Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 8

The character of the ancient Macedonians
 Per Neutral point of view, I think the following should be in the lead, as whether the ancient Macedonians were Greek and spoke Greek is a subject to debate within academia:

The Macedonians (Μακεδόνες, Makedónes'') were an ancient tribe that lived on the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios in the northeastern part of mainland Greece. Some scholars maintain that they were ancient Hellenic, and that they gradually expanded from their homeland along the Haliacmon valley on the northern edge of the Hellenic world, absorbing or driving out neighbouring non-Hellenic tribes, primarily Thracian and Illyrian. However, other scholars maintain that the ancient Macedonians were of a non-Hellenic origin and were thus closely related to the neighbouring Paeonians, Illyrians and Thracians, arguing that there is a lack of archeological or linguistic evidence to support a Dorian invasion, which is a legacy of 19th century historiography.

''The language of the ancient Macedonians was Ancient Macedonian. The character of the language that they spoke is largely unknown. Some scholars maintain that it was a language closely related to Ancient Greek or a Doric Greek dialect, although the prestige language of the region was at first Attic and then Koine Greek. However, other scholars argue that Ancient Macedonian was not a Hellenic language and that it was instead a separate language, closer to the Thracian and Illyrian languages, based on the distinction of of the Ancient Macedonian by ancient authors, as well as the surviving Macedonian words that were non-Greek loanwords. ''

''

'''I initially placed this in the lead however other editors instantly attacked my change. I would like to get the input of editors which are not from Greece, Bulgaria, North Macedonia or Albania, as this article needs to be neutral. I can provide even more sources than the ones I provided before hand. I have been accused of my edits being heavily POV, but they are not, I am just trying to neutralize an article which heavily shifts towards the Greek POV, despite there not being a consensus in academia on this matter.'''

Thanks, Dikaiosyni (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, first of all, you don't get to demand to exclude users from this discussion based on their nationality. That's just ridiculous. Second, your edits are not just POV, but heavily so. You misuse the sources to push a very typical POV. For example, you wrote that "they were closer to the Paeonians", but that is not backed by the sources. Another example: You cite Borza as one of the scholars that stated the Macedonians were not Hellenic, but you cite a passage where Borza only states that "Herodotus and Thucydides considered them barbarians". In other words, these are the views of two ancient sources, not those of Borza himself. In fact, on page 78, Borza states that the 'highlanders' or 'Makedones' of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock. . You also selectively and misleadingly quote Ian Worthington, who is one of the strongest proponents of the Greekness of the Macedonians, having written that not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable . See how that works? What you are doing is a very clear example of WP:CHERRY, carefully choosing and manipulating source to push POV. Khirurg (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I want to hear the input of users who do not engage in Tendentious editing, as the discussion won't be constructive as such users skew Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy. Also, please do not accuse me of engaging in cherry picking, this is not the case.


 * In regard to your Paeonian point, it was backed by the sources, here is the source: Harl, Kenneth W. (2010). Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire. The Teaching Company. p. 11. "In 359 B.C., Macedon was an unstable barbarian kingdom on the fringes of the Hellenic world. Macedon’s kings, members of the Argead dynasty, claimed Greek descent and ruled over a mix of different peoples including Macedonians, but many others as well, none of whom were regarded as Hellenes, or members of the Greek national race. To Greeks, the Macedonians were regarded as “barbarians.” Archaeology has revealed that the Macedonians never participated in the material culture of the Greek world since the Late Bronze Age. Greek immigrants and goods were welcomed, but Macedonians remained a distinct, speaking a language unintelligible to Greek. King Archelaus adopted Attic Greek as the court language, built roads, and established market towns, but his subjects remained in habits far closer to their Balkan neighbors Illyrians, Paeonians, and Thracians."


 * Many academics do not agree with the POV of this Wikipedia article, and I have provided a number of sources which highlight this. Actually if you read Borza's book you will see that he concludes that the Ancient Macedonians were non-Hellenic, what you did there is heavy POV. I would be more than happy to provide a number of quotes from his books which support this. I didn't do so in the first place as I didn't want to solely rely on Borza's analysis. Anyway, I want users who do not engage in Tendentious editing to give their input on this, I will not not further engage with you, as you are here to push a POV.

Best regards, Dikaiosyni (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Insults will get you absolutely nowhere. This article is a GA, meaning it has passed peer-review by the community and considered a "good article". If it were POV, as you claim, it would not have passed the GA review. So it seems the one pushing POV is you. I will allow the quality of this article to go down. Btw, speaking of "tendentious editing", why don't you tell us what your username means? It sounds kind of...familiar. Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with  while he is trying to neutralise this article which obviously shifts towards Greek POV. The opinions from other users would probably help regarding this issue. Lorik17 (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If you think following me around so as to annoy me is a good idea, I have news for you. Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There is a debate as whether the Ancient Macedonians were ancient Greeks and spoke Greek? Unbelievable. Without even thinking at all, that is the first that popped in my mind. Alexander the Great, after the Battle of Granicus:

To Athens, he also sent 300 suits of Persian armour to be hung up in the Parthenon of the Acropolis as a votive offering or oblation to Athena, and ordered this inscription to be fixed over them so as to mark the absence of the Spartans in his united Greek army: "Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except of Lacedaemonians, present this offering of the spoils taken from the barbarians who live in Asia". («Ἀλέξανδρος Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες, πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων, ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν κατοικούντων»-"Alexandros Philippou kai hoi Hellēnes plēn Lakedaimoniōn apo tōn barbarōn tōn tēn Asian katoikountōn").

Some users are questioning the obvious. Outrageous. Abudabanas (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * and Macedonian thinks on his edit summary that this is an inappropiate nationalist POV. Added the source man, just like you do. Can find tons of sources (like users who think the opposite), but I think this debate would go on for ages. To finish, just another thing that popped in my mind. Their names. Name etymology. For example, Philip is a male given name, derived from the Greek Φίλιππος (Philippos, lit. "horse-loving" or "fond of horses"[1][2]), from a compound of φίλος (phílos, "dear", "loved", "loving") and ἵππος (hippos, "horse"). This is my personal opinion and I truly do not want to provoke anyone. I am done here. Happy New Year to everyone. Abudabanas (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Abudabanas. I didn't revert your edit and I was not referring to you, see history log for more. Macedonian (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. My mistake. Abudabanas (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems impossible that Slavic people appeared in North Greece at 328BC. There is not sufficient information for the Ancient Macedonian language, but the written language is Greek.The Hittites adopted the Sumerian writing system, but they used it to express their own language. Why the Macedonians didn't express their own language if it was diferrent? Jestmoon(talk) 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

View of Ancient Macedonians in other countries
How come there is not a single mention of the view on Ancient Macedonians in North Macedonia? It would be expected that the page about one of the most important pillars of North Macedonian nationalism would have an at least mention on this. The Ancient Macedonians are also included in the nationalist movements of other nations, like the Aromanians. Including short mentions about this in the article won't do any harm. Super  Ψ   Dro  12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That info belongs in Macedonian nationalism, not here. Khirurg (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned here. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "Historic negationism" or "In North Macedonian and Aromanian historiography" section could be made at the very bottom of this page? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Albanian nationalism is also deeply implicated in that issue. Jingiby (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aromanian historiography is very small, we won't be able to get views of many authors and I am not sure if academic articles talking too extensively about Aromanian historiography exist. "Historic negationism" could be deemed as not neutral by nationals of North Macedonia or others. I don't know what could be the exact title of this section, do we have other similar examples to look up to?
 * By the way, if I was asked, I'd say the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or at least related to them. I don't have any hidden intentions with my suggestion, I only believe information about this should be added. Saying just in case. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Modern-day propaganda politics has no place here in an article supposedly about an ancient people. Any historic negationism/revisionism may be covered in the article created specifically about this political concept: Macedonian nationalism. Otherwise, similar sections may be created anywhere, including geographic articles (Macedonia (Greece)), or political entities (Macedon (ancient kingdom)) or even the articles about individuals (Alexander the Great). Sorry but no. The last thing Wikipedia needs is non-political articles getting sections about nationalist propaganda not supported by anyone and which the world's scholars are finding laughable except perhaps a small minority of far-right people who take such matters seriously. If such sections have to be added, they may be added into the articles of nationalist politicians/diaspora figures from North Macedonia who may be espousing/supporting such propaganda views. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it couldn't be included here is not an argument. We are not going to clutter this article with Balkan nationalist junk. Forget it. Khirurg (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many things that can improve an article to the point of the article getting even a GA status, but political propaganda isn't one of them. For example, Karakachanov's views that North Macedonia belongs to Bulgaria, have no place on the article about North Macedonia. Likewise, Erdogan's claim that 300 years ago, Ottoman astronauts reached the Moon, has no place on the article about the Moon. Political propaganda is the last thing that may constitute a useful improvement for any article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, historic bullsh*t negationism has seeped into modern-day politics, museums and even academic works (due to spending of $$). Whether we all like it or not. Proper WP:RS authors have shed streams of ink describing these futile attempts, which, IMO, means it is, to a good degree WP:DUE in terms of deserving mention on Wikipedia. From an academic and WP guideline point of view; what can possibly be better than battling historic negationism by mentioning these futile, laughable attempts serving to feeds various IRL complexes and political ambitions? Accompanied by scholarly and/or academic sources. If only, it serves to accompany the reader to know what is going on behind the scenes, and that when he/she is visiting these nations, or reading sources published in such nations, that they know what to "expect". - LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * " "Historic negationism" could be deemed as not neutral by nationals of North Macedonia or others."
 * Huh?
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: I just noticed there's already a North Macedonia section at Historical_negationism, and even separate articles such as Historiography in North Macedonia and Antiquization. That's a good thing. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a North Macedonia section in the Historical negationism, but there is no Historical negationism section in North Macedonia, for obvious reasons. If you ever try to add a historical negationism section in North Macedonia, you will be reverted because the article is about a country, not about what fringe ideas the far-right politicians living there may espouse. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, including this stuff here would content forking. Khirurg (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a good idea to pull anything about modern-day ideologies in here. This article should be about what we know about the real ancient Macedonians, not what their roles for modern nationalisms is. The main reason is that if we started doing that, we'd see no end of it – editors here would be entirely inable to write neutrally about such issues, so we'd get a nightmare of POV-warring, coatrack arguments, refutations, counter-refutations, "he-said, she said", and the whole thing growing uncontrollably. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per excellent points by editors Khirurg and Future Perfect at Sunrise. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Herodotus
I would like this specification to be added in regards to the verse 7.130.3 of Herodotus histories in the section about the identity of ancient Macedonians. " Nevertheless, in regards to the previous statement it should be noted that the ancient Greek used here is "ἔδοσαν ἑωυτοὺς βασιλέι" which is best translated as "gave themselves to the king" (histories 7.30.3). In verses following this statement (histories 7.32.1-2) the act of giving yourself to the enemy by your own will seems to be presented as treason: "Among those who paid that tribute were the Thessalians, Dolopes, Enienes, Perrhaebians, Locrians, Magnesians, Melians, Achaeans of Phthia, Thebans, and all the Boeotians except the men of Thespiae and Plataea.[2] Against all of these the Greeks who declared war with the foreigner entered into a sworn agreement, which was this: that if they should be victorious, they would dedicate to the god of Delphi the possessions of all Greeks who had of free will surrendered themselves to the Persians. Such was the agreement sworn by the Greeks.", the word "δοκέω" (give) is also used in these verses "ὅσοι τῷ Πέρσῃ ἔδοσαν σφέας αὐτοὺς Ἕλληνες ἐόντες μὴ ἀναγκασθέντες" ("those Greeks who gave themselves to the Persian without being forced to")." Anyone with knowledge of ancient Greek can understand make their comments on that specification so I would like them to make their suggestions on its addition instead of people who can not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeolic order (talk • contribs) 09:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * First, please read WP:NOR. We don't insert our own arguments and analyses into articles. As long as you don't have a reference to a reputable historian actually making this argument, this will stay out.
 * Second, the whole point is irrelevant. Nothing in the paragraph in question hinges on the implications of the verb used for "submitted", so it's quite unclear what you're even arguing about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Also in regards to Herodotus' position on the Greekness of the Macedonians I would like this verse to be considered: "1 αὗται μὲν ὦν σφι πρόσχημα ἦσαν τοῦ στόλου· ἀτὰρ ἐν νόῳ ἔχοντες ὅσας ἂν πλείστας δύνωνται καταστρέφεσθαι τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πολίων, τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῇσι νηυσὶ Θασίους οὐδὲ χεῖρας ἀνταειραμένους κατεστρέψαντο, τοῦτο δὲ τῷ πεζῷ Μακεδόνας πρὸς τοῖσι ὑπάρχουσι δούλους προσεκτήσαντο· τὰ γὰρ ἐντὸς Μακεδόνων ἔθνεα πάντα σφι ἦν ἤδη ὑποχείρια γεγονότα." Here Herodotus seems to give examples of how the Persians went about destroying Greek cities and he says that on the one hand, with the navy, they destroyed the thasians and on the other, with the infantry, they enslaved the Macedonians. Aeolic order (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Verse 6.44.1 Aeolic order (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is by Herodotus, the only problem is that you cannot understand what is being said, that is why I am asking someone who knows ancient Greek to comment on this addition Aeolic order (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It does hinge on the implications on the verb used, and that verb is "δοκέω". If you read the edit it seems like the Thessalians were the first to commit an act of treason. That is quite different from being subjugated to the foreign king because it is done through your own choice. The whole claim about the implications of this verse is that if the Thessalians were the first Greekd to succumb to the invader then the preceding Macedonians were not Greeks Aeolic order (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Μην κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια, παιδί μου. But anyway, you've still not grasped the basic point here. This isn't a debating club. Provide sources from the secondary literature. It's not our job to "consider" stuff just because you would like us to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a talk page and talk pages have to do with discussion. I am providing sources from the literature itself. Of course I am gonna Judge from the "same" the "others" because the "others" are mingling with the "same". I agree that it is not your job to "consider" because you cannot "consider" right now Aeolic order (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding original research the rules have this to say
 * === Translations and transcriptions ===


 * Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see . Aeolic order (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And regarding citations of non-English sources this is stated:
 * ====Citing====
 * Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)

I have provided rekevant portions of the original source Aeolic order (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Relevant Aeolic order (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * But you are of course not just "faithfully translating sourced material". You are using that material in order to advance an argument. That's why you're saying "… in regards to the previous statement it should be noted that …". It's that argument that you'd need sourcing for. A published work by a modern historian who uses these observations on Herodot for the exact same purpose that you are trying to use them for, i.e. invalidating the preceding argument that's sourced to Hall. Of course you don't have such a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revise this edit? This is not regarding the Thessalians. This is a direct quotation of Herodotus and I clearly cite where it is found. Aeolic order (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And you still haven't cited a secondary source. You are not listening at all, are you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think the translation in this case was not faithfully translated please state where it was lacking Aeolic order (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What secondary source? This was a direct quotation from the original source. Can you read Greek? Aeolic order (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * How often do you need this spelled out to you before you get the point? In order to have anything inserted here, you need to cite a reputable modern historian who proposes the very same argument you are trying to make. You cannot just insert stuff from a primary source; what you need to source is the interpretation of that primary material. In this case, you need a source for the proposal that those sentences from Herodot are an indicator that (at that point in the text) he was thinking of the Macedonians as part of the Greeks. So far, that is your interpretation and your argument alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I am just reading the text. Where is "τούτο μεν" and "τούτο δε" referring to? Aeolic order (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Aeolic order (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Relevant portions of the original source. Herodotus Histories 6 44 1 1 αὗται μὲν ὦν σφι πρόσχημα ἦσαν τοῦ στόλου· ἀτὰρ ἐν νόῳ ἔχοντες ὅσας ἂν πλείστας δύνωνται καταστρέφεσθαι τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πολίων, τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῇσι νηυσὶ Θασίους οὐδὲ χεῖρας ἀνταειραμένους κατεστρέψαντο, τοῦτο δὲ τῷ πεζῷ Μακεδόνας πρὸς τοῖσι ὑπάρχουσι δούλους προσεκτήσαντο· τὰ γὰρ ἐντὸς Μακεδόνων ἔθνεα πάντα σφι ἦν ἤδη ὑποχείρια γεγονότα. Aeolic order (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

One 1 is extra Aeolic order (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Greek ethnicity of Macedonians "dispute"
About the so called "dispute" about ethnicity of Macedonians as Greeks and article allready mentioning they participated in athletic  events. Athletic events mentioned in ancient Greece were part of the 4 major religious festivals in honour of Zeus, Athena, Demeter and Hera the greatest of them being the one in honour of Zeus held in Olympia. The Hellian judges at the olympics were very strict and accepted as participants only citizens of Greek states and their colonies. The reason Macedonians were able to participate (King Phillip famously won second place in chariot racing) was because of Makednos/Makedon being their ancestral progenitor and him being part of that narrative in Greek myths on how the different Greek tribes came to be stemming from Deucalion the last survivor of last cataclysm who had a son named Hellen forefather of all Greeks and his sons being each father of a Greek Tribe with one of them being also father of Makedon. Therefore the judges considered Macedonians Greeks. The disputes existed among various city states as part of political narratives and because in General prior to the unification campaign they started they opted mostly to remain a bit apart, somewhat clannish. 128.0.209.4 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to discuss the topic. Read the top of every Talk Page in Wikipedia. Do you have a Reliable Source to discuss to improve the article? 50.111.34.214 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022
178.147.192.169 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Ancient Macedonians were an ancient Greek Doric descend
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A Greek narative for a nation-building propaganda in the 19th century
The following excerpt is from an already accepted source regarding a different article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_(ethnic_group)#cite_note-160, so this should also be considered as an adition to this article.

"..The Greek claim of exclusive copyright on the name ‘Macedonia’ is an attempt to cover up two problem areas that are extremely uncomfort- able for modern Greeks: first, the identity of the ancient Macedonians, and second, the relatively recent (re)Hellenisation of much of Aegean Macedonia. Who were the ancient Macedonians? The official Greek dogma is that the ancient Macedonians were nothing more than one of the many Greek tribes – and consequently Philip and Alexander were the ‘unifiers’ of Hellas. This flies in the face of the historical evidence that the ancient Macedonians were perceived by all Greek tribes as barbar- ians and non-Greeks and were violently opposed as such. Their likely ethnic and linguistic closeness to the Greeks could not sway Demosthenes (384–322 BC ) to accept them as Greek. It could be argued that Demosthenes was blinded by his ferocious opposition to Philip, but Macedonians were viewed in a similar light by Isocrates, a sup- porter of Philip. His position was that the Macedonian royal family was Greek (their dynastic name ‘Argead’ imputed a false etymology to Argos in the Peloponese) but that their subjects were most certainly not.2 Modern Greek historians are keen to buttress their claims about the essential Greekness of ancient Macedonians with linguistic argu- ments and archeological material from recent excavations of ancient Macedonian sites,3 evidently forgetting that no contemporary exercises could posthumously change the opinions of Philip’s and Alexander’s contemporaries. To sum up, the complexity of Greek-Macedonian relations in antiquity does not fit the straitjacket of nineteenth and twentieth-century Greek nationalist propaganda, which has invariably projected on to antiquity the contemporary reality that a subdivision of the Greek people lives in geographic Macedonia..."

This excerpt should be used to demonstrate that some scholars are of the opinion that a Greek narative regarding the period of antiquity has been pushed in the early 19th centry to fit a nation-building propaganda. Every nation has its myth and this was theirs. 77.28.94.78 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Worthington Quote
Can someone double check the Ian Worthington quote "Not much is to be said about the Greekness of Macedonians: it is undeniable". I can't for the life of me find that quote in his book Philip II. I can find "There is enough evidence and reasoned theory to conclude that the Macedonians were Greek" on p.219, but not the former. 2A02:6B67:7917:0:C8F1:C995:AF34:FB67 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Really. They is no historical evidence of a country called Greece (Hellas or Ellada, whatever you want to call it) before 1821. There is also no historical evidence of such people called Greek before 1821. The koine language was simply called Koine and not Koine Greek as the so called Greeks of today call it. This page is just full of propaganda.  You also fail to mention that your first Bavarian king Otto came to Athena where the majority of the people in Athens spoke Albanian (Arvanites ) 14.201.79.60 (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to say Wikipedia is just full of propaganda articles like this one. An ethnic group that conquered Thrace, Epirus Archaia etc.  ohhh they didn't conquer Greece because there was no such country.  But you will respond with some crap like ancient city states of Ancient Greece. <— yet no Ancient Greece country existed lol. You don't make sense at all.  14.201.79.60 (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"Greek stock", "racially Greek"
These phrases—in quotations from scholars, no less—jump out at me. Is that what this is really about? Srnec (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Srnec I do agree that the phrasing is strange, but I assume a lot of that how problematic this discourse is contemporarily anyway. Maybe some re-verifying is necessary, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this language was used in the original source.
 * Maybe we should reword out of quotations and paraphrase, but I assume that would very easily fall into WP:OR territory. Uness232 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)