Jump to content

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section

Consensus NOT to use "ancient Greek kingdom" in the lede. Related archived discussion indicates that "Hellenic kingdom" is an inferior synonym for "Greek kingdom", and also should not be used.

I do not live in this part of the world, and I have zero interest in the modern or historical politics here. After extensive review I find that this topic area has been subject to extensive nationalized edit warring, assumptions that any disagreement equates to membership in a localized opposed nationalized agenda, multiple Arbcom cases, and repeated Canvassing. The Wikipedia consensus process is not a vote. Many responses were collapsed within Comments of SPAs. They were not ignored. After examination I find that they contain largely duplicative contributions to the discussion, and they show little or no familiarity with Wikipedia policies or process. I have weighed them accordingly.

Due to the long term warring and potentially biased/unreliable argument here, I decided to "sanity check" this outcome before posting the above result. The first thing I found in a Google search was the Encyclopedia Britannica article on this topic. The key sentence is here:

  • The origin and identity of this people are much debated and are at the centre of a heated modern dispute between those who argue that this people should be considered ethnically Greek and those who argue that they were not Greek or that their origin and identity cannot be determined[1]
That sentence perfectly describes the debate here. Wikipedia practice in this kind of situation is clear. When there are significant and conflicting positions on an issue, we refrain from making categorical assertions. This most strongly applies to the lede of articles. Complex or disputed issues do not belong in the lede. Instead we move it to the body of the article, where we can provide a more detailed discussion. Alsee (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

There is a dispute on whether we should keep the current phrasing "ancient kingdom" in the lead section or to change it to "ancient Greek kingdom". Supporters of "ancient kingdom" argue that this is the long standing version which is not WP:POINTy and it doesn't offend the Macedonian readers. I support to use "ancient Greek kingdom" because the long standing version "ancient kingdom" is actually disputed since 2009, (see archives 3 and on), we have reliable sources who call it precisely "Greek kingdom" despite what some of us may believe, and we must remember that wikipedia is not censored, consequently attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Macedonian (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support the use of 'Ancient Greek Kingdom,' for the reasons detailed above and the arguments User:Athenean used to make. Reaper7 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Greekness of ancient Macedon is well-known to be a controversial issue. To call Macedon a "Greek kingdom" is an oversimplification of the ancient evidence, which often distinguishes between Greeks and Macedonians, while also attributing Greek ancestry to its kings. It requires a large section of an article to discuss the issue here. This is in addition to the FYROM/Hellenic Republic issue, which makes this a clear violation of NPOV.
The lead could acknowledge that this is a topic of dispute, and the article could have a section on Legacy discussing competing modern claims to a relationship with the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, but to just assert that it was Greek (as if it is something no one disputes) in the lead of the article is not acceptable. Furius (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note that only the ultra-nationalists of the Republic of Macedonia are trying to associate ancient Macedonia with the modern Slavic country, not Republic of Macedonia collectively. Macedonian (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Furius said absolutely nothing whatsoever about ancient Macedonia being Slavic. Do not put words in his mouth in order to trivialize his very valid point. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I have nowhere said that he talked "about ancient Macedonia being Slavic". Please do not put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Macedonian (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Then why did you even bring it up? Furius didn't say anything about "Slavic". You are the one who introduced it into this discussion for no purpose that I can see. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments of SPAs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Alexanders do not represent the sum total of all Macedonians. Self-identification is not any accurate judgment of what Greeks thought about the Macedonians. People wish they were something else all the time and claim to be such. That doesn't mean that they actually are that. It's crystal clear why the Macedonian kings might have wanted to be Greek, but that didn't make them Greek. And your measure of what constitutes a "reliable" historian is that they agree with your point of view. That's far from the truth. (And just because you reproduced your comment outside the SPA box, doesn't make you any less of an SPA.) --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If self identification as a Greek is not judgement enough what about the fact that they spoke the Greek language, believed in the Greek gods, competed in the Olympic games, used Greek currency & spread Greek culture (not "Macedonian") to the world?? I guess this is not an accurate judgement either! So tell me, which other race or group of ancient people preferred to speak an outsiders language, adopt an others religion, & spread another's history & culture to the known world instead of their own especially when they are the ruling empire? Was it the Persians, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Sumerians, the Chinese etc etc, please enlighten me. And about this statement... "It's crystal clear why the Macedonian kings might have wanted to be Greek, but that didn't make them Greek", can you please elaborate why you stated "might" have wanted instead of "wanted", are you not sure about this & where is the source of this information coming from? Is it a historian's point of view that is widely agreed upon by other academics or just your own POV??
I definitely agree with this statement though "People wish they were something else all the time and claim to be such", I see this all the time from the people of the FYROM, they constantly claim to be "Macedonian's" (with Alexander's DNA &/or blood running thru their veins) but that doesn't mean that they actually are. It's crystal clear that they're not Macedonian but also crystal clear why the people of the FYROM want to be "Macedonian"(Greek), but that doesn't make them "Macedonian". As for what constitutes a "reliable" historian, it's one who's views/works on the subject have been recognised & accepted by his peers & other academics relating to that subject & that the majority of them have the same view based on archaeological, anthropological & linguistic findings, not ones that agree with my (or your) point of view. I believe you have me confused with the people of the FYROM.

Trying to prove the ancient Macedonian's were not ancient Greeks or of their stock does not make the people of today's FYROM "Macedonian". I have been searching for the last 35 years for one of them or anyone to credibly prove that a link to antiquity exists between the Slav-"Macedonian's" & the ancient Macedonians... I've been waiting quite a long time, maybe you can help Taivo.N.Panamevris (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support the use of "Ancient Greek Kingdom". Macedonia was a Greek kingdom. I can see that there has been some interesting discussion above concerning this topic, so I’ll try to keep this as short as I can.

As someone who studied Classical history at University, our lecturers (as well as text books), presented the Ancient Macedonians as a people “derived from northwest Greek stock” [1]. - Language: We know they spoke a dialect of Greek; the oldest form being in Aeolic or North-western Doric, followed by Attic, and finally (the offshoot of Attic) Koine (or the common language). Some scholars like Hoffman have also noted that it may have been a type of Thessalian (Buck, 1955). We have written evidence in the form of the Pella Curse tablet (written in Doric; approx. 4th century), as well as engravings, coins, etc., from the Macedonian region. We have no written evidence of any other language used. - Religion: Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Pausanias, Callimachus, etc., and other ancient sources agree that the Ancient Macedonians believed in the Olympic pantheon of gods - Calendar: The Macedonian synodic lunar months used Greek names and were also used in various parts of Greece: Dios, Apellaios, Audnaios, Peritios, Dystros, Xandikos, Artemisios (also used in Sparta, Rodia and Epidaurus), Daisios, Panēmos (used in Epidaurius, Miletus, Samos and Corinth), Loios (also used in Aetolia, Beotia and Thessaly), Gorpiaios, Hyperberetos (also used in Crete) - Identity: One of the earliest references to Macedonia’s Greekness was via Alexander I of Macedonia who at the curt of the Hellanodikai (the judges of the Ancient Olympic games) proved his Greek lineage (descending from the Argives of the Peloponnese). Macedon at the time was considered non-important in the Greek world, and these would have been no political reason for the Hellanodikai to confirm his ‘Greekness’. He was also awarded the title of “Philhellene” (lover of the Greeks), which unlike its modern usage was reserved for Greek patriots (as noted in Plato’s Republic, E.470e). Alexander I also addressed the Athenians as follows: “In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery” and the Xerxes “Tell your king […] how his Greek viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably” (both from Herodotus’, The Histories, 9.45 and 20.4 respectively). We also have quotes from Alexander III (the Great) himself, ““Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury;… I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks… “ (Arrian, Anabasis, 14.4). Multiple other ancient sources confirm Macedonians as Greek – Thucydides, Strabo, Plutarch, Diodorus, Plybius, Josephus, Quintis Curtius Rufus, Hippolytus of Rome, etc., as well as modern historians such as Hammond, Bury, Meiggs, Bengston, Lane Fox, Wilcken, Opperman, Errington, Borza, Billows, Osborne, Kagan, Carlton, etc. Land: Ancient sources also attest to the land being Greek; Strabo (VII, 9) states “Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece“ or Polybius (Book 7.9; in the treaty between Philip V of Macedo and Hannibal) “Annibas put himself under oath to Xenophanis in front of the all gods that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas have…”

Apologies for this longer than expected post; I believe it is essential to maintain the use of the term “Greek Kingdom” for Ancient Macedonia/Macedon as the majority of evidence we do have points to it being so.

As a final note, as noted by [2]: “Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", University of California Press, 1993, p.4: "Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greeks all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II. Then as now, political struggle created the prejudice. The orator Aeschines once even found it necessary, in order to counteract the prejudice vigorously fomented by his opponents, to defend Philip on this issue and describe him at a meeting of the Athenian Popular Assembly as being 'Entirely Greek'. Demosthenes' allegations were lent an appearance of credibility by the fact, apparent to every observer, that the life-style of the Macedonians, being determined by specific geographical and historical conditions, was different from that of a Greek city-state. This alien way of life was, however, common to western Greeks of Epiros, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the Macedonians, and their fundamental Greek nationality was never doubted. Only as a consequence of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the issue raised at all."

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryIsMyWingman (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Another SPA summoned on a website who doesn't know anything about Wikipedia, this article, or its history. --Taivo (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Support the use of "Ancient Greek Kingdom"

Everything about the Macedonians was Greek. Language, Culture, People, Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatzis85 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that the ancient Macedonians considered themselves to be Greek.

1) Alexander I King of Macedon, when he was speaking to the Athenians Quote: Men of Athens… Had I not greatly AT HEART the COMMON welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; but I AM MYSELF GREEK by descend, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. …If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON. Source:Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson

2)Alexander I of Macedon speaking to Persians: Quote:Tell your king who sent you how his GREEK viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably… Source: Herodotus V, 20, 4 (Loeb, A.D. Godley)

3)Philip II of Macedon Quote: Every seat in the theater was taken when Philip appeared wearing a white cloak and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him and followed only at a distance, since he wanted to show publicly that he was protected by the goodwill of all the Hellenes, and had no need of a guard of spearmen. Source:Diodoros of Sicily 16.93.1

4)Alexander III ( the Great) in his letter to the King of the Persians Quote:Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did US great harm, though WE had done them no prior injury […] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks […] Source:Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4

5) ALEXANDER TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF AND MACEDONIANS BEING GREEK AND FIGHTING FOR GREECE:…… Quote :There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for pay— and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for GREECE, and our hearts will be in it. As for our FOREIGN troops —Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia. Source:Arrian (The Campaigns of Alexander) Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.

6)Burning Persepolis: Quote: He set the Persian palace on fire, even though parmenio urged him to save it, arguing that it was not right to destroy his own property, and that the Asians would not thus devote themselves to him, if he seemed determined not to rule Asia, but only to pass through as a conqueror. but Alexander replied that he intended to punish the Persians for their invasion of Greece, the destruction of Athens, the burning of the temples, and all manner of terrible things done to the Greeks: because of these things, he was exacting revenge. but Alexander does not seem to me to have acted prudently, nor can it be regarded as any kind of punishment upon Persians of long ago. Source:Arrian Anab. 3. 18. 11-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hliosa (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SILENT, there is no evidence to support that the Ancient Macedonians were non-Greek to being with, then became Greek. The problem that I see here, as an educator, is that if they were not Greek, then what where they? We do not have any evidence to suggest they were something else - or to be more precise, we have more evidence proving they were of Greek stock, than of not. Apart from the Greeks, we also have non-Greeks who refer to the Macedonian's as Greek:

-Carthaginians: “That King Philip and the Macedonians and the REST of the Greeks who are their allies shall protect the Carthaginians […]” [3]

-Babylonian; in reference to Macedonian general Antiochus: "King Antiochus went victoriously into the cities of Meluhha [...], the citizens performed a pompe and ritual acts according to Greek customs" [4]

-Jewish: In the book of the Maccabees, they clearly call Antiochus as “the kingdom of the Greeks,” [5]

-Persian: “whereas Alexander the Greek is one of the descendants of A’yss the son of Esahβq, of the children of Sβm the son of Nϋh” – Persian inscriptions translated by [6]

-Roman: As for Alexander, it is generally agreed that, when sleep had brought him back to his senses after his drunken bout, he regretted his actions and said that the Persians would have suffered a more grievous punishment at the hands of the Greeks had they been forced to see him on Xerxes throne and in his palace. – [7]

Again, I’ve tried to be brief in information (so that I’m not consuming large quantities of space or your time). Mr Taivo, I actually teach classical history so I'm aware of the topic at hand. I also have been an avid supported of Wikipedia and many of my students use it for assistance in guidance on topics and researching source material. HistoryIsMyWingman (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support the use of "Ancient Greek Kingdom" -If we care to be historically correct we need to use Ancient Greek Kingdom. They spoke and wrote Greek. They led the Corinthian League. They participated many generations before Alexander's conquests in the Olympic games (only Greeks could participate). Is anyone suggesting Aristotle was not a Greek? There appears to be many ancient sources testifying to the Greekness of Macedonia and no contrary sources. Can we please not participate in fraudulent history. It is an Ancient Greek Kingdom. read Xenophon, Bury, Roebuck, Herodotus, Thucydides, Arrian and the plethora of ancient sites with littered with Greek symbols, words, statues etc.
  • Oppose. Per User:Furius and comments of User:Richard Keatinge in previous section. Macedonia had many Greek elements as well as non-Greek elements. Its language was not "Greek" in the absolute sense, but was very closely related. This article has never referred to ancient Macedonia as a "Greek kingdom", it has always been simply an "ancient kingdom". The subsequent sentence has then said either "in classical Greece" or "on the northeastern edge of classical Greece" or (currently) "on the periphery of classical Greece". In addition, the implication that leaving "Greek" out of the first sentence denies the well-referenced Greek aspects of Macedonia and Macedonian culture is simply exaggeration and utterly false. This RfC deals only with the wording of the first sentence, not with the content of the article as a whole. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "ancient Greek kingdom". In WP:PARENDIS, part of Wikipedia's policy on article naming, it says: According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. We only have one article on an ancient kingdom named Macedonia, so the current title is a good choice. Favonian (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note this is not about article's title, it's about using "ancient Greek kingdom" or just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section. Macedonian (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for putting me straight. Been hanging out too much in the dark corridors of WP:RM. Striking my !vote and making myself a cup of strong coffee. Favonian (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed sentence as a whole is:
In this sentence the repeated reference to Greeks and Greece is redundant to the point of clunkiness. It reads to me like Macedon's Greekness is being emphasised to make a modern POV point. Given that IMO something would need to go to make a decent-sounding phrase, I would suggest that the description in the second half of the sentence is significantly more useful to the reader than the word "Greek" in "ancient Greek kingdom". Kahastok talk 12:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If "ancient Greek" is chosen then the sentence will be reevaluated to avoid over-emphasising. Note that even the given source (Hornblower) which the aforementioned sentence point at, in fact supports the Greekness of Macedonia: "The crude one-word answer to the question [were the Macedonians Greeks?] has to be “yes.”" (p.58) Macedonian (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
My argument has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the Macedonians. My argument is that the additional word is clunky and adds nothing to the sentence that isn't already there, worded in a way that provides more information to the reader. It is IMO not a net improvement to the encyclopædia.
But if the ethnicity of the Macedonians is controversial, as the emphasis of this RFC on the point rather implies, then it would in general be better to avoid making a judgement either way and discuss the point in more detail later in the article. Kahastok talk 12:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The main objective to the use of the word "Greek" is that it would offend Macedonian editors and not about if their ethnicity is controversial (see archives). However wikipedia is not censored. Macedonian (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not what those opposing above have said. But whatever, it makes no difference to my view. I remain opposed for the reasons I have given. Kahastok talk 13:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
We do have a democracy! :) Macedonian (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Honestly now? You are using historyofmacedonia.org as a source? This is an absolutely unreliable nationalist page of the Republic of Macedonia, known for utter forgeries and historical inaccuracies, and also blatantly anti-Greek! Just read their main page:
  • Why is Greece Stealing the Macedonian History?
  • Why Macedonia and the Macedonians had never been Greek?
  • Why the Macedonians are not "Slavs"?
  • Book: "The Descendents of Alexander the Great of Macedon - Arguments and evidence that today's Macedonians are descendents of the ancient Macedonians" by Alexander Donski of Macedonia
  • Genetic Research 1: Ancient Macedonian Genes found in Today's Macedonian Nation, not-related to the Greek Nation
  • The full report of the Genetic Research 1 showing today's Macedonians are direct descendents of the ancient Macedonians
The above are just a few of their outrageously hilarious and racist claims supported by this website which you proudly present here trying to convince us that all ancient historians claimed that the Macedonians or Macedonia were not Greek! On the contrary, ALL ancient historians spoke one way or another on the Greekness of Macedonia and please don't challenge me to bring here the passages by the aforementioned historians which your favorite website, historyofmacedonia.org, NEVER quotes. Macedonian (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that this is a controversial ancient issue made more problematic still by interference from modern politics and ideas about ethnicity. However, I need to note that this website is not a peer-reviewed or neutral source (although it does contain reproductions of some scholarly sources which are). The quotations from ancient sources in particular are decontextualised to an extreme degree - for many (though not all of them) parallel quotes could be marshalled for Athens or Sparta. Furius (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. Our best available sources (e.g. Roisman & Worthington eds. 2001, A Companion to Ancient Macedonia [2]) are still discussing the relation between ancient Macedonia and "Greekness" as a problem of shifting and fleeting cultural identity constructions, which cannot and should not be broken down to some "crude one-word answer". Nothing is gained by cramming such a crude one-word attribution into the lead sentence, other than catering for the ideological fetishization of the issue that many our Greek colleagues are suffering from (as the behaviour here on this RfC has, again, sadly confirmed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose description of the kingdom as simply or essentially "Greek", per Future Perfect as Sunrise and my comments in the previous section. Wordings such as "on the periphery of the Greek world" are a much better summary of its actual position as described in modern academic literature. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The main activity which supports a clear non-Greekness of ancient Macedonia appears to be directed from Skopje. Yes, there are reliable sources (like Roisman & Worthington) arguing about the complexity of the subject, but there is not even one reliable source which clearly supports that ancient Macedonia was not Greek. On the contrary there are (many) reliable sources literally naming ancient Macedonia "a Greek kingdom". According to Wikipedia's fundamental policy, "articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." I am sure we can work out a way according to which these sources will not be disregarded. Macedonian (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FutPerf and the analysis by Richard Keatinge in the "Essentialism" section above. There is no-one here supporting a clear "non-Greekness". I think we all agree that Macedon was a Greek kingdom to a certain degree and in a certain sense. The fact that some scolars in certain contexts use the phrase "Greek kingdom" without any qualifications does not force us to do the same as long as other scholars actually discuss the degree of Greekness and conclude with to a certain degree. Saying "ancient to a certain degree Greek kingdom" is hardly acceptable. Saying just "ancient kingdom" does not indicate non-Greekness. The discussion about the degree of Greekness belongs further down in the article. --T*U (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This comes up every couple of years, it always gets resolved the same way. There are four Macedonias, per WP:ARBMAC2. How many times are we going to answer the same question?!

Operable here: 3) There are four meanings for "Macedonia" pertinent to this arbitration:

  • Macedonia (region): A historical/geographical region, today split between Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and the independent Republic of Macedonia (part of Yugoslavia until 1992)
  • Macedonia (ancient kingdom), also called Macedon
  • Republic of Macedonia: The independent state by itself which was part of Yugoslavia
  • Macedonia (Greece): Three Greek provinces collectively referred to as Macedonia, though it is not actually a political entity in itself.
Passed 14 to 0 at 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A new RfC came up in 2014. Now, another RfC, asking the same resolved question and neither the history, region or place/region names have changed.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Uhm, sorry, but I think your statement is a bit beside the point. This RfC is not about revising the article titles, naming conventions or disambiguation mechanisms. We are just talking about the wording of the definition in the lead sentence of this article. You might want to rethink your statement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the analysis by Richard Keatinge in the "Essentialism" section above. No-one here supports a clear "non-Greekness". We all agree that Macedon was a Greek kingdom to a certain degree and in a certain sense. If we were forced to choose a single adjective, it would probably be 'Greek', but we are not so forced and the proper place for discussing parallels and links with 'neighbour' states is the body of the article, not 'pole position' a term which is inescapably modern in its resonances. Macedon was Macedon in the last resort and its individual character and history is as important and central as the parallels and connections to other Hellenic states, which can be fully expounded in the body. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another sad effort to rewrite history. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're kidding right? The fact that Macedon was a Greek kingdom is well accepted. Here we talk about if it is necessary to add it in the intro or not. I hope this helps. NickTheRipper (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: the quote I see above from User:Kahastok includes mention of Classical Greece and Hellenistic Greece, but not Archaic Greece, unlike what the current incarnation of the article has in the first sentence. If we retain "Archaic Greece" as well then this proposal has my full support, seeing how a majority of WP:Reliable sources describe Macedonia as an ancient Greek kingdom, not just a kingdom of an ill-defined people who happened to live in ancient Greece. What I would like to see, however, is more attention given to the new sub-section on ethnic identity that I've fleshed out thus far, which is far more important than a single sentence in the lead (since it is able to elaborate on that point). Given the political nature and solely Athenian accusation (and not even an opinion that was shared by all Athenian authors) that the Macedonians were less than Greek, there need not be any ambiguity about who the Macedonians were from at least the perspective of modern cultural anthropology. I know that not every Wiki article has to follow the same convention, but it is worth noting that "Epirus (ancient state)" is described as an "ancient Greek" state and yet the Epirotes were also occasionally insulted by their peers in Athens and other city-states for being non-Greek barbarians (this despite speaking a dialect of Greek and adhering to Greek culture, religion, and general institutions). Pericles of AthensTalk 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Second question of the RfC

Speedily closing this non-actionable counter-RfC to prevent a trainwreck. This was going nowhere fast. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

The stance of the Greek state in the Macedonian dispute(among the most controversial issues in Europe) has already made its way as a definition of the leads of Wikipedia articles such as Ancient Macedonians. So, let's ask who has written it? In the edit history - it seems the Greek users. So, I think more users should define this in a RfC. The suggestion is the following - all the "essentially Greek" definitions to be removed from the leads of Ancient Macedonia-related articles and to be replaced with a neutral and balanced statements that would give weight to other authors and will not declare any theory as a fact - but only as a theory. I support the second proposal. At least anything more neutral than the current situation that may be proposed by the closing administrator would be more acceptable. Judist (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think the section of the Ancient Macedonians article which discusses "Identity" is quite good; "essentially Greek" in the article's lead might be expanded to a full sentence giving a better idea of the discussion in that section. But I worry about swinging too far in the other direction. I don't think a discussion of this can be held until we have: 1) a full list of the pages you are proposing to change; 2) what your proposed replacement(s) are.Furius (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Once more, only the ultra-nationalists of the Republic of Macedonia actually dispute the Greekness of Macedonia, and perhaps a few unconventional historians, while moderate Macedonians as well as the vast majority of international historians agree on their Greekness. To make my point clear:
Denko Maleski, professor at the University Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, (International Politics and Contemporary Political Systems) and former Minister of foreign affairs of the RoM: "Liberal minds living within our side of the border, would certainly not feel ashamed of their own Slavic language, or the fact that their basic identity, just like the language, is Slavic, instead of establishing a variety of racist theories about antiquity and some super-humans from which we originate". (Radio Free Europe, 31/3/2013)
Archbishop Jovan VI of Ohrid (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Jovan_VI_%28Vrani%C5%A1kovski%29_of_Ohrid): "Communists arrived and made a history. And we are living to this day, actually, with the forgery they imposed. Some people, normally, are investigating the issue. It's impossible that in the internet era everyone to be blind. However, most [people] unfortunately failed to notice that many 'facts', which are accepted as history today in Macedonia, are forgeries."[3]
B.Jovanovski, Journalist, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, on Al Jazeera, 2015: "They [RoM's nationalist government and fraudsters historians] created a huge delusion within the Slavmacedonian population. And now, I mean, we continue being Slavs, and we have another part which suddenly became antique Macedonians!"
Nikola Dimitrov, Macedonian diplomat, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27/12/2016: "Gruevski and his party [the nationalist ruling party VMRO-DPMNE] have replaced the narrative of the approach to Europe by means of pseudo-historiography and myths about the Great Macedonian nation." ("Grujewski und seine Partei haben das Narrativ der Annäherung an Europa durch Pseudo-Geschichtsschreibung und Mythenbildung über die Große Mazedonische Nation abgelöst.")
Zoran Zaev, Macedonian politician, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27/12/2016: “With the idiotic Skopje 2014 project and the related pseudo-historiography that claims Alexander the Great for the Macedonia, we have not only provoked Greece, but also lost much international support for our position.” (“Mit dem idiotischen Skopje-2014-Projekt und der zusammenhängenden Pseudo-Geschichtsschreibung, die Alexander den Großen für Mazedonien reklamiert, haben wir nicht nur Griechenland provoziert, sondern auch viel internationale Unterstützung für unsere Position verloren.")

Also, is this new RfC for the exact opposite issue of the first RfC, within this RfC, pertaining to another article, even appropriate?? Macedonian (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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


Procedural comments

Can anyone here please explain why the majority of supporting comments for the use of "Greek kingdom" have been hidden from plain site only to be found under the misspelled heading of "Coomments of SPA's"??? only the opposing comments can be seen.N.Panamevris (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because they were not valid editors. None of them were confirmed editors with clear identities and edit histories. They were all anonymous IPs without any Wikipedia identity or edit history who clearly signed on just to "vote" here. Some of the comments were word-for-word identical with other comments. The supposition is that a link was posted on an outside website for any and all Greek nationalists to show up on Wikipedia and say "X". This is why they were hidden by Future Perfect. It's part of his job as an admin to notice such improper behavior and prohibit it. RfCs are not "votes". They are serious efforts to elicit comment as well as to gauge support and opposition to a particular issue. But anyone who thinks that they are "votes" and that the majority wins is sadly mistaken. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Taivo (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, in checking, you are one of these WP:SPAs who just got the word from somewhere outside Wikipedia to show up here and say X, Y, and Z in support of the greater glory of Greece. You have no edit history on Wikipedia other than your comments here. --Taivo (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So how does one become a valid editor??? & BTW, I showed up with a username & not just an anonymous IP address & furthermore I didn't just vote a simple yes or no, it was supported by a valid comment. If you disagree with my comments that other historians refer to the kingdom of Macedon as an ancient Greek kingdom or that Alexander I & Alexander III did not self identified as Greeks, please show us the credible source that states that these facts are false. Regards.N.Panamevris (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You have taken the first steps, but until you actually start editing other pages on other topics, then you will still be, by definition, an SPA, a "single-purpose account". And, yes, you did write a little more than "Macedonia is Greek!" so your comment was not moved back into the SPA box. But if you want to be trusted by other editors, then be more than just a Greek cheering section. Read the editing policies and principles and make a real contribution to some articles. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I also checked on you Taivo & found this "Warning: This editor is a specialist in a scientific field, so he often runs afoul of the "Randy in Boise" trap."N.Panamevris (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that on my editor page. It is not an official "Warning". But since you are curious, you can also go back to my page and click on the link "User Contributions" on the left. There you will see that I contribute to a wide range of articles in several fields and have done so since I joined Wikipedia about a decade ago. That's how you cease to be considered a "single-purpose account". --Taivo (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it's good to see that you actually admit to falling into that "trap", but thanx for the heads up. This is why I'm here because the falsifying & usurping of Greek history by others has to stop cause it's slowly happening word by word. I've read many books on this subject from the time I was at school in the 70's where encyclopedia's & other references stated that ancient Macedonia was a kingdom of ancient Greece but is now slowly being edited. P.S. I have read all the comments here & I also see many here that belong to the Slav-Macedonian(sic) cheering section.N.Panamevris (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There is your problem and the problem that you'll have in Wikipedia if you persist with your notion of cleaning up the "falsifying and usurping of Greek history". One of Wikipedia's most important policies is a neutral point-of-view. We don't care about Greece. We don't care about Macedonia. But just because we edit to preserve neutrality does not mean that we are promoting your "Slav-Macedonian" cheering section. When we reduce the Greek flag-waving, we are promoting neutrality, not a Macedonian point-of-view. If a Macedonian nationalist came here and tried to turn ancient Macedonia into a Slav kingdom, we would be just as opposed to him pushing his nationalism as we are opposed to pushing Greek nationalism. That is a primary function of Wikipedia, to be accurate without being WP:POINTy and biased. To edit here, you must make sure that you are editing neutrally and take your Greek hat off. --Taivo (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you seem to be wearing your Slav-"Macedonian" nationalistic hat right now. You clearly have a biased opinion by stating things like "It's crystal clear why the Macedonian kings might have wanted to be Greek, but that didn't make them Greek" when in fact nowhere does it state that in this Wiki topic. If your not biased & don't care about Greece or "Macedonia" then why do you disagree with the term "ancient Greek Kingdom" when in fact it has been used previously. In fact, point me to the source that states "ancient Macedonia was not an ancient Greek Kingdom" or words to that effect & I'll believe you don't have a bias outlook.N.Panamevris (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm only new here & if staying here means I have to be neutral then I'll try my best to be neutral by only stating facts, quoting sources & contribute to other pages as well. N.Panamevris (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to be a legitimate Wikipedian, welcome to the project. I'd ask you to first demonstrate your good faith by informing us where you heard about this RfC. Could you please provide a link to the forum (or whatever it was) where people were being solicited to come here and vote? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The impression I am getting from Taivo's statements is that for the sake of so-called Neutrality, we are ignoring facts which are leaning towards the one or the other side in the dispute. I have asked Taivo repeatedly the following question, for which he has failed to asnwer back.

The question is: What defines the Macedonians as a non-Greek kingdom from the moment everything about that kingdom was Greek? To put it straight: who Wikipedian has the right here to determine that neutrality is, not to take in account the archeological evidences and the factual realities but ignore them for the sake of the political peace?

The Macedonians:
* Worshiped the Greek religion (see Greek Polytheism).
* Used the Greek currency (see Tetradrachm).
* Were a Greek tribe and were given Greek names, and their leaders self defined themselves as Greeks (see Ancient Macedonians)
* The only culture they carried with them was the Greek culture (see Hellenistic Period)
* The only language they spoke was a variation of Greek language (see Ancient Macedonian language)
Everything about them was Greek and this is confirmed by all the archeological discoveries made in the region of Macedonia. Everything about them was Greek. Be it language, be it culture, be it the people themselves, be it religion, be it currency, everything.
And yet, here my dear friend Taivo comes: He declares that for the sake of some Neutrality, it is more Neutral not to take in account the data from the archeological discoveries and call their kingdom Greek, but to distance ourselves from these facts probably in an effort to appease the Slav nationalists out there (who are strongly opposing the "Greekness" of the Kingdom) for the sake of maintaining peace in Wikipedia. Am I right?
Wikipedia editors are obliged to follow the five pillars, the fundamental grounds on which Wikipedia was build. And one of the core policies in Wikipedia is the Neutrality. Indeed. However this does not permit any of us Wikipedians to decide by ourselves what kind of Neutrality should this be. More precisely, none of the rules say that one side has to be appeased to avoid edit wars, when the sources and verified information contradicts their claims. None gave Taivo the privilege to decide what Neutrality is and what is not. Wikipedia is very clear: the flow of information is constant as the world develops around that new information and new archeological discoveries which are made. The articles in Wikipedia have to be updated in accordance with them, and not in accordance with what stupid and silly modern political disputes are there about an ancient kingdom that no longer exists and is not possible for it to return back from the afterlife to defend itself in a ridiculous dispute, 2.000 years later.
With simple words: Wikipedia does not permit us to treat an article about ancient political entities, based on neutrality between certain political perceptions that exist among certain groups of Wikipedians in modern times, but based on what archeological and scientific information which is available in everyone's hand about that ancient kingdom's identity. None is allowed to maintain the political neutrality at the expense of factual neutrality. Currently, as it stands, there is a violation of WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. I am sorry to say this but if peace in Wikipedia is really our concern here, violation of these rules is not the way. There are some tools in Wikipedia such as elevated article protection, which I believe should be considered, in the case certain nationalist Slavic and Greek editors out there react by engaging in new Edit wars and such. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion here. Reading between the lines of those that oppose the word "Greek" in the 1st sentence, I cant help but feel there is a bias coming from the Slav-"Macedonian's political agenda. If in fact I am wrong, I apologise as some do admit to it being a Greek kingdom or agreeing that it is false to say or believe that it was not a Greek kingdom. So I suggest that in the body of the article, reference to the historian Eugene N Borza & his comments regarding this ethnic group also be added so as to make a clear distinction that a link between the Slav-"Macedonian's" & the ancients Macedonian's does not exist... "Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival." "Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999 Some will say I am being biased but I'm not making this up or using it as a lame excuse, I am quoting a very reputable historian of which many other historians also agree with his point, such as Levinson, Brailsford & Coon (to name a few) N.Panamevris (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you don't understand the nature of Wikipedia WP:NPOV since you continue to equate the opposition to adding the word "Greek" to the first sentence with a modern Republic of Macedonia political agenda. That simply reflects your own POV and failure to understand neutrality. Your "addition" is also not encyclopedic, but polemic in nature. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, It is unfortunate that you don't understand the nature of Wikipedia WP:NPOV since you continue to equate the supportive position to adding the word "Greek" to the first sentence with a Greek agenda. That & the rejection of all my comments by you simply reflects your own POV which is evident in the removal of some of my previous comments (which are obviously a threat to ur reasoning behind this whole issue). Over the years I have commented on many forums regarding this issue only to be banned for showing the evidence of Macedonian Greekness or asking for proof that the people of today's FYROM are descendants of the ancient Macedonian's & the same thing is happening here at Wiki. Since when did stating facts & quoting historian's (& other academics) become so frowned upon by supposedly neutral editors?? N.Panamevris (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If the vast majority of the historians and the archeologists say it is a Greek kingdom - and they are not minority, are the majority, and this sadly is not reflected on the article, a glaring fact of the difference between Wikipedia and the rest of the world - then, who are we to argue? I am expecting some reasoning here, besides the usual "Greek Flagging" and "Greek nationalism". While I don't mind with the current version of the lead's text, I do mind when editors are turning a blind eye to the scholarship and find arguments just for the sake of disagreeing, and then put the blame on the Greek nationalists. The current attitude of ignoring the academic consensus is as unecyclopedic, because we are in an Encyclopedia and yet the decisions reflect own personal perceptions of editors and not those of scholars. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
SilentResident, I totally agree with you in regards to editors turning a blind eye & the attitude of ignoring the academic consensus. Taivo stated his "neutral" POV to me earlier that (these comments have since been removed) "self identification is not a determining factor of being Greek... the ancient Macedonian kings might have wanted to be Greek but they were not Greek" (or words to that effect) after pointing out the fact that both Alexander I & III self identified as Greeks, of which I replied with words to the effect, "so speaking the Greek language, worshipping the Greek gods, minting Greek currency & spreading the Greek culture to the known world is not a determining factor of being Greek?" I asked him to point out which other ancient race or group of people chose to speak an outsiders language, worship others Gods, use an outsiders currency & spread one others culture & language to the known world instead of their own, especially when they are the ruling empire. Was it the Persians, Egyptians, Romans, Sumerians, Chinese etc etc. These points only magnify that it was an ancient Greek kingdom regardless of other academics stating so. Removing the word Greek & leaving it as "ancient kingdom" is stating the bleeding obvious, off course it was a kingdom & off course it was ancient, but who's kingdom was it?? N.Panamevris (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and this is why I find the arguments here that the Kingdom "was not always Greek, at least it was not Greek at some point", to be pretty weak. Such arguments serve to conceal possible pro-Slavic attitudes that certain editors may be having here, (a suspicion, for which I really hope I am wrong...) Such arguments are groundless, as they are implying that this kingdom abandoned its non-Greek culture, its non-Greek coinage, its non-Greek religion, etc, for the Greek one, just like that, at some point, and or perhaps in all of sudden! It can't be helped but raise more questions: was the kingdom something and we don't know what it was? How smooth the transition from one culture to another was, for the Ancient Macedonians? And what the impact of this tremendous change was for their daily lives? Or perhaps the citizens were forced by their Elites to abandon their non-Greek language and religion for the Greek ones? I bet, they must have been suffering from some sort of extreme lack of confidence in their previous culture? lol. We don't have anything to confirm that this really happened, at all. Absolutely no proof. All I hear here is just some ridiculous claims but no reliable sources to back them.
These claims make absolutely no sense and no academic or archeological evidence supports them. No documented proof exists about the kingdom's pre-Greek culture. And all the archeological discoveries are pointing out to the Greek identity of the entity, its institutions and its people.
I am not happy that some editors here are failing to be reasoned with and see this. How can I be? We have the world's scholars saying this kingdom was Greek but some biased editors under the disguise of neutrality to dictate otherwise. This just can't be happening. The "it was not Greek, at least at some point" to me seems to be a case of WP:I just don't like it and nothing more.
In the event the discussion here ends in deaf ears and empty walls (which I believe it already does), then, the case should be brought to an administrator's attention or to the Mediation Committee. I could recommend a RfC too albeit I am not exactly familiar with how it works, but I read above that this option was already exhausted. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
SilentResident, I have been arguing for many years with the Slavs of the FYROM regarding this topic & I have always quoted Wiki as a source for my arguments only to be told it is an unreliable source. Well now this confirms that it is just that, an unreliable historical source on the subject as I can slowly see that it is now being overrun by them in order to remove any "Greekness" associated with Macedonia. Once this happens, only then will they be finally referring to it as a reliable source. Sadly, wiki is turning into a propagandist blog much like "historyofmacedonia.org" rather than remaining as an encyclopedia!! N.Panamevris (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Sure, Wikipedia is not without its problems, but I believe for the most part it is fine. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested compromise with 'Essentially an Ancient Greek Kingdom' as per Ancient Macedonians

I am happy to compromise with the above as per the Ancient Macedonians page and per User:Richard Keatinge comments. Reaper7 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Richard Keatinge made no such proposal. Indeed, he specifically said that the current wording is a good compromise and opposed "essentially Greek" in his opposition statement in the RfC. --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, misread his comments. Proposal still stands. Reaper7 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Like I have said previously, the kingdom was identified by its Greek culture, worshipped the Greek religion, its official currency was the Greek Tetradrachmon and last, its people were essentially Greek people, and the kingdom's language was dialect of Greek. What more? This dispute has escalated for too long, and for the wrong reasons, because the current outcome is paradoxical: we have a kingdom being Greek in anything, except itself. A Greek kingdom that must not be called Greek in any way, for the sake of "Wikipedia's peace and stability" (as some here have argued, in fear of some nationalist and ultranationalist editors whose the only interest is to flag anything based on their own political views) which is very wrong argument in my opinion, as this comes in violation of Wikipedia's core policies about WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. It is time to end this farce once and for all. Wikipedia should be neutral, not between Greek and Slav editors, but neutral to the historical facts and archeological discoveries and information about that ancient Kingdom of Macedon. You have my full support on this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Still it escapes me why should we resort to editorial opinion here in determining the Greekness of the kingdom, when Wikipedia clearly states that scholarly opinions are the ones that should be referenced and taken in account, not editorial opinions. The vast majority of scholars and archeologists worldwide agree that the Kingdom was Greek in all its manifestations. The archeological evidence reveals that the kingdom, from its founding days to its transformation into an Empire and its subsequent defeat by Romans, cherished its Hellenic identity in all possible ways, such as trade, coinage, education, religion and language. I believe that regardless of what the editors here agree about the Greekness of the kingdom, the information should be cited. Sources from archeologists, universities, scholars and historians, are what should have weight as per Wikipedia:Citing sources in reflecting the information about the Greekness of the kingdom, not the outcomes of petitions initiated by us editors. Because our personal (biased) opinions are original research. Otherwise this dispute is never going to end. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, completely unacceptable and not a "compromise" in any sense of the word. The word "essentially" has no tangible meaning that would make this statement any more precise or any more appropriate than without. It is either just an empty filler, or (if taken literally) it would imply the very premise of ethnic essentialism: that populations actually do possess some "essence" that makes them objectively belong to this or that nation, and that the Macedonians did possess that elusive "essence" of Greekness. This is the very last thing we ought to be saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • A more precise word could be simply the "Greek". But if my memory does not fail me, you have not been vocal of that either, dear Fut.Perf.. Or am I wrong? My apologies if I am wrong on this, it has been a very long time since I have read through the archived talk discussions for Macedonia. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You are derailing the discussion by bringing the matter of national consciousness here. Here we are talking about a political entity, dear Future Perfect. Not about a tribe's national consciousness. Please stick to the discussion. The Greek tribes back then, such as Spartans, Atheneans, Epirotes and Thessalians, none had an ethnic consciousness by its modern sense, but they all of them, considered them to be "Hellenes", hellenic people. The term "Greek" did not exist back then. The term "Greek" was a Roman word used to desrcibe the Hellenic people and is a much later invention. But the Hellenes did define themselves as Hellenic and the land in which they lived, as "Hellas". Hellas and Hellenes predated the terms Graecia (Greece in Roman) and Greeks. Now, let me remind you that here we are discussing whether this kingdom was part of the Greek world or not. Not about a tribe. And there is no doubt about that political entity being part of the Hellenic world. EDIT: my apologies if I appear be lecturing you. This is not my intention - I am not here to lecture people. But at least it is expected that those who are participating in these proposals, are using valid arguments about whether that Kingdom was Greek or not. Thank you. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The point is that the kingdom was essentially itself. At some times and for some purposes, it was accepted as Hellenic. At others, it wasn't, despite close similarities. We don't call, say, Wallonia "essentially French" despite language and cultural similarities, and indeed the political entity being part of the Francophonie. Essentialism is not useful here. Now, I'm not hung up on any particular turn of phrase, but saying that the kingdom was "Greek" or "essentially Greek" is not compatible with either modern academic opinion or with the opinions of writers at the time. At the moment we have "on the periphery of Classical Greece,", and that seems a good summary of its physical and ethnolinguistic situation. What about "spoke a language closely related to Koine Greek and was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world."? Other suggestions would be possible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Bringing Wallonia in this case as an example, is plausible because it does not answer to the current problem we are having in Wikipedia about Macedonia: a political side (the Slavic Republic of Macedonia) questioning the Greek character of an ancient kingdom of same name to a point that amounts paranoia. The difference between the region of Wallonia and the ancient kingdom of Macedon is that the first was not victim to any semiological confusion caused by a namesake neighboring Slavic Republic, while the second is. And the ongoing dispute here is just the result of long-time edit wars and fights in Wikipedia between the Greek and the Slav Macedonian sides. This dispute has affected the international scholarship as well, which was called to prove whether the kingdom was Greek or non-Greek. This is very unfortunate because this is not how things in Wikipedia should work. Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to steer away from political debates and they did not succeed, not in a satisfactory way at least. If the region of Wallonia had been too a matter of dispute with a neighboring Slavic republic self-stylizing itself as Republic of Wallonia which culturally has nothing to do with the French region of Wallonia but claims that Wallonia was not a French region, then don't you think there could be the case here too? This is the problem we are dealing now with, for so many years and no solution was found in the case of the Kingdom of Macedonia.
Wikipedia needs to distance itself from the modern politics and just stick to the historical and archeological facts about that kingdom. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Quite. Modern nationalist claims have no place in this discussion and we should, where possible, distance ourselves from them. So, to repeat, what about "kingdom that spoke a language closely related to Koine Greek and was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The "was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world" could indicate that the Kingdom at times was not Greek, culturally, for which no reliable academic or archeological evidence exists. Recent discoveries failed to confirm that that the kingdom's culture was "not Greek". I assume your suggestion is more of a political compromise aiming to satisfy both sides, at the expense of recent discoveries about that ancient Kingdom, unless I am missing something here? If that is so, then, this, more or less, leads as back to the beginning of an never-ending wheel. Instead, shouldn't, (like how I repeated many times above in other comments) Wikipedia rather cite sources reflecting the opinion held by the majority of archeologists and scholars on the matter, instead of suggesting compromises based on editorial opinions or whatever? -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Small nitpick about Richard's proposal: "kingdom that spoke a language closely related to Koine Greek" doesn't quite work, for two reasons. First, kingdoms don't speak languages; languages are spoken by people. Second, "closely related to Koine Greek" is inaccurate. What was spoken in Macedonia was partly Koine itself (after Alexander), and partly something that may have been closely related to Greek, but certainl not particularly close specifically to Koine (if anything, it might have been related to Doric). Other than that, I have no qualms with the statements as such, but I don't really see why we'd have to cram them into the definition in the intro sentence, which works quite well the way it is worded now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Future Perfect that the current wording works as is. Not absolutely, but it does. As the "essentially Greek" too could. But still, the problem which has not been addressed is the lack of citation: we need cite some good sources to back this, don't you think? I am worried how the lack of citation about this, is, or appears to be, the smallest of all concerns here. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Statements in lead sentences do not necessarily require citations if they reflect what is presented with sources in the main body (see WP:LEADCITE). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This all sounds like we're going to end up with a text that is more geared toward resolving editor disagreements than readability.

At the risk of causing minor chaos, one of the things that makes this discussion slightly odd IMO is that we already refer to Macedon as a "state of Hellenistic Greece", indeed, "the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece". Britain was not "the dominant state of" 1920s India, because it was not a state of India. Rome was not "the dominant state of" 1st century Gaul because it was not a state of Gaul. There's your compromise, it's already in the article. Kahastok talk 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Nobody here objects to calling Macedonia part of Greece in the wider sense that became prevalent in hellenistic times, and the fact that we are already doing just this, in the very first sentence, should really be more than enough to put the minds of all those to rest who fear the Greek connection might be underemphasized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In other words, the text as it currently stands is the appropriate compromise wording that it has been for the last 7 years--"an ancient kingdom on [the edge of] classical Greece" (with [the edge of] varying between "the northeastern corner" and "the periphery of"). As the RfC shows, the addition of the word "Greek" is clearly and convincingly opposed. --Taivo (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The editors say Macedonia was not Greek. The scholars and archeologists say it was Greek. This is a glaring example of how Wikipedia has chosen the personal opinions of certain individuals over the opinions of the scholars. It is disturbing. Very disturbing. I am seeing here some editors who are 1) Not historians, 2) Not archeologists, 3) Not researchers, and yet, they dictate through the disguise of Editorial Consensus, to deviate from Wikipedia's NOR rules regarding this matter which are crystal-clear, as the founder of Wikipedia, himself declared.
Jimmy Wales said:
   * If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
   *     If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
   *     If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
Thing is, we are not scholars, nor archeologists, nor historians. We are just mere editors who happen to hold certain opinions about the matter. But Wikipedia is not democracy, I am afraid. As editors, shouldn't we work to find ways to have the article reflect decisions and opinions, not of editors, but of academics and scholars? So again, I could like to have the attention shifted to what the scholars believe and say on this matter, instead of arguing and trying to balance things out for the sake of "not letting any of the sides feeling "underrepresented" in that text. What the archeologists have found? These things are the true questions here and these questions can give the true answer to the problem that has plagiarized for 7 years. We shoud -and can- work to see how best can the text reflect the opinion held by the majority of world's scholars who regard the Kingdom of Macedon to be a Greek political entity, much like Epirus and Thebes. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I doubt my effort here to convince certain editors to change their mind on this, will be fruitful. The past years have seen a pretty nasty dispute and edit warring among users, no doubt about this, and this worries me, because battle-hardened editors are the most difficult in accepting new information that has emerged about the dispute. This dispute prevented and will still prevent both sides from being reasoned and move from their positions in fear of screwing the current hardly-obtained fragile peace and compromises. This is sad. I have nothing more to say here. But at least, in the event you insist with your positions, I expect that you at least provide strong sources from reliable historians backing your positions, if you really hope for this text to remain uncontested for the next 7 or 14 years. Because, no matter the consensuses, this text will be constantly challenged until it has finally been changed and updated to reflect the scholarly consensus. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for interupting, but I wonder why Thebes was considered a "city-state". As far I know its was a "Koinon" i.e. confederation of the Boetian communities. Thus, the specific part of the lead should be rephrased.Alexikoua (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend moving this out into a different paragraph if there's a need for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's try again. It is worth getting this right, because it's worthwhile and because essentialist claims feed nationalism. What about "The dominant language was closely related to the Greek dialects of more southerly states, and even before Philip the kingdom was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world. After Philip it was the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the text would you put this? (And I'm still not sure we should combine "closely related" with any specific mention of "dialects" the language was related to, rather than "related to Greek" as a whole). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're discussing the language in the lead, given that it's not discussed at all in the article itself (and if it were, it would be duplicating discussions on the Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Macedonian language pages). Furius (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, take out the word "dialects". We are then left with a succinct description of the main cultural affiliations of the kingdom as agreed by every academic source. We give some indication of their changes with time. We also avoid essentialism, which is unsatisfactory because it is endlessly debatable and a nuisance because it is a red rag to every nationalist. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why you people ignore reliable sources (see my edit before it was reverted) I fail to understand. Some of you are so keen to keep the word "Greek" out, that you take WP:NPOV on the other end, while according to this fundamental policy, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic should be represented! As an IP said above, if there are reliable sources claiming that ancient Macedonia was aThracian, Illyrian or Chinese kingdom, you are most welcome to bring them here. But since we have reliable sources naming it "Greek" we should use those, per wikipedia's policy. Why not adding a footnote after "Greek kingdom" which will explain that according to some sources there is a "near-Greekness" of Macedonia (because let's face it: no reliable source supports an utter non-Greekness), so all views can be presented? Macedonian (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Macedonian. Your sources for the straightforward description "Greek", while perfectly reasonable tertiary sources, don't reflect the slightly messy reality as presented in academic discourse. To repeat a more nuanced description of identity, I suggest:
"The dominant language was closely related to the Greek of more southerly states, and even before Philip the kingdom was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world. After Philip it was the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece." Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This was asked before, but where are you intending this sentence to go? It seems odd for a discussion of the kingdom's dominant language to come in the first sentence of the article (particularly as the kingdom's language is not actually discussed in the body of the article at all) and also odd to mention Philip II before the Argeads, the Ancient Macedonians, and the kingdom's location. Furius (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition, by using just "language" we exclude the other parts of their identity, namely cults and customs. Not to mention descent, which was proudly proclaimed as Greek at least by the kings and elite of Macedonia. Macedonian (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That is the exact reason I think the "essentially a Greek kingdom" is a good compromise here: the term "essential" covers everyone's concerns as it does not imply the Kingdom being 100% Greek, but still part of the Greek world. I believe this is the magic word we need here. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is just a thinly-disguised attempt to make Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence, a proposal that was soundly rejected in the previous RfC. It is no "compromise" at all. --Taivo (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT. "essential" makes perfect sense. Unless it can be proved that Macedonia was NOT Greek at all, "essentially" is more than acceptable otherwise agreeing to leave it & the word "Greek" out is a thinly disguised attempt to disassociate Macedonia from Greece & it's Greekness entirely. N.Panamevris (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these further comments. Essence is as Taivo points out the problem not the solution, the word "essence" and its derivatives mire us in all sorts of ideas of nineteenth century romantic nationalism and their modern descendants, modern claims to the name of Macedon. Instead, trying again to express the important bits in a style suitable for the lede:

Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Greek pronunciation: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece. Its dominant culture was closely related to the Greek culture of more southerly states, and even the early kingdom was at times accepted as part of the Hellenic cultural world.[8] Later it was the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece.[9]

Does that get us any further? It makes clear the close connections and something of their nature, and it avoids the ideology of Romantic Nationalism. It's also solidly based on the modern academic view. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Borza, 1995
  2. ^ Malcolm Ermington in his “A History of Macedonia” (University Press, 1993, p4.)
  3. ^ The histories of Polybius, VIII 9.4
  4. ^ Johnston, Sarah Iles: Religion of the Ancient World - a Guide, Harvard University Press, 2004
  5. ^ Maccabees. 1.10
  6. ^ ‘The Packard Humanities Institute’ - http://persian.packhum.org/persian//main
  7. ^ Quintus Curtius Rufus 5.7.11
  8. ^ Simon Hornblower, "Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods" in Katerina Zacharia, Hellenisms, Ashgate Publishing, 2008, pp. 55–58.
  9. ^ M. M. Austin, "The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: a selection of ancient sources in translation", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 3, .
That is quite good wording. It's accurate and better reflects the nature of the complex relationship between Macedonia and Archaic/Classical Greece. --Taivo (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? So, in the sake of avoiding what you call "Romantic Nationalism" you are turning the upside down regarding Macedonian culture, to emphasize even further the current paradox which is the very core of the problem we are facing here? That the kingdom is Greek in all but name?
Culture is defined by the following characteristics:
   * religion (same religion as rest of Greek world),
   * education of their elites (same as rest of Greek world)
   * art, architecture (same as rest of Greek world),
   * morals, customs (same as rest of Greek world),
   * law and institutions, (same as rest of Greek world),
   * alphabet and language (same alphabet as rest of Greek world),
   * economy and coinage (same as rest of Greek world),
   * politics, leaderhip (same as rest of Greek world),
Now, which one of the above makes Macedonia not part of that world? Please help us understand your way of thinking. Can you explain thoroughly how comes Macedonia's culture "was closely related to the Greek culture" and was not just the same? Elaborate in enlightening us in: 1) where exactly Macedonia differentiated culturally from the rest of the Greek world, and 2) how these unique aspects in the Macedonian culture (if they exist), are so significant in giving it a non-Greek characteristic, and 3) why the unique cultural characteristics found in Spartan and Epirote societies are not enough to determine that these 2 entities too were non-Greek? What is the definition of an ancient Greek culture, first of all?
Please, can you explain to us what do you know, or how do you see it, what information do you have that explains this paradox we are having here? I am sure you spotted some characteristics in Ancient Macedonian culture that are alienating it from the Greek world. I am certain everyone here will be happy if a tangible answer to these obvious questions is given, which are necessary to be answered if we really want the outcome of this discussion to be fruitful. Some much-needed clarifications and answers for everyone here to access and read, will, without doubt, greatly contribute in getting us somewhere, or even better, in reaching a consensus on the matter. And no, these questions certainly are not "Romantic Nationalism", but a need for rationalism in a paradox. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Your chart is grossly simplistic and driven by your POV. The subtleties are entirely missing in your drive to simplistically place the Greek flag in Macedonia without regard to the details of the matter. There is no historical context, no historical change in status or relationship, no measure of degree of similarity, just your unbending desire to ignore anything about Macedonia that wasn't "Greek". --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Here comes Taivo, once more without an answer to what I have asked before. You know my dear friend, I don't like repeating myself again and again. Can you please answer to me what is differientating the Macedonian culture from the rest of the Greek world? Please? It can't be that difficult! I just want to learn what do you know on this matter. Any sources please? :) I am only asking the obvious here: why are the Macedonians not Greeks initially, but become Greeks later? Which cultural factor ceased existing in the Macedonian society that enabled it to adopt the Greek culture and be absorbed by the rest of the Greek world? Please? If this is the case, can you give us some proof? You speak of distinct Macedonian culture, I need some answers on this. I need sources. Is it so hard to provide us some good sources on this? There is nothing wrong in asking what do you know of these "complications" that distinguish Macedonian culture from the rest of the Greek world. Or perhaps you can't answer this because this is just a mere argument you are using to conceal your own POV on the matter, my dear friend?
EDIT: I can't hide that I am increasingly worried and stressed with the fact that our discussion has yet to find a solid ground on what exactly determines the non-Greekness of the Macedonian kingdom. It appears as if the factors determining the Greekness of the kingdom, are easier to specify and name, while factors determining the non-Greekness of the kingdom, are harder to specify and name. This is not good. We are producing Kilobytes of chat, and yet, we have not clarified some critical questions. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's too bad that the "kilobytes" of chat are in large part due to your interminably long posts that no one reads. --Taivo (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
And it is too bad that your maneuvers to my repeated questions are in large part due to your interminable failure to explain the unexplainable. -- SILENTRESIDENT 01:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Your questions have been answered multiple times by multiple editors. You just refuse to listen. --Taivo (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident, I can clearly see how frustrated you are with Taivo but you need to give it a rest. Taivo simply cannot answer you questions just like he cant answer mine, so he either ignore you or deletes your questions... but give him a little credit, he did clearly state above "If the first sentence said "Macedonia was not Greek"... that would be false." N.Panamevris (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

AGAIN, someone here has deleted someone else's comments that contained credible sources showing the Greekness of ancient Macedonia. Why is this happening?? When someone has studied classical history at a University that knows there stuff & puts up a great argument it their comments shud not be deleted, they should be analysed to see if it can be used as supporting evidence! N.Panamevris (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am now wading, perhaps inadvisably, into the fray after Legobot invited me. I think the best way to go about it would be to say that it was greek, although I think it is worth mentioning that the ancient greeks didn't consider it greek. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying that the relationship between the ancient kingdom of Macedonia and the Greek world didn't exist or that the kingdom didn't eventually become the center of the Greek world during the Hellenistic period. The first sentence says as much. What is at issue, and what is the only issue, is whether to unilaterally declare the ancient kingdom "Greek" for all time and history in the first sentence. It was a complex relationship at best, not a uniform relationship and not an unchanging relationship. Calling it a "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence eliminates all the subtlety and complexity and is nothing more than a WP:POINTy edit designed to irritate editors who might not share the "Greek for all time" POV. --Taivo (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Would you be OK Taivo if the first sentence was left as is, but "Greek" was added to the "dynasty" line? "It was ruled during most of its existence initially by the founding Greek Dynasty of the Argeads, then by the Antipatrids and finally by the Antigonids." Also do you think Epirus was more of a Greek Kingdom than Macedonia? Because that article reads "Epirus was an ancient Greek state" Simanos (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And again, after a month of peace and quiet and a Good Article nomination, and all the hard work of User:PericlesofAthens to get this article in good shape, another nationalist steps up to stir the pot without any real good reason just to plant the Greek flag. Leave it alone. The article is very clear about the complex relationship between ancient Macedonia and the Greek city states. Compromises have been made and a consensus reached through much hard work from parties on both sides of the "Macedonia was Greek/Macedonia was not Greek" issue. Leave it alone. The Argeads were not "Greek", they were "Macedonian". And this is the article about Macedonia, not Epirus. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Taivo (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)/Archive_14&oldid=1256561071"