Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 8

Hold your (Greek) Horses!
I have been bold and expanded and improved the lead, by advice of WP:lead. Conservatism is going to lead as nowhere and compromises cannot stand in the way of advancing the article. I would beg anyone to please refrain from deleting the new lead entirely before reading it. You will realize that all my additions are pragmatic, to the point, much more specific than previously vague descriptors and uncontested in discussion.

Note, meanings that desperate Greek users try to plug in are implied (to the extend they ascribe to the truth) much more gracefully with this new text. This kind request goes to all IPs and Greeks of the previous conversation (and of course to non-Greek Wikipedians alike). Thanks Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 18:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the "and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece" to be a nice touch to the article because it strongly implies that the kingdom was Hellenic/Greek and therefore it's accurate based on the available evidence. Thank you. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an absurdity. The Hellenistic age began either with Chaeronea or with the death of Alexander - and almost immediately, Macedonia ceased to be dominant over the Successor states. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's hope no need for your extra focus again on changing the very first sentence. The lead now flows better. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 20:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Future, could you help to restore my edits that were reverted through your eradication of the sockpuppet IP's edits? (he mostly tweaked around my text and he did seem to know his way around the wiki a little too much). Could you? I put a lot of work into it. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 21:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have too much time right now. You are, of course, free to reinstate your own edits, as well as (per WP:BAN) any of the sock's edits for whose correctness you wish to vouch. I didn't check how much of the most recent material was yours and how much was the sock's; if it was only minor technical stuff they added, I obviously have no problem with it. (I do, however, have a problem with letting User:Deucalionite anywhere near editing significant content when it comes to ancient Greek history). That said, I'm not sure I like your new intro; the language and syntax sounds awkward to me, but that is of no relevance to the sock and protection issue of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see my first draft was reinstated by Dr.K so that will do for now and I will try to copyedit and debug tomorrow. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no quibbles about the new intro. --Taivo (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither do I Luxure (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The new intro seems fine to me too.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all, I'm glad it was worth the effort. Now is a good time to take a look at the main content. I'll start a new talk section about it. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 08:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Main content
There are some issues with the article. As a first, I am of the opinion that the section about Empire should be expanded. The wars of Alexander the Great article's main focus is the battles and I see a good place here to provide a more detailed description of how the Empire worked, what the major cities of the time were and other things about its nature and legacy.

Secondly several important sites like e.g. Dion should have a section. The specifics of the kingdom's religious practicies, customs and culture is covered in detail in Ancient Macedonians respective sections so a very short summary with a link towards that should exist (I don't recall all the WP relevant policies now).

Lastly the Institutions section is poorly structured and although greatly informative it is poorly sourced. I counted one citation I believe.What do you think? Shadow mor ph ^"^ 08:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Shadowmorph, in the Institutions section there is only a brief mention of the feudalistic nature of Macedon, where although the King was of primary importance the dominant figures (prior to Philip) were powerful noblemen or barons. Peter Green wrote in 'Alexander the Great' "Macedonia as a whole tended to remain in isolation from the rest of Greece, and like Sparta, it retained institutions like Kingship and baronial feudalism."AkiiraGhioni (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The use of feudal outside western Europe and its medieval colonies is a misleading confusion. See Marc Bloch and M. I. Finley, passim. If you mean that the King of Macedon controlled the upland tribes only when he was strong enough to do so, say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the wording implying that Hellenistic Greece is a single empire, and that Macedonia was part of it, was intentional. This is as regrettable; neutral language is much preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just remember that encompasses Macedon from 808BC until 168BC, not just Alexander and Phillip's time. Luxure (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Language
I see the wording implying that Hellenistic Greece is a single empire, and that Macedonia was part of it, was intentional. This is as regrettable; neutral language is much preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:48 am, 23 December 2014, Tuesday (16 days ago) (UTC+11)


 * I agree. Although I did not intend the edit with the word 'over' to go live.  Lux ure Σ  04:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What wording do you have a problem with, single empire? How exactly were you led to believe that anything on the article implied that Hellenistic Greece was a single empire? I see no wording of that, nor any reference that claims such a thing. Please be more specific because at no point while reading this article I saw anything remotely suggesting that the Hellenistic states were in fact one state. Also I don't get what you mean by "neutral language" and to whom that neutral language would've been much preferable. To a site which has a purpose to educate, truth is the most important thing above all, preferences are not a factor sir. But still the wording seems neutral enough to me since you have a problem with it.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral wording is the best way. Why does it seem neutral enough to you if I have a problem with it?  Lux ure Σ  23:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking about semantics, neutral means having no bias on an issue. People can say it's not neutral, I obviously say it is neutral. We cannot just come to the conclusion that it is or it isn't simply because people claim it. Why does fact equal bias in this case? But aside from semantics, I have no idea what the issue here is, which is the part of the article this person has a problem with and why it is so. Without some sort of clarification I cannot make sense of it.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your not making any sense brother  Lux ure Σ  10:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, let me try to make it simpler. I view the stuff this article talks about as facts. This person complained that it's not "neutral" and therefore some of the stuff written in the article are biased somehow. I asked how is it that facts include bias because I don't see it. And then I asked this person and anybody else who has a problem with the Macedonian kingdom article, since this is the talk page of this specific article, what is the specific part or parts of the article he/she has a problem with and why that is so. Because at the moment all I see is complaints about bias but no cause.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've lost interest in this area. The SPA's, editors who are fixed on one view, who like iron, are strong but brittle, the paranoia, the POV's. It just makes me sick that human beings act in this way. Some editors only purpose here is just to oppose and the only way I see there will ever be a compromise here is editors fighting it out to the very end. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Some editors here lack the respect and intellect of half a coconut. I am not arguing with the peanut gallery anymore. G'Day from Australia  Lux ure Σ  22:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I expected an answer that would enlighten the people who view this talk page of where exactly the problem or problems with the "neutrality" of the article have been located, so we can discuss it. But instead I got an answer that calls people with different opinions stupid? I assume that's what the "intellect of half a coconut" means. Sorry you feel that way but personally when I have a problem I go as far as to explain my problem to the person or persons that I'm talking to. I don't just vaguely state that I have a problem and then when I'm asked about it I completely drift away from giving an answer and instead continue stating how unfair me having this problem is.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To you I say expand your area of expertise.  Lux ure Σ  02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok? Still waiting to hear the details of your problem so I can discuss it by the way.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson sums it up pretty well in the original statement.  Lux ure Σ  22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw him claiming that somewhere the article "implies" that Hellenistic Greece was a single empire and that Macedonia was part of that empire. The fact alone that we're talking separately about the Macedonian kingdom, the Seleucid empire, the Ptolemaic kingdom etc is enough proof that nowhere in this article something implies that its very title is a lie. The funny thing is that the person who claimed this forgot to specify the wording that implies such a thing. The whole issue is kind of surreal you know.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect of Macedon
I have redirected Macedon to Macedon, Victoria. A quick google search reveals that the Victorian town has more search results than the ancient kingdom. Quite simply:


 * Macedon 7.42 million results
 * Macedon Victoria 1.01 million results
 * Macedon Australia 974,000 results
 * Macedon Kingdom 450,000 results
 * Macedon Ancient Kingdom 846,000 results
 * Ancient Macedon 416,000 results
 * Macedon -Australia -Victoria -Shire -Ranges 700,000 results
 * Macedon -Ancient -Kingdom 7.37 million results

It is quite obvious that most search results refer to the locality in Victoria. As such, I have made changes accordingly.  Lux ure Σ  01:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This analysis is not valid for scholarly sources: Google Books: 691,000 references to Macedon the kingdom vs. 24,000 for Macedon, Victoria. Sorry, but I have reverted the changes. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK cheers.  Lux ure Σ  04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A modest proposal
The stress on this article is because it is about Macedonia, and there is a controversy about the nature and ethnicity of modern Macedonia, a place defined by the Congress of Berlin around 1879. The modern controversy involves different ethnic, linguistic, and religious questions, having much more to do with the Exarchate of Bulgaria and the strategy of the Greek armies in 1912 than with any Temenid king.

I therefore propose that it be moved to Macedon, which redirects here; that the name be changed to Macedon except for any possible references to the name of the Roman province in Latin; and those who wish to validate their high-school textbooks' oversimplifications do so elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly reasonable proposal. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure that it would succeed in deflecting the rage of the ethnic POV warriors. As irrational as it may seem to us outsiders, the identification between the modern and the ancient ethnicity questions, and the notion that the ethnic character of the ancients is somehow a matter of life and death for today, sits deep in the collective psyche of the present-day societies, probably far too deep to be assuaged by simply seeing a variant of the title. As for normal Wikipedian considerations of naming priorities, do we have reliable data about what is predominant usage in English? I was under the impression that "Macedon" was a somewhat outdated, old-fashioned variant, but looking at some recent book titles I may well have been wrong about that. It's of course difficult to assess how many instances of "Macedonia" out there on Google Books refer to the ancient state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record: here's the discussion from the time this was last moved: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Macedonia' is the predominate usage in English, versus 'Macedon'. To refer to the ancient kingdom, most use 'Ancient Macedonia' in everyday speech. Luxure (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But it is also reasonable practice to avoid ambiguity and disambiguation. However, as I had hoped to indicate, I was not being wholly serious - unless there is no other way to end the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just don't get what the big fuss is by keeping the wording 'ancient kingdom' versus 'ancient kingdom on the northern periphery of the ancient greek world ... rise from a small kingdom on the periphery. It's just too wordy and really just keeping the term ancient kingdom keeps ot flowing and is entirely neutral. Luxure (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The mention of Hellas is harmless and may help some uninvolved high school student identify where we are talking about. The existence of some relationship between Macedonian and Greek is controversial only for the believers in "proto-Slavs"; is there a documentation of actual Slavic south of the Danube less than 500 years after the end of the kingdom?


 * But the fuss, of course, is about any statement more specific (and falsifiable) than "periphery". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I will agree that the next sentence is wordy; we don't need to mention Greece twice. "Centered on the mouth of the Vardar"? "Centered on the Bay of Salonica"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think its OK as it is for the sake of "neutrality". However there are other options such as "Macedon was a Hellenic / Helladic Kingdom" or "Macedon was a Greek speaking Kingdom in the north east of mainland Greece"AkiiraGhioni (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (You really need to learn how indenting works, AkiiraGhioni.) Pmanderson, another option for that second sentence would be "located on the northwest corner of the Aegean Sea".  That would avoid the unnecessary replication of "Greek".  AG, there was no "Greece" at that time, only a smattering of Greek city-states.  --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Geographically ancient Macedonia is situated in the north east of mainland Greece, this gives an idea to the uninformed of its location, in a historical context ancient Macedonia is located on the north-east of Hellas or Helladic mainland since Hellas did exist at that time.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is starting to get bizarre now. Are we therefore no longer able to say that the ancient Kingdom of Gwynedd is located in north-western Wales, but rather is located southeast of the Irish sea?? And where would that put the Ancient Kingdom of Powys, south-southeast of the Irish sea???AkiiraGhioni (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Septentrionalis, a peninsula is defined as "a narrowing piece of land that is bordered by water on three sides but connected to mainland". So, rather than the term 'northern periphery of the Ancient Greek world' (which could be considered biased towards the nationalist Macedonian side as it inherently implies that it was not related to/in contact with Ancient Greece), I am not fussed as to whether we use 'ancient kingdom located on the north-eastern part of the Greek Peninsula', 'ancient kingdom located to the north of the Greek Peninsula' (using the strict definition of 'peninsula') or (my preferred- due to the precise geographical location and borders of the ancient kingdom)  'ancient kingdom located on the north-western corner of the Aegean Sea'. These are the 3 options I propose so as to remain neutral. The mention of Hellas is harmless and thats why I also am not fussed using the wording 'Greek Peninsula' as it is in fact widely used over Wikipedia. The only reason I do not like 'Ancient Greek' Kingdom as there is no real, hard, indisputable evidence that it was a strictly a Hellenic kingdom. In response to User:AkiiraGhioni, 'Hellenic' is another term for Greek, as evidenced here and here. Cheers, Luxure (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Balkan Peninsula is a peninsula, narrowing from a line between Venice and Odessa; Greece is its tip. But I like the NW corner of the Aegean, as actually saying something new. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. Macedonia actually means the land of Macedon or Makednos, it has geographical connotation. This is why the ancient kingdom was called Macedon, and the geographical region later Macedonia. Also if Ancient Macedonians called their kingdom Macedon and the word is still used today, then there is no reason why we should call it Macedonia, a term with dozens of uses today. Ancient Macedonia literally refers to any ancient kingdom/civilisation that existed in the land of the contemporary region of Macedonia. Eg any archeological findings in the Republic of Macedonia or the Greek Macedonia might be called Ancient Macedonia although unrelated to Macedon (eg belonging to Thacian, Paeonian kingdoms) in a similar manner that Ancient Greek/Persian findings are called Ancient Turkey today. The kingdom of Macedon extended to Himalaya and should not be limited to Macedonia, a geographical term. Stevepeterson (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Basic linguistic misunderstanding here: the English term Macedon has nothing to do with the ancient Greek forms Makedōn or Makednos, and the ancients didn't call the country "Makedōn" either. Makedōn (Μακεδών) was the adjectival ethnonym (somebody from Macedonia, a Macedonian). The modern English Macedon only happens to look similar, but it is in fact just as much a continuation of the geographical term Μακεδονία as the the form Macedonia, only through a different borrowing route (from Old French Macédoine) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think one should distinguish the difference between the Kingdom of Macedonia, and the Macedonian Empire. The Kingdom of Macedonia was the ancient nation centered in north-eastern Greece, whilst the Macedonian Empire whether(European or Asiatic)was the collection of dependent territories subject to the Kingdom of Macedonia such as Ephesus, Paeonia, Tyre, Palestine, Babylon etc etc. My proposal would be "Macedonia was a crude Hellenic nation north west of the Aegean sea". There is no use of the word Greek, and the term 'crude' has taken the edge of the use of the term Hellenic, however the use of the word 'Hellenic' is important because it defines a nation in its historical and ancient context as opposed to the modern use of 'Greek'. Certainly as far as the modern Greeks are concerned Hellenic does equal Greek, but that must not be allowed to put us in a position where we are now censoring the use of the word Hellenic as well as Greek.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (a) What on earth is "crude" supposed to mean? That's not English. (b) I don't know what kind of semantic sorcery trick you are trying to pull of with that distinction between "Hellenic" and "Greek", but it doesn't work. (c) The distinction between the core kingdom and the subject territories is off-topic in this discussion. (d) Can you please stick to the topic? This thread was started about the proposal to replace "Macedonia" with "Macedon" in the title of this article. Nothing of what you just said has anything to do with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case I agree with the proposalAkiiraGhioni (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And will you do us the favour of providing a reason for this choice or are we to be left guessing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many scholars and Historians refer to the core ancient Hellenic Kingdom of the Argeads as 'Macedon' and this distinguishes from the term Macedonia which can refer to the extended geographic region of Roman Macedonia and Ottoman Macedonia.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings everybody. Before I start let me just remove the dust from my account: *wipe* *wipe*. Phew that was thick! Glad to see that the usual "guardians" Taivo and Fut.Perf are still here unmovable, eerily like the sphinxes at Amphipolis tomb! :)

Now let me just jump straight into the question at hand with a straightforward answer in large friendly letters: DON'T MOVE THE ARTICLE!

Other than asking you what exact benefit will that have for wikipedia; do you remember what happened the last time? This whole discussion is pointless since Macedon is definately not more common use than Macedonia. I distinctly remember a big fuss beeing made about most common use. Actually I proved that Macedonia was in more common English everyday and scholary use with some evidence that I am too bored to dig up now (I think FutPerf gave a link). This renaming will accomplish nothing short of perplexing things.

I will even go on a limb here saying that in fact it will surely cause great harms in the normality of the Macedonia articles since there will definately be users that will use that as an excuse with an endgame of theirs that "Macedonia need no longer be disambiguated" since "ancient Macedonia is now named Macedon in Wikipedia" yada-yada or some other bogus statement.

Bottom line, TL:DR: Please do yourselves and everyone a favor and keep the normality. Normality is good, It was achieved through very hard work through enormous ammount of bigotry to a hard earned consensus. Remember that Taivo? Do you really want to go down that road again? I didn't think so.

It goes without saying that I will never be in favor of any renaming of this or any other Macedonia article ever again! Shadow mor ph ^"^ 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the article lead, my views were expressed back in 2009. The plain "kingdom" is good as long as the rest flows towards a description including placing Macedonia in Greek geography and temporally identification reaching finally the apex of Hellenistic times.

As it now reads the article is using the word "periphery" twice in the lead: "was an ancient kingdom on the northern periphery of the Ancient Greek world" and "The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery, to one which came to dominate". This is just silly and serves to an evil purpose. Not using "Greek" is one thing, but making the lead spell "not-a-Greek" through tricky use of WP:POINTy words is much different.

Now since that stability we reached back then on the lead lasted only so far, using "Hellenic kingdom" in the starting sentence, followed with the sentence about Hellenistic civilization of ancient Greece (that is now last in paragraph) is my proposal. Nobody is contrasting "Hellenic kingdom" as I see it even though it is synonym to "Greek kingdom" - "Greek" still seems to cause unexplainable misery to some new editors - and perharps some confusion to some uninformed readers if it is used prematurely. "Hellenic" is better since it is not used too early if followed with the sentence about Hellenistic era. That's my proposal, thank's for your time :). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

.I think Shadowmorph has given the best balanced most sensible proposal yetAkiiraGhioni (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Shadowmorph, but before you keep trying to prove that I am somehow deranged, please note that I did not make this proposal. Your comments are welcome, but please don't make this personal.  --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, please don't put words in my mouth. Of course it is not personal at all. You did however call the proposal reasonable, that is why I reason with you and was adressing to all editors involved now that moving the article would be unwise. Eitherway, I am sorry if it sounded too personal. It is however peculiar that I see the same editors (admins?) that were around during the earlier renaming marathons that still can't settle with the given names and want to open the same can of worms. It is now many years that have passed and the only ones that seem to raise the topic of article titles among the thousands that have passed by this article since the early 00's can be narrowed down to a few individuals. That is just the truth, not personal at all. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Another proposal would be to add the word 'Hellenic' a little later. So "The rise of Macedon from a small Kingdom at the periphery" would read as "The rise of Macedon from a small Hellenic Kingdom at the periphery"AkiiraGhioni (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand that the word 'Greek' was removed by two (2) consensuses, and that does include its derivatives, which includes 'Hellenic'. Insistence that Hellenic does not mean Greek must remember that Greece's official name is the 'Hellenic Republic' (Greek Republic). The supposed Argead origins of the Ancient Macedonian royals are a creation myth, a fable, as is mentioned several times above. As for renaming, you would not rename 'Australia' as 'Austral', as Austral means South and Australia is south of the equator (geographical connotations), nor would you rename it 'The Great Southern Land' or 'Terra Australis'. Realise the foolishness of this argument. Luxure (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not work by voting on individual words. I remember beeing one that suggested keeping the just "kingdom" wording but the lead read differently then than now. So I was part of Consensus No.1 by your standards. That doesn't mean that I ever accepted that "Greek" and it's derivatives be banished from the lead. Same goes for anyone in that consensus. Maybe you should better focus constructevely on writing a better lead for the article instead of bickering on one word. How about "Hellenistic"? That is a derivative too, but Macedonia was definately a Hellenistic state up to the Roman conquests. We use it at Seleucid Empire ("...was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty") and Ptolemaic Kingdom ("...was a Hellenistic kingdom in Egypt. It was ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty") in the lead, why not in Macedonian kingdom?


 * I am thinking something along the lines "Macedonia was a pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic kingdom centered in the north-eastern part of the Greek peninsula ruled by dynasties of Greek kings, most notable of which were Phillip II and his son Alexander the Great". Plain and simple.


 * This article is about the kingdom of Macedonia in all times of its history so whatever anyone's personal view on the Argeads may be, the lead should definately describe the full nature of the Macedonian kingdom in antiquity. The Greco-Roman wars were fought primarily between Rome and Macedonia. Is that another derivative (Greco) we can't use?  Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a tall order to write an article about an ancient Greek/Hellenic Kingdom without being able to use the words Greek or Hellenic. The word Hellene is how these ancient Greeks referred to themselves. It is unfortunate that the modern Greeks use the same name, is that a reason though to ban the use of the word Hellenic as well. I suggested not having Hellenic in the lead but moving it further down but even this was not good enough. Having said that I second Shadowmorph's proposal above for the sake of 'WA'(harmony).AkiiraGhioni (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course you're going to support any proposal that calls this a "Greek kingdom", Akiira. The compromise wording that is in the article, Shadowmorph, doesn't ban the word "Greek" from the lead.  That's simply an exaggeration of a carefully worded compromise that seems to be holding.  The word "Greek" appears later in the sentence and in following sentences.  The only real issue is putting "Greek" or "Hellenic" so prominently right up front in the first sentence.  It's WP:POINTy there.  It's not banished from the first sentence, just placed later on in a less prominent position.  That's the point that Akiira has never understood--it's not a banishment of "Greek", just placing it in a less adversarial position.  --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Taivo I agreed with Shadowmorph's proposal on the use of the qualifier 'Hellenistic', I think Hellenistic is innacurate - Macedon was a Hellenic Kingdom but I'm compromising here when it seems nobody else is willing to go the extra mile.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Taivo, actually I did in fact suggest moving the qualifier 'Hellenic' down to the third sentence so that the sentence would read "The rise of Macedon from a small Hellenic Kingdom at the periphery", but Luxure objected.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How about the wording 'ancient kingdom'? It has no political connotations, is undoubtedly neutral (unless you ask an Ancient Macedonian from that time, who will argue that it was not Ancient, as it is current in his time). You can discuss the nature of the Kingdom further down the article, using multiple sources discussing its Hellenicity (whether it was/wasn't Greek). That is neutrality as it showcases both sides of the argument. 'Hellenic' means Greek. Search it up, go on any dictionary, look for Hellenic, and only one (1) word describes it (Greek). It's an archaic term, as is the word 'girt' meaning 'surrounded'. Luxure (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Taivo, I was responding to Luxure saying that "Greek" was decided to be removed. The consensus actually was as you acurately described. I would like to hear your opinions about adding "Hellenistic state" in the lead. Per WP:Lead we should summarize all portions of the article. As it now stands, Hellenistic period of Macedonia and Macedonian Wars are omitted entirely and it reads as if Macedonia ended with Alexander. Personnally I believe more due weight should be given on Alexander's conquests and the role of Macedonia to the transition from Classical to the Hellenistic age since that is the more important -and more interesting to the readers- context for this article.


 * I also would like to add a mention to the ruling dynasties that are sometimes the most important notion for defining a kingdom (like in Han kingdoms of China) along with geography and inhabitants. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 06:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Shadowmorph if I misunderstood who you were responding to and what you were saying. My number one concern here hasn't been whether "Hellen(ist)ic" or "Greek" was used later in the sentence or later in the lead, so I'm sure that your comments are quite well made on that matter.  Trying to discuss ancient Macedonia without using those words would be like trying to talk about an African elephant without using the words "tusks" or "trunk".  My objection has always been to throwing the word "Greek" too early into the first sentence.  As long as it arrives "fashionably late", it no longer has the WP:POINTy force that it has when it immediately precedes "kingdom".  Once the discussion, as it seems to have done, moves past that first sentence, then I will leave the discussion of the later details to others.  --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why is there a problem with "ancient Greek kingdom" or "ancient Hellenic kingdom". If someone wishes to dispute that information then by all means do so with proof. I thought wikipedia is a site where not everybody who personally doesn't like certain facts can distort them to their liking. If the historian and academic communities agree on that then why is there a problem with having it say "ancient Hellenic kingdom"?TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to be a single purpose account or a sockpuppet of another user who just wants to stir nationalistic conflict again, we can safely ignore you. --Taivo (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My question still stands no matter what you think of me, maybe my IP address can verify this to the people of wikipedia, not that it matters really if the question i posted has a point. I am a user who created a new account because i've been following this conversation for the past three months, after seeing the article change from "ancient Greek kingdom" to "ancient kingdom" almost every day. My question still stands though, why is there a problem with "ancient Greek kingdom" or "ancient Hellenic kingdom". If someone wishes to dispute that information then by all means do so with proof. I thought wikipedia is a site where not everybody who personally doesn't like certain facts can distort them to their liking. If the historian and academic communities agree on that then why is there a problem with having it say "ancient Hellenic kingdom"?TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an invalid question. The question isn't about whether or not there was Greek or Hellenistic influence in ancient Macedonia--the article goes to great lengths to describe the nature and extent of that influence.  The question is simply whether to make the first sentence of the article excessively antagonistic and WP:POINTy by placing the word "Greek" at the very front of the sentence.  If you've actually been reading this discussion over the last few months, which makes you a sockpuppet of a user that doesn't want to identify him or herself, then you would understand that.  The very fact that you continue the I didn't hear that false argument means that your opinion is nothing more than another effort to provoke a reaction.  That makes you a troll.  I'm not going to interact with you any further since you obviously don't have any valid point to make.  --Taivo (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You call it "influence" when all i've heard from historians is the Macedonian kingdom being Greek with a few Thracian and Illyrian influences on it's Greek dialect. I don't know who are you and what is your problem with valid questions, but this site is supposed to educate by collecting the information for any possible thing people may want to learn about. So maybe you're the troll here, if truth and generally accepted facts upset you or anybody else and provoke a reaction so what? What's the problem? Do we need to leave wikipedia to the people who don't know what they're talking about and leave them shape it in a way they find acceptable, regardless of truth? Macedonia was a Hellenic/ Greek kingdom and as such it's perfectly acceptable to have that at the very top of the article. Why is it unethical in your opinion to do so? Do you personally disagree with that and you'll be upset if this article is truthful? This isn't my personal opinion mind you, if you were a serious person you wouldn't personally attack me by calling me names such as "single purpose account", "sockpuppet" and "troll". You would address the question i asked. Up till this point the only thing you did was attack a new user because your personal view differs from the general view. Well done. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You simply don't get it. You are a single-purpose account since you have absolutely no editing history here other than this one article.  That, by definition, makes you a single-purpose account.  And you simply refuse to realize that the only thing you are interested in here is not the quality of the article or the information contained within it.  If you actually read the article (which I doubt you have), you will see that the precise relationship between ancient Macedonia and Greece is spelled out with references.  So your harping on sources is pointless since the sources are there.  If you want to improve the article, then by all means do so.  But spending all your time trying to weasel the word "Greek" into the front end of the first sentence is the very definition of WP:POINTy and is not appropriate Wikipedia editing or conduct.  --Taivo (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But i JUST created this account. So if by definition i am a single purpose account because i just created it then i don't get your point. Also you still stubbornly refuse to address the issue at hand here. I can link you videos with a history professor of Yale university saying that Macedonia was a Hellenic kingdom. If he was to open a discussion with you here would you still tell him that sentiment matters more in wikipedia than facts? So what if you or anybody else don't like the truth to be obvious? So what if i or anybody else want the word "Greek" or "Hellenic" to be in front of the word "kingdom". What's your problem with that sir? You still haven't explained yourself. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still not getting the point. The point is that putting the word "Greek" right at the front of the lead is WP:POINTy and antagonistic to a segment of readers.  We've moved the word "Greek" back to the end of that first sentence and it is working as a reasonable compromise.  Your continued ranting about sources is irrelevant.  That's simply not the point.  If you have sources that are not referenced in the body of the article, then by all means, if they are relevant, add them there.  All we're talking about is the first half of the first sentence and using wording that is more neutral rather than pushing your pro-Greek agenda.  As long as you are using arguments that are nothing more than I didn't hear that, then you will not be taken seriously here.  Indeed, without an editing history on Wikipedia other than trying to push your nationalistic POV right here as a single purpose account, your opinion is really not going to be taken seriously.  --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If putting the word Greek in front of kingdom is antagonistic to a segment of readers then that means they don't accept the generally accepted truth. Wikipedia shouldn't fall prey to sentiment and personal points of view. I don't care if you don't take me seriously, to be truthful i don't take seriously a person who talks out of sentiment and his/her hatred of truth being obvious to the readers as they enter the article. Why should the readers struggle to understand that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom? Why do you keep showing your utter disregard for historical facts in favor of sentiment? If you're so concerned about a group of readers who will find the wording "Greek kingdom" "antagonistic" why aren't you equally concerned about the group of people who find the wording "ancient kingdom" without the Greek between to be antagonistic? Very pretentious of you sir, you who claim to be unbiased yet you've shown you favor the anti-Greek propaganda and sentimentality over facts. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, when whatever you say is going to be considered as "antagonistic" to a certain group of people then it's better to stick to the truth. In this case it seems it favors the people who want it to be "ancient Greek/Hellenic kingdom". Except if you're biased and a certain group of people feeling antagonized concerns you more than another, like in this case. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The truth is this: ancient Macedonia was a kingdom, ancient Macedonia was on the periphery of the Greek world.  What is false about either of those claims?  Nothing whatsoever.  Your bulloney about "truth" ignores the simple fact that your "truth" is pushing your personal POV to place "Greek" as far forward in the first sentence as possible in order to antagonize other readers.  You're using wordplay to make ridiculous claims about a moral high ground that you do not occupy.  Neutrality is the foundation of Wikipedia, and the most neutral wording is to put "Greek" at the end of the first sentence, not at the beginning.  --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the kingdom was only on the periphery of the Classical Greek world and the affairs of the known Poleis up until Phillip II. After Alexander it was the very definition a Greek state and its dominion was Hellenistic Greece. So that sentence about periphery is half the truth. The sentence "ancient Macedonia was on the periphery of the Greek world" does not cover all bases, and is misleading. Since you mind about Pointy words, I'd say that putting "periphery of Ancient Greece" so upfront in the first sentence is Pointy too. Also, it didn't use to be there but later on where it still stands. Its latest addition to the first sentence now makes for a repetition of the words "ancient" and "periphery".


 * P.S. A note to TheAnonymousCoward: It would be welcome if you had any other suggestion other than "ancient Greek kingdom" but anyhow your support to that is noted along with that of other fellow editors to that wording. Any more attempt to try to "persuade" Taivo is without merit. Always keep in mind that this is not a forum. I advise you should focus your attention on the whole of the article.


 * P.S. To Taivo: Please keep your calm. Attacking an editor on first sight with accusations of sockpuppetry is unbecoming of your etiquette. If it reminds you of a certain someone, you could always file a formal request, but try to WP:AGF. There is always the possibility that the lad above is simply new and trying to push for his favourite one of the options. Remember that there is renewed interest in this page (especially in the Balkans) and it is not out of the blue if some people just decide to create an account. Also beeing WP:SPA is not an anathema to evil. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but saying "on the northern periphery of the ancient Greek world" means that it was a kingdom adjacent to the Greeks and therefore making it not Greek/Hellenic. This couldn't be more wrong as proven not by me but by all available historical evidence. So it wouldn't be fair to say because it has the word "Greek" in it then i should be happy. It could say " a kingdom adjacent to the Greeks" and it would still have the word Greek in it but it would still be wrong and misleading. This pushes the anti-Greek propaganda from the very first sentence. And again, i don't see anything wrong with "antagonizing" certain readers. Wikipedia is about truth and truth cannot, or should not, make compromises based on sentimental reasons.


 * Shadowmorph thank you for understanding me, I'm a new user who has been following the frequent changes in this particular page for months and i came to realize that some people don't like to call the kingdom Greek. Maybe it should be called "Dorian Greek kingdom" because the Macedonians were a small part of the Dorian tribe which stayed on the northern part of the Greek peninsula after the descent of the Dorians. As for Taivo I'm not trying to convince him, he has made it obvious to me that he has a problem with the wording "Greek kingdom" because this upsets a certain number of readers and his heart goes out to those people. But at the same time he disregards the fact that having it say "kingdom on the northern periphery of the ancient Greek world" means it was adjacent to it but didn't belong to it, and this is also antagonistic to another number of readers, particularly those who are of Greek descent and/or those who care about truth. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminders, Shadowmorph. You are quite right that the previous consensus form of this sentence was "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" without any mention of the "Greek world" at all.  "Greek"-pushers then arrived and the current wording is the most recent compromise wording.  I agree that there is some repetition, but we need to work on ironing that out carefully so as not to upset the apple cart.  AnonymousCoward, you are wrong about the meaning of "periphery".  Periphery does not mean outside, it means on the edge.  We carefully chose that word for the compromise because it can be read with ambiguity as to whether the entity is inside the circle or outside the circle.  A periphery is a gray area.  We chose that word on purpose.  Your continued push to ignore our readers and to use the word "truth" as if you are the sole possessor of it, is rather un-editor-like.  I will take Shadowmorph's advice to grant you more of an assumption of good faith, but your continued use of the word "truth" in this fashion stretches my patience in that regard.  The sentence "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of the ancient Greek world" is absolutely true.  --Taivo (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When you say "Greek-pushers" you mean the people who tried to implement the word Greek in it because it wasn't there before. So what i ask you? If you thought it wasn't right present your reasons and I'm sure since you're an older member they will be considered carefully. You don't have any? Then why so hellbent on removing the word? Until this point you told me that wording it "Greek kingdom" makes some people upset and that's why it was removed. Is that a valid reason for a site such as wikipedia to edit a post as important as this? Let's consider for a moment the possibility that it is. You're aware by now I'm sure that remove it or have it there, the word Greek in front of the kingdom is going to upset some people. So why do you take sides and care more about the people who don't want it there being upset? Other wikipedia articles such as the Epirus says that it was "an ancient Greek state" and i don't see anybody changing that because it might "antagonize some readers". Want me to answer because you'll never address the question? You want to make it as difficult as possible for readers to identify the Macedonian kingdom as a Greek/Hellenic state. The reasons are your own but when you hold such a position you better make them apparent to the rest of us. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't facts come first? Wouldn't neutrality mean nothing if facts are downplayed? If scholars define ancient Macedonia as an ancient Greek kingdom, then wouldn't the impartial thing to do is to have the entry include what they say? 108.5.39.81 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How can the issue be 'complex' if scholars impartially agree that ancient Macedonia was an ancient Greek/Hellenic kingdom? 108.5.39.81 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be complex, apparently wikipedia has fallen prey to the will of the most influential person in here, facts no longer seem to matter and the way this article is edited is to make it as obscure as possible to understand that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom. As i said other articles don't have that issue, Epirus is described as an "ancient Greek state" because most if not all historians agree on it. Here although most if not all historians agree on the fact that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom we have problems regarding the feelings of certain readers that might feel "antagonized" by the generally accepted truth. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most historians quoted in Greek high school textbooks may; but Epirus was not Greek in antiquity. (I do not mean to deny that Epidamnus was a Greek city; but it was a colony among barbarians. That's why its strategic situation in 431 was so difficult.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the Macedonian kingdoms talk page but if you're saying that Epidamnus was in Epirus you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidamnos#mediaviewer/File:Map_of_ancient_Epirus_and_environs.png

As you can see here Epidamnus was north of Epirus and was indeed a city among barbarian tribes. The black letters represent the Greek peoples. You've created an account on wikipedia, i suggest you read its articles too before commenting on such matters. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I prefer, on the whole, to trust Grote and Mommsen and Finley than Wikipedia and its editors. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)\
 * Wikipedia and its editors base the articles on references and research done by those specialized in the subject at hand. Now that the subject is history they are basing articles such as the one about Epirus and Macedonia on historians, archaeologists and professors. Where you put your trust is your own prerogative, though where wikipedia puts its trust is the thing that matters. Personal preferences aren't gonna taken into consideration at the expense of truth. And if you think wikipedia and its references aren't a reliable source, present the reasons why your personal preferred references are much more reliable than the existing ones. Otherwise what you claimed is void of meaning.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we should name Macedonia as a Greek state since all its kings were Greeks,the "oficial" language was Greek and the people were Greek.Maybe"Macedonia or Macedon (/ˈmæsɪˌdɒn/; Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía; Ancient: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]) was a Greek ancient kingdom located in the noth of Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGT888 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

language
should state ancient macedonian, which is a hellenic language, see article: Ancient Macedonian language. Why has this been omitted from the article? seems to be rudimentary information. how could it be missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.26.123 (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"FYROM"
This reference has no place in this article for two reasons: 1) WP:MOSMAC prohibits the use of "FYROM" (or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") in reference to the Republic of Macedonia; 2) modern Macedonia has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Taivo. You shouldn't even have bothered to open a section on this talkpage. This kind of POV should be reverted on sight. Perhaps the account which adds this should be given a DS warning if they continue, in addition to any other warnings. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 11:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings, DrK. Yes I know that this is pointless, but in case the editor in question continues vandalizing the page, I've fulfilled the requirements of WP:3RR reporting and notification.  --Taivo (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thorough as always. :) Best regards Taivo. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)