Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 9

Unintelligible sentence in lead
This is utterly unintelligible. What does "at the fringe of typical Greek city states affairs" mean? Do affairs have a fringe? How can time be subordinate to Achaemenid Persia, never mind "even fully subordinate to Achaemenid Persia"? And what in the name of all that's holy is an "eventual latter"? Can somebody familiar with the subject translate it into English? Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the fringe of typical Greek city states affairs at a time even fully subordinate to Achaemenid Persia, to one which came to control the fate of the entire Hellenic world and the eventual latter's overthrow, occurred under the reign of Philip II.


 * Fringe as an adjective: not part of the mainstream. Not a typical Greek state. "at a time even fully subordinate to Achaemenid Persia" this is not referring to the concept of time as a subject/ subordinate of the Persian empire, it's referring to the kingdom of Macedon which indeed was, "at a time even fully subordinate to Achaemenid Persia", really really simple. As for the last thing that boggles your mind, the "eventual latter's overthrow" is referring to the overthrow of the Achaemenid rule over the Persian empire, which came to an end/ was overthrown by the kingdom of Macedon, the one that the entire sentence that confused you is talking about. Hope that solves the issue.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to explain all that to me. I think I now understand it sufficiently to edit the sentence for clarity. On looking at the revision history I found that the sentence evolved over a period of time by successive edits and additions, which is how it became so unwieldy. Hopefully my edits have made it readable without introducing inaccuracies.
 * By the way, if you found my criticism overly aggressive, I apologise. I'm like that sometimes; I don't think about the authors when discussing the text. Scolaire (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I find the changes you made acceptable, except for the following part: Prior to the fourth century BC, Macedonia was a small kingdom outside the area of Greece dominated by the great city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes. This can be construed in two ways, the first that it was located outside of the area of Greece altogether, which was dominated by Athens, Sparta and Thebes, and the second way of interpretation is that it was located outside of the specific part/area of Greece that was dominated by these 3 city states. As modern historians see it Macedon was part of the area of Greece, even though it didn't play a major role on its politics until Phillip II's rule. So I changed it to this: Prior to the fourth century BC Macedonia was a small kingdom located in northern Greece, which fell outside of the influence of the great city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes. If there's any problem regarding the edit I made we can discuss it. Also I found the way you expressed your criticism a bit aggressive even though I haven't edited the page at all myself before today, so I responded that way. I apologize as well for the way I've said some things.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's cool. Yes, I knew from reading the previous discussions that how we describe the location of Macedonia was a sensitive issue. I think your edit does a good job of making it clear it was a part of Greece. Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I decided to partially revert. The word "located" isn't needed, as the kingdom did not relocate in the fourth century BC. And "fell outside of the influence" is somewhat vague and open to interpretation, like the city-states had somehow managed to overlook it, or it wanted to be under their influence but wasn't allowed. The issue of whether or not it was in Greece can be addressed by simply saying it was "a small kingdom in northern Greece, outside the area dominated by the great city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes", so I'm changing it to that. Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Even better now, thank you.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed it now to its geographical position (NW Aegean Sea) because of the "discussion" this time last year.  Lux ure Σ  00:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion last year was strictly about the first sentence in the lede, not this sentence. That discussion was also regarding whether to describe the kingdom as an "ancient Greek kingdom" or not.  It had nothing to with how to describe the kingdom's location.  So your explanation is disingenuous at best. Your change is moreover nonsensical.  States' locations aren't described in terms of which seas or they are "on".  Lastly there is no consensus for your changes. Athenean (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I never made any comment that would even remotely appear to endorse such an edit, so would the individual responsible kindly enlighten us as to how this is "per Athenean's comment". It is moreover a bit weird and incongruous to mention that a kingdom is located "modern-day Greece outside the area controlled by Sparta and Corinth", since we are referring to ancient city states. "located in ancient Greece outside the area controlled by Athens, Sparta, etc..", now that would make sense. Athenean (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Aegean idea was rejected since August 2014. It never gained any traction and I don't know why it was revived more than a year later. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe to make it more similar to Aegean Macedonia? Athenean (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten about that mess. This area is an ideological minefield. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree Dr.K., parading Macedon as an ancient Greek kingdom was also put in the ground. How is it different to "kingdom located in Greece"? Athenean's comment "That discussion was also regarding whether to describe the kingdom as an "ancient Greek kingdom" or not" So yes, my edit was per Athenean comment. And yay, getting accused of pushing a POV by "Aegean Macedonia". You 'people' make me laugh.  Lux ure Σ  07:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How is "Ancient Greek Kingdom" different from "kingdom located in Greece"? Really?? Do you really need me to explain this to you? I also never made made any comment endorsing the "modern-day Greece" nonsense you added, so I really fail to see how this is  "per Athenean comment". Athenean (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So what you're trying to say it was located in Greece but was not Greek?  Lux ure Σ  08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because if it wasn't Greek then why would it be located in it? Oh yeah, so don't reply but as soon as I revert you will cry me a river.  Lux ure Σ  05:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not reply to you because you seem to not understand the difference between geographic location (a real no-brainer) and ethnic affiliation (slightly more complex and multi-layered, as the Macedonians, though generally Greek, also absorbed some non-Greek Thracian tribes). In any case, there is nothing to really discuss here, the geographical location couldn't be more clear cut. Athenean (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Have no clue? Use contradiction. Which exactly what you are doing. Insensitive wankers.  Lux ure Σ  07:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a question, does it matter if someone says s/he has a problem with the fact that ancient Macedonians are considered to be a Greek tribe and therefore forming a Greek kingdom? Will for example someone's protest against this generally accepted truth by archaeologists, historians and professors, change it for what s/he believes to be true? Why do you have a problem with this article being truthful Luxure? Is wikipedia every random person's playground or is it a credible information hosting site that's here to display the generally accepted truths? TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The ethnic character of the ancient Macedonians has been politicised for decades (and therefore is controversial). There are facts about who the ancient Macedonians were (ethnically, culturally, linguistically), but not everyone agrees on what those facts are. Please (everybody) remember: when discussing topics like this, stick to citing reputable sources, not simply making rhetorical appeals. Making arguments here without backup is like swimming in mud. Augoust (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Augoust how are ya mate? What was your old accounts name? TheAnonymousCoward (fitting) seems to be a single purpose account, as you can see by his very wide ranging edits! I have created a page here that rebukes these so called facts. Lets discuss now what we will do because this can hardly be a consensus with the other party being an account that has not been here for very long, makes very little edits and only edits in amazingly one area!  Lux ure Σ  07:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And last discussion this time last year was calling Macedon greek in the lead, yet the heading of this TP Section says just that  Lux ure Σ  07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Augoust while it's true that there's an issue regarding whether ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, that issue does not seem to exist into any significant degree amongst the academic community. Since this article is about history and not modern political games that play with people's dignity then it's clear there's no real issue at all. What more does one need to be convinced of something than the 'experts themselves' telling us that ancient Macedonians were in fact Greeks. I simply don't get why political games need to be brought into this and interfere with the generally accepted truth. As for you Luxure, a single purpose account is not anathema on its own otherwise I'm sure you'd be taking action against me right now. "Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus." So there's nothing wrong with discussing an issue by an editor who has chosen so. Never made a change to the article without discussing it here and everyone is welcome of course to disagree with what I or anybody else has to say. If you have something to say against me supporting the academic community's opinion on the issue then say it. Stop being rude and useless here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — TheAnonymousCoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Did you miss the part where I gave you the other side of the "argument"? You have failed to look at both sides. See here:
 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%"


 * A user who appears to have an apparent focus on a narrow set of matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas, aware of project norms, not to be improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia.
 * }
 * "evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns. "


 * You fit these perfectly ✅. I have taken action. Please do not disregard the sources I have provided.  Lux ure Σ  11:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you be more wrong I wonder? In the talk page we can say whatever we want if it has to do with the article that it is about. If you wish to accuse me of editing the article itself without discussing it here first, which I never once did, then prove it. As for what I'm saying here, it's neutral enough when what I'm saying is that an article about ancient history has to take into account what historians and archaeologists say. After all what better way is there to build an encyclopedia than taking into account what the experts say about it, I reckon none. And if I'm not mistaken you're blatantly disregarding them because it doesn't suit your POV. Let alone the fact that you're being extremely and needlessly aggressive just because you don't like the truth. So once again you're desperately trying to shut me up because I'm the only one here who has continuously defended what the mainstream academic community has to say about the matter. Try harder.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC) — TheAnonymousCoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * As for your "sources" Luxure, they seem to be taken straight out from historyofmacedonia(dot)org, a site created by people from Macedonia taking quotes out of context, which I have disproved in various conversations I had with other people who favored this particular POV of pseudomacedonism. An example is your use of N.G.L. Hammond's work which you made it seem as if he supported your POV. Yet here in wikiquote.org : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/N._G._L._Hammond, there's a great collection of his own work, let's copy paste a quote and see if it counteracts your lies: "At the end of the bronze age a residue of Greek tribes stayed behind in Southern Macedonia[...] one of these, the "Makedones" occupied Aegae and expanded into the coastal plain of lower Macedonia which became the Kingdom of Macedon; their descendants were the Macedonians proper of the classical period and they worshipped Greek gods." And besides me using wikiquote to prove to everyone that Luxure is a POV pusher, basically what he accuses me of being, here's another site with over a 100 quotes from various historians and archaeologists declaring ancient Macedonians as a Hellenic tribe. Please feel free to read. http://history-of-macedonia.com/2007/08/21/80-modern-historians-about-the-greekness-of-ancient-macedonia/ If this is MY POV then all these people must be figments of my imagination as well.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC) — TheAnonymousCoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * My "sources" were not taken from that website, but I will applaud you on at least looking at them. I have now taken a look at both wikiquote and the greek history of macedonia.com website, and neither of these 2 (nor the historyofmacedonia.org website you quoted) are reliable sources. Contradictions are bound to exist anyway. However, the quotes I have compiled have shown sufficient evidence to the contrary, and as such saying it was located in Greece/was or is Greek lends bias to the other side. I have taken on board your comments about my "aggressiveness" and I will try to be more civil. We are all human at the end of the day. The point is that saying Macedon was located in Greece lends bias towards one side and simply saying its geolocation will solve all of our issues (and its geolocation is not wrong). Lets try to solve this asap.  Lux ure Σ  05:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to "solve". The kingdom was located in Greece, as anyone with basic map literacy can tell.  If this bothers you, too bad.  No one here agrees with you.  Your out-of-context cherry picked "sources" prove nothing.  There are even more sources that show the opposite  .  WP:CHERRY is the hallmark of the POV-pusher.  Time to drop the stick and slowly start backing away from the horse. Athenean (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this how Greece became way of a banana republic? People who cannot and will not see 2 sides? TheAnonymousCoward wonders why I am being aggressive... the "discussion" held this time last year was about calling the kingdom Greek. So how is this any different? That's why per your comments it is now located in Greece (ie modern day). And for WP:CHERRY, of course I just had one side of the argument, because you cannot see the other side. No one needs to agree with me that is why we are having this discussion. To compromise. If I said it was located on Planet Earth, would you say I was wrong? You probably would. Stop accusing me of something you yourself are doing. Try to reach a compromise rather than being like iron, because iron rusts. And by the way, your second link was only added days ago, surprisingly no opposition. Had I added the contrary side, their would be an uproar. Hypocrite.  Lux ure Σ  10:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Daric used as currency as well rather than simply one?
Does this provide us with any potentially useful info for the article? Should it be added to the infobox, and/or in any of the sections?

"From the later 6th century for a period of 200 years throughout the finest period of Athens to the rise of Macedon and the appearance of the Macedonian staters, the daric became the gold coin of the Aegean as well as the Persian dominions in Asia."

- A.R. Burns, p. 323 Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, Routledge 2013 ISBN 978-1136194467.
 * This is a 2013 reprint of a book first published in 1927. That's not to say it's wrong -- A. R. Burns was a notable economist -- but the perspective of modern historians and numismatists could be different. For one thing, a lot of coin hoards have been found since 1927. It would be better to look for a more recent source. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonian view
Is the Republic of Macedonia's view on the ancient kingdom covered anywhere on Wikipedia? --Yoozem or loozem (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like it isn't. But it should be. Present-day Macedonia is a nation which bears the name of the ancient kingdom and -- as controversial as this might be -- it does identify itself as the successor of that kingdom and does consider it to be part of its own history. Have you seen the larger-than-life statue of Alexander the Great in downtown Skopje? Sure they wouldn't have erected it there if they thought of him as of just a random figure from antiquity, right?


 * I think you should consider covering this -- as a minority view, obviously. No coverage at all looks like a breach of your neutrality policies. --Yoozem or loozem (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong article for that. That content should be covered under politics of the Republic of Macedonia or in some similar place dealing with contemporary geopolitics.  This article is not about modern consequences, but only the facts of the ancient kingdom.  As such, it steers a neutral path.  There are plenty of editors who have wanted to call this a "Greek kingdom" rather than the neutral "ancient kingdom".  --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The view held by the Republic of Macedonia is already covered in the article: Macedonian nationalism which is better suited for this. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  07:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive use of the term 'North' in the lead
, the term 'North' (inc. Northern and Northeastern) is repeatedly used at least 3 times on the first couple of paragraphs on the lede which is not needed. Can you explain why have you reverted my edits? Why this word has to be repeated that much? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead of the article is supposed to provide an understandable summary and overview of the article content in an way that it is compact and readable to the editors, not a place where a certain information is repeated more times than than necessary. Please revert your reversion or I will have to do it myself. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Taivo has reverted my edits on the grounds that there is a consensus on lede about careful wording. However the consensus reached is about careful wording that meets NPOV and other related criteria, not about repetitive use of the same information 3 times on the lead. The editors should keep the lead as compact and clean as possible. For more info, please check: How to create and manage a good lead section and Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You were not here for the consensus so that you need to read the history before editing further. The consensus was specifically to avoid saying exactly what you have written, that ancient Macedonia was "in classical Greece".  That's why the wording "on the northern periphery of classical Greece" was specifically used.  Read the archives and you will see that the wording itself is the consensus and must not be changed without building a new consensus.  --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus wording is very specific and is used for a very precise purpose. Greeks want ancient Macedon to be an ancient Greek kingdom.  Macedonians want ancient Macedon to be a non-Greek kingdom.  So the wording "on the northern periphery of classical Greece" is purposely ambiguous so that "on the periphery" does not specifically imply in or out, but just on the border.  Changing the wording interferes with that ambiguity.  Saying, as your edit does, that "Macedonia was in classical Greece" violates the spirit of the compromise wording that has a solid consensus.  --Taivo (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Do you happen to remember the year the consenus you mention of, has been reached? I could love to update myself on this, but there are alot of archives spanning a long time if I do not have an aproximate date of the said discussion. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  09:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the precise year because the issues surrounding Macedonia (in general) are complex and have been swirling for about a decade on Wikipedia. They move from article to article, focusing primarily on Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (ancient kingdom).  Perhaps about 2010?  The key is that the current wording is stable and has been stable for several years.  In the area of Macedonia, stability is much to be desired.  --Taivo (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You need a clear statement on consensus for the current version to stay as is. I checked the archives here in the Talk Page so I can update myself with the latest developments on this front, but there isn't a clear statement on consensus. There is a lengthy discussion in the archives dating around 2009 and 2010, but there are no clear statements on consensus. Am I am missing something? Or maybe the dispute resolution was handled somewhere else? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will look through the archives, but you are wrong about the need to find one in order to maintain the text as is. Per WP:BRD, if you make a change and someone reverts it, you do not get to push the change through without coming to a new consensus.  The status quo always prevails until a new consensus is built when someone objects to a change.  That's Wikipedia policy.  And I strongly object to your proposed change because it is clearly POV while the current text maintains the WP:NPOV that was so hard won in this troubled subject area.  --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that the 2009 consensus was on "an ancient kingdom centered in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula." This was stable until September 2014 when the current wording became the consensus.  Your request for a definitive "this is the final compromise" is rather naive in this subject area.  Because of the emotions involved in the Balkans, it's important to remember that nationalists regularly appear to disrupt the proceedings in various ways.  The appropriate compromise was proposed by Principal Protagonist A (User:Stevepeterson) here and accepted by Principal Protagonist B (User:TaivoLinguist) here.  There was still some back and forth from other editors on the Talk Page (as there always is when dealing with the Balkans), but the matter settled on the "periphery" wording and has remained there ever since.  Your edit, to once again make ancient Macedonia part of Greece, is completely against WP:NPOV.  Since 2009, neutral editors on this page have had one overriding mission--to keep the word "Greek" from being associated with Macedonia in the first sentence since it is a WP:POINTy POV association.  --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I did not say or imply anything about you doing something wrong. I will check later the archives in depth just in case and perhaps add an invisible note on the main article about the number of archive the consensus you talked about was recorded, so future editors could be better informed. However I can not help but note what you have expressed about POINTING is not invalid, but it is not valid either, because POINT can not be used to sacrifice the weight of historical facts and recent scholarly consensus about the ancient Greek kingdom, for the sake of compromises and stability in the lede.
 * Your argument is not invalid, however, it can not negate the problems the lede is suffering from, which, is stable only thanks to your multiple reverts of other editors' edits and not thanks to the lede itself reflecting the established facts and the opinions of most international scholars on this matter. To put it straight, while this may be a compromise, it is taking in account, not the recent scholarship and established facts, but the political views only; the opinions of the nationalist Ethnic Macedonians on the one side, and the opinions of the Greeks on the other side. While compromise among editors is a core element of Wikipedia, so do are the reliable sources from scholars and established facts. I mean, more specifically, that the recent consensus among the international scholars about the Greek identity of the ancient kingdom of Macedon is currently not taken in account, and thus, is not reflected on the lede, even when we were supposed to not allow modern-day political disputes to affect how the articles about ancient kindoms of old, are presented in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, although in the main body of the article the Greek character of the kingdom is evident, in the lede I realize now this is being avoided intentionally, which frankly raises some questions of consistence between the beginning and main parts of the article. Well, that is only my opinion and nothing more. Still, I have later to check the archives for more details about that consensus, and see if a new consensus is required to amend the previous version of lede and also check what the 2014 changes were exactly and how they fit in all this. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  03:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with SilentResident's edit. Nor do I see any valid source-based arguments against it, only an appeal to tradition, the weakest type of argument. SilentResident makes a valid point that the whole "North" thing is overdone in the lede. And the source we are quoting in the lede backs the wording chosen by SR. Athenean (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As you know, Athenean, the lead as it stands is not false or misleading and that the article amply describes the relationship between ancient Macedonia and the Greek city-states. You know that we are not talking at all about stripping the relationship from the article at all.  We are just avoiding placing a pointy flag in the eye of Macedonian readers in the first sentence.  SilentResident is just the latest in a long line of editors who want to stab that Greek flag in any article that has the word "Macedonia" in it.    Does "north" occur too many times?  Maybe, maybe not.  That's not the actual result of SilentResident's edit.  His edit called Macedonia a Greek state in the first sentence, which is what we want to avoid, and what the consensuses have always sought to avoid.  Edit the heck out of "north", just don't slip that Greek flag into the first sentence.  --Taivo (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing but bad faith accusations and ad hominems, an even weaker form of argument than appeal to tradition. And still no rebuttal to the edit.  There is no "Greek flag" anywhere except in your imagination. Athenean (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait. I am reading your comment, Taivo, and I am puzzled. You are saying the kingdom is not Greek, however isn't this your mere opinion? Isn't this position contradicted by the main body of the article itself? The main body of the article clearly states that the kindom's legislative body was the Synedrion, which is Greek type of governance. The religion of the kingdom was the Greek polytheistic religion of the Twelve Olympic Gods. The people's language is recorded, in no other alphabet but in the Greek. And the people of the kingdom were given Greek names. And if that isn't enough, the kingdom's currency too was the Tetradrachmon, a Greek currency. All that without mentioning the increasing international consensus among scholars the last years about the "Greekness" of the kingdom. However, Taivo insists that we ignore the article itself and turn a blind eye to these established facts? Note: I am not saying that the Kingdom is Greek: I am saying that the main body of the article contradicts the lead. First time I find a case where an ancient kingdom should not be identified by its culture, religion, people, language, currency, and politics. How comes? (Edit: my apologies if I gave the impression of Greek flagging, or how Taivo calls it, since this is not the case here. The case here is that a kingdom's history and records are ignored in the name of an unrelated dispute that happened 2.000 years AFTER that kingdom ceased existing. No offense, but I don't think it is very appropriate to depend the handling of a historical political entity to a modern-day political dispute and the views stemming from it. Historical political entities should be handled based on facts and be left out of any modern political disputes.) -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  05:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of you are refusing to read my comment in its very literal sense. At no point do I say that the article should strip all mention of "Greek" from the article, yet that's what you accuse me of. Athenean, you have been involved in all of these previous discussions, so your characterization of the issue is surprisingly forgetful. All that I have ever said, from day one, is that the first sentence, as a result of consistent compromise for the last 7 years, should not say "Greek kingdom". Yet, SilentResident, you accuse me of claiming that ancient Macedonia was not Greek or heavily influenced by Greece. I have said no such thing. But you are the newcomer and can be forgiven for ignoring the history of this issue. SilentResident's edit, however, does precisely the opposite of seven years of compromise and consensus. His edit says "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom in classical Greece". It wasn't "in Greece". It was in "Macedonia", north of classical Greece. But whether you call Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" (which was the previous problematic and contentious wording) or "in Greece" (which is SilentResident's wording), it is still the same needless pointy Greek flag waving. Was Macedonia culturally Greek? It doesn't matter in the first sentence. The article is plain and clear. But plenty of Greek editors (such as User:Dr.K.) have accepted the current compromise wording as a good way to keep the Balkan peace while not compromising the quality of the article or the information. The point is that not every sentence in the article needs to say "Greek" and keeping it out of the first sentence is a simple and easy way to maintain a level of harmony. --Taivo (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * SR's edit did not say "Greek kingdom". And yes, last time I looked at a map, Macedonia is located in Greece (by the ancient definition, not the unrelated 19th century definition).  There is nothing POV or factually incorrect about SR's edit. Athenean (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Taivo on this one. The formula "on the northern periphery of Classical Greece" is accurate and fairly neutral and has been a long-standing compromise. Let us keep it and protect it. To avoid some repetition to north/northern, I would suggest to simplify the start of the next paragraph from "a small kingdom in northern Greece, outside..." to just "a small kingdom outside..." It has already been clearly established in the first paragraph where it is, so the point here is to place it outside the city states area. Using the term Greece here is somewhat anachronistic, since there was no "Greece" at that time. Regards! --T*U (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Outside"? Definitely not.  And "Greece" is certainly not anachronistic, all sources use "Greece" (what else would they use?). Maybe not in th modern sense, but there was certainly a "Greece" back then too. Athenean (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Outside"? Yes, definitely "outside the area dominated by the great city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes" as the text goes. You would not disagree with that, I suppose. As for my comment about anachronistic, I could have phrased it better. My meaning was that "in northern Greece" seems to suggest either the current borders of Greece, which is anachronistic, or that Classical Greece covered a fixed area, which we know is not so. Since the position is better described in the first paragraph, I suggest not to repeat it in the second. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, my intention is not to disrupt this peace, but to point out on the problems the lede currently has. I can understand that the dispute in the past was handled in a very unfortunate way, by taking in account various political viewpoints and finding a middle line between them (compromises). I can't be more clear than this: historical entities should be left out of politics and be treated accordingly. The primary goal here is to be objective and strive for the accuracy and quality of information.
 * Taivo, I have read your worrysome comments, where you have stated particularly that: the "Kingdom in Greece" is POINTY and, the "Greek Kingdom" is POV. But you are wrong. I am really sorry to say this but POV is not when a historical fact is noted. POV is not when the reliable and peer viewed sources are taken into account. POV is when for the sake of the stability and peace, concessions are made to the information's quality and accuracy, in an attempt to satisfy the one or the other political side of a modern dispute that is unrelated to the ancient kingdom, so that the peace is maintained.
 * With simple words, instead of taking in account the fieldwork and opinions of the scholars, historians and archeologists abroad, (whom the job is more related to the ancient Kingdom than the mere opinions of the editors), we have editorial bias in its place. The article appears to give more emphasis on the opinions of editors than of scholars, for the sake of "maintaining stability and peace". Do you see how problematic this is and how this violates Wikipedia's core principles? I am kindly asking once more again for the political entities of old to be left out of modern political disputes. The kingdom's article should be handled based on historical records and facts and not based on personal opinions of editors. Wikipedia is not democracy. Wikipedia is not a blogspot either. Editor's opinions can not have more weight than the events and facts themselves. Citing peer viewed sources and facts are very important aspect of Wikipedia, even when it does not favor the views of certain editors. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  06:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear editors, I was not here when the big debate occurred on this talk page. I can imagine the pain you all have been through. The dispute must been a very tense and difficult phase in your Wikipedic life. But this does not mean I can't bring the alarming situation in which the article has stuck: in a case where we have 2 editorial sides disagreeing about whether Earth is a spherical planet or a flat planet... And at the end, a compromise has been reached suggesting that Earth is somewhat... half-spherical and half-flat (!) planet, for the sake of peace and stability, which frankly is not a very encyclopedic solution. No offense, I do not mean to underestimate how politicized anything related to Macedonia currently is, but soon or later this should be tackled, not because of the sake of some editors here, but for the sake of Wikipedia. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  07:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What arrogance, SilentResident: "Dear long-time editors, I have come here to solve all your problems by bringing absolute truth".  You are not a neutral party to this.  I have looked at your list of contributions to Wikipedia and it is almost entirely related to Greece.  Please do not pretend that you bring a neutral point of view to the table with any fresh insight.  Your comments about "historical fact" and "peer-reviewed scholarship" have been made before and are nothing new.  You only bring the same tired argument that you want to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence.  Your attitude toward the article and its "alarming situation" contains not one single, solitary word that hasn't been said a hundred times over the last decade.  Don't pretend that you are a breath of fresh air.  Like every member of the Greek flag-planting party, you bring the mistaken notion that we are talking about the "Greekness" of the entire article when we are talking about nothing more than the first sentence and avoiding an excessively provocative and unnecessarily pointy word there and only there.  Your contempt for a neutrally-worded first sentence, Wikipedia consensus, and constructive compromise is noted.  But until you build a new Wikipedia consensus, your opinion does not override the existing status quo.  --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You called me arrogant, you called me biased, you called me a pretender, you accused me for undermining a neutrally-worded first sentence, you accused me for undermining consensus and constructive approach, and you are diminish me as "a member of the Greek flag-planting party"... I am speechless. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  11:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Attacking other editors or groups of editors is a blatant violation of WP:NPA and you may risk getting reported to the administrators. Don't push your luck. I expect an apology and I recommend that you take a breath from Wikipedia. Such arrogant and insulting behavior of your part, shows that you are unfit to your role as an objective editor. No matter what, nothing justifies such an editorial misconduct and aggressive behavior towards the other editors. Please be polite. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  11:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem with your edit in a nutshell: 1) You claimed that it was just to reduce the occurrence of "north" so many times (notice the title of this section and your edit summaries).  But, 2) it actually removed the most important word in the consensus/compromise wording, "periphery", so that it made Macedonia part of classical Greece.  Then rather than reading my comments to propose a wording that removed "north" from a later sentence or retained "periphery" in a modified form of your original edit, you proceeded to defend the tired position of "Greek Macedonia in the first sentence", which the consensus/compromise wording is specifically intended to avoid.  It appeared to be a classic "bait and switch"--claim to do X while actually intending to do Y.  I would certainly entertain your thoughts on removing so many occurrences of "north" (as the title of this section and your edit summaries declare your intent to be), but not at the expense of the hard-fought compromises and consensus that the first sentence of this article represents.  --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I must apologize, however, that in my edit summary I wrote User:SilentReader instead of User:SilentResident. I hate it when people write "Tavio" instead of "Taivo".  --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate how Taivo shows such an incompetence in apologizing for his editorial misconduct and dismissing editors who could not exactly agree with his own personal views. On the other hand, the fellow editor T*U has taken note of the problems on the lede and thus, he has improved the lead of the article to remove repetitive use of the term Northern/North/Northeastern. T*U's constructive approach should be noted and congratulated. Thank you very much dear editor T*U. I wish some editors here learn from T*U on how things should be done. The lede is much better now. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  19:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the praise, but I must add that Taivo had and has a very good point about your earlier edit to the first sentence, which was changing the article from the current consensus formula. And he has also made an edit to the article in order to reduce the repetition of "north"/"northern", which you have requested, and which I support completely. I would prefer to be mentioned favorably together with Taivo, not as opposed to... Regards! --T*U (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No no and no. Taivo had two options in tackling the issue of repetition of the word North/Northern/Northeastern: either make the changes I have requested (without insulting and disrespecting other editors for their different views and without the pretext of editorial consensuses), either leave it to the hands of other editors to deal with. By no means Taivo is right to declare the recent academic consensus (Macedon part of Greek world) as "pointy" and "biased" and suggest that the editorial consensus could be respected "for the sake of stability and peace"! As per WP:NEUTRAL: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by EDITOR CONSENSUS.''"

>>>As you can see, according to WP:NEUTRAL, the editorial consensuses, although a vital part in Wikipedia's development, can not override Wikipedia's principles and core policies. The editorial consensus has to be worked, not on what the editors believe or say, but on what the academic consensus believes or says. Based on verified and peer viewed sources by scholars. I am sorry but Taivo's attitude that the peer viewed sources and academic consensus (suggesting that Macedon is in Greece or Greek) "are constituting bias and point" while editorial consensus (which ignores these facts) "is neutral", is very wrong.

Furthermore, as per WP:ORIGINAL: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)"

>>>As you see here, the sources are mentioning "Greece" and NOT "Periphery of Greece". I am sorry but Taivo can not argue about a need for respect of editorial consensuses, and especially when these do not take in account the Wikipedia's rules and are dismissing the historical facts and records about an ancient kingdom as biased or pointy in favor of some "neutral editorial opinions". I hope I am very clear because editorial consensuses, even though they can ensure peace and stability, are not without problems and certainly are not without editorial bias, nor are really neutral. And I apologize in advance if I missed something here, but I feel obliged to say that nonconstructive approaches to the article lede's chronic issues, hurts not us the editors but the article itself and Wikipedia to an extend. From me do not expect any congratulations to Taivo unless he gives up pretending the editorial consensus to be more important than the rules and facts. However I will still recognize Taivo's efforts, because he is the reason this page is well preserved and vandal edits were thwarted quickly. And of course, T*U, I am still very grateful for your contributions like I said above. Now that the fixes in lede are satisfactory and my job here is done, I do not plan sticking around, nor do I plan to amend that editorial consensus. I won't be the one who will request the editorial consensus to be amended, but in case someone else does make a such request, I will not stay pathetic. Any improvements or amendments to the editorial consensus will always have my support. Have a good day and again thank you very much. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Essentialism
The disagreement about describing the kingdom, as "Greek" tout court, has reared its head again.

There are a few points which, I hope, are generally agreed:

The modern nation of Greece covers most of the area that was usually regarded as the ancient kingdom of Macedonia. The modern Republic of Macedonia covers quite a lot of the later Roman province of Macedonia. The feelings of people who identify with the "Greek" or "Macedonian" side of the modern claims to the name "Macedonia" are not actually relevant to what this article should say. (Though we might want to avoid words that inappropriately seem to support a modern claim.)

The modern understanding of the ancient Macedonian language describes it as closely related to the Greek of the time. It was also well-recognized at the time as being very distinct from definitely-Greek dialects.

The royal house was accepted at a fairly late point in the kingdom as descended from Greek heroes and therefore acceptable as a competitor in the contests that formed one definition of cultural Greekness at the time. Macedonians had not always been so acceptable, or so Greek.

There was no Greek political nation at any point in the existence of the ancient kingdom. Greekness had multiple definitions and no definite boundaries. There was no single essence of Greekness.

In view of all the above, I suggest that to describe the kingdom as simply "Greek", in Wikipedia's voice and in the lede, is not really defensible. Wordings such as "on the periphery of the Greek world" reflect its actual position in modern academic literature much better. Popular sources that do simply call it Greek may allow us to use the word, but they don't over-rule a better and more nuanced description based on a sophisticated use of the best sources. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree strongly with your description of the language. I believe the opposite is true. There is not enough evidence of non-Greek Macedonian language to make it 'very distinct' from 'definitely Greek' dialects. From the excellent wiki article on the language: The surviving public and private inscriptions found in Macedonia indicate that there was no other written language in ancient Macedonia but Ancient Greek,[5][6] and the recent epigraphic discoveries in the Greek region of Macedonia, such as the Pella curse tablet, suggest that ancient Macedonian was a variety of the North Western Ancient Greek dialects. Also Caranus (808–778 BC) was the founder of the Argead dynasty and first King of Macedon. Perdiccas I of Macedon is the first king as stated by Herodotus. Both are Greeks and both claimed Greek origin dating back centuries before Perikles. Therefore - the article should reflect what we do know, not speculate on what we don't. Removing the obvious Greek nature of Ancient Macedon (religious, language and cultural) should not be the priority imo. The word periphery seems more of a modern political apology than actual history in this case. It is a subject that often can cause confusion. Reaper7 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Richard Keatinge is quite accurate in his assessment of the relation between the ancient Greek city states and the ancient Macedonian kingdom. It is a balanced and nuanced statement and is the essence of WP:NPOV.  User:Reaper7, as is his predilection as long as I've had contact with him in Wikipedia, thinks that any attempt to balance the view of ancient Macedonia is an attack on the element of Macedonian culture that was, indeed, Greek.  His view, stated overtly time and time again, is that there was no non-Greek element to ancient Macedonia, a view which is in direct contradiction to all scientific, archeological, historical, and linguistic evidence.  The Macedonian linguistic evidence makes two things very clear:  1) Ancient Macedonian was closely related to Greek, and 2) it was not "Greek" (either Attic or Doric).  There were clear lexical differences and clear phonological differences.  Reaper7's statement about "writing" is silly.  Written language is not always the measure of the common language in an age when 90% of the population was illiterate.  French and Latin were the languages of literacy in Early Medieval England, but no one claims that England was essentially French at that time because of it.  Macedonia was probably like Algeria or Morocco.  The spoken language is closely related to, but not mutually intelligible with, Modern Standard Arabic, while the written language is almost exclusively Modern Standard Arabic.  --Taivo (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to defend myself from the mistruths Taivo has expressed about myself to defend the non-consensus lead. 1/ Taivo states that I believe there was 'no non Greek element' to Macedonia. This is a total fabrication as usual. There were non-Greek elements to many Greek city states - including variations on Greek dialects and local - non-Greek deity worship such as in Anatolian Greek states. 2/ Taivo believes that a balanced view on Macedonia is one that calls in to question its essential Greekness. I do not. I believe a balanced view of Macedonia is adding up all the facts and expressing the sum total - which points to a Greek kingdom. Differences or more realistically speculation about differences - can be expressed in the article. Taivo's final comparison of Ancient Macedon's language usage to Algeria and Morocco's pretty much sums up his belief well, but I believe it has no basis in reality. I wont use words like 'silly' as he did to describe elements of my post, but instead will use the phrase 'partisan argumentation - driven by modern Balkan political structures.' Reaper7 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ian Worthington ("Alexander the Great: Man and God", 2014) correctly concludes that "there is still more than enough evidence and reasoned theory to suggest that the Macedonians were racially Greek". But let's not start a discussion here on the Greekness of Macedonia. Despite what some may believe, since we have published reliable sources saying exactly this: "Greek kingdom" and since wikipedia is NOT censored, hence it's nothing we can do if some readers might find "Greek" disturbing, we should use "Greek kingdom". Macedonian (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized that anyone was still using the term "race" to mean an ethnolinguistic group. But, just to make it clear, the ancient kingdom of Macedonia was in some respects accepted as Greek, in other ways and at other times regarded as close to Greek but consisting of unacceptable drunken cut-throats with a low-status dialect, and it is inappropriate to present the kingdom as essentially, absolutely, definitely, totally Greek. "On the periphery of the Greek world" is a neat way of summing up the complicated reality. "Greek" is not. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, "We know the ancient Macedonians were fundamentally Greeks. That is to say they were Greek﻿ speakers and ethnically they were Greeks" (Donald Kagan, Yale's "Introduction to Ancient Greek History, Philip, Demosthenes and the Fall of the Polis"). But again, this discussion in not about the Greekness of Macedonia and we should not take it to that direction. It is about using "ancient Greek kingdom" rather just "ancient kingdom" because we have perfectly reliable sources calling it precisely "Greek" and because we should not worry if "Greek" might be offensive to some viewers, as wikipedia is NOT censored. Macedonian (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)