Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 10

Comment about "Greek"
At the risk of equally offending everyone, I will make this one comment and then back out again. Luxure, you have to remember that this discussion is not being held in isolation. Everything relating to Greece and the word "Macedonia" is colored by the current geopolitical issue between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia over the name. And because this discussion, while about the ancient world, concerns the name "Macedonia", it cannot be divorced from that modern conflict. While your position, Luxure, may be objective (I haven't actually read all the comments in detail), well-argued, and based on a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia and make it more accurate, it is hitting directly against modern Greek sensibilities from editors who are equally sincere in their desire to improve Wikipedia, but who approach the issue from an entirely different angle, subconsciously colored by modern events. No matter how "objective" we all try to be, there is no way that we can ever really divorce ourselves from our personal points of view and it is evidenced by the positions we consistently take, by the reliable sources we consider to be "the most reliable", by the terminology we choose to employ, etc. WP:ARBMAC2 was a major effort to move the article about Macedonia to Republic of Macedonia and to establish WP:MOSMAC where "Macedonia" is the default name for the modern country. It was a major compromise for our Greek editors. It was also a compromise to not call ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom". I suggest that you gracefully back off this current effort for the sake of good will towards our Greek-leaning editors, who have actually accommodated the English Wikipedia a great deal over the last few years. Just my two cents. --Taivo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Even though I disagree with you referring to the state of FYROM as the "Republic of Macedonia" and I also disagree with you on the fact that it's not just the "Greek leaning editors" in my opinion who defend the mainstream academic conclusion on the issue, in the sense that people don't have to favor Greece or Greeks to defend them but favor what the majority of experts say about this dispute, I can't help but agree with the message you're trying to convey. Yes people who agree with me or Athenean for example have made serious compromises as you said and yes Luxure and any other POV ( by definition) pushers should accept they have to walk halfway to meet us in the middle of this disagreement as well. Unfortunately as long as modern politics interfere with historical facts we'll have to make compromises and accept what you've said here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — TheAnonymousCoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Taivo your comment: It was also a compromise to not call ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom". This is what I am trying to get removed but it seems they cannot see it. Apparently according to the fittingly named "AnonymousCoward" I am a pov pusher (rich considering WP:SPA) because I do not agree with the user. Serious compromises? Are you kidding? They will not and can not see both sides of the argument. The 2 users have not made any compromises so far (the way it was previously was fine). I would like to know what you think about this Taivo.  Lux ure Σ  06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have only been on Wikipedia for two years, so you were not involved with WP:ARBMAC2. Neither was TheAnonymousCoward, an WP:SPA.  I was.  So was Dr.K.  It was a major compromise for the Greek editors to give up "FYROM" in article text and as a title for Republic of Macedonia.  It was hard work and, in the end, the involved Greek editors were gracious in conceding.  I'm not going to get into the middle of the personal attacks that you and TheAnonymousCoward are throwing at one another.  I've said what I have to say.  --Taivo (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You 2 as my metaphorical parents? Thanks for the laugh! Dr K has earned my respect and out of understanding and respect for the both of you I will drop it. Goodnight,  Lux ure Σ  12:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drop it before the ban hammer hammers you into oblivion. You're the most despicable person I've ever had the displeasure of meeting online.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither party involved here appears to be maintaining a neutral point of view, and my advice is that you all recuse yourself from this specific discussion. It's quite clear that neither side is willing to hear both sides of the argument , and both have completely assumed that the other party is not acting in good faith, without substantial evidence to make such claims. This conduct is in bad taste, and both parties should drop it altogether. There is established precedent regarding this debate already, see WP:ARBMAC2. Thank for your contributions, but please find a different way to contribute before this situations escalates too far. Ex Parte talkundefinedcontribs 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Can please someone show me where is the consensus reached about not mentioning that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom? I looked for it but can't find it. Macedonian (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC) I guess there hasn't been any consensus on this, hence I will add the sources verifying the obvious. Any objections? Macedonian (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus was reached several years ago. Find it in the archives.  Yes, there are objections to pushing the Greek POV in the first sentence.  The wording that is there was carefully crafted over the course of several days/weeks of discussion.  It specifically uses the word "periphery" so that it states neither that Macedonia was in Greece or just outside Greece.  It was "on the border" so to speak.  --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find the consensus and the "Greek POV" happens to be the international one. Macedonian (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD the status quo must be retained unless a new consensus is built. I object to your edit.  Build a new consensus.  This one has been in placed since 2009, modified to include the word "periphery" in 2014.  This wording was accepted without further problems.  --Taivo (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "consensus" here is used rather abusively, as I doubt there is one. If you know where that is, please give the link. Nevertheless I fail to see what is the problem with the word "Greek" and the reliable sources supporting it. Can you please explain? Macedonian (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The original consensus is from 2009. Go find it.  It was only slightly modified in 2014 (link above).  The fact that the text has been fairly stable for 7 years testifies to its effectiveness at striking a compromise between those who place Macedonia outside Greece and those who place Macedonia inside Greece.  That's the point of WP:CONSENSUS.  To create wording that is accurate (which this is) without pushing a particular POV over another.  Here's your problem.  You think that the first sentence is everything and has to say everything.  It doesn't.  Your references to Macedonia are appropriate to use within the body of the article.  Knock yourself out and scatter them appropriately in the text.  This discussion only concerns the first sentence.  If you think otherwise, then you are mistaken and need to rethink your argument.  The first sentence of the lead does not need to even have references because it is a summary only.  Placing the word "Greek" prominently in the first sentence is unnecessarily pushing a stick in the eye of those who don't accept the "Macedonia is in Greece" position.  "Greek" is quite adequately mentioned over and over again throughout the article, it's totally unnecessary to put it in the first sentence.  Read WP:POINT.  But since the word "Greek" has been removed from the first sentence since 2009, your sudden attempts to change the status quo will require a new discussion.  Your comment that the form without "Greek" is inaccurate is false.  If the first sentence said "Macedonia was not Greek" or "Macedonia was Slavic/Illyrian/etc." that would be false.  Saying that "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" is perfectly accurate.  --Taivo (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But you show up here every few months and try to push your same POV. You have absolutely no new arguments, no new way of looking at things.  You just want to trash the years-old compromise/consensus and run roughshod over those who don't hold your point-of-view.  Today is no different.  You have absolutely no new information or arguments that haven't been pushed and discussed time and time again here.  --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no actual consensus in the archives, what I see though is that ancient Greek kingdom was the stable version before you change it. It was you who pushed and pushes your POV (easy to verify from history) over other editors view, and yet you are accusing others, including myself, for pushing our POV, despite that our POV is the obvious international view on the issue, verifiable by reliable references, which you are so eager to remove! I'm sure you are aware that "those who don't accept the 'Macedonia is in Greece' position" are the ultra-nationalists of the Republic of Macedonia -not the Republic of Macedonia collectively!- who are trying to associate the ancient Greek kingdom with the modern Slavic country, right? So since when Wikipedia favors an outrageously hilarious ultra-nationalist POV against perfectly reliable published sources, who verify the obvious? Macedonian (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your continued insistence that somehow a stable status quo someone exempts you from WP:BRD is invalid. You have been around long enough to know that anything happening in articles about the Balkans is subject to intense controversy.  You continue to mischaracterize the current consensus as my solo endeavor.  You have clearly not read a word of the archives concerning this to see that there are editors on both sides of the issue.  You act like this is the first time you have shown up here and are surprised that anyone would oppose your WP:POINTy edit in the first sentence.  You have made no new arguments that haven't been made before.  But WP:CONSENSUS here still prevails, as does the process of WP:BRD.  The point is not whether nationalists of either stripe get to make their assertions in the first sentence.  The issue has always been about not waving the red flag in front of the bull from the first words of the article.  The issue, from a factual standpoint, is not whether ancient Macedonia was partially Greek or not, it was how much it was Greek.  Athens and Sparta were 100% Greek.  Macedonia was not.  It was also not 0% Greek.  The facts of the article then provide the evidence so that the reader can fairly judge the level of Greekness.  The first sentence, however, need not place the Greek flag squarely in the face of readers implying that Macedonia was 100% Greek or nearly so.  It is a compromise that has been stable and long-standing--something that we strive for in articles on the Balkans.  --Taivo (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I just checked the 2009 link that you provided and had to laugh. You obviously didn't take the time to actually read it.  The sentence that I edited did not say "Greek kingdom".  It said "kingdom in ancient Greece".  You have falsely claimed that the previous version said "Greek kingdom".  It did not.  The issue in 2009 was whether the article should say "in Greece" or not.  --Taivo (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And you also falsely characterize the discussion from 2009. You write as if it was a solo effort on my part and ignore the fact that the editors during the discussion were fairly equally divided between those who wanted to state categorically that ancient Macedonia was in Greece and those who wanted to be more vague about whether it was actually in Greece or not.  The issue was not whether to insert "Greek" in front of "kingdom"--it wasn't there at that time.  --Taivo (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to check, here is a random difference from February 2009. Notice that the first sentence does not say "Greek kingdom" at all.  Your assertion that "Greek kingdom" was stable before I changed it in August is simply baseless and utterly false.  Just to check further, I went back to the oldest edits.  This version from January 2006 clearly shows that Macedonia was just a "kingdom" even then, not a "Greek kingdom".  And the earliest preserved edit, from February 2002 doesn't have "Greek kingdom" either.  --Taivo (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I went through the archives trying to find the 2009 consensus you keep "shouting" about. There isn't any, and please do correct me if I am wrong. What I found though is this REQUEST FOR A TRULY NEUTRAL CONSENSUS since 2014 in which: So actually there is a consensus on "ancient Greek kingdom"! You claim that "the editors during the discussion were fairly equally divided" is false; after reading the comments in the archives it seems that it's actually: You claim that having "ancient Greek kingdom" is a WP:Point issue, but what you really care about is not disturb Macedonian editors, pushing aside the fact that it's only the ultra-nationalists of the Republic of Macedonia -not the Republic of Macedonia collectively- who are trying to associate the ancient Greek kingdom with the modern Slavic country! Here is what you wrote: "The addition of 'Greek' to the first sentence doesn't add anything to the article and gives the impression of baiting our Macedonian editors", "You are just baiting the Macedonian editors", "so putting the word 'Greek' in every sentence of the article (especially the first one) is just baiting our Macedonian editors", "What is the point to stating that Macedon was an ancient 'Greek' kingdom? The point is to bait Macedonian editors", "Adding the word 'Greek' in front of 'kingdom' does nothing to change the content of the article, but only plants a Greek flag in front of Slavic readers", "It's all about waving a Greek nationalist flag at the Slavic Macedonians in the first sentence", "The compromise wording does just that--keeping the Greek parts of Macedonia intact ("on the periphery of the Greek world") while not overtly ramming a sharp stick in the eye of Slavic readers by saying 'Greek kingdom'", while you admitted that you don't consider ancient Macedonia to be Greek: "Athens, Sparta, and even Syracuse were 'Greek'--either by being part of the historical core or being settled by Greeks. Macedon was neither. It was not a part of the core and it did not have a history of 'Greekness'", "I don't really consider Macedon to be a part of Greece" . You keep reverting my edit, showing blatant, utter disregard for the perfectly reliable sources which name Macedonia exactly a "Greek kingdom"! Please don't revert again, keep in mind that in wikipedia we do not adjust the article because of the potential feelings of some readers! Macedonian (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * an ancient Greek kingdom gained four choices
 * kingdom gained three choices
 * an ancient kingdom on the periphery of the Greek world (your proposition) gained two
 * an Ancient Slavic Kingdom or a Proto-Slavic Kingdom gained one
 * an ancient kingdom, the principal state of a people related to the ancient Greeks gained one
 * you against User:Philly boy92, User:Stevepeterson, User:Athenean, User:AkiiraGhioni, User:Gtrbolivar, User:GK1973, User:Shadowmorph, User:Anothroskon, User: Antipastor, User:Simanos, User:Ptolion, User:Reaper7, User:TheAnonymousCoward and against me,
 * User:Macedoniarulez, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Phso2, User: Richard Keatinge, User:Elmmapleoakpine are on your side, while
 * User:Factuarius User:Fkitselis User:Luxure and User:Dr.K. are holding a neutral stance.
 * Frankly, I do not understand how you can conclude that "there is a consensus on 'ancient Greek kingdom'". When did 4 out of 11 become a consensus. Maybe you should read up on WP:CONSENSUS. (By the way, in that rather bungled series of discussions in 2014, the people answering just "kingdom", did that in answer to an earlier question about whether to call it "a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom".) My concern, however, is mainly about procedure: There is no way that you will be allowed to make any change to the lead through edit war, least of all a change that has been discussed with such heat several times. The only way to change the text is to create a consensus for such change in the talk page, and then make the change. The best way would be through a request for comments, which would formalize the discussion and make sure that all interested parties would be able to participate. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TU-nor has expressed the fundamental point very well. The current text is the status quo and your changes to the status quo are what require consensus per WP:BRD.  You don't seem to understand that "consensus" is not a vote.  Consensus is when the vast majority of editors, preferably all involved editors, have agreed to a version.  --Taivo (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit it, I thought consensus was all about near-unanimity, but apparently it isn't. Nevertheless, it is mainly you Taivo who object on "Greek kingdom" while you blatantly disregard the perfectly reliable sources which precisely say this! Your objection is not about maintaining the "status quo" (and even if it was, any article is and must be subject to constructive change) or per WP:POINT as you claim, you are just trying to lead readers' opinion in that direction. On the contrary, you actually object on "Greek kingdom" because a) you "don't really consider Macedon to be a part of Greece", as you admitted, (see above) and b) you don't want to disturb Macedonian editors, as you admit over and over again (see above)! Hence, what you are actually doing is censoring wikipedia. Please note  though that 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) 11:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still haven't a clue as to how/where you see a "near-unanimity". What I do understand, is that the only possible route if you want to change the lead is through a broad discussion. Why don't you just open a request for comments? --T*U (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do that. Macedonian (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know 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. I would like to also know who is responsible for doing this! N.Panamevris (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Directed to user Macedonian. I believe a new consensus is required to rectify this back to it's original status (ancient Greek kingdom) because a) the evidence is overwhelming & b) we also have Taivo who doesn't want the word "Greek" in the 1st sentence but actually agrees that it was a Greek kingdom by his own admission above...             ''""But since the word "Greek" has been removed from the first sentence since 2009, your sudden attempts to change the status quo will require a new discussion. Your comment that the form without "Greek" is inaccurate is false. If the first sentence said "Macedonia was not Greek" or "Macedonia was Slavic/Illyrian/etc." that would be false. Saying that "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" is perfectly accurate. --Taivo (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)"''.

Macedonian, can you see the contradiction in this part of Taivo's statement. I suggest the word "Greek" be removed from other paragraphs within the article if it is felt that is thrown around too many times. So, how do we start a new discussion & consensus Macedonian?? N.Panamevris (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)