Macedonians were Greeks and claims to the contrary (or merely casting a shadow of doubt) must be removed, rewritten or moved to some other page? Daizus (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Read what I wrote above. All views should be provided and weighted fairly. The article should not have an editorialized tone, and should be presented in a NPOV manner. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit was to remove a significant section of text. So if you supress a view, how is it "provided and weighted fairly"? You write of "editorialized tone", please quote the cited sources and compare these quotes with the text of the article to prove your accusations. Daizus (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Identity section is extremely long, and I removed portions of it which are off-topic, or editorialized... I suppose the debate on which portions are editorialized will take quite a while to resolve, so lets just focus on the off-topic portions for now and then we can discuss from there. In the meantime, I will restore the additions I made, without removing any text until we can see if some other editors can chime in on the portions I find to be off topic. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you consider something off-topic or editorialized it doesn't mean it is so, you have to show it. Ian Worthington is alredy cited in the lead, there's no reason to cite him again, especially because he is not saying anything new about how ancient Macedonians viewed themselves and how the rest of the Greeks viewed the Macedonians, he's just stating his opinion and he's already accounted for that. Your other addition is to repeat a sentence from the lead: if you consider that section "extremely long", why do you add such redundant information? Daizus (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have put me in that position. The only way to add balance to the tone of the article is to add text, since you seem keen on reverting anything that is removed. I explained above why I thought those passages were off-topic, and you still have not spoken to my statements. You simply have said 'you haven't shown it'. I belive I have above. Do you disagree? Explain why. How about engaging in some discussion? The particular quote by worthington is not cited anywhere in the article in text for the reader to read, considering he sourced over 20 times, its good for the reader to see his view. I also explained above why I added the repeat sentence from the lead. Adding another sentence won't make much of a difference to the length of the section, but it WILL help to remove the slanted view of the current text and help balance the article. This is why it's not redundant. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You stated your opinion but mostly you did not explain why should some content be removed. You said the identity of Argeads does not belong here. Why? Were they not Macedonians? The same you said about a paragraph on Macedonians and Hellenic identity. Again, why? Isn't one of the (widely held) positions that ancient Macedonians had (or gradually embraced) a Hellenic identity? You also said that text is "editorializing", but as far as I can see, the text here accurately reflects the source, it's an actual quote from Jonathan Hall. Also you did not actually explain why a sentence must be repeated, you merely stated it would be "prudent" and a "good practice". But why?

Worthington is cited, but not quoted. As I explained just above, that quote would only present his opinion (a widely held opinion, to be sure) that Macedonians were Greeks, but that is accounted in the lead. What's the new information or argument and how is it relevant for the identity of this ancient people? Moreover, no one put you in any position, it were and still are solely your decisions as to what content to add and what to remove. Others can agree or disagree with that. Daizus (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you are incorrect, I did explain why I felt some content should be removed. You still have not responded or engaged in discussion on why you don't believe any of the passages i mentioned above are not off-topic and why they should not be removed other then 'you don't like them, too bad, others do.' . You seem to be side-stepping the issues here. Do you care to engage in constructive criticism of this article, or are you simple going to stubbornly reject any idea that does not fit your view point? The Macedonians claimed argive descent, I suggested removing the ethnogenesis discussion on the Argives in this article and rather linked directly to the Argive page in order to attempt to clean up the section, since it is a derivative discussion, not because I don't think that the Macedonians were of Argive descent. The section in general has a editorialized tone, and I felt it to be rather long, and that too much weight has been given too 'calling in question' the greekness of the Macedonians, contrary to amount of weight that would be found in academia. To talk to the point of the sources currently cited... I have no doubt that all the text there is from a real source. I am not claiming to the contrary. As far as restating something from the lead, this is done on many wikipedia pages, as a refresher for the reader who is reading a long article. It is good practice, and doesn't detract from the article at all. It would be prudent and good practice to summarize the general view of the section because a reader who wishes to skim over this article can better gather a sense of identity by reading the general view upfront, and then can read another 3000 words if he'd like to see some contrary views. In this article many opinions of various authors are expressed, to cast doubt on the Greekness of Macedonians, yet no opionions are expressed by any authors to the contrary. Why are you trying to suppress an alternative view that would lead to a more balanced point of view to the article? What are you so worried about? Adding two lines to a 3000 + word section surely does not detract from the article, and the only reason to suppress such a quote or opinion would be if one were attempting to slant the article to a certain viewpoint. I think most would agree that the tone of the section is such that 'casting some doubt' on the Greekness of the Macedonians is given undue weight.

And now to discuss the Worthington quote. You talk about the quote from Worthington being his 'opinion' and adding nothing to the discussion. This is patently false. Furthurmore, the entire section is the 'opinion' of a few authors, such as Borza, and Hall. They are quoted many times. I'm sorry but your argument against quoting Worthington does not hold if you are going to pick and chose which quotes you like, and reject those that you do not like. Worthinton's quote certainly adds to the discussion on the identity of the Macedonians as he directly speaks to it, and draws a conclusion on section in which he is sourced over 20 times. To suggest otherwise or that it is not appropriate is complete nonsense. Finally you say that the quote from Worthington would 'only express an opinion'. That is the purpose of adding the quote. Worthington is sourced over 20-30 times in this section, it would be prudent for the reader to see a quote reflecting his opinion on the matter.. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the final paragraph expresses 'Hall's' opinion : Hall concludes that the issue of Macedonian identity has, in the past, been "phrased in anachronistic terms conditioned by the vocabulary of nationalism and the modern nation-state". He adds: "to ask whether the Macedonians "really were" Greek or not in antiquity is ultimately a redundant question given the shifting semantics of Greekness between the 6th and 4th centuries BC. What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians.

The previous editors had no problem conclude with the opinion of Hall. But why should the reader not be privy to see a quote and opinion of another author (Worthington) who has infact been sourced 20-30 times in this section? You are going to have to go above and beyond simply replying that 'it doesn't add anything new to this section.

Not to mention, that the last part of Hall's quote is way off topic 'What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians.' The spread of Hellenism via Greco-Persian campaigns under Alexander, and an opinion from a single author on whether or not Hellenism would have spread if another Greek City-State had come to power in the 4th century is not an appropriate discussion here, and adds nothing to the discussion on the identity of the Macedonians. This should definitely be removed. I would really like some neutral editors to chime in on this particular point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.167.199 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to go around in circles and I'm in no mood for such arguments, and certainly not for your ad hominem. From my point of view there's no discussion, but that's maybe only me. There are also other editors (not neutral, according to you) reverting your changes. Good luck! Daizus (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, you are in no mood to discuss the merit of the article? You have still not decided to engage in constructive debate and talk directly to why you do not believe, for example, the above passages are not off topic. I have spent time addressing your points even when they were side-stepping my original statements that you have not addressed. Furthermore, you are the only editor reverting changes. The other editor, Jingiby, reverted with "Discuss and reach consensus, please." Why are you stating that I think he is not neutral? I never made such a claim. It is unfortunate that you make such an insinuation. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by three editors, and I'm just one of them. Contrary to your allegations, I did not supress any view, I reverted because you removed sourced content. You did not address my points (e.g. I required actual evidence for the editorializing tone), you just said I'm wrong and you restated your opinions more verbosely but also with insinuations and insults (e.g. "are you simple going to stubbornly reject any idea that does not fit your view point?"). You failed to persuade me with arguments and good-faith, what else should we discuss about? I do find the current version relatively balanced (and there are many other points which could be further detailed, e.g. see above Yauna Takabara is not unanimously accepted as an Old Persian name given to Macedonians, the current version thus favors their identification as a Greek/Yauna group), not denying the Greekness of Macedonians (on the contrary), perhaps a bit lengthy (and it would be even lengthier with your additions). Daizus (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, It appears I may have made too many changes when being bold earlier, and I understand why you simply reverted before engaging in any discussion. So, I'd like to take a different approach -- lets start small. VERY SMALL. This is just one example of what I perceive to be biased undertones in the article. I've made the following change at: "It is only after the 3rd century BC, and especially in Roman times, that Macedonians would be consistently regarded as Greeks." TO: "After the 3rd century BC, and especially in Roman times, the Macedonians were consistently regarded as Greeks." For the following reason: It is possible that the semantics of the previous sentence may insinuate that the macedonians were were not greeks 'prior' to the 3rd century BC. The use of 'it is only' pads the sentence without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Simply stating 'After the 3rd century BC….' is much more neutral. We can come back to address Worthington's quote and other issues later. The weather is nice outside and I'd like to enjoy the rest of the weekend! ;) I look forward to working constructively with you to improve this article. Thanks. PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The article presents several earlier views in which the Macedonians are not considered Greeks (by Herodotus et al). "It is only" after the 3rd century all the ancient sources are unanimous about their Greekness. Daizus (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct, just as the article also presents several earlier views in which the Macedonians *are* considered Greeks. Do you think that the several earlier views talk only to the Macedonians not being considered greek? If this is the case, then you would have to agree that the article is skewed. The use of 'it is only' pads the sentence without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Lets keep things neutral. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"It is only after the 3rd century BC, and especially in Roman times, that Macedonians would be consistently regarded as Greeks." They were not consistently regarded so before the 3rd century, and this phrase was pointing this out. Daizus (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but It is not required to add 'It is only' to this phrase to point this out. The reader has already picked up on the debate prior to the 3rd century, so the use of 'it is only' pads the sentence without adding any useful information. Removing 'it is only' does not change the fact that they were consistently regarded as greeks after the 3rd century. But it does make for a more neutral sounding article, and removes any risk of a biased view that they were patently 'not' greek prior to the 3rd century. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the risk, the wording was not "It is only after 3rd century that Macedonians became patently Greek". So according to you, using a flowing narrative is wrong (because the reader has already picked it up, so he needs no words to connect to the previous paragraphs), however it's necessary to repeat the sentence in the lead that Macedonians are Greeks (I guess because the reader has not picked it up, so he needs a reminder). Daizus (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is actually how Danforth writes it in his book. It flows well, and does not minimize, editorialize, revize, or anything to that effect. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Slovenski, How an author writes something in a book cannot be directly adopted to a wiki article, because the article is not simply a copy of a book, It is an amalgamation of various sources from various books. The information presented to a reader from various books and sources should be carefully presented. Haphazardly using narratives from various sources can easily make the article come off as an essay. Daizus, you are comparing apples to oranges... repeating or paraphrasing sentences from the lead is common practice on Wikipedia, especially on long articles. In this case, it would be the first sentence in the section on 'Identity', making it appropriate as a refresher since there are 10 sections and ~10,000 words between the lede and the 'identity' section. It is a good summary and starting point for the reader to immediately know how the view that a majority of academics have on the identity of the macedonians. (Especially since the identity section gives undue weight to casting doubt on the Greekness of Macedonians, rather then talking to their Greekness in the affirmative. I have not seen such effort on any other articles from the wikipedia canon on Ancient Greece that has this phenomena.)... But lets discuss this in the future, and get back to the matter at hand. Clearly, "It is only after 3rd century that Macedonians became patently Greek" isn't what was written, but that is just one way (of many) the previous structure may be interpreted, particularly in an article like this, and given the tone of this section. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Language Map

Despite concerns raised above, Alexi still has not modified his map included in the language section. Basically, the map is incorrect and not in accordance with the author (Georgiev) which he sites. I thus invite Alexi again to defend his map before we remove it

Alex's map has the proto-Greek area (as per his legend) includes NW Greece & central and western Macedonia. However Georgiev clearly states

- Page 147/148 on Intro to Indo-European ...

"On the basis of the distribution of the ancient toponymy the Balkan Peninsula can be divided into seven or eight basic ethnic regions: Daco-Mysian (Dacia and Mysia= Moesia), Thracian (Thrace), pre-Greek (Pelasgian; southern & central Greece together with a large part of the Aegean Islands), Proto-Greek (Epirus, western and northern Thessaly), Macedonian (southern Macedonia, the basin of the Heliacmon river), proto-Phrygian (north & central Macedonia, the basin of the Erigon river), Illyrian...Dalmatian"

so proto-macedonian & proto-Greek are seperate (although closely related); and macedonia (the region),except for Pieria, is not part of proto-Greek (although it does contain certain proto-Greek toponyms) - maybe this is where he got confused.?

- later, section 5.4 he expands on this explicitly:

"The proto-greek region included Epirus, approx up to Aύλώv to the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamantia, ..Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiatis, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, Pieria), ie the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece."

So I fail to see the confusion as to how Alexi derives his map. ? OR Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify the brackets after "Proto-Greek" in your citation from p.147/148 above? It's not quite clear whether "Macedonian" is meant to be inside the bracket that is opened after "Proto-Greek". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The map shows the situation in the 3rd millennium BC, before the split between Macedonian and Greek. The only thing wrong with it is that the shaded area extends a little to far north, but that's about it. Who is "we" by the way? Athenean (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"We" is the team of responsible, source-abiding editors that will take care of this error. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you. Athenean (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia talkpages. Everybody can join a discussion and feel part of the great editorial "we" whenever they like. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was (am) worried it might mean "Me-and-my-IP-socks-which-I-have-used-in-the-past-to-edit-war", which is why I asked. Athenean (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't start Athenean. It is the anonymous army of followers who are the socks ....I reverted a vandal and was penalized unfairly

F.P. Macedonian is meant to be outside the opened bracket- I have now modified it.

Athenean : your statement does not exhonorate the factual irregularities with the map:

(a) Whilst Macedonian and Greek were indeed, according to Georgiev, once one language, this was not called "proto-Greek"; but preceded the proto-Greek stage. Georgiev never says that Macedonian derived from proto-Greek, as the map implies by containing the legend "Proto-Greek area" on it. Rather, he states that Greek, Macedonian, Phrygian and Armenian belong to ("The Central Indo-European group"). Macedonian shows very close relationship with Greek: during the third millenium BC these two languages were originally dialects of a common language. Page 360.

(b) The map Alexi has attempted to draw (ie of the combined Macedonian-Greek stage) is further incorrect because: (i) Georgiev does not go into where this entity might have existed (? the Balkans, Anatolia, Ukraine steppe??). (ii) it has conveniently excluded other languages Georgiev states were also part of it (ie Phrygian, Armenia).

Rather, Alexi has transplated Georgiev's info selectively & partially, labelled it incorrectly, and then placed it onto Georgiev's description of the 'linguistic zones' he described (written above). So he has cut and pasted different material into his own "interpretive" map. This is OR.

What I further find baffling is that Georgiev actually gives us a map in his book (pg 147), which I reproduced (see below), but Alexi keeps removing because he finds it to be OR. This is a little perplexing. (I have this map and can upload it as proof if required)

Language zones acc. to Georgiev. Greek: NW GReece + Pieria; Macedonian - Heliacmon basin, Phrygian - Nth Macedonia, Chlacidike / Strymon - a Daco-Thracian, Pre-Greek - southern & central Greece

.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

However, don't you think that showing the map gives some undue weight to Georgiev's view? According to many enough scholars, Macedonian is nevertheless derived from Proto-Greek. Images and maps are powerful tools. In my opinion, for the Language section we need:

• a map with languages/dialects without further taxonomic grouping
• a map with Proto-Greek and its split (assuming this is the mainstream opinion, is it?)
• two maps: one with the split of Proto-Greek, the other being the current map (Proto-Greek contemporary and closely related to Proto-Macedonian). Daizus (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Also Proto-Greek, Proto-Macedonian and Proto-Phyrgian should have stronger and possibly related colors (e.g. blue, indigo, mauve). For the rest of the languages please use faded colors. Daizus (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We are using Georgiev because he was used as the original map source, but your caution is certainlyl valid, we are rather making heavy use of him. In fact, Georgiev is becoming outdated; common opinion increasingly places the 'emergence' of Greek in Greece (ie eastern south-central), not in "waves of migrations" from outside it, whether Macedonia, central Balkans, the steppe, or Anatolia.

And there is indeed a problem with map - they imply a static situation and linguistic boundaries at a time when this was not the case.

However, as Georgiev goes, he does not state that Macedonian derived from proto-Greek; according to his analysis, this had split earlier, before the development of proto-Greek proper.

Dazius, can you please clarify your suggestion for a 3-levelled map ?

Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for ambiguity, my list was meant with "or" not with "and". IMO, any of the three would work. Daizus (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@SV: good to have you back after a 3 months break, although it's sad we have to recycle same arguments, since you ignore specific Proto-Greek toponyms by Georgiev north of Aliakmon or that the specific region included in general northern and northwestern Greece (not only nw as it's claimed above).

I'll give the precise parts (highlited parts disagree with both SV maps) from: Georgiev V.I. "The arrival of the Greeks in Greece: the linguistic evidence." Noyes Press. pp. 243-253. British Association for Mycenaean Studies, 1974. ISBN 9780815550228

1st map claimed as Georgiev's (p. 147-148) created June 10: P-Macedonian is limited to Aliakmon basin.

2nd map claimed as Georgiev', (p. 47-48 this time), created June 24, presents linguistic groups in the late 3rd mil., but until the 2nd half of the 3rd mil. the Proto-Greek-Macedonian was not split.

.

All the principal names north of the line (Pineios-Acheloos) are of archaic Greek origin: for example:

Epeiros, Khaonia, Kammania, Arktanes, Oresteia-Orestai, Paloeis, Kokytos, Akheron, Keraunia ore, Lynkos-Lynkeai, Olympos, Pindos, Onkhesmos, Euroia, Boukhetos, Drys, Kharadra, Thessalia, Lethaios, Dolikhe

Thus, in the region just above, roughly northern and north-western Greece, one finds only archaic Greek place-names. Consequenstly, this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks where they lived before they invaded central and southern Greece. Since Greek place-names are very dense in that region and they have a very archaic appearance, once may suppose that the proto-Greeks were settled in it during many centuries and even millennia.

Moreover, I can't explain why SV immediately created as a response two maps, claimed to be Georgiev's: In the first one the borders of the Proto-Greek area is moved south to Corinthian gulf, while Proto-Mac is limited to Aliakmon basin. (claimed to be in p. 147-148). The second seems more accurate with the borders of the Proto-Macedonian area moved north, however we have two serious issues:

• [[[1]] Orestis (modern Kastoria region) and [[2]] Lyncestis (modern Bitola region) are excluded from the Proto-Greek region.
• There is a chronological incosistency since the Pre-Greek and the Pre-Macedonian regions represent diferrent millenia:

• a common Greek-Macedonian idiom was spoken till about the second half of the third millennium B.C.
• [[at the 1st quarter of the 2nd millenium B.C. Proto-Greeks had already settled throughout whole of Greece (this means they were also south of the Pineios-Acheloos line.

Alexikoua (talk)

You have cited these passages before. They are from a different publication than the one SlV cited. Slv says his map corresponds directly to a map Georgiev himself has in the other publication, in the direct neighbourhood to the passages he cited above. That's enough for us. I'd need more context to judge how these two passages are to be reconciled with each other, but in any case that's neither here nor there. Georgiev has a map, we follow that map, debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the comments by Daizus and Slovenski Volk above, it appears the debate is far from over. There isn't even a consensus that there should be a map in the first place, or whether Georgiev should be used at all. I am removing all maps till a consensus is reached. Athenean (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Alexi mate you;re repeating your same misinterpretations, not I. Yes, Orestis, Lynkestis are Greek toponyms. I agree. However, Georgiev has not made them part of distinct the proto-Greek "homeland" which he has clearly described. You're mixing the presence of GReek toponyms unequivocally with a proto-Greek homeland. There are Greek toponyms even in the Macedonian and Phrygian areas, which he nevertheless classes separate lanquage zones". Your pasting info from one page with another, a presenting it in support for an arguement which does not exist. That's synthesis. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The above toponyms are part of the section 'The Proto-Greek area', and Georgiev ends up with: "this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks...". I took a 'single' part of Georgiev, so I don't understand why do you mean that I'm mixing that. By the way, you need to explain which of the two maps you created can be the 'real' Georgiev's according to you.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the latter. The simple fact is that Georgiev clearly does not include northern regions (ie Lynkestis) in proto-Greek region in any of his publications;no matter how many links you post as to the Greekness of certain words further north - which noone disputes. What's more is that the info in his book Intro to IE should be used becuase (a) it is more detailed and (b) published more recently (1982, versus his chapter in Aegean Migrations 1973). So he's clarified his data; and clearly states in all subsequent works that the proto-Greek homeland is NW Greece (Ie Epirus, Thessaly + Pieria); and not anythin north of this. It would also help if you chose a source and stuck to it, rather than picking and chosing to suit your purpose Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't see a consensus here either,... Maybe these maps would be more suitable for the Ancient_Macedonian_language article? Not sure we need to get so in-depth with the language section here.... 99.231.167.199 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a map would be OK, but no need for several maps. I think a correct representation of Georgiev's one would suffice, given that it is proximate to the time period we are dealing with. And whilst some criticisms can and have been directed against Georgiev's methodology in terms of how he formulated his linguistic theories, he is one of few authors who has actually published any map of sorts. Thus his map may be used as one possible explanation of the scenario we are dealing with Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC) representation of

@SV there is serious incosistency with your arguments: for example you claim that your map is right because it's based on a more recent study, however it's a translation of a 1966 work and this makes it far too old on the other hand I used an international journal publication not an article by a state-owned social regime.

Moreover, you still need to explain why your first map (supposed to be Georgiev's) is rejected now by yourself as nonsense? Suppose your second one is based on the wrong labes of the first since you accidentally placed Pelagonia further south on both in order to reduce the Proto-Greek area.Alexikoua (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you still on about how the passage you quoted contradicts the passage SlV quoted? Well, it doesn't. I've got hold of the book SlV used now, and checked how Georgiev defines these regions. The crucial distinction, in his view, is that the toponymy in his "proto-Macedonian" area is mixed, with some etymologies fitting in with Greek and others not, whereas in his "proto-Greek" area the etymologies are more consistently Greek. (He also says there are some crucial differences in detail, such as the absence of old toponyms involving "φ,θ,χ" in the proto-Mac. area.) But under these criteria, the occurrence of some Greek-derived placenames in that area, such as the ones mentioned in the passage you quoted, does not contradict the overall finding of two distinct areas along the lines described in the passage SlV quoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and, incidentally, the work you quoted isn't a journal publication, and you didn't get the bibliographic reference right either. It's a volume of conference proceedings. Correct citation is Georgiev, V.I. (1974). "The arrival of the Greeks in Greece: the linguistic evidence". In Crossland, R. A.; Birchall, Ann (eds.). Bronze Age migrations in the Aegean: archaeological and linguistic problems in Greek prehistory (Proceedings of the first International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Sheffield). London: Duckworth. pp. 243–253.. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Also checked the website [3] with his article from 1960. It's essentially just a summary of the material that's also in the book SlV used. I don't know where you see a contradiction or inconsistency between these; there is none. He is clearly making the exact same distinction between a "proto-Greek" and a "proto-Macedonian" region in both publications. What you said above about an alleged inconsistency because "the Pre-Greek and the Pre-Macedonian regions represent diferrent millenia" makes no sense at all; you have clearly not even begun to understand what the guy is actually saying. Go get the book and read it, then read it again, until you understand it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion of identity section.

Not sure why the last paragraph to begin with 'Hall Concludes'. The previous 3-4 paragraphs mention nothing of Hall and don't source any material from him. (Therefore, What is he concluding?) This article is not an essay representing Hall's view ( he is only mentioned once in name in the entire article!). Something like this would be more appropriate and proper style: "On the issue of Macedonian identity, Hall concludes....." or "Modern day scholars have come to conclusions regarding the Macedonian identity. Hall concludes that....." etc.... Using this style doesn't insinuate that the prior paragraphs are hall's view and it removes the essayist/synthy tone that plagues this whole section.

Of course, not all scholars share this view (that the identity of the Macedonians is a 'redundant question'), and the reader should not be left with only this quote as the only impression from a scholar regarding a conclusion on identity. Frankly, I think that this concluding paragraph should be entirely removed... but until we can get a consensus on that, I've simply added a quote from Ian Worthington to give the reader a balanced viewpoint. Worthington is sourced 40 times (!!) in this article, twice as much as Hall is! 99.231.167.199 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly true- Hall isn;t God; although I don't see how much someone is referenced has anything to do with it. And Hall isn;t rejecting the idea of ethnicity, rather he criticized past attempts to conclude whether the Macedonians were A or B based on things deemed to be 'objective data' such as names or inscriptions, or whether they had cities or were tribal, etc; rather he argued that ethnicity was far more nuanced than a check-list of objective criteria.

Furthermore, if you want to include more strong viewpoints in the concluding paragraph, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with saying something outright; and your source is obviously a good one. However, this needs to be worked in with other scholars to represent the full spectrum of ideas Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My take on the "Identity" section is that a lot of emphasis is given to what the "ancients" thought (which is fine, as secondary sources are used), but much less on what modern scholars actually think. So I support the recent additions. My only question though, is that I don't think Worthington is alone, is he? Athenean (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No I don;t think he is; but that direct quote is his; and here we should use authors who have 'dedicated' chapters / essays to the matter. And all the 'reliance' on ancient authors is through the works of secondary sources, anyway Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

SV, thanks for your feedback here. I can see Hall isn't saying they weren't greek. He's simply saying that its a moot question, but then says what can't be denied is that Hellenic(Greek) Culture may not have spread passed the peninsula if it weren't for the Macedonians. Seems like a little bit of a contradiction, or he's simply afraid of drawing a concrete conclusion.

SV, I've moved quote back to where i originally inserted it, instead of where you've moved it... it may be a strong viewpoint, but lets keep in mind that a majority of the material sourced in the Identity section is from Worthington. If this is his view, and most of the text here is sourced from him, it should be given precedence over Hall's quote (precedence meaning that it concludes the paragraph). I am fully with you to 'represent the full spectrum of ideas', as I'm sure are other editors. We just have to be careful that the 'full spectrum of ideas' are presented in a way that is weighted appropriately, because if it isn't, then we start to get into problems with the quality and fairness of the article. This article already has too much undue weight given to views that are minority. Most of the article is spent on 'casting doubt' rather then talking to evidence in the affirmative. I'm not sure how or why this is the case. Its clear that they're regarded as greeks by the majority (as is stated in the lead), so it's a bit strange that other editors have been so lenient with the opposing 'no consensus on their identity' crowd.

I say this to the other editors: If the general view is the the macedonians were Greek, as is acknowledged in the lede, why isn't this article fundamentally structured to explain why that is the general/majority view? Why is the fundamental structure of this article instead based on casting doubt on the majority view? If it's a consensus that a majority view the Macedonians as Greek, then as per WP:POV the article must reflect this view in order to be neutral, should it not?.... And personally, as a reader, I want to know WHY the majority views them as Greeks, but the article isn't structured this way.... how come?

To me, one of the biggest problems with the article is a tone which inaccurately indicates the relative prominence of opposing views. Here's what WP:POV has to say --> Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Obviously the example used on WP:POV is quite a strong one, but I do feel that is what's happening overall here.. Even if it is disguised by the "Most think A, but some think B" methodology, where time spent talking to B is much greater then A. Take for example, the Paragraph written on Alexander I appearing at the olympic games. most of this paragraph talks to 'some scholars' doubting that he ever appeared there in the first place. This inappropriately gives the minority view apparent parity. Next take for example the Paragraph on their descent from Zeus, again the minority view is given apparent parity. Take another example on the paragraph regarding Herodotus's view... which by the way , is as follows 'Now that these descendants of Perdiccas (Perdiccas I of Macedon) are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history." I can go on, and then give a bunch more examples of paragraphs that have a very synthy tone... but i'll stop here for now as this is getting be a bit long ;)

SV, I want you to know I'm not at all opposed to presenting alternative views even if i don't agree with them, because that is how a neutral article is written, but I really think this article might need a fundamental shift in its structure so that it is more fairly balanced to reflect consensus academic views. I know sometimes editors can get quite emotional on certain articles, but we have a duty to the reader to present a neutral and unbiased article as best we can, and we must represent the consensus as best we can. Cheers! PS Don't forget --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.167.199 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time in doing a lengthy discussion. I do understand your suggestions. However, I think you'll find that if you look at all recent, detailed, "tertiary level" essays/ discussion papers/ articles on the issue of Macedonian ethnicity (ie not books dealing with general ancient Greek history); you'll find that the majority conform the the 'evolving view" of gradual acceptance and would not phrase it as in such unambivalent terms a Worthington has (who actually is not sourced at all in the article, he is merely the head editor of the Companion and not the writer of the articles; you might not have realized this). Very few support the outright, "proto-Greek" view, even if they subscribe to the evidence that Macedonian language was in fact a form of Greek, they still see that Greekness was a matter tighty intertwined with contemporary cultural -political discourse, and follow the early ancient sources which were ambivalent, at best, about Macedonians. So your final sentence represents a rather extreme sentiment and hardly ideal for a concluding sentence Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

SV, Thank you as well for your correspondence. I see that Worthington is the editor, so he's read the material and that is still his view... Also keep in mind that those who 'specialize' in Macedonian ethnicity do not have more information available to them then the 'general' classical Greek historians. I would venture to bet that Donald Kagan (Chair of Classics and History at Yale, & considered the one of the worlds foremost historians) is as well versed as the 'specialists' you mention, and I probably don't have to tell you what his view is.

All this being said, I do hope to work with you in the future to improve the quality of the article. I'll also create an account if I'm going to make major edits. Best Regards, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.167.199 (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor does not endorse all the views presented in his volume. Daizus (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Language section

The language section is starting to become a bit too long and too technical for the purposes of this article. This is not the place to discuss classification schemes for IE language family. The work cited also appears to be relatively minor and is given undue weight, nor is ancient Macedonian its focus. Athenean (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I cut it down considerably Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Still too technical and undue weight. The Garrett paper is given way too much prominence for such a minor work. There also isn't much information there. Sorry, but I am removing it. Athenean (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor according to whom ? Adding two sentences from it is hardly UNDUE, especially given that a sizable portion (1/3) on it focuses on Greek Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that paper even peer-reviewed? Athenean (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Garrett certainly is a RS (a linguistics professor from Berkeley); and his ideas are hardly fringe or novel; and has previous publications to similar effect in peer-reviewed publications [4] Such ideas are circulating widely in the works of Hall, Renfrew, Wyatt, etc; all whom would sport the same kind of analysis and I could retrieve for you Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

---

>If you have doubts as to the whether it is RS and breaches UNDUE, feel free to ask around Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's not peer-reviewed. These "in memory of X" type publications need to be treated with caution. I have a paper in one such publication, and it is the absolute worst paper I have ever written. And I published in such a publication because no peer-review journal would accept it. Now, I am RS in my field, but that doesn't mean all my papers are equally worthy of being cited. Same with Garrett. But anyway, this is not really the issue. Like I said earlier, the language section is starting to become too technical. That is not the purpose of the section. Your addition may be acceptable for the article on xmk, but not here. Here we give a brief treatment of the language, nothing more. The Greek-Macedonian-Brygian hypothesis is mentioned, that is sufficient. It's also interesting that you think a "sizable portion" of the language section focuses on Greek (which it doesn't): This means you explicitly intend this latest addition to "counter" that. Athenean (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean by the last part, however, 'scholarly monographs' still may be RS; esp when they are by published linguists who are well recognized in the scholalry community. It is not set to counter anything other than 'family 'tree' explanations. THe net effect, if you will, is still the same - nothign has been fundamentally altered Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Garrett paper was published in Berkeley Linguistics Society [5], which certainly is a reputable outlet. No problem about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but I still think the addition is a little beyond the scope of the article. Athenean (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I share Athenians' view here. There is an main article devoted to the what language the macedonians spoke. The section here should be short and give the reader a general view of the consensus. Shouldn't take more then a paragraph to describe the majority view in academia... (that Macedonians spoke a particular Greek dialect, Whether its Doric/Aeolic/Attic , etc... Mention the Pella Curse tablet, and various Attic Greek inscriptions. We could also include some coinage inscriptions here)..... Again, I see in this section more convolution and confusion for the reader by introduction of too many technical terms, and a strange and particular habit of the editor to go out of their way to point out anything non-greek... "MOST Macedonians had Greek names (Alexander, Philip, etc.) BUT there can be found the occasional non-Greek name (e.g. "Bithys")"

That being said, its easy to criticize, and harder to spend time re-writing a section and coming to consensus. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Always the evil editors! Check the source and you'll find out (as indicated in the article) that in Macedonia we have mostly Greek names (Panhellenic Greek names, epichoric Greek names - sometimes having significant differences from the phonology of standard Greek or Attic names, few Greek names exclusive to this region) but also non-Greek Illyrian or Thracian names. Is your idea of neutrality to distort this source and just write "Macedonians had Greek names"? Daizus (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)