Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gtrbolivar (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 16 September 2014 (→Request for CONSENSUS which respects history, reliable sources and common sense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macedonia (ancient kingdom) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 4 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ancient Macedonians

This subject of this article appears to be a copy of the better sourced Ancient Macedonians, which also contains the word ancient or refers to it as ancient".Cosprings (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article has only 18 sources compared to the main Ancient Macedonians article which has over 200. I've redirected this page after you input was received per its reason for existence. Cosprings (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked in detail the overlap of these two articles but I think the topics are sufficiently different to warrant separate articles. I am not comfortable with the redirect, given also that these articles are separate in many other wikis. I would welcome additional input from the wider community. Perhaps an RfC may be in order. Δρ.Κ.  14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article be redirected to Ancient Macedonians? Your input is welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• My first gut reaction was that a merger would very likely be a good idea, since I've never seen much use for this Wikipedian habit of having separate articles for ethnicities and their countries, where the factual scope of both topics can be considered as near-100% identical. However, in the present case, it turns out that both articles are of very substantial length already, with (apparently, from what I can gather at a quick glance) predominantly non-overlapping content, so a merger might lead to a rather unwieldy article. Before such a merger is done, I'd certainly want to see something like a planned outline first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input Future. I agree with your assessment that these articles are not identical as has been claimed and I fully agree that as a minimum any merger has to be planned. As a corollary to that, converting this article to a redirect is not a good idea at this stage. Δρ.Κ.  16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that these articles shouldn't be merged as they are both quite long articles and they refer to different subjects, a kingdom vs people. A merge will lead to a very long article where bias will be harder to rid, so it is better for it to stay how it is. When you search for the Macedonian Kingdom, you're not looking for the people are you?Luxure (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• No, these are two separate subjects each with their own distinct and lengthy content. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Kingdom?

Now, I will be going against the Greeks here, but there is only one reference saying it is a Greek Kingdom in the article, and it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia as a separate Kingdom from Greece. Ancient Greece didn't have Kings, but thats not the point. There are many sources saying it is/isn't Greek, so I am going to change the subject line as it shows bias to one side of the argument. Also, the writing is inscribed in Greek, even though we do not know the runes/lettering system the Ancient Macedonians used. I await thy response and look forward to it. Luxure (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ancient Greece didn't have kings" and "runes"? Given that these statements show astonishing ignorance of the area's history, and given that you fail to provide any of the many sources that say it isn't Greek, while removing a source that clearly says the opposite, I am reverting you. There are many arguments that can be made considering whether the Macedonians qualify as fully Greek, whatever that means, but "runes" or the kingship is not one of them. Come back when you have an informed argument based on sources. Constantine ✍ 11:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times in the past (for example, here) and the consensus has always come down on the side of "ancient kingdom" without specifying its alleged "Greekness". "Ancient kingdom" is NPOV. The article itself specifies the relationship between the Greek city-states and the Macedonian kingdom in more detail. Placing a red flag in the first sentence of the article is definitely a violation of Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy. --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo: Great, if the discussion has been held before and s definite consensus reached, that is it. I hope you do understand though why I reverted a change made on the basis that "Ancient Greece didn't have Kings". Constantine ✍ 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought this topic was closed, unfortunately we are becoming again victims of hotheads from the aegean and vardar macedonian parts. At least make a resolution here and dont affect the quality of the site with edit wars. and good luck guys with your wasting of enormous amounts of hours fighting here. I will only make one humble comment: winning such an internet debate is like wining the paraolympics. You might win it but you remain disabled. Stevepeterson (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are in violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA here, Stevepeterson. The key here is a neutral first sentence to the article. WP:NPOV means that Misplaced Pages doesn't take sides in a nationalistic dispute, but tries to maintain neutral wording. Ancient Macedonia's cultural, political, and linguistic relationship to the Greek city-states is clearly spelled out in detail in the article--including both its Greek aspects and its non-Greek aspects. Throwing a POV red flag into the article in the first sentence is a violation of Misplaced Pages neutrality. --Taivo (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't supposed to hide or distort the truth. All the reliable sources and historical evidence clearly show that Ancient Macedon was a Greek kingdom. Misplaced Pages is based on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Can you provide a shred of reliable evidence that ancient Macedonia wasn't Greek? I don't know what your motives are, but after reading comments like: "Ancient Greece didn't have Kings", "Macedonia's alleged "Greekness" I understand that some people here aren't only biased and historically ignorant, but they are in fact trying desperately to push a FYROM/Skopije pseudo-historic agenda that has no place in an encyclopedia like this. Writing down the truth based on countless reliable scientific historical evidence is not a violation of wikipedia's neutrality. I really couldn't believe that such blatant distortion of history and cheap pseudo-historic propaganda could ever permeate wikipedia. I sourced the "Ancient greek kingdom" phrase with historical evidence and reliable sources. Every unjustified removal of those sources would be considered as blatant and old-school vandalism. Furthermore, let me ask you this Taivo: Let's say for the sake of the argument that tomorrow morning Turkey starts advocating that Napoleon wasn't French but Turkish. Will you start forbiding wikipedia users to write down that Napoleon was French because they would be in violation of Misplaced Pages neutrality? Would you suggest that "Misplaced Pages doesn't take sides in a nationalistic dispute, but tries to maintain neutral wording" in that case? I don't think that you are trying to maintain neutrality here. I think you are giving FYROM/Skopije propaganda some vital space to grow, by showing blatant disregard for the reliable sources and by using neutrality as an excuse. Gtrbolivar (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The unbiased statement stands as it being an ancient kingdom on the NW Aegean Sea. I don't know where you are getting this 'FYROM' crap from. It seems that your a being biased to push your nationalistic views. Please re-read WP:NPOV if you want a Greek translate just ask Luxure (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Gtrbolivar, like Stevepeterson, is apparently afraid that every attempt at neutral wording is a cover for a Macedonian invasion of Greece (like the Commie behind every bush fears of the Cold War). Gtrbolivar's ridiculous Turkish/Napoleon example is simply a red herring. We're not talking about facts within the article, which is balanced and clear. We're talking about a summary sentence. Summary sentences must be balanced and NPOV. Macedonia was not a 100% Greek kingdom, it was a blended kingdom with Greek and non-Greek elements. As such, labeling it "Greek" in the first sentence pushes a single POV--which, especially in the current geopolitical climate--is not NPOV, but highly charged emotionally among a segment of our readers. Leaving the issue neutral in the first sentence allows readers of both persuasions to read the verified facts in the remainder of the article and to make their own determination as to whether Macedonia had enough "Greekness" to make it Greek or not. --Taivo (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Macedonia was not a 100% Greek kingdom". Who says that for God's sake? Was it 90% Greek? 82% Maybe 75%. What does that even mean? This is absolutely ridiculous. Even the wording and the whole spirit of that sentence is unscientific and totally subjective (to say the least). Are you a historian? What were the non-Greek elements of ancient Macedonia? Are we to take your word over Herodotus, Arrian, Strabo, Hummond and many other distinguished and acclaimed historians? Who gives you the right to remove sources and historical evidence? Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They spoke Greek, they participated in the Olympic Games, they worshiped Greek gods, they identified themselves as Greeks, they were members -by their own admission and according to every historian- of the Greek race, their culture, their civilization, their customs, everything was Greek. They even spread Greek civilization all over the world. And those facts are backed up by every acclaimed historian and by hundreds of reliable sources. Gtrbolivar (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To Luxure: I'm not gonna dignify your crap with a response, you are an ignorant who doesn't know the first thing about history ("Ancient Greece didn't have kings"). My advice to you: Go back to the elementary school or try to read Herodotus or Arrian at least. This could work miracles on you, take my word for it. Finally as far as the WP:NPOV is concerned, my English is very good (unlike yours apparently: "it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia...", "It seems that your a being biased") and I don't need a "Greek translate". Maybe you need a Slavic translation (or whatever) to read that (quote): "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (...) Neutral point of view is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles." By removing the sources and the historical evidence I provided, you are in blatant violation of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and you committed old-school vandalism. Gtrbolivar (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Read Demosthenes YOU are going against consensus, not one person has agreed with you. Stop vandalising. Also stop insulting intelligence of people you have never. YOU have not met a consensus so the original statement stands. 1 more revert and you WILL be blocked for violating the 3-revert rule Luxure (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Luxure not only you are a vandal (you even edited my comment in this page) but it appears that you are also a sockpuppet of someone else (under investigation). Stevepeterson (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

He is not only a vandal and an ignorant, but it's pretty obvious that he is here to sneak his ridiculous POV pseudo-historic propaganda through the back door. The next time he removes reliable sources without justification, I am taking this matter to the administrators. The worst thing here is not the propaganda and the agenda of users like Luxure. The worst thing is that wikipedia allows users like him to vandalize, remove reliable sources & solid evidence and impose their agenda with impunity. Gtrbolivar (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Greek Peninsula

Greek Peninsula gives it an inherently 'Greek' Bias and also southern parts of Albania can be considered on the Greek Peninsula. Maps as viewed on this article show that it is on the NE Aegean Sea,on the turning point where it becomes apart of the greater 'mainland' not the peninsua, bordering the Chalcidice which is not apart of the peninsula, and the phrase 'Greek Peninsula' is rarely used elsewhere. I shalt await thy response Luxure (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Macedonia was never on the northeast corner of the Aegean. It was on the northWEST corner of the Aegean. As far as "Greek peninsula" is concerned, what other name are you going to give that peninsula? --Taivo (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo Luxure (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

But my question still persists. What do you propose calling that peninsula if not "Greek peninsula". I did a cursory look at other Misplaced Pages article and the subsection of the much larger Balkan peninsula that comprises the nation of Greece and its northern periphery isn't named. Is there another name that you are aware of? --Taivo (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than Greek peninsula(inherent bias by inferring it's Greek), North Eastern Aegean Sea is unbiased and gives a proper geographical view, rather than 'Greek Peninsula' (eg, the Greeks in Australia all live on a Peninsula, lets say, Cape Green, that place could now be called a 'Greek Peninsula' due to the amount of Greeks living there) Luxure (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that, contrary to the neologism you propose, "Greek peninsula" is an actual and widely used term for the southern part of the Balkans. Constantine ✍ 10:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Kingdom versus Ancient Kingdom

Dear all, I have experienced once more that this page has been a battlefield between grecomacedonians and slavmacedonians about how greek or how slavic ancient macedonia was. the resulting edit wars have lead to a compromise of the quality of this article and of wikipedia in general. Lets communicate your arguments here and make a conclusion before editing the final site.

Stevepeterson (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, I will be going against the Greeks here, but there is only one reference saying it is a Greek Kingdom in the article, and it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia as a separate Kingdom from Greece. Ancient Greece didn't have Kings, but thats not the point. There are many sources saying it is/isn't Greek, so I am going to change the subject line as it shows bias to one side of the argument. Also, the writing is inscribed in Greek, even though we do not know the runes (yes, runes, we do not know)/lettering system the Ancient Macedonians used. I await thy response and look forward to it. Luxure (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course you will go against the greek Mcdonians because you are biased towards the Slav Macedonians for your own reasons. You wouldnt be so emotionally charged to go into edit wars otherwise. Can you please provide any reference from some of these authors/science that classifies and gives a definition of Greece at that time (separate or not to Macedonia, I am not interested to know)? Eben though I am not a historian but to my knowledge there is no such country as ancient Greece; but ancient states in South Balkan and the islands with names such as Corinth, Sparta, Athens, inhabited by people speaking Greek and believing in Greek polytheism (definition of the Greek ethnic group). These Greek states were first united by Alexander (with war like most unifications) and a new panhellenic identity that lead to the Hellenistic civilisation of Greek (Macedonian/Athenian/Corinthian/Spartan etc). Stevepeterson (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only is he a vandal, but it's pretty obvious that he is here to sneak his ridiculous POV pseudo-historic propaganda through the back door. The next time he removes reliable sources without justification, I am taking this matter to the administrators. The worst thing here is not the propaganda and the agenda of users like Luxure. The worst thing is that wikipedia allows users like him to vandalize, remove reliable sources & solid evidence and impose their agenda with impunity. Gtrbolivar (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

For you to make the comment about "grecomacedonians and slavmacedonians" is ridiculous. Not once has any serious editor here claimed that ancient Macedonia was Slavic. Not a single time. So get off your nationalistic anti-Macedonian high horse and be serious in your comments. Ancient Macedonia was a mix of Greek and non-Greek elements, not Greek and "Slavic" elements. Your claims that Macedonians spoke Greek are simplistic and misguided as well. As with their culture, there are both Greek elements and non-Greek elements in the limited evidence that we have of the Macedonian language. There is no unanimity on its precise relationship to Attic Greek among linguists (it also was not Slavic, so you can forget your anti-Macedonian rant). Readers can read the details of the description in the article and make their own determination as to how similar or different ancient Macedonia was to the Greek city-states. By trying to raise the unquestioning Greek flag over ancient Macedonia in the first sentence of the article, you needlessly prejudice the reader and promote needless conflict from those who might disagree with that assessment. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

To Taivo: You are showing blatant disregard for the sources. Excuse me but, who are you? Nobody cares for your own opinion, or for your POV understanding of history. Misplaced Pages doesn't care about your opinion or mine. Misplaced Pages is about reliable sources, about historical evidence, about Herodotus, Arrian, Hummond etc. It's so frustrating and absolutely unbelievable that an editor like you is trying to impose his own opinion and his own understanding of history by disregarding the plethora of historical evidence that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Macedonians were Greeks. I am going to pursue this, I will take this to the administrators, because unfortunately wikipedia is sliding towards becoming a POV pseudo-historic, propaganda-driven project. Taivo, you are not an expert, you are not a historian, and this encyclopedia doesn't care about what you believe or think. It cares about Herodotus, about Arrian, about Strabo, about Hummond, about Theodor Birt, about hunderds of distinguished historians all around the world. Besides that and because you keep evading and evading, can you please tell us about the religion of Macedonians? Can you tell us about their participation in the Olympic Games? About their Arcitecture and their customs? About what Macedonians themselves believed about their Greekness? And finally can you provide a shred of reliable evidence to prove that Macedonian language was not Greek? Can you produce one iota of evidence regarding the "non-Greek elements" of Macedonians? What were they? If non-Greek then what? What about the thousands of sources that clearly prove that Ancient Macedon was Greek? And -for the love of God- stop rambling about the "Greek flag over Macedonia". There is no flag. According to all the reliable sources, to all the distinguished historians and professors Ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom, like it or not. Misplaced Pages isn't interested in your convictions. According to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability wikipedia is interested in reliable sources. You have no right to remove sourced material, you have no right whatsoever to remove the sources and the evidence. This is blatant vandalism and next time I'm going to report you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not me who raises nationalistic flag of Greek Macedonia, but you Taivo. And you prefer to take teh road of edit wars, vandalising the site (together with sockpupets who even edit my words in this talk page), instead of discussing here. Modern greek-macedonians do the obvious, consider ancient artifacts and an ancient kingdom found on their land, which uses the same language and Ancient Macedonian pre Slavic Script that Gruevski regime likes to call the Greek alphabet. Where are the scripts on non-greek language that you have found in Ancient Macedonia? I havent come across any to be honest. And why these scripts (if they exist) are so important for the Slav Macedonians, if not for nationalism? Grecomacedonian Nationalism? Yes it indeed exists among many Greek macedonians who dont accept the existence of other Macedonians. It still never surfaces at givernment level but only in pubs. But what about those who YOU support here Taivo (im not interested in whether you are a Slav Macedonian or a Greek Macedonian, or an Albanian Macedonian)? They claim at a higher, Governmental level, ancestry on artifacts found on their southern neighbour (apart from Herakleia, majority of archeological findings of the ancient Macedonia of Alexander and Philips are within Greece), which makes many young people falsely believe that greek macedonians are settlers in their own lost land. They claim an exclusive right of the use of the term Macedonian, despite being 1/3 of total number of people self identifying as Macedonians in 4 countries and even within their own borders against their Albanian Macedonian minority. So before you accuse me of grecomacedonian nationalism, cool down, discuss here and stop vandalising the main page because you compromise the quality of thr article you claim trying improving. Stevepeterson (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And to answer your argument about how simplistic and misguuided comment that Ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek language (i never mentioned Attic Greek) I visited the same site that you referred to (i was not aware and thank you for the link): Ancient_Macedonian_language "The volume of the surviving public and private inscriptions indicate that there was no other written language in ancient Macedonia but Ancient Greek, and recent epigraphic discoveries in the Greek region of Macedonia, such as the Pella curse tablet, suggest that ancient Macedonian was a variety of the Northwestern Ancient Greek dialects". As far as I know, modern grecomacedonians and most other modern greeks speak an evolution of the koini Greek the language of Alexander's Macedonia, rather than Atic Greek. Stevepeterson (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

To Taivo: You are showing blatant disregard for the sources. Excuse me but, who are you? Nobody cares for your own opinion, or for your POV understanding of history. Misplaced Pages doesn't care about your opinion or mine. Misplaced Pages is about reliable sources, about historical evidence, about Herodotus, Arrian, Hummond etc. It's so frustrating and absolutely unbelievable that an editor like you is trying to impose his own opinion and his own understanding of history by disregarding the plethora of historical evidence that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Macedonians were Greeks. I am going to pursue this, I will take this to the administrators, because unfortunately wikipedia is sliding towards becoming a POV pseudo-historic, propaganda-driven project. Taivo, you are not an expert, you are not a historian, and this encyclopedia doesn't care about what you believe or think. It cares about Herodotus, about Arrian, about Strabo, about Hummond, about Theodor Birt, about hunderds of distinguished historians all around the world. Besides that and because you keep evading and evading, can you tell please us about the religion of Macedonians? Can you tell us about their participation in the Olympic Games? About their Arcitecture and their customs? About what Macedonians themselves believed about their Greekness. And finally can you provide a shred of reliable evidence to prove that Macedonian language was not Greek? Can you produce one iota of evidence regarding the "non-Greek elements" of Macedonians. What were they? If non-Greek then what? What about the thousands of sources that clearly prove that Ancient Macedon was Greek? And -for the love of God- stop rambling about the "Greek flag over Macedonia". There is no flag. According to all the reliable sources, to all the distinguished historians and professors Ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom, like it or not. Misplaced Pages isn't interested in your convictions. According to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability wikipedia is interested in reliable sources. You have no right to remove sourced material, you have no right whatsoever to remove the sources and the evidence. This is blatant vandalism and next time I'm going to report you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the two of you need to review WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. because you don't seem to understand the way that Misplaced Pages operates. Neither of you is discussing the point here. The point is that the first sentence of any article is a brief summary of the topic. The remainder of the article is where you place your references and discuss the details. The first sentence of this article was worked out after a very careful discussion and a consensus (which I have placed a reference to above). Unless you actually build a consensus here, on the Talk Page, then the previous consensus holds. A consensus is not just you pushing your opinions through with tendentious editing, it is actually calmly discussing why you think your position on the first sentence is the better one and then building a consensus. You don't build a consensus by accusing other editors of bad faith or writing 20 repetitive paragraphs. You have not built a consensus at this point, so the previous consensus still takes precedence. If you want to get a clear picture of where you stand, then I suggest you place a Request for Comment here and then stand back and allow other editors to comment. --Taivo (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Taivo, you are trying with edit wars (vandalism) to change a stable (for months) version of the page. And on top, you remove valuable sources and references, not because you dont find it important information for the brief summary but because, as yourself has admitted above, you disagree with its content. So stop being a vandal, you are just contributing to enormous edit wars rather than improving wikipedia's good operation. Stevepeterson (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it, Stevepeterson. The lead sentence of an article is not the place for ridiculous spamming of references. If you have details about ancient Macedonia that you want to place in the article, that is the place for your tendentious multiplication of repetitive references. You also need to actually read WP:RS to learn that many of your references are not even appropriate to Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to go through all of your referencing and point this out to you reference by reference since you should be capable of culling them yourself once you understand what is an appropriate reference and what is not. But the point here is that your massive footnote isn't appropriate just to prove that you think the WP:POINTy addition of "Greek" in the first sentence is appropriate. And the consensus for leaving "Greek" out of the first sentence reference to "kingdom" is years old. Just because someone slipped "Greek" into the sentence a few weeks ago is irrelevant. The consensus for leaving "Greek" out was actually discussed and decided long ago. If you think that a different consensus might emerge after a discussion, then by all means start a formal request for comment discussion below, so that all interested editors are notified and you get a broad range of comment and opinion, not just the two of you, which, by the way, is not a "consensus" when there are at least two other editors who oppose your changes. --Taivo (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"? --Taivo (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• kingdom: This was the stable, neutral consensus for several years because it is not a WP:POINTy edit directed at the current geopolitical problem between Greece and Macedonia and because it correctly illuminates the fact that there were notable differences between Macedonian culture and society and Greek culture and society. It also better matches the title of the article, which is "ancient kingdom", not "ancient Greek kingdom" or "Greek kingdom". --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ancient Greek kingdom This was the stable version before Taivo and a sockpuppet started the vandalising editwar, this is easy to see in the page's history. Plus there are dozens of sources behind the Ancient Greek term. Ancient Macedonia was an ancient Greek kingdom and this is the historical truth regardless nationalism from Greek Macedonians and Slav Macedonians. History cant be adjusted to politics. If you think that Ancient Macedonian was instead a slavic or Ilyrian, or Paionian or Persian, you can bring your references. Just dont delete other sources because you disagree. You cant propose that a version without any justification can replace one with dozens of references. DispStevepeterson (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

People seem to confuse certain things here. The dispute on Ancient Macedonia, is whether the pre-Attic speaking Macedonians were speaking a Greek dialect or another Indo-European language. That is not something to be treated here, but on the dedicated page for the Ancient Macedonian language. Period! The founders of the kingdom are undoubtedly Greek, regardless if someone believes that there were other ethnic groups (e.g. Brygians, Thracians) incorporated to the Kingdom. That Greek aristocracy would then be responsible for a supposed "Hellenization" of the whole population and the establishment of Attic Greek in that kingdom. Now, the problem here is that pages like this, are getting kinda insane to maintain "neutrality" and "objectivity" which in many cases leads to over-referencing OR outdated views going back many decades. That is making the articles harder to read for the ordinary reader, plus it creates suspiciousness over the neutrality of the article. If you want to prove a point, it is enough to mention a handful of authorities and not dozens of primary sources that the reader needs to interpret. So my suggestions: a) @Taivo > leave the "Greek Kingdom" and ask for strong and quality references, b) @Stevepeterson & others > do not over-reference, it makes it terribly tiresome. Fkitselis (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fkitselis, the page was stable for months/years as Ancient Greek Kingdom without any references. Few days ago a user added these sources only after the page became (once more) a battlefield between nationalists and sockpuppets. This is because they disputed the validity of the qualifier of (Ancient Greek) for the word kingdom. A discussion opened to resolve the issue and none of those who oppose the qualifier Ancient Greek brought any justification but continued to remove the qualifier in a vandalising/editware manner. After the references were introduced, they changed the strategy and removed the qualifier together with its sources with the argument that it is not necessary/interesting for an introductory sentence to to include a qualifier for the word kingdom. Stevepeterson (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong, Stevepeterson. The page was stable as "kingdom" for years. It has only been recently changed to the WP:POINTy "Greek kingdom". Your list of references is also indisputable proof that you don't understand the reliable source policy. --Taivo (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Taivo >> the issue has been discussed already back from 2008. It is not a recent addition. Stevepeterson >> The only sources needed are those of few academic authorities. By that I do not mean every single person who made a one sentence statement about it. I mean those who have actually spend some ink writing about it. Fkitselis (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we dont need so many sources. Initially there was one source after the words Ancient Greek kingdom (Simon Hornblower, "Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods" in Katerina Zacharia, Hellenisms, Ashgate Publishing, 2008, pp. 55–58.). Vandals removed the Ancient Greek, so the source was left orphan and describing the word kingdom. Then Gtrbolivar introduced the list of sources in his attempt to stop the edit wars but with no result, vandalism continued (and still continues as we discuss the topic here) despite a discussion here and the sources were removed with a simple argument that I dont believe that Ancient Macedonia was Ancient Greek . Stevepeterson (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong, Fkitselis. The issue was, indeed, discussed in 2008 (I was there), but the consensus was to simply use "kingdom" without "Greek". That was the version that stayed stable for years. --Taivo (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see the discussion. Personally, I do not care whether the word Greek is there or not. After reading the article again, I feel there is no need for such a thing, as it is later mentioning the origins of the royal house. However, as a general note we should consider that wiki pages should always reevaluated after several years. Fkitselis (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Memory Refresher. Since the pro-"Greek" camp keeps claiming a false history of the first sentence, I did the research. There was a discussion back in 2009 and the consensus that was reached was to simply use "kingdom". That consensus edit remained for 3 years until it was changed to "Greek kingdom" with a false edit summary on 9 March 2012 here. It was changed back to "kingdom" the next day here. Then on 25 September 2012, this edit added "Greek" again, but the editor was lying and marked it as "minor" without an edit summary. That was the last time it was changed--without building a new consensus, just by virtue of a lie in terms of calling it a "minor" edit and not including an edit summary. The last consensus on this subject was built in 2008 to use just "kingdom". --Taivo (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Last Consensus Version The article should remain at the last consensus version until this Request for Comment has been completed and a new consensus built (or not). The last consensus was built in 2009 and does not include the word "Greek". --Taivo (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So, 2 years of the article being in this form is not enough for you to call it stable and you revert to a pre 2012 version with such an aggresive and vandalising manner? I dont see any pro Greek Macedonian attitude here only people trying to resolve an issue and one vandal with sockpuppets pushing nationalistic pro SlavMacedonian agenda which is not accepted even in ghe majority of the Republic of Macedonia residenta.Stevepeterson (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When an actual consensus has been reached and the change is the result of a lie, doesn't that call into question the actual stability of the edit? If you think I have a sockpuppet, then prove it. Perhaps you missed this comment on your bogus sockpuppet investigation. Since you are just trying to win your point by using ad hominems I will cite you for a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, especially since you think that neutrality equates to "nationalistic pro SlavMacedonian agenda". Please show me a single place where I have called Ancient Macedonia a "Slavic kingdom". Your personal attacks will not help your cause in promoting your own POV in this case. --Taivo (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

not if the consensus happened (if it really did, i need to see proof for that) over 6 years ago and the page has been stable for the last 2 years. And what is disturbing is your vandalising methods that compromise the quality of the article and make so many editors waste their time. And regarding ] and WP:AGF it is you who accuse us of being pro greecomacedonian, although we are just trying to protect the site from one vandal and a sockpuppet. Your bias towards teh Republic of Macedonia is obvious, you even go beyond RoM nationalism to call the country Macedonia (when discussing an Ancient Kingdom with exactly the same name), when the constitutional name is Republic of Macedonia, just to create a confusion that everything Macedonian refers to RoM and its slavic population, no. You want to remove the Ancient greek qualifier because you want to extend this confusion to the Ancient Kingdom majority of which is within the borders of the southern neighbour of RoM. Stevepeterson (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Were it not so damaging to Misplaced Pages, your insane paranoia would be laughable. Do you actually see modern Macedonians behind every rock or is that just here? Please quote a single, solitary time when I have claimed that the ancient Macedonians were Slavic or that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was Slavic? You can't. You simply operate from the childish POV that anyone who would dare deny that anything ancient the Greeks say is Greek might not be Greek must be a lover of modern Slavic Macedonia. And since there is more than one editor who disagrees with your paranoid nationalism, your attitude is that one must be a sock of the other. From the aggregate of your comments, it is crystal clear that you don't know the meaning of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, or WP:SOCK. --Taivo (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that anyone posting and vandalising so aggresivelisy here is pushing modern Macedonian nationalism, from both sides, the Greek Macedonian (2.5 million people) and Slavic Macedonian (1.4 million). I am just trying to revert the page to its stable form that for 2 years created no single issue and make the article more accurate with a qualifier so that creates confusion over new uses of the term Macedonian (eg Greek Macedonia, Albanian Macedonian, Slav Macedonian, geographical area of Macedonia, salad Macedonia, Greek Region of Macedonia, Bulgarian Region of Macedonia) and without touching on the endless nationalistic debate on who has more right on the use and without being biased towards any of the modern ethnic groups, all unrelated to Ancient Greek Macedonians. Your position is a combination of the following two:

1) that modern use of the term Macedonian is equivalent and exclusively means Slavic Macedonians (example above: Do you actually see modern Macedonians behind every rock or is that just here?) and 2) Ancient Greek qualifier to the Kingdom of Macedonia is not nessasry, so we should say Macedonia was an ancient kingdom simply (not ancient Greek, despite all evidence, but something else that we dont know) but with Macedonia meaning a slavic population. This is exactly the confusion nationalists from ROM want to create due to synonimity and proximity to the Ancient Greek kingdom. I have never said that Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia should be related to any modern nation, so YOU stop accusing me with nationalism. Stevepeterson (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You have summarized your paranoia about finding Slavic Macedonians behind every tree quite nicely. You praise the stability of "Greek kingdom" for two years, but utterly fail to praise the longer stability of "kingdom" for three years. Indeed, the only reason that an editor snuck "Greek" in past the watchlists is because he lied about it being a "minor" edit. Your paranoia about modern Macedonian nationalists is utterly misplaced. Adding "Greek" to kingdom accomplishes only two things: 1) it is a WP:POINTy edit directed not at accuracy, but at a modern geopolitical situation (by your own admission); and 2) it obscures the fact that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was not 100% "Greek", but included non-Greek elements as well (and note that "non-Greek" is not synonymous with "Slavic"). Give it a rest. You have made your primary argument over and over and over again your prejudice against modern Macedonians. Misplaced Pages must be as neutral as possible (see WP:NPOV). That is not possible when edits such as yours are made with the express purpose of eliminating another possible point-of-view. The facts of Greekness are expressed in the article in detail, where they should be--as are the facts of non-Greekness (and note that there is not a single word about ancient Macedonia being Slavic in any way). Taking a side in the summary statement based on your modern geopolitical point-of-view is non-encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, none said that Macedonia was a Greek (modern) but an Ancient Greek kingdom. Ancient Greeks are unrelated to any modern nation. By removing the Ancient Greek you just want to link/misslead a connection with the modern Slav Macedonians whom you also name Macedonians, without any qualifier. I have no prejudgement against any modern Macedonian because I am one myself. You are the one who prejudges modern Macedonians, at least the Non Slav ones, firstly by assuming that every modern Macedonian is a Slav, for your own reasons; I never said you are a Macedonian (Slav/Greek/Albanian/Bulgarian) but perhaps you are a Slav in general thats why you push panslavism nationalism in this article. And your argument that Ancient Maceonia doesnt qualify to be named as Ancient Greek, because it was in the periphery of the Greek World and had influence from the neighbours and despite the fact that greek culture and language prevailed (indisputable fact, there are hudernts of sources and archeological findings on that) is totally invalid. It is equivalent to someone in modern times claiming that regions in peripheries of countries should become autonomous from the rest/homogenous core because they dont belong 100% to the core culture but have other elements from the neighbours. In that sense even modern Greek region of Macedonia i the future should not be called a Greek region because there are also Slav Macedonian, Albanian and Turkish minorities and in general the Greek culture there is highly influenced from the Balkans, unlike Athens or Sparta. Future Historians wont call Brandenburg a German State, because it was not 100% German, it also had otehr elements eg Polish. Stevepeterson (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@StevePeterson >> Can you please specify which sources you would like to add and for what purpose. I suggest you make a collection here and write few words behind the reasoning. After that we can start discussing what is relevant and what is not. Fkitselis (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is Ancient Greek Kingdom with the second bunch of references only namely the contemporary sources: Zacharia 2008, Simon Hornblower, "Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods", pp. 55–58; Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984, pp. 50–51; Errington 1990; Fine 1983, pp. 607–608; Hall 2000, p. 64; Hammond 2001, p. 11; Jones 2001, p. 21; Osborne 2004, p. 127; Hammond 1989, pp. 12–13; Hammond 1993, p. 97; Starr 1991, pp. 260, 367; Toynbee 1981, p. 67; Worthington 2008, pp. 8, 219; Chamoux 2002, p. 8; Cawkwell 1978, p. 22; Perlman 1973, p. 78; Hamilton 1974, Chapter 2: The Macedonian Homeland, p. 23; Bryant 1996, p. 306; O'Brien 1994, p. 25. . To these I would only add Strabo and Herodotus from the first bunch, as sources of the ancient world and evidently not biased by modern politics. Thése are my last words, I have wasted far too much time in this article by Taivo's slavic nationalism and insisting on vandalising this page. Stevepeterson (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Stevepeterson's agenda of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith is well in evidence with that last comment. He has utterly failed at any point to demonstrate that I have been motivated by "slavic nationalism". It is just further evidence of his "find a modern Macedonian behind every tree". --Taivo (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will again reiterate that the consensus reached in 2009 was changed in a manner that it passed by watchlists by falsely marking it as a minor edit, thus "kingdom" without specification should be considered the "base" consensus. At this point there has been no consensus reached for changing that earlier stable consensus. We're not talking about the tone of the entire article, or the details and evidence presented in the article. We're talking about the summary first sentence. As such, such WP:POINTy wording that, by Stevepeterson's own admission is designed to keep modern Macedonians from thinking that ancient Macedonia might have been Slavic, should be considered to be against the basic Misplaced Pages principle of WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Modern Macedonia include Greek Macedonian, Republic of Macedonia, Bulgarian Macedonia and Albanian Macedonia. Your failure to understand this and your insisting of limiting the use of term Macedonia to describe only a specific ethnic group that doesn't even represent the majority of Macedonia shows your bias and the reason why you are so sensitive about the topic and went into the war in the first place. Qualifier Ancient Greek Kigdom was there for 2 years and none complained. My point is that we need to avoid confusion over modern uses of the term Macedonia and there are many, not only the Republic of Macedonia. Your initial reasoning behind hiding the Ancient Greek is that this would lead to edit wars due to modern politics (clearly a WP:POINT, look at your own comments above); in fact you are the only person who initiates such edit wars. Your second argument is that Ancient Macedonia wasnt 100% part of the ancient greek civilization and this was rejected by hundreds of sources: Ancient Macedonia was indisputably an Ancient Greek Kingdom (there are so many references) perhaps not 100% no kingdom is 100% purely something unless a genocide happens, even ROM is 70% Macedonian and 30% Albanian but its stil rightfully called a Macedonian state. Once the references were introduced you deleted the sources with the argument that the first sentence should not include unessasary details (such as what civilisation the kigdom belonged to) and neither allows sources in the first sentence, however similar articles on other areas of the ancient greek world follow the same format (eg Sparta was a prominent city-state in ancient Greece) and you didnt show the same excitement to apply these rules in these articles. Once you lost this argument too, you cite a consensus 6 years ago that changed 4 years ago. And you call yourself not a hothead nationalist. If i do personal attack? No I dont do, I have nothing against you but I blame you for the waste of time due to your irresponsible and arrogant behavior. I have nothing against Macedonians, Greek or Slavs, I am upset with you wasting the time of so many people here. And you were the one who called me nationalist, at least I recognize that modern republic of Macedonia citizens are Macedonians, you dont recognize the existence of Greek Macedonians in Greece. Stevepeterson (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has zero to do with modern Macedonia, so the majority of your comments throughout this issue are pointless and irrelevant. I won't respond to your personal attacks along those lines any further. And you obviously have a problem with math. The consensus for "kingdom" was reached 5 years ago in 2009. It remained stable for three years until an obviously pro-Greek editor changed it by falsely calling it a "minor edit". That lie prevented it from showing up on the watchlists of people who would have objected to the change (as they had a few months earlier when the same change was made without it being marked as a "minor edit"). Are you seriously trying to defend a false and disingenuous edit made with the explicit purpose of no one seeing it? That was done two years ago, not four. You are simply wanting to add a WP:POINTy edit to pee on the ancient Macedonian fire hydrant with your Greek dog. You clearly have no idea what a WP:POINTy edit is so you should actually read the essay before you try to misuse the term again. The following two versions violate WP:NPOV: 1) "Macedonia was an ancient Greek kingdom" and 2) "Macedonia was an ancient non-Greek kingdom". Those are WP:POINTy edits since their only function is to plant a Greek or non-Greek flag on the topic. The only neutral formulation, that goes in neither direction and plants no partisan flags, is "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom." In 2009, that was the consensus wording that was reached after a long discussion. In 2012, no new consensus was built for a change because the change was a result of a misleading lie. Unless you are able to actually build a new consensus right here, right now, then the previous actual consensus of 2009 is the only relevant one. --Taivo (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I dont have time top build a consensus, if anyone wants to prepare please do and i will contribute. I will summarize your contribution above to show you how you contradict yourself: A) you personally attack me: 1) numerous insulting such as Greek nationalist (BTW I am a Macedonian), i have problem with Maths (FYI I have PhD in Applied Mathematics, from the Univ. of London) 3) you say that i clearly have no idea what a WP:POINTy edit is. B) You find pro-Greek propaganda behind every stone here and anyone who believes that Ancient Macedonia was an Ancient Greek Kingdom (you accuse me of finding Macedonians behind any one who disputes how Hellenic Ancient Macedonia was, although (Pan)Hellenism was a concept introduced during the Macedonian domination on the Ancient greek world). Then not only all editors here are pro-Greek nationalists but also all historians and but even the earth that reveals archeological evidence of the anc-greekness of Anc Macedonia, all are forged by modern greek propaganda, you remind me this onion's article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/historians-admit-to-inventing-ancient-greeks,18209/). We wont rewrite european history because modern greeks are indeed nationalists and abuse history for political benefits. Perhaps Alexander himself was a Greek Nationalist, not neutral and according to you and his words are PPOV, and shouldnt be included in this article. To say that Ancient Macedonia was an Ancient Greek Kingdom is not only neutral (it doesnt reflect any modern population of Macedonia, it follows the format of similar articles (All other ancient Greek state articles mention their ancient-greekness.) and doesnt have anything to do with the irrelevant name dispute). But it is historical fact and wikipedia's attitude to history should not be affected by modern politics. Removing Ancient Greek although it appears in all other anc. greek states articles, in order to remain neutral in an irrelevant modern name dispute is a bad idea ánd certainly a WP:POINT. Stevepeterson (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to be on Misplaced Pages if you don't have the time for it. And it's utterly amazing how much fantasy you can construct about comments that I have never made and how you can twist nothing into fairy tales. Again, you confuse the content of the article with a summary statement that needs to be as all-inclusive as possible without planting a flag on one interpretation over another. Most of your comments are pure invention or misinterpretation. --Taivo (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have alot of time for wikipedia but unfortunately this month i wasted it on unnecessary edit-wars trying to prove an already proven fact (that Ancient Macedonia was part of the Hellenic world that itself has created) and defending myself from vandals' attacks. Stevepeterson (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Taivo's crusade to remove the word "Greek" (blatantly disregarding the countless top-class historians and reliable sources) is becoming outrageous and inflammatory beyond words. Who entitles you to remove sources and crystal historical evidence for God's sake? Where are the admins? It seems that anybody who wants to impose his pseudo-historic (backed-up with tons of pure vandalism) agenda in wikipedia is free to do it with impunity. Your ridiculous and slanderous attacks against Stevepeterson, who tried to stop your vandalistic pseudo-historic propaganda with solid arguments is typical of the way you understand dialogue and of course history for that matter. It is obvious to everyone that you are here to impose a certain agenda (who knows why?) at all costs. You're trying to make us go away, employing vandalism, lying, slander, propaganda and a behaviour full of unspeakable arrogance like you own the place, like you are the master of wikipedia who does whatever he wants. Rest assured that your aggresive and unacceptable behaviour, your pseudo-historic propaganda, your blatant disregard for the sources and for the most distinguished and reliable historians from antiquity to today, your vandalistic frenzy and your forlorn attempt to claim ownership of the article will not stand. To Stevepeterson: The next time he vandalizes, distorts history and behaves like he owns the place I am ready to bring this matter to the administrators. If you agree, we can submit this issue to the administrators together. I don't know the exact drill, but I am sure we can report his behaviour and his vandalism in one complaint. Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the way that Misplaced Pages works, Gtrbolivar. You don't understand WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINTy, WP:NPOV, or WP:CONSENSUS. You have also failed to actually discuss the matter civilly here, simply relying on base insults and accusations. Perhaps you should try building a new consensus. You didn't even participate properly in the Request for Comment. --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Kingdom" or "Ancient Greek Kingdom" I think the difference at the source of this RFC will be lost on most people reading the article. As someone who knows a fair bit about Western History, I think the fact that it was a Greek Kingdom is implied. that being said, the article that Ancient Greek currently links to is informative and useful to readers. I cannot go toe to toe with a real scholar on what comprises Greek/Hellenic realms, but Alexander was from Macedonia and he is most certainly considered a military leader of ancient Greece. I don't think it really matters, but a link to Ancient Greece is very useful and should be prominent in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Elmmapleoakpine and Gtrbolivar. If Ancient Greece article has extensive reference to Ancient Macedonia as an Ancient Greek Kingdom and dedicates a long section on the period of Macedonian domination and its resulting Hellenistic Civilisation, it makes little sense that we remove the link to Ancient Greece in this article just because one single user claims that: "by trying to raise the unquestioning Greek flag over ancient Macedonia in the first sentence of the article, you needlessly prejudice the reader and promote needless conflict from those who might disagree with that assessment. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)" . But I wouldnt keep on the endless arguments and edit-wars with him. I propose one of two directions: A) Either we all in a civilised manner agree here that we bring back the article to its stable (for 2 years) pre-vandalism format or B) we start a consensus to undo the obsolete 2008 consensus. I would personally prefer the 1st so we dont have to waste more time Stevepeterson (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Stevepeterson You added a bit to what I said. I was not responding to whomever your quoting here. I can go either way. I think that you presume an awful lot about the motivations of the other editor. I do not have any history here. I just made a suggestion of what would be useful to readers who are not familiar with the subject. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Elmmapleoakpine, thank you for your comment and for allowing me to clarify my position, I wrote that I agree with both you and Gtrbolivar and I curried on with adding my personal view. To be honest, I also believe that there is little difference between with or without the Anc Greek qualifier. My point here is that users should not be allowed to vandalise and try to push their PPOV in wikipedia articles (eg I remove a well referenced fact that Anc Mac was part of the Ancient Greek world, just because I believe that Ancient Macedonians were in the periphery of the Greek world and hence not 100% Greeks and also because there is an unrelated political name-dispute today between two unrelated modern states, plus everyone who disagrees with me is driven by Greek nationalism and deserves to be insulted). This is not what wikipedia is about. Stevepeterson (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are still under the impression that personal attacks are appropriate, Stevepeterson. Do you want to falsely accuse me of sockpuppetry again as well? I propose that we maintain the last actual consensus from 2009 and the stable form that lasted for three years and was changed only because of a lying Greek nationalist's vandalism in a way that it didn't show up on watchlists. So your attempts to paint the last two years as somehow a better Misplaced Pages solution are just as sneaky and underhanded as the vandal that violated the 2009 consensus. You also act like the (B) solution is your idea. Please note that I was the one who initiated this Request for Comment, not you, and that so far there is no consensus for a change to "Greek kingdom". --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What an oxymoron: a user who has initiated a reckless edit-war (i count 6 reversions in September, 4 of which during the last 2 days), who has attacked and insulted any WP contributor who doesn't agree with his opinion that Ancient Macedonia was not part of the Ancient Greek World (because its population was not 100% Ancient Greek), is afraid of losing the credit of initiating a cease-fire/discussion that has not anyway prevent him from continuing the editwar. 175.136.204.66 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oxymoron--read it since you don't seem to know what it is. Your other comments simply show an ignorance of the entire discussion and the reasoning therein. --Taivo (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Macedonians were not, are not and will never be Greek. The anti-neutrality editor is seeing biased POVs everywhere. There are disagreements whether it was or wasn't a Greek Kingdom (it wasn't) The Greeks saw us as barbarians, Greeks didnt have Kings nor did they fight the same way the Macedonian Phalanx did. This user is hallucinating if he thinks the 2012 vandalism edit is the stable version and somehow the 2009 consensus is 'outdated'. Well! Since Stevepeterson was born before 2009, (dubious), he must be outdated as well. He does not see the OUTRAGEOUSNESS of his claims. Misplaced Pages is a place for collaboration, reaching consensus BEFORE changing anything. If he truly believes he is correct (he isn't), why doesn't he collaborate like an adult and reach consensus first?

"I have alot of time for wikipedia but unfortunately this month i wasted it on unnecessary edit-wars trying to prove an already proven fact (that Ancient Macedonia was part of the Hellenic world that itself has created) and defending myself from vandals' attacks." - User:Stevepeterson

HAHAHAHAH! What a HYPOCRITE. It has NOT been proved that Macedonia was a 'Greek' Kingdom and your having to defend yourself of vandals attacks is laughable. Seriously, I really want to know how old you are. No-one has been attacking you and if anything, you have been attacking people, as when you started a 'sock investigation' (attack) against Taivo, not even informing him and without even 1x10 pieces of evidence. Return back to that rock you have been living under, don't waste our time. Macedonia (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

now that Taivo invited for support in his attacks and vandalism his fellow supporter of the irredententist United Macedonia concept of the Slav Macedonia "liberating" all ancestral Alexanders Slav Macedonia land from the occupying evil Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians (just have a look at his profile that shows the Republic of Macedonia's map including 40% of the Greek territory and 10% of Bulgaria), now this is the time to say the final goodbye to wikipedia. Stevepeterson (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you actually think that I invited Macedoniarulez to this discussion, then please prove it. This personal attack is nothing more than another of your incessant "There's a Slav behind every bush" paranoia. You falsely accused me of sockpuppetry solely because I disagreed with you. Now this baseless accusation. What's next in your bag of personal attacks? Prove it or shut up. --Taivo (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is personal attacks and not assuming good faith have gotten out of hand. Editors have stopped working to find neutral wording that addressed the concerns of both sides of the debate. Is there a way to factually and accurately state the relationship of ancient Macedonia to the wider ancient Greek world in the lead of the article without prejudicing the reader? What if the section in question read, "ancient kingdom that was x,y, z to ancient Greece? I know that is not it exactly, but I trust you get where I am going. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

what about: an ancient kingdom on the Northern periphery of the Ancient Greek world?

I have no problem at all with either of those wordings. Ancient Macedonia definitely had a relationship to ancient Greece, that's not in dispute. Saying either "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of the Greek world" (my preference), or "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom that shared much with the Greek world" (or something like this) would be an acceptable neutral wording. --Taivo (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia didn't have a relationship to ancient Greece. Macedonia was an ancient Greek Kingdom according to every reliable source in the world. Within the next days I'll be submitting a detailed report/request to the administrators, presenting the historical sources and the solid evidence that prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom. At the same text I'll talk about Taivo, who is destroying wikipedia, distorting history and trying vehemently to impose his pseudo-historic agenda. It is a shame to all the civilized world, it is an insult to all the historians, professors, to all the people with expertise, that a single editor, is trying to sneak his baseless and POV opinions into wikipedia through the back door with unbelievable arrogance like he owns the place. Unfortunately, me and millions of other users don't have the time to write in wikipedia all day (unlike Taivo who has all the time in the world) trying to prove yet again the most self-evident and well known truths. Taivo is trying to own the article and to impose his groundless and outrageous personal opinions. He is in complete violation of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research and he is removing (without any justification whatosever) reliable historical sources and evidence with impunity. I really don't know where wikipedia is going, but if it's becoming a safe haven for propaganda and historical revisionism, administrators should inform us formally. I really can't believe that we are sitting here talking about whether ancient Macedonia was Greek or not. It's a shame. Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Stevepeterson and I have reached an agreement on neutral wording that includes Macedonia's involvement in the Greek world. I have reverted Macedoniarulez's edit to that wording the Stevepeterson used. Read the discussion. Those of us pushing for this wording ("Macedonia was an ancient kingdom at the periphery of the Greek world") include myself, Stevepeterson, Elmmapleoakpine, and the anonymous editor right before my last comment. That is the core of a consensus--editors from each side and editors in the middle. Your continuing personal attacks, Gtrbolivar, are no longer warranted. Macedoniarulez, your extreme nationalism is also no longer warranted. --Taivo (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice try Taivo, you really are a master in propaganda. You're trying to compare Herodotus, Strabo, Arrian, Plutarch, Josephus, Titus Livius, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Theodor Birt, David Levinson, Hammond and tens of others top-class historians with the ridiculous paranoid fantasies of a Bulgarian-Slav Skopian distortionist who desperately tries to steal Greek history in order to get attention, in order to break out of his historical and cultural nonexistence and who is supporting you openly by insulting other editors. You are using this nonsense in order to discard my arguments and present yourself as the neutral voice, equating me with the Skopian fake nationalist who believes that he is a descendant of Alexander the Great and that Greeks are Ethiopians. Is this the kind of support you need to impose your agenda? Yes, of course it is, and I must admit that you used him perfectly. Anyway, I hope that any person with an average IQ who'll read this will easily understand your methods and your obvious agenda.

Let's cut to the chase now. In Stevepeterson's talk page, you wrote that Each reader can decide how "gray" ancient Macedonia actually was. That is all I've ever wanted for that lead sentence (...). Everything "Macedonian" is subject to explosion (as you have seen just above in the previous two sections), so we have to be extra careful in Misplaced Pages to be neutral. Questions for you: Can you produce one iota of reliable evidence to prove that Ancient Macedonia was not Greek? Can you show us a shred of reliable evidence by a distinguished historian that suggests that Macedonia was (quote) gray? What about all the evidence I produced? You don't give a damn about the evidence, do you? Your only goal is to impose your agenda at all costs. What does neutrality mean? Does it mean "hide the truth and compromise with the ridiculous pseudo-historic propaganda"? Is it neutral to blatantly disregard the sources and the evidence and remove them without any justification whatsoever? Is it neutral to violate Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research? Who are you Taivo? Are you a historian? Is your opinion more important than solid evidence? Is Taivo's opinion more important that the works of Herodotus, Strabo, Arrian, Plutarch, Josephus, Titus Livius, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Theodor Birt, David Levinson, Hammond and tens of other historians? Where is this project going anyway? Gtrbolivar (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: As far as the Skopian Slav comedian is concerned, it's oblious that I don't intend to dignify him with dialogue. Any descent man should feel sorry for men like him. I'll just post a video as a farewell: Kiro Gligorov, first president of FYROM, talking about the FYROMIAN/Skopian Slavs: "We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians and there is no connection between us and Alexander the Great". My deepest condolences. We all understand his hopeless situation. Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point it is clear that you have no interest in compromise or in building a WP:CONSENSUS as Stevepeterson and others have done. Your comments here make it quite clear that you are going to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND for your own point of view that is currently unsupported by other editors. You also clearly show that you still don't understand what a reliable source is. --Taivo (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point it is clear that you don't want to answer to anything I've said, it is clear that you have no arguments. You are evading yet again. Who are the other editors? You and the Slav who calls himself descendant of Alexander and the Greeks Ethiopians? I understand perfectly what a reliable source is but as a matter of fact YOU don't. You are showing blatant disregard for all the reliable sources, you are removing them without justification and you are in complete violation of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research. Misplaced Pages is about sources, about reliable sources about the work of people with expertise. Misplaced Pages doesn't care about your historical perspective or about mine for that matter. You are no expert, you are not a historian and you have no right to remove historical evidence. It is unbelievable, it is absolutely outrageous that you are free to commit vandalism like somebody has given you a green light to remove whatever you want, whenever you want, like you own the place. Your tactics are despicable. Stop evading and answer to my arguments for God's sake. You're distorting the truth and you're trying to impose you pseudo-historic agenda by wearing the cloak of (a false and hypocritical) neutrality which you use as a pretext. You are the one who wanted to turn this into a battleground and that's why you brought here a Slav nationalist(!!!) to support you, a man who insulted and harassed every editor in this page. Stop evading, stop acting like you hold some moral high ground. I proved that you are a vandal, a distortionist, who doesn't give a damn about Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and the basic rules of wikipedia, about sources, about the distinguished and world-class historians, about truth and common sense. You are trying to sneak your personal POV subjective historical opinions into wikipedia through the back door, with arrogance and using neutrality as an excuse. Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the Macedonians shared the ability to initiate ideas and create political forms." N G L Hammond, 1992 The Miracle that was Macedonia p. 206AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Historians refer to this enlarged Greek society as the Hellenistic world. At the start of his reign, the 20 year old Alexander was the crowned King of only Macedon, a crude Greek nation northeast of mainland Greece. His mother Olympias came from the ruling clan of the north western Greek region of Epirus" David Sacks 'A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World' Oxford University Press 1995.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nowadays Historians generally agree that the Macedonians form part of the Greek ethnos, hence they also shared in the common religious and shared cultural features of the Hellenic World" M. Opperman, Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed. 1996 p. 905.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"By Philip's reign, Macedonia was essentially Greek in language and Culture, and it could no longer be classed as barbarian" Antigonus Gonatus, William Thorpe Tarn.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"They felt as Greeks and they had no temptation to destroy what they claimed was their mother country. They had clearly no wish to swallow up Greece in Macedonia, but rather to make Macedonia, as a Greek state, the ruling power of Greece. Such was undoubtedly the aim of Philip and Alexander too." Theodore Ayrault Dodge,'Alexander',p. 187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkiiraGhioni (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

""The Macedonian people and their Kings were of Greek stock, as their traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify", Bury and Meiggs, (1985) 'A History of Greece',p.415.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, they were ethnically Greek according to the majority of historians, that is they were a Greek subgroup, they had Greek place names, Greek Royal names, Greek personal names, Greek names of the months of the year, worshipped Greek gods, partook in the Olympic games, had a Greek culture, the cultural milieu of the Macedonian court was Greek, the temples they built were Greek, the coins they minted in their millions were Greek, and the legacy they left behind from Egypt to India was Greek. One should also bear in mind that according to historians such as Hammond and Borza,the Macedonians were one of many Greek tribes a residue of which stayed behind in the Pindus mountains of Greece, one of these, the Makedones, occupied Aegae and expanded out eastwards into the coastal plain of lower Macedonia. And lastly they lived in Greek Macedonia.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And we must not forget that the ancient Macedonians claimed descent from the Argeads, the oldest and most ancient of Greeks in order to assert and rubber stamp their Greekness.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo, do you have modern secondary sources saying that Macedonian were not Greek? You are not likely to convince people without doing that.

As an aside, Athenians and company were pissed at Alexander and at Macedonians. I recall they denied Alexander's Greekness in some of the criticism they made of him. But this was done out of spite and elitism? There should be history books discussing this..... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Kingdom Disambiguators should be short. There has been no other Kingdom of Macedonia. That should be sufficient; the name of the article is no place to be polemical - even for those whose polemicism is accurate and unquestionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Since Republic of Macedonia is so placed, there's an argument for no disambiguator at all. Perhaps even Macedon, which redirects here. With the Republic out of contention, this article is primary or effectively primary for both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, what are you talking about? This RfC isn't about disambiguation, and it isn't about article titles. It is about the wording of the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Then perhaps I got a request from the last RfC. But the same argument applies: Keep the first sentence simple - and uncontroversial. "An ancient kingdom in the North of modern Greece.." perhaps? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Kingdom with no further specification. I'd also recommend the two warring editors take a break from Misplaced Pages. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Notes

1. – Alexander the Great: "Youths of the Pellaians and of the Macedonians and of the Hellenic Amphictiony and of the Lakedaimonians and of the Corinthians… and of all the Hellenic peoples, join your fellow-soldiers and entrust yourselves to me, so that we can move against the barbarians and liberate ourselves from the Persian bondage, for as Greeks we should not be slaves to barbarians." Pseudo-Kallisthenes, “Historia Alexandri Magni”, 1.15.1-4
   – Alexander the Great: "Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers." Historia Alexandri Magni of Pseudo-Kallisthenes, 1.37.9-13
   – Alexander the Great addressing his troops prior to the Battle of Issus: "There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay – and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it." Anabasis Alexandri by Roman historian Arrian, Book II, 7
   – Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea: "Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas (Greece) and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you." Anabasis Alexandri by Arrian; translated as Anabasis of Alexander by P. A. Brunt, for the "Loeb Edition" Book II 14, 4
   – Alexander the Great: "If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things Hellenic (Greek), to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to disseminate and shower the blessings of the Hellenic justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorious Hellenes should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Kaukasos." On the Fortune of Alexander by Plutarch, 332 a-b
   – Alexander addressing the dead Hellenes (the Athenian and Thebean Greeks) of the Battle of Chaeronea: "Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions." Historiae Alexandri Magni by Quintus Curtius Rufus
   – Alexander I of Macedon, ancestor of Alexander the Great, member of the Argead dynasty: "Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably." Herodotus, Histories, 5.20.4, Loeb
   – Alexander I of Macedon, ancestor of Alexander the Great, member of the Argead dynasty, when he was admitted to the Olympic games: "Men of Athens... In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery. I tell you, then, that Mardonius and his army cannot get omens to his liking from the sacrifices. Otherwise you would have fought long before this. Now, however, it is his purpose to pay no heed to the sacrifices, and to attack at the first glimmer of dawn, for he fears, as I surmise, that your numbers will become still greater. Therefore, I urge you to prepare, and if (as may be) Mardonius should delay and not attack, wait patiently where you are; for he has but a few days' provisions left. If, however, this war ends as you wish, then must you take thought how to save me too from slavery, who have done so desperate a deed as this for the sake of Hellas in my desire to declare to you Mardonius' intent so that the barbarians may not attack you suddenly before you yet expect them. I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian." Herodotus, Histories, 9.45 (ed. A. D. Godley)
   – Ian Worthington, English historian and archaeologist: "Not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." Ian Worthington, "Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008
   – Ulrich Wilcken: "When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south." Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", p. 22)
   – Strabo: "And Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece." Strabo. VII, Frg. 9 (Loeb, H.L. Jones)
   – Herodotus: "Now that these descendants of Perdiccas (Perdiccas I of Macedon, King of Macedonia from about 700 BCE to about 678 BCE) are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history." Herodotus, Book 5, Ch. 22, 1 (Loeb)
   – Josephus: "And when the book of Daniel was showed to Alexander the Great, where Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended; and as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present." Josephus 11.8.5
   – Arrian: "There a man appeared to them wearing a Greek cloak and dressed otherwise in the Greek fashion, and speaking Greek also. Those Macedonians who first sighted him said that they burst into teers, so strange did it seem after all these miseries to see a Greek, and to hear Greek spoken." Arrian: Anabasis Alexandri: Book VIII (Indica)
   – Titus Livius: "The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day." Titus Livius, Liber XXXI, 29, 15
   – David H. Levinson: "It should be noted that there is no connection between the Macedonians of the time of Alexander the Great who were related to other Hellenic tribes and the Macedonians of today, who are of Slavic Origin and related to the Bulgarians." Encyclopedia of World Cultures (1991), by David H. Levinson, page 239.
   – Nicholas Hammond: "Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian... The Macedonians over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member of the Greek-speaking peoples." Nicholas Hummond, Philip of Macedon, Duckworth Publishing, 1998
   – Nicholas Hammond: "All in all, the language of the Macedones was a distinct and particular form of Greek, resistant to outside influnces and conservative in pronunciation. It remained so until the fourth century when it was almost totally submerged by the flood tide of standardized Greek." Nicholas Hummond, A History of Macedonia Vol ii, 550-336 BC
   – Nicholas Hammond: “As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the Macedonians shared in the ability to initiate ideas and create political forms." Nicholas Hummond, "The Miracle that was Macedonia", 1992, p. 206
   – M. Opperman, "The Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed. (1996) - Macedonia, Cults", page 905: "Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos form part of the Greek ethnos; hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world"
   – Robin Lane Fox: 1) "Alexander was still the Greek avenger of Persian sacrilege who told his troops, it was said 'that Persepolis was the most hateful city in the world'. On the road there, he met with the families of Greeks who had deported to Persia by previous kings, and true to his slogan, he honoured them conspicuously, giving them money, five changes of clothing, farm animals, corn, a free passage home, and exemption from taxes and bureaucratic harassments." p. 256,
   2) "To his ancestors (to a Persian's ancestors) Macedonians were only known as 'yona takabara', the 'Greeks who wear shields on their heads', an allusion to their broad-brimmed hats." p. 104,
   3) "Alexander was not the first Greek to be honoured as a god for political favour." p. 131,
   4) "In spirit, Alexander made a gesture to the Lydians' sensitivities, though his Greek crusade owed them nothing as they were not Greeks." p. 128. Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, Penguin Books, UK, 1997
   – Katheryn A. Bard: "The Macedonians were originally one of several Greek tribes living on the northern frontier of the Hellenic world." Katheryn A. Bard, Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Taylor & Francis, 1999, p. 460.
   – Benjamin Ide Wheeler: "That the Macedonians were Greek by race there can be no longer any doubt. They were the northernmost fragments of the race left stranded behind the barriers." Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Alexander the Great: The Merging of East and West in Universal History, Elibron Classics, 2011
2. Zacharia 2008, Simon Hornblower, "Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods", pp. 55–58 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZacharia2008 (help); Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984, pp. 50–51 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJoint_Association_of_Classical_Teachers1984 (help); Errington 1990 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFErrington1990 (help); Fine 1983, pp. 607–608 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFine1983 (help); Hall 2000, p. 64 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHall2000 (help); Hammond 2001, p. 11 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond2001 (help); Jones 2001, p. 21 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJones2001 (help); Osborne 2004, p. 127 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOsborne2004 (help); Hammond 1989, pp. 12–13 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond1989 (help); Hammond 1993, p. 97 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond1993 (help); Starr 1991, pp. 260, 367 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStarr1991 (help); Toynbee 1981, p. 67 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFToynbee1981 (help); Worthington 2008, pp. 8, 219 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWorthington2008 (help); Chamoux 2002, p. 8 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChamoux2002 (help); Cawkwell 1978, p. 22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCawkwell1978 (help); Perlman 1973, p. 78 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPerlman1973 (help); Hamilton 1974, Chapter 2: The Macedonian Homeland, p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHamilton1974 (help); Bryant 1996, p. 306 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBryant1996 (help); O'Brien 1994, p. 25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFO'Brien1994 (help).

Vandalism, unjustified removal of reliable sources, POV editing

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Dear admins, I would like you to inform me how is it possible that the user Taivo can remove reliable sources, solid historical evidence (Herodotus, Strabo, Arrian, Plutarch, Josephus, Titus Livius, Quintus Curtius Rufus, David Levinson, Hammond etc) with impunity. Is wikipedia his personal domain? I thought that wikipedia is about sources (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research). Is Taivo free to remove whatever he wants, is he free to distort well-known facts backed-up by thousands of reliable sources?

I am respectfully asking you: Am I free to write that Ancient Macedonia was an Ancient Greek Kingdom (it is something like writing that Napoleon was a French or George Washington an American) when I am producing evidence and sources like these:??

Does our wikipedia project rely on solid facts, on reliable sources, on Herodotus, Strabo, Arrian, Plutarch, Josephus, Titus Livius, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Theodor Birt, David Levinson, Hammond and thousands of others, or has it become a safe haven for anyone who wants to impose his own subjective POV historical perspective and his propaganda? Are we going to make contributions based on the distinguished historians, on the compelling reliable historcal evidence or will we start doing whatever editors like Taivo want? Is Taivo and any given Taivo free to do whatever he wants? Is he free to distort history and deny common sense in wikipedia's name? I would like a straight answer please. Thank you so much for your attention, Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, Gtrbolivar. You simply don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. It works on WP:CONSENSUS, not your personal opinion. While based on reliable sources, none of which are your "ancient sources", it fundamentally rests on editor compromises and consensus-building about how to properly use those sources and how to properly present them in the articles. Right now, you are on the outside of the consensus and compromise that has been built by Stevepeterson, myself, and others. Your individual warfare over this and your stated goal of winning at all costs on Stevepeterson's Talk Page is anti-Misplaced Pages and anti-consensus. You don't seem to understand the process. You are alone right now. All other editors on this page have overtly commented that the compromise wording, that Stevepeterson himself put in place, is acceptable. You also think that we are dealing with the text of the article and that the article itself is somehow denying the Greek elements of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. You couldn't be more wrong and your attempts to present that as the issue here is false. We are talking only about the summary in the lead sentence and not the article's actual content. Your sources are appropriate at the appropriate places in the article itself and you are free to put them there. We're only talking about the lead sentence. What is false? Was ancient Macedonia a kingdom? Yes. Was ancient Macedonia on the periphery of the Greek world? Yes it was. There is absolutely nothing false there. Your only point is to place a WP:POINTy and unnecessary red flag in the first sentence in violation of Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you simply don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. It works on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not your personal POV subjective and erroneous opinions. There is no consensus. You are trying to impose one, based on your opinions and your "orders". You are trying to impose your own personal perspective ("Ancient Macedonia is not Greek but it has Greek elements") which are pseudo-historic, erroneous and against all reliable academic sources and historical evidence in the world. You started a crusade against every distinguished historian and professor in the world in order to impose your POV opinion, your subjective point of view. You couldn't produce one iota of evidence to support your false theories and at the same time you are trying to distort the truth and drag all wikipedians to follow you into something so ridiculous and against all existing sources, evidence, academic knowledge and of course against common sense and knowledge. Neutrality doesn't mean removing sources and hiding the facts. The fact that someone is a nationalist, a communist or an anarchist doesn't change the fact that Napoleon was French, Abraham Lincoln was American and Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, according to every distinguished scientist, every world-class historian, every reliable historical source in the world. You are manipulating the concept of neutrality in order to hide the historical truth and the well-known facts. You are blatantly disregarding everything with reliability and undoubtable academic value in order to sneak your POV, unsubstantiated, groundless and subjective personal historical perpective (which has no place whatsoever in this project) through the back door. This is unacceptable, and if wikipedia wants to preserve its credibility, its stature and its values, the admins will give you the reprimand you deserve. Every decent editor must act in a manner commensurate with wikipedia's credebility and rules. Stop distorting history, stop removing sources on your own volition and stop this crusade against common sense, against self-evident facts which are backed-up in every possible way by sources and evidence. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A consensus here has emerged on the first sentence, whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not. That consensus is that the first sentence shall read "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of the Greek world." There is not a single, solitary inaccurate word there. Not one. Every word of that sentence is verifiable. Stevepeterson placed that very sentence into the article. It was suggested by other other editors above. I support that edit. There is absolutely nothing false about that sentence. Macedonia was an ancient kingdom. Macedonia was on the periphery of the Greek world. If you can find a single, solitary source that says Macedonia was not an ancient kingdom or that Macedonia was not on the periphery of the Greek world, then you would have a point to make. Right now, you have no point to make other than pursuing your battleground mentality that you will accept no compromise to pushing your POV onto the first sentence despite the established consensus around Stevepeterson's edit. --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a single, solitary source that says Macedonia was not an ancient Greek kingdom or that Macedonia was not Greek, then you would have a point to make. By the way User:AkiiraGhioni is against your alleged "consensus" and made those remarks that you didn't like: , , , , . These are solid historical evidence. Stevpeterson's texts are lying above and everybody can read that he is against you, and doesn't accept your pseudo-historic perceptions and your vandalism. He has repeatedly called you a vandal and a distortionist of history, so don't try to speak on his behalf. Due to the lack of time and because of your slanders and your repeated attacks (which you made in collaboration with your ultranationalist Slav supporter) he was ready to abandon wikipedia. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm transfering Akiira's text here Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC):

"As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the Macedonians shared the ability to initiate ideas and create political forms." N G L Hammond, 1992 The Miracle that was Macedonia p. 206AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Historians refer to this enlarged Greek society as the Hellenistic world. At the start of his reign, the 20 year old Alexander was the crowned King of only Macedon, a crude Greek nation northeast of mainland Greece. His mother Olympias came from the ruling clan of the north western Greek region of Epirus" David Sacks 'A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World' Oxford University Press 1995.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nowadays Historians generally agree that the Macedonians form part of the Greek ethnos, hence they also shared in the common religious and shared cultural features of the Hellenic World" M. Opperman, Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed. 1996 p. 905.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"By Philip's reign, Macedonia was essentially Greek in language and Culture, and it could no longer be classed as barbarian" Antigonus Gonatus, William Thorpe Tarn.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"They felt as Greeks and they had no temptation to destroy what they claimed was their mother country. They had clearly no wish to swallow up Greece in Macedonia, but rather to make Macedonia, as a Greek state, the ruling power of Greece. Such was undoubtedly the aim of Philip and Alexander too." Theodore Ayrault Dodge,'Alexander',p. 187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkiiraGhioni (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

""The Macedonian people and their Kings were of Greek stock, as their traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify", Bury and Meiggs, (1985) 'A History of Greece',p.415.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, they were ethnically Greek according to the majority of historians, that is they were a Greek subgroup, they had Greek place names, Greek Royal names, Greek personal names, Greek names of the months of the year, worshipped Greek gods, partook in the Olympic games, had a Greek culture, the cultural milieu of the Macedonian court was Greek, the temples they built were Greek, the coins they minted in their millions were Greek, and the legacy they left behind from Egypt to India was Greek. One should also bear in mind that according to historians such as Hammond and Borza,the Macedonians were one of many Greek tribes a residue of which stayed behind in the Pindus mountains of Greece, one of these, the Makedones, occupied Aegae and expanded out eastwards into the coastal plain of lower Macedonia. And lastly they lived in Greek Macedonia.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I should also refer to the recent Exhibition at the Ashmolean Exhibition, Oxford University, exhibiting and showcasing over five hundred treasures of gold and bronze recently found in Royal burial tombs, the exhibition at the Ashmolean museum was entitled, "From Heracles to Alexander the Great, the Legend of Macedon: An Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy".AkiiraGhioni (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Now stop. Many of you are in danger of going past WP:3RR, keep reverting is not the way to create a page. I see editors are referring to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CON to put forward their arguments. The first two are most important, without them we do not have an encyclopaedia. Consensus is also important, but not at the expense of the other two - Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Misplaced Pages, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.. So remember - it's not a vote, just because one camp is bigger than the other does not give them the right to impose their view - we must view the proposed changes with regard to the polices. We must keep all the policies and guidelines in the forefront of our writing. We realise that editors will not always agree, but we need overcome that and move on. I've protected the page for a month, so you can try to finally decide on how the page should be. If you cannot agree you will have to use dispute resolution - no admin will allow an edit war to run on. Ronhjones  19:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is not with sources or the content of the article. It is solely about with a WP:POINTy word in the first sentence of the article based entirely on a contemporary geopolitical conflict. In 2009 a consensus was reached to short-circuit that conflict by not including the word "Greek" in front of "kingdom" in the lead. The article described ancient Macedonia's relationship to ancient Greece in great detail and that is the place for sources, facts, etc. There has never been any question of the content, only throwing up a red Greek flag in the first sentence to emphasize a nationalistic point to Slavic Macedonian readers. This discussion has shown again that any time that an editor wants to reassert the 2009 neutral consensus (which was sidestepped with a sleight-of-hand move in 2012 by marking the edit as "minor" to avoid watchlists), he is attacked as being "pro-Slavic", accused of sockpuppetry when another editor agrees with him, accused of canvassing when a real Slavic nationalist shows up (with whom I do not agree), and then faced with an overtly-stated battle mentality of "I will fight to the end." I agreed to compromise wording that was offered by a neutral editor above and then that same compromise wording was actually placed in the article by the editor who had accused me of sockpuppetry and canvassing. Consensus is absolutely important for lead sentences. RS and V are far more important for the body of an article. But the body of this article was never in dispute--only the lead. The compromise sentence--"Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of the Greek world"--is absolutely verifiable and accurate. Adding the word "Greek" in front of "kingdom" does nothing to change the content of the article, but only plants a Greek flag in front of Slavic readers. --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Taivo,the point is that Macedonia was a Greek speaking Kingdom, the Macedonians were ethnically Greeks and had a Greek culture. But they had remained isolated in the far north, far from the city states in the south. As the Historian Ulrich Wilcken wrote in 1931, "Our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which were further south." Macedonians were simply a Greek tribe left behind in the north of Greece who had no contact with the city states until the advent of the Persian wars. The conclusion is therefore that it was a Greek / Hellenic Kingdom, and that is how it is entitled in museum exhibitions.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, AkiiraGhioni, you don't get it. It's not about the content of the article at all. It's all about waving a Greek nationalist flag at the Slavic Macedonians in the first sentence. I don't want the first sentence to make any non-neutral declaration (either pro-Greek or pro-Slavic) that will serve as a touchpoint in the current geopolitical situation. If you don't think that there are Greek nationalist feelings involved here, just look at some of Stevepeterson's first edits after I reverted to the 2009 consensus. He was all but accusing me of invading Greece with a modern Macedonian army (or at least invading this page with Slavic editor hordes). I was doing nothing of the sort, but it's illustrative of how touchy these "Macedonian" articles are. We have to walk a very careful line. The compromise wording does just that--keeping the Greek parts of Macedonia intact ("on the periphery of the Greek world") while not overtly ramming a sharp stick in the eye of Slavic readers by saying "Greek kingdom". This is what Gtrbolivar and yourself don't seem to understand. It's not about the content of the article at all. You can reference to your heart's content in the article. It's all about carefully wording the first sentence (and the first sentence only) so that a strict neutrality on geopolitical matters can be maintained. --Taivo (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No Taivo you're wrong, Misplaced Pages is not a political forum whereby we have to maintain some form of diplomatic decorum. Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopaedia dispensing historical facts. Why should Slavic people be upset? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia resides on what was ancient Paeonia and not Macedonia. Ancient Macedonia is almost wholly in Greece, and historically may have been on the periphery of the city states, but nevertheless it was a Greek speaking Kingdom, inhabited by people who held themselves to be of Hellenic stock, and whom historians almost unanimously now recognize as Greeks. So what else should we call it?Are we going to compromise historical facts in case we upset someone's childish ego?AkiiraGhioni (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it. There are no historical facts being compromised. And you are quite wrong about Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages absolutely must "maintain some form of diplomatic decorum" in the first sentences if possible. It's called neutral point of view. In other words, the sentence that achieved consensus already says "at the periphery of the Greek world" so it's not at all necessary to poke your neighbor with a stick and say "Greek kingdom", especially when that phrase is a political minefield of non-neutrality. Remember that we're not talking about the mention of Greek culture throughout the remainder of the article. We are only talking about the first sentence. I'm sorry I keep having to remind you that we are not talking about the whole article, but you seem to continually forget. There are no facts being compromised, there is only a non-confrontational, neutral, yet still accurate, first sentence. And your politicized and nationalistic reference to "FYROM" is precisely the reason why it's important to keep your Greek point-of-view from overwhelming the introduction to the article. It is offensive to modern Macedonians, so you need to leave your politics at the door. That's precisely the problem--you and Gtrbolivar have simply refused to leave your politics at the door. Otherwise you would have seen the wisdom of a compromise long ago. --Taivo (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not a question of politics. Its a question of facts. Ancient Macedonia was a Greek state - fact. History is not in the business of making comfort stories. Was the Ashmolean museum, Oxford University being nationalistic when it entitled its exhibition of ancient Macedonian treasures "From Heracles to Alexander the Great, the Legend of Macedon: an HELLENIC KINGDOM in the age of Democracy"? Or maybe now you think historians should be chastised for referring to ancient Macedonia as a 'Greek state', or as a 'Hellenic Kingdom' or as a 'Greek nation'. Are you inferring that we should now censor Historians and Scholars. And why should modern Slav-Macedonians be offended? Their Republic was ancient Paeonia and not Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.51.111 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are confused about what we are talking about. It is a fact that the capital of ancient Macedonia was at Pella. It is a fact that ancient Macedonia's most famous king was Alexander. It is a fact that etc., etc., etc. But we do not present all these facts in the first sentence which is the only thing we are talking about. We pick and choose which are the most salient facts to present in the first sentence: 1) "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" (undeniable fact) and 2) "it was on the periphery of the Greek world" (undeniable fact). What's the problem? Ancient Macedonia is presented as being part of the Greek world, but not at its center. What's the problem? But while the consensus compromise is WP:NPOV and avoids waving a red flag at a segment of our readers, you continue to insist on placing a political objective front and center. --Taivo (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of what you are talking about, and its obvious you are trying to put a political spin on the whole issue, you want to censor the use of the word Greek or Hellenic on the basis that it might offend some readers,now why should anyone be offended?. But you are in in fact offending the right to knowledge which is what Misplaced Pages stands for. Let me quote Professor of History Barry Strauss, Cornell University, "Macedonia was a funny Greek state, always the bridesmaid but never the bride". Meaning Macedonia being in the extreme north was not able not participate in the progressive civilization of the states which were further south, and remained a backwater monarchy, but it was still a Greek state. "The Macedonians were racially Greeks"(Stoneman, Exeter University), "Macedonia was a Greek speaking Kingdom in northern Greece"(Robin Lane Fox, Oxford University). Of course I could sit and argue that Athens was not the center of the Greek world since the Athenians were descendants of Pelasgians and therefore technically non-Greek since Pelasgians were the non-Greek tribes who inhabited the Greek peninsula before the arrival of the proto-Greeks. This is Ironic since the Macedonians are described by Historians such as Borza as proto-Greeks (E. Borza 'Makedonika' 1995). "Modern Scholars now almost unanimously recognize them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorian and north-western Greeks who after long residence in the Pindus region migrated eastwards" (John V. A. Fine, 'The Ancient Greeks, a Critical History, Harvard University Press, 1983, pp. 605-608). I rest my case.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And at the expense of being repetitive, one must ask the question, why do scholars refer to ancient Macedon as being a 'Greek state' or a 'Greek nation' or a 'Hellenic Kingdom'? The answer is because Macedonians were racially Greeks, they were ethnically Greek, they were a Greek sub-group, they spoke a Hellenic language, they lived in Greek-Macedonia, they had Greek place names, Greek Royal names, Greek names of the months of the year, they considered themselves Greek tracing their roots to the earliest Greeks - the Argeads, they partook in the Olympic games, they had a Greek culture,the cultural milieu of the Macedonian court was Greek, they worshipped Greek gods, they traced their nation's origins from Olympian gods, the temples they built were Greek, the coins they minted in their millions were Greek, the legacy they left behind from Egypt to India was Greek.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You still absolutely, positively don't get it. You act like my comments deny the degree to which the ancient Macedonians participated in the Greek world. You are just using the same arguments over and over and over again that simply do not address the point. You blind yourself to the real world issues involved just to push your nationalistic stick into your neighbor's eye. The compromise first sentence absolutely still indicates that ancient Macedonia was in the Greek world. All you want to do is to plant your Greek flag as close to the front of the sentence as possible. You have ignored the point by obfuscation over and over and over again. If you could you would probably try to change that first sentence to "The Greek kingdoms included Macedonia" to get that word "Greek" right up front. That's absolutely all that you are arguing for--moving "Greek" as close to the front of the sentence as possible. All I am arguing for is, for a more neutral presentation, putting "Greek" later in the sentence. That's the entire issue, but you ignore it. --Taivo (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Many countries were in the 'Greek World' or Hellenistic world, including Egypt, Ephesus and Tyre, Palestine and Memphis, Babylon and Taxila but they were non-Greek and they were dependencies. The difference is that only the Macedonians were ethnically and racially Greek and Greek speakers. I didn't influence the Ashmolean Museum to title its exhibition on ancient Macedon as "Macedon: An Hellenic Kingdom in the age of Democracy" neither did I influence Barry Strauss professor of Classics at Cornell to say Macedonia was a 'Greek state', nor did I influence Historian Robin Lane Fox of Oxford University to state, "Macedon is a Greek speaking Kingdom in northern Greece" nor did I influence David Sacks 'A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World' to write that "Macedon was a crude Greek nation north east of mainland Greece". Are you now claiming that the aforementioned Ashmolean museum and respective Historians are somehow promoting a nationalistic agenda?79.166.192.152 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, if you say, Taivo, that your objection is not to the "Greekness" of ancient Macedon, why do you want to move the term 'Greek' as far back as possible? That's like saying 'Well, I don't doubt that France is in Europe, but let's move "France is a nation in Europe" as far back in the opening statement as possible, preferably in the last paragraph where no one is likely to see it". That makes absolutely no sense. The opening sentence of the article is supposed to convey in as few words as possible what the article is about, and given the importance of Macedonia in the Macedonian dispute, it is important for the article to clarify what Macedon was. Taivo's arguments in particular are starting to fall apart a bit. The current opening statement is supported by a very large number of sources. When you replaced it with your "concensus" it was supported by only two. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I feel that there is little difference between ancient Kingdom, Ancient Greek Kingdom (Basileion) or Ancient kingdom in the Periphery of the Ancient Greek world. I (regretfully) got involved in this editwar initially trying to protect the site from what I saw as a nationalism driven vandalism against a stable (2years) version of the site by one user (Taivo) later followed and backed up by two more users Luxure and Macedoniarulez. I admit that I didn’t assume good faith and I will explain why: Firstly because the user(s) who aggresively removed the qualifier and its references did not show interest in other Ancient Greek articles (eg Sparta has similar reference to Ancient Greece: Sparta was a prominent city-state in ancient Greece) 2) I found that their arguments and rhetoric were biased against Macedonian Greeks and had elements/influence from Slavic Macedonian nationalism and in particular the pseudo-irredentist concept of United_Macedonia. This concept bases its foundations on the following false arguments: 1) that inhabitants of the geographical area of Macedonia have always been a distinctive ethnic group (Macedonians) and not 100% belonging to other regional ethnic groups such as the Greeks or Bulgarians. So historic figures such as Basileus Alexander the Great and Tsar Samuel were not ethnically Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians respectively but members of the same continuous "Macedonian ethnic group" 2) The second pillar/argument of United Macedonia is that today the term Macedonian exclusively refers to the residents of the Republic of Macedonia and in particular only the 65% slavophone portion of the population. All users who started the editwars and opposed the inclusion of Ancient Greek qualifier have appeared to agree with both of the above both two arguments. Macedoniarulez on his userpage openly supports the concept and includes maps of the Republic of Macedonia that include all Macedonian regions of Greece, Albania and Bulgaria. User Luxure not only openly supports the concept but was even refactored my own edits (]) to make me sound like a concept's supporter. I did not assume good faith from Taivo either (and I have apologised for that) because he expressed the following views that are related to Macedonian Slavic Nationalism 1) Ancient Macedonians did not belong (100%) to the anc Greek ethnic group and 2) Today the term Macedonian is synonym to Slavic Macedonian. These two positions together make the United Macedonia concept that denies the existence of Macedonians (Greeks), recognises one (slavophone) Macedonian nation with minorities in Greece and Bulgaria that one day will unite with the Republic of Macedonia. Going back to our article: I believe that including the qualifier Ancient Greek is useful, certainly not harmful and that we should not worry if it might appear as pointy to supporters of the United Macedonia concept (in the past 2 years only Taivo tried to remove it). It was a Basileion type of kingdom, so I would suggest that we can even hyperlink kingdom to Basileus so that readers can better understand Ancient Macedonian monarchy. Including Ancient Greek, is inline with the format of other regions of the ancient greek world and also consistent with the overall historic narrative of wikipedia, eg there is long reference to the period of Macedonian domination in the Ancient Greece article. Removing it is similar to someone deleting holocaust articles with the excuse of neutrality and avoiding to be pointy to Holocaust deniers. But I am fine with the periphery version although it appears as suspiciously longer wording Stevepeterson (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference; the situation is far more complicated than one adjective can convey.

• The (ancient) Macedonians spoke an Indo-European language, poorly documented but closer to Ancient Greek than to any other IE language - including Slavonic.
• Nevertheless, it is further from the conventional Greek dialects than they are from each other, and is quite often not considered Greek.
• In antiquity, the Macedonians were often considered Greek, and often considered foreign/barbarian.
• Appian and Plutarch, our best sources on the wars of Alexander, routinely speak of his troops as composed of "the Macedonians" and "the Greeks" - separate bodies, with a different relationship to him. If they speak at all of "the Macedonians" and "the other Greeks", it is so rare that I do not remember it.
• When it was politically convenient, the Macedonians, or their ruling dynasty, were recognized as Greeks in various ways; the same is true of many other peoples up and down the Mediterranean.
• The claim that the ruling dynasty (only) is of Argive descent rests on a claim which goes back before historical record, and is emmeshed in fairy-tale: the youngest of three brothers accepts a cruel king's joke gift of the image of the sun, and comes back to reign in his place.
• The same recognition given to the Macedonians as Greeks was given to the Romans, when they dominated Greece; some of it to the Persians and the Jews.
• Nevertheless, Latin, Old Persian, and Hebrew are not Greek, and the Romans, Persians, and Jews were not Greek.

We should include this in its complexity, or leave it out; in neither case, should we simply call the Macedonians Greek in the first sentence.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. And the reason I never compared this article to Sparta is very simply that Sparta (with Athens and Corinth and Thebes) was in the heart of ancient Greece and was 100% Greek while Macedonia was always on the periphery. They are not comparable situations. --Taivo (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But then if we assume that Macedonians were not Greek but a separate ethnic group, then modern Greeks belong to this very Macedonian group not the Greek. Because Greek city states ceased to exist after the Macedonian§ domination and a new panHellenic national identity was introduced and followed by Alexander and Philip, and the modern Greeks speak an evolution of the koine language of the great Macedonian kingdom. Regarding ancient Macedonian language you are wrong, there is no evidence of the existence of a language belonging to any but the Greek family. Macedonia was in the periphery of the Greek world and as such it was less Greek than the core but still Greek, Macedonians evidently self identified as Greeks . Stevepeterson (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are so, so wrong. The Greek group had no ties, no ties with the Ancient Macedonians. Greece had banned the very word Macedonia until the 1980's. Greeks speak Koine Greek, not anywhere near related to the Ancient Macedonian Language. There is heaps of evidence regarding this and that the common names of some things in the 2 unrelated languages come from an unidentified language predating both the Languages, with both languages borrowing from this extinct language. I am not making this up so search it up. Greeks considered us Macedonians barbarians (Βαβαροι) and when Alexander/Philip spoke to the phalanx, which had a different layout and fighting compared to the Greek city-states, the Hellenic people in the army did not understand. I suggest you read 3rd Phillipic, and at any chance the Athenians revolted against the barbaric rule. Modern day Greeks have no right to use the name Macedonia and its derivatives. Macedonia (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Macedonia for clarifying things; I am aware of the position of you and the rest of the anti-ancient greek camp here. So according to you inhabitants of Macedonia have always been a distinctive ethnic group unrelated to Greeks, Bulgarians, Illyrians etc. Currently the only real descendants of this Macedonian ethnic group are the inhabitants of the only free and autonomous in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (which should be called simply Macedonia because they are not A Macedonian nation but THE Macedonian nation), located on the North of the Ancient Macedonian kingdom. But not all inhabitants of ROM are the real Macedonians, only 70% of the population and in particular those who speak a language closely related to Bulgarian but people are 100% unrelated to Bulgarians or other Slavs. The rest 60% of the Macedonian land outside ROM are unfree territories occupied by Greece and Bulgaria, and 3 million Macedonian people living there are ethnically unrelated to Greece and Bulgaria but minorities from Fyrom. One day the glorious ROM army will liberate these Macedonians and the lost lands and will unite the Macedonian ethnic group under the Macedonian flag with the Vergina Sun. Lets remove teh Ancient Greek qualifier so we don’t POINT to you people Stevepeterson (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Stevepeto you have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Just remember this: Macedonia never was, never is, never will be, Hellenic. Deep down you know it's true. Deep down you do.

The question of the use of the ancient Macedonian language was raised by Alexander himself during the trial of Philotas, one of his generals accused of treason. This is what Alexander has said to Philotas:

The trial of Philotas took place in Asia before a multiethnic public, which has understood Greek as it was then the lingua franca, like English is today. But Alexander spoke Macedonian with his Macedonians (the language he accuses Philotas of loathing) and used Greek in addressing the west Asians. Like Carthagenian, Illyrian, and Thracian, ancient Macedonian was not recorded in writing. However, on the bases of about a hundred glosses, Macedonian words noted and explained by Greek writers, some place names from Macedonia, and a few names of individuals, most scholars believe that ancient Macedonian was a separate Indo-European language. Evidence from phonology indicates that the ancient Macedonian language was distinct from ancient Greek.

AND

Eugene Borza the Great

"The lesson is clear: the use of the Greek language as a form of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture". ("In the Shadow of Olympus -The Emergence of Macedon", p. 94.)

AND

In the course of the second pre-Christian millennium, the ancient Greeks descended in several migratory waves from the interior of the Balkans to Greece. Some passed across the plain of Thessaly on their way south, while others went south through Epirus. More recent scholars point to Asia Minor as the original Greek homeland. There is no evidence that the ancient Greeks ever settled prehistoric Macedonia. Archeological evidence shows that ancient Macedonia lay beyond the cultural and ethnic borders of the Bronze Age Mycenaean Greek Civilization, which ends at the border of northern Thessaly (1400 - 1100 BC). The prehistoric Macedonians show a remarkable continuation of existing material culture.

Ancient Macedonia was home to many tribes. The ancient Macedonian tribes emerged from the Brygians or Phrygians. Some of the Brygians left Macedonia and migrated to Asia Minor where they changed their name to Phrygians and established a powerful Phrygian kingdom (Herodotus). When the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great will enter Phrygia centuries later, Philotas spoke of the connections between the Phrygians and the Macedonians, by calling the Macedonians "Phrygians" (Curtius).

Greek migrants settled few coastal areas of Macedonia, Thrace, and Illyria after they exhausted the possibilities of settlement in Asia Minor, Italy, France, Spain and Scythia (Ukraine and Russia). However, they did not consider Macedonia especially attractive for permanent settlement. Neither did the Macedonians welcome them as open-heartedly as did the Italians and Scythians. By the middle of the fourth century BC, the Greek settlers were expelled from Macedonia and their cities, including Aristotle's native Stragira, razed to the ground by the Macedonian king Philip II (360-336). Aristotle died in exile in Greece.

The ancient Macedonians regarded the Greeks as potentially dangerous neighbors, never as kinsmen. The Greeks stereotyped the Macedonians as "barbarians" and treated them in the same bigoted manner in which they treated all non-Greeks. Herodotus, the Father of History, relates how the Macedonian king Alexander I(498-454 BC), a Philhellene (that is "a friend of the Greeks" and logically a non-Greek), wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian. Historian Thucydidis also calls the Macedonians barbarians, and so did Thracymachus who called Archelaus a barbarian who enslaved Greeks. Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of Philip II as:

"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave."

The Macedonian "barbarian" defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC and appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". This battle had established Macedonian hegemony over Greece and this date is commonly taken as the end of Greek history and the beginning of the Macedonian era. Greece did not regain its independence until 1827 AD.

In 335 BC, Philip's son Alexander campaigned toward the Danube, to secure Macedonia's northern frontier. On rumors of his death, a revolt broke out in Greece with the support of leading Athenians. Alexander marched south covering 240 miles in two weeks. When the revolt continued he sacked Thebes, killing 6,000 people and enslaving the survivors. Only the temples and the house of the poet Pindar were spared.

Go have a cry about the truth please. It doesn't matter when a person is wrong, but when they force these incorrect ideals onto everyone else, then it becomes a problem.

I suggest you check your sources

Macedonia (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The above user, with his ultra-nationalistic user-profile showing a map of Republic of Macedonia including 40% of the Greek territory and 10% of the Bulgarian is a good demonstration of the good motives behind hiding the Hellenic identity of the Ancient Macedonia and projecting that Macedonians have always been an individual ethnic group unrelated to the modern-inhabitants of the territory of Ancient Macedonia land. Stevepeterson (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There you are, you have been defeated, go scuttle back to the rock you came from. We were, are and always will be different to the Hellenic peoples and that map including 40% of the Country of the Hellenes and 10% of the Bulgar (Tartar) country accurately depicts the borders pre-Treaty of Bucharest (1913). Have a good day my friend as I am sick of you and your childish antics. Macedonia (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for CONSENSUS

It has been exactly 3 weeks since I made the edit pertaining to the re-wording of 'Ancient Greek Kingdom' to just 'ancient kingdom'

The reason I made this edit is because there is reasonable doubt relating to the Ancient Macedonians alleged Greekness. Also, reading through the plethora of text on this page, the version of 'ancient kingdom' was reached by consensus in 2008 and sneakily changed to 'ancient Greek Kingdom' in 2012, without consulting or consensus.

Who knew that such an inconsequential edit could cause an edit/pov war for 21 days?

So let's resolve this stupid war. Here are the options I propose (I am for either version I or II, against the others):

I. The original

Ancient Kingdom

II. The recent consensus

Ancient Kingdom on the northern periphery of the Greek World

and, due to popular request

III. The biased (I)

Ancient Greek Kingdom

IV. The biased (II)

Ancient Slavic Kingdom

V. The biased (III)

Ancient non-Greek Kingdom

I would especially like to hear from these editors. Remember to cast your vote and keep reasoning sweet, short AND concise No arguing/lengthy edits and be civilised, since, after-all, Ancient Greece was the birthplace of democracy.

Taivo

Stevepeterson

Macedonia

Ronhjones

Gtrbolivar

Dr. K

Pmanderson

Future Perfect at Sunrise

I also sincerely apologise for my past behaviour.

Cheers,

Luxure (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (AEST)

• An ancient kingdom on the periphery of the Greek world. This was the compromise wording proposed by User:Elmmapleoakpine and an anon IP and implemented in the article by User:Stevepeterson. It is accurate without being WP:POINTy. --Taivo (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• An ancient kingdom, inhabited by the principal state of a people related to the ancient Greeks That is true, being questioned only by extremists, and gives the modern nationalist controversies as much as they deserve. Periphery is acceptable, but vague; it is arguable that the periphery in that direction is Scythia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  Modified for euphony. And yes, "principal state"; whether Lyncestis was part of Macedonia or not depends on the year, and the definition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for CONSENSUS which respects history, reliable sources and common sense

Obviously I am not going to comment on Luxure. Everybody who participated in this "dispute" unsterstands his role, his "historical" perception and his agenda. Unfortunately me and many other users lost our time answering to ridiculous things like (quote): "there is reasonable doubt relating to the Ancient Macedonians alleged Greekness. Also, reading through the plethora of text on this page, the version of 'ancient kingdom' was reached by consensus in 2008 and sneakily changed to 'ancient Greek Kingdom' in 2012". Besides his historical ignorance ("Ancient Greece didn't have Kings") and his vehement attempt to sneak his pseudo-historic fairy tales and POV perceptions in wikipedia, he obviously doesn't understand what WP:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources are. Admin Ronhjones clearly informed us: "I see editors are referring to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CON to put forward their arguments. The first two are most important, without them we do not have an encyclopaedia. Consensus is also important, but not at the expense of the other two."

For those who respect history, reliable sources, all the distinguished world-class historians from antiquity to today, the academic society, the greatest museums in the world, the compelling evidence, for those who respect wikipedia rules, common sense and ultimately themselves there is only one wording. There is only one option which is truly commensurate with the standards of a contemporary, reliable and independent encyclopedia which relies on evidence-based scientific historiography and not on inconcievable propaganda-driven historical myths and fairy tales:

Ancient Greek Kingdom

Yes, Ancient Greece was the birthplace of democracy. But "in a world without truth, democracy loses its very foundation".

I strongly believe that the input of these editors would be vital and crucial:

Philly boy92

Stevepeterson

Ronhjones

Chewings72

Charlesdrakew

Dr. K

AkiiraGhioni

Macedonian

Cplakidas

Cangelis

Sthenel

Gtrbolivar (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

PS 1: Taivo your supporter from FYROM is using your crusade to vandalize every article related to Ancient Macedonia, starting with Alexander the Great here: . That is the ultimate goal of your crusade: Removal of the undeniable historical truth in every article related to the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia and incorporation of every fairy tale the ridiculous FYROMIAN propaganda mechanism has created. Your collaborator has already started the work. Let's see if Misplaced Pages will be handed over to propaganda. I strongly believe that its members will not allow it.

PS 2: According to Taivo we are not allowed to write that Macedonia was an ancient Greek kingdom even if this is a well-known fact backed-up by every distinguished historian, every professor, every world-class university and museum in the world, because it will be hard and difficult for the inhabitants of a certain country to read it. Next thing will be to remove the Armenian genocide from wikipedia because the Turks deny it and the Holocaust because the prime minister of Iran, or some Neo-Nazis deny it. According to Taivo and every given Taivo it's not neutral to write that Armenians were slaughtered because (quote): It is offensive to the Turks, so you need to leave your politics at the door." If tomorrow Albanians start advocating that Napoleon was Albanian and not French, we should respect them and not provoke them by writing in wikipedia that Napoleon was French. This ridiculous argument is the core of Taivo's perception and point of view. Therefore, in wikipedia we shouldn't care about the sources, about the evidence, about the truth. We should care about creating a propaganda-driven project which buries the reliable sources, disregards the evidence and its own rules in order to create some form of ill-conceived diplomatic decorum and a safe haven for anyone who wants to impose his propaganda by distorting the truth, by removing evidence, by insulting common sense. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

References

1. – Alexander the Great: "Youths of the Pellaians and of the Macedonians and of the Hellenic Amphictiony and of the Lakedaimonians and of the Corinthians… and of all the Hellenic peoples, join your fellow-soldiers and entrust yourselves to me, so that we can move against the barbarians and liberate ourselves from the Persian bondage, for as Greeks we should not be slaves to barbarians." Pseudo-Kallisthenes, “Historia Alexandri Magni”, 1.15.1-4
   – Alexander the Great: "Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers." Historia Alexandri Magni of Pseudo-Kallisthenes, 1.37.9-13
   – Alexander the Great addressing his troops prior to the Battle of Issus: "There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay – and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it." Anabasis Alexandri by Roman historian Arrian, Book II, 7
   – Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea: "Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas (Greece) and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you." Anabasis Alexandri by Arrian; translated as Anabasis of Alexander by P. A. Brunt, for the "Loeb Edition" Book II 14, 4
   – Alexander the Great: "If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things Hellenic (Greek), to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to disseminate and shower the blessings of the Hellenic justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorious Hellenes should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Kaukasos." On the Fortune of Alexander by Plutarch, 332 a-b
   – Alexander addressing the dead Hellenes (the Athenian and Thebean Greeks) of the Battle of Chaeronea: "Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions." Historiae Alexandri Magni by Quintus Curtius Rufus
   – Alexander I of Macedon, ancestor of Alexander the Great, member of the Argead dynasty: "Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably." Herodotus, Histories, 5.20.4, Loeb
   – Alexander I of Macedon, ancestor of Alexander the Great, member of the Argead dynasty, when he was admitted to the Olympic games: "Men of Athens... In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery. I tell you, then, that Mardonius and his army cannot get omens to his liking from the sacrifices. Otherwise you would have fought long before this. Now, however, it is his purpose to pay no heed to the sacrifices, and to attack at the first glimmer of dawn, for he fears, as I surmise, that your numbers will become still greater. Therefore, I urge you to prepare, and if (as may be) Mardonius should delay and not attack, wait patiently where you are; for he has but a few days' provisions left. If, however, this war ends as you wish, then must you take thought how to save me too from slavery, who have done so desperate a deed as this for the sake of Hellas in my desire to declare to you Mardonius' intent so that the barbarians may not attack you suddenly before you yet expect them. I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian." Herodotus, Histories, 9.45 (ed. A. D. Godley)
   – Ian Worthington, English historian and archaeologist: "Not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." Ian Worthington, "Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008
   – Ulrich Wilcken: "When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south." Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", p. 22)
   – Strabo: "And Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece." Strabo. VII, Frg. 9 (Loeb, H.L. Jones)
   – Herodotus: "Now that these descendants of Perdiccas (Perdiccas I of Macedon, King of Macedonia from about 700 BCE to about 678 BCE) are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history." Herodotus, Book 5, Ch. 22, 1 (Loeb)
   – Josephus: "And when the book of Daniel was showed to Alexander the Great, where Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended; and as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present." Josephus 11.8.5
   – Arrian: "There a man appeared to them wearing a Greek cloak and dressed otherwise in the Greek fashion, and speaking Greek also. Those Macedonians who first sighted him said that they burst into teers, so strange did it seem after all these miseries to see a Greek, and to hear Greek spoken." Arrian: Anabasis Alexandri: Book VIII (Indica)
   – Titus Livius: "The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day." Titus Livius, Liber XXXI, 29, 15
   – David H. Levinson: "It should be noted that there is no connection between the Macedonians of the time of Alexander the Great who were related to other Hellenic tribes and the Macedonians of today, who are of Slavic Origin and related to the Bulgarians." Encyclopedia of World Cultures (1991), by David H. Levinson, page 239.
   – Nicholas Hammond: "Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian... The Macedonians over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member of the Greek-speaking peoples." Nicholas Hummond, Philip of Macedon, Duckworth Publishing, 1998
   – Nicholas Hammond: "All in all, the language of the Macedones was a distinct and particular form of Greek, resistant to outside influnces and conservative in pronunciation. It remained so until the fourth century when it was almost totally submerged by the flood tide of standardized Greek." Nicholas Hummond, A History of Macedonia Vol ii, 550-336 BC
   – Nicholas Hammond: “As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the Macedonians shared in the ability to initiate ideas and create political forms." Nicholas Hummond, "The Miracle that was Macedonia", 1992, p. 206
   – M. Opperman, "The Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed. (1996) - Macedonia, Cults", page 905: "Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos form part of the Greek ethnos; hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world"
   – Robin Lane Fox: 1) "Alexander was still the Greek avenger of Persian sacrilege who told his troops, it was said 'that Persepolis was the most hateful city in the world'. On the road there, he met with the families of Greeks who had deported to Persia by previous kings, and true to his slogan, he honoured them conspicuously, giving them money, five changes of clothing, farm animals, corn, a free passage home, and exemption from taxes and bureaucratic harassments." p. 256,
   2) "To his ancestors (to a Persian's ancestors) Macedonians were only known as 'yona takabara', the 'Greeks who wear shields on their heads', an allusion to their broad-brimmed hats." p. 104,
   3) "Alexander was not the first Greek to be honoured as a god for political favour." p. 131,
   4) "In spirit, Alexander made a gesture to the Lydians' sensitivities, though his Greek crusade owed them nothing as they were not Greeks." p. 128. Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, Penguin Books, UK, 1997
   – Katheryn A. Bard: "The Macedonians were originally one of several Greek tribes living on the northern frontier of the Hellenic world." Katheryn A. Bard, Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Taylor & Francis, 1999, p. 460.
   – Benjamin Ide Wheeler: "That the Macedonians were Greek by race there can be no longer any doubt. They were the northernmost fragments of the race left stranded behind the barriers." Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Alexander the Great: The Merging of East and West in Universal History, Elibron Classics, 2011
2. Zacharia 2008, Simon Hornblower, "Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods", pp. 55–58 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZacharia2008 (help); Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984, pp. 50–51 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJoint_Association_of_Classical_Teachers1984 (help); Errington 1990 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFErrington1990 (help); Fine 1983, pp. 607–608 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFine1983 (help); Hall 2000, p. 64 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHall2000 (help); Hammond 2001, p. 11 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond2001 (help); Jones 2001, p. 21 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJones2001 (help); Osborne 2004, p. 127 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOsborne2004 (help); Hammond 1989, pp. 12–13 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond1989 (help); Hammond 1993, p. 97 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond1993 (help); Starr 1991, pp. 260, 367 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStarr1991 (help); Toynbee 1981, p. 67 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFToynbee1981 (help); Worthington 2008, pp. 8, 219 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWorthington2008 (help); Chamoux 2002, p. 8 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChamoux2002 (help); Cawkwell 1978, p. 22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCawkwell1978 (help); Perlman 1973, p. 78 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPerlman1973 (help); Hamilton 1974, Chapter 2: The Macedonian Homeland, p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHamilton1974 (help); Bryant 1996, p. 306 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBryant1996 (help); O'Brien 1994, p. 25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFO'Brien1994 (help).
3. Simon Hornblower, "Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods" in Katerina Zacharia, Hellenisms, Ashgate Publishing, 2008, pp. 55–58.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Greek articles
• Top-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• High-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment