Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Template:WP1.0

A modest proposal

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

I therefore propose that it be moved to Macedon, which redirects here; that the name be changed to Macedon except for any possible references to the name of the Roman province in Latin; and those who wish to validate their high-school textbooks' oversimplifications do so elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable proposal. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that it would succeed in deflecting the rage of the ethnic POV warriors. As irrational as it may seem to us outsiders, the identification between the modern and the ancient ethnicity questions, and the notion that the ethnic character of the ancients is somehow a matter of life and death for today, sits deep in the collective psyche of the present-day societies, probably far too deep to be assuaged by simply seeing a variant of the title. As for normal Wikipedian considerations of naming priorities, do we have reliable data about what is predominant usage in English? I was under the impression that "Macedon" was a somewhat outdated, old-fashioned variant, but looking at some recent book titles I may well have been wrong about that. It's of course difficult to assess how many instances of "Macedonia" out there on Google Books refer to the ancient state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record: here's the discussion from the time this was last moved: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 3#Who says Macedon?. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

'Macedonia' is the predominate usage in English, versus 'Macedon'. To refer to the ancient kingdom, most use 'Ancient Macedonia' in everyday speech. Luxure (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

But it is also reasonable practice to avoid ambiguity and disambiguation. However, as I had hoped to indicate, I was not being wholly serious - unless there is no other way to end the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I just don't get what the big fuss is by keeping the wording 'ancient kingdom' versus 'ancient kingdom on the northern periphery of the ancient greek world ... rise from a small kingdom on the periphery. It's just too wordy and really just keeping the term ancient kingdom keeps ot flowing and is entirely neutral. Luxure (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The mention of Hellas is harmless and may help some uninvolved high school student identify where we are talking about. The existence of some relationship between Macedonian and Greek is controversial only for the believers in "proto-Slavs"; is there a documentation of actual Slavic south of the Danube less than 500 years after the end of the kingdom?

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

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

I think its OK as it is for the sake of "neutrality". However there are other options such as "Macedon was a Hellenic / Helladic Kingdom" or "Macedon was a Greek speaking Kingdom in the north east of mainland Greece"AkiiraGhioni (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(You really need to learn how indenting works, AkiiraGhioni.) Pmanderson, another option for that second sentence would be "located on the northwest corner of the Aegean Sea". That would avoid the unnecessary replication of "Greek". AG, there was no "Greece" at that time, only a smattering of Greek city-states. --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

User:Septentrionalis, a peninsula is defined as "a narrowing piece of land that is bordered by water on three sides but connected to mainland". So, rather than the term 'northern periphery of the Ancient Greek world' (which could be considered biased towards the nationalist Macedonian side as it inherently implies that it was not related to/in contact with Ancient Greece), I am not fussed as to whether we use 'ancient kingdom located on the north-eastern part of the Greek Peninsula', 'ancient kingdom located to the north of the Greek Peninsula' (using the strict definition of 'peninsula') or (my preferred- due to the precise geographical location and borders of the ancient kingdom) 'ancient kingdom located on the north-western corner of the Aegean Sea'. These are the 3 options I propose so as to remain neutral. The mention of Hellas is harmless and thats why I also am not fussed using the wording 'Greek Peninsula' as it is in fact widely used over Wikipedia. The only reason I do not like 'Ancient Greek' Kingdom as there is no real, hard, indisputable evidence that it was a strictly a Hellenic kingdom. In response to User:AkiiraGhioni, 'Hellenic' is another term for Greek, as evidenced here and here. Cheers, Luxure (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the Balkan Peninsula is a peninsula, narrowing from a line between Venice and Odessa; Greece is its tip. But I like the NW corner of the Aegean, as actually saying something new. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Macedonia actually means the land of Macedon or Makednos, it has geographical connotation. This is why the ancient kingdom was called Macedon, and the geographical region later Macedonia. Also if Ancient Macedonians called their kingdom Macedon and the word is still used today, then there is no reason why we should call it Macedonia, a term with dozens of uses today. Ancient Macedonia literally refers to any ancient kingdom/civilisation that existed in the land of the contemporary region of Macedonia. Eg any archeological findings in the Republic of Macedonia or the Greek Macedonia might be called Ancient Macedonia although unrelated to Macedon (eg belonging to Thacian, Paeonian kingdoms) in a similar manner that Ancient Greek/Persian findings are called Ancient Turkey today. The kingdom of Macedon extended to Himalaya and should not be limited to Macedonia, a geographical term. Stevepeterson (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Basic linguistic misunderstanding here: the English term Macedon has nothing to do with the ancient Greek forms Makedōn or Makednos, and the ancients didn't call the country "Makedōn" either. Makedōn (Μακεδών) was the adjectival ethnonym (somebody from Macedonia, a Macedonian). The modern English Macedon only happens to look similar, but it is in fact just as much a continuation of the geographical term Μακεδονία as the the form Macedonia, only through a different borrowing route (from Old French Macédoine) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think one should distinguish the difference between the Kingdom of Macedonia, and the Macedonian Empire. The Kingdom of Macedonia was the ancient nation centered in north-eastern Greece, whilst the Macedonian Empire whether(European or Asiatic)was the collection of dependent territories subject to the Kingdom of Macedonia such as Ephesus, Paeonia, Tyre, Palestine, Babylon etc etc. My proposal would be "Macedonia was a crude Hellenic nation north west of the Aegean sea". There is no use of the word Greek, and the term 'crude' has taken the edge of the use of the term Hellenic, however the use of the word 'Hellenic' is important because it defines a nation in its historical and ancient context as opposed to the modern use of 'Greek'. Certainly as far as the modern Greeks are concerned Hellenic does equal Greek, but that must not be allowed to put us in a position where we are now censoring the use of the word Hellenic as well as Greek.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(a) What on earth is "crude" supposed to mean? That's not English. (b) I don't know what kind of semantic sorcery trick you are trying to pull of with that distinction between "Hellenic" and "Greek", but it doesn't work. (c) The distinction between the core kingdom and the subject territories is off-topic in this discussion. (d) Can you please stick to the topic? This thread was started about the proposal to replace "Macedonia" with "Macedon" in the title of this article. Nothing of what you just said has anything to do with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case I agree with the proposalAkiiraGhioni (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And will you do us the favour of providing a reason for this choice or are we to be left guessing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Many scholars and Historians refer to the core ancient Hellenic Kingdom of the Argeads as 'Macedon' and this distinguishes from the term Macedonia which can refer to the extended geographic region of Roman Macedonia and Ottoman Macedonia.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.I think Shadowmorph has given the best balanced most sensible proposal yetAkiiraGhioni (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Shadowmorph, but before you keep trying to prove that I am somehow deranged, please note that I did not make this proposal. Your comments are welcome, but please don't make this personal. --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please don't put words in my mouth. Of course it is not personal at all. You did however call the proposal reasonable, that is why I reason with you and was adressing to all editors involved now that moving the article would be unwise. Eitherway, I am sorry if it sounded too personal. It is however peculiar that I see the same editors (admins?) that were around during the earlier renaming marathons that still can't settle with the given names and want to open the same can of worms. It is now many years that have passed and the only ones that seem to raise the topic of article titles among the thousands that have passed by this article since the early 00's can be narrowed down to a few individuals. That is just the truth, not personal at all. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taivo I agreed with Shadowmorph's proposal on the use of the qualifier 'Hellenistic', I think Hellenistic is innacurate - Macedon was a Hellenic Kingdom but I'm compromising here when it seems nobody else is willing to go the extra mile.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Taivo, actually I did in fact suggest moving the qualifier 'Hellenic' down to the third sentence so that the sentence would read "The rise of Macedon from a small Hellenic Kingdom at the periphery", but Luxure objected.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I also would like to add a mention to the ruling dynasties that are sometimes the most important notion for defining a kingdom (like in Han kingdoms of China) along with geography and inhabitants.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I don't understand why is there a problem with "ancient Greek kingdom" or "ancient Hellenic kingdom". If someone wishes to dispute that information then by all means do so with proof. I thought wikipedia is a site where not everybody who personally doesn't like certain facts can distort them to their liking. If the historian and academic communities agree on that then why is there a problem with having it say "ancient Hellenic kingdom"?TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you appear to be a single purpose account or a sockpuppet of another user who just wants to stir nationalistic conflict again, we can safely ignore you. --Taivo (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My question still stands no matter what you think of me, maybe my IP address can verify this to the people of wikipedia, not that it matters really if the question i posted has a point. I am a user who created a new account because i've been following this conversation for the past three months, after seeing the article change from "ancient Greek kingdom" to "ancient kingdom" almost every day. My question still stands though, why is there a problem with "ancient Greek kingdom" or "ancient Hellenic kingdom". If someone wishes to dispute that information then by all means do so with proof. I thought wikipedia is a site where not everybody who personally doesn't like certain facts can distort them to their liking. If the historian and academic communities agree on that then why is there a problem with having it say "ancient Hellenic kingdom"?TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an invalid question. The question isn't about whether or not there was Greek or Hellenistic influence in ancient Macedonia--the article goes to great lengths to describe the nature and extent of that influence. The question is simply whether to make the first sentence of the article excessively antagonistic and WP:POINTy by placing the word "Greek" at the very front of the sentence. If you've actually been reading this discussion over the last few months, which makes you a sockpuppet of a user that doesn't want to identify him or herself, then you would understand that. The very fact that you continue the I didn't hear that false argument means that your opinion is nothing more than another effort to provoke a reaction. That makes you a troll. I'm not going to interact with you any further since you obviously don't have any valid point to make. --Taivo (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You call it "influence" when all i've heard from historians is the Macedonian kingdom being Greek with a few Thracian and Illyrian influences on it's Greek dialect. I don't know who are you and what is your problem with valid questions, but this site is supposed to educate by collecting the information for any possible thing people may want to learn about. So maybe you're the troll here, if truth and generally accepted facts upset you or anybody else and provoke a reaction so what? What's the problem? Do we need to leave wikipedia to the people who don't know what they're talking about and leave them shape it in a way they find acceptable, regardless of truth? Macedonia was a Hellenic/ Greek kingdom and as such it's perfectly acceptable to have that at the very top of the article. Why is it unethical in your opinion to do so? Do you personally disagree with that and you'll be upset if this article is truthful? This isn't my personal opinion mind you, if you were a serious person you wouldn't personally attack me by calling me names such as "single purpose account", "sockpuppet" and "troll". You would address the question i asked. Up till this point the only thing you did was attack a new user because your personal view differs from the general view. Well done. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You simply don't get it. You are a single-purpose account since you have absolutely no editing history here other than this one article. That, by definition, makes you a single-purpose account. And you simply refuse to realize that the only thing you are interested in here is not the quality of the article or the information contained within it. If you actually read the article (which I doubt you have), you will see that the precise relationship between ancient Macedonia and Greece is spelled out with references. So your harping on sources is pointless since the sources are there. If you want to improve the article, then by all means do so. But spending all your time trying to weasel the word "Greek" into the front end of the first sentence is the very definition of WP:POINTy and is not appropriate Wikipedia editing or conduct. --Taivo (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

But i JUST created this account. So if by definition i am a single purpose account because i just created it then i don't get your point. Also you still stubbornly refuse to address the issue at hand here. I can link you videos with a history professor of Yale university saying that Macedonia was a Hellenic kingdom. If he was to open a discussion with you here would you still tell him that sentiment matters more in wikipedia than facts? So what if you or anybody else don't like the truth to be obvious? So what if i or anybody else want the word "Greek" or "Hellenic" to be in front of the word "kingdom". What's your problem with that sir? You still haven't explained yourself. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're still not getting the point. The point is that putting the word "Greek" right at the front of the lead is WP:POINTy and antagonistic to a segment of readers. We've moved the word "Greek" back to the end of that first sentence and it is working as a reasonable compromise. Your continued ranting about sources is irrelevant. That's simply not the point. If you have sources that are not referenced in the body of the article, then by all means, if they are relevant, add them there. All we're talking about is the first half of the first sentence and using wording that is more neutral rather than pushing your pro-Greek agenda. As long as you are using arguments that are nothing more than I didn't hear that, then you will not be taken seriously here. Indeed, without an editing history on Wikipedia other than trying to push your nationalistic POV right here as a single purpose account, your opinion is really not going to be taken seriously. --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Another thing, when whatever you say is going to be considered as "antagonistic" to a certain group of people then it's better to stick to the truth. In this case it seems it favors the people who want it to be "ancient Greek/Hellenic kingdom". Except if you're biased and a certain group of people feeling antagonized concerns you more than another, like in this case. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The truth is this: ancient Macedonia was a kingdom, ancient Macedonia was on the periphery of the Greek world. What is false about either of those claims? Nothing whatsoever. Your bulloney about "truth" ignores the simple fact that your "truth" is pushing your personal POV to place "Greek" as far forward in the first sentence as possible in order to antagonize other readers. You're using wordplay to make ridiculous claims about a moral high ground that you do not occupy. Neutrality is the foundation of Wikipedia, and the most neutral wording is to put "Greek" at the end of the first sentence, not at the beginning. --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually the kingdom was only on the periphery of the Classical Greek world and the affairs of the known Poleis up until Phillip II. After Alexander it was the very definition a Greek state and its dominion was Hellenistic Greece. So that sentence about periphery is half the truth. The sentence "ancient Macedonia was on the periphery of the Greek world" does not cover all bases, and is misleading. Since you mind about Pointy words, I'd say that putting "periphery of Ancient Greece" so upfront in the first sentence is Pointy too. Also, it didn't use to be there but later on where it still stands. Its latest addition to the first sentence now makes for a repetition of the words "ancient" and "periphery".

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

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

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

Shadowmorph thank you for understanding me, I'm a new user who has been following the frequent changes in this particular page for months and i came to realize that some people don't like to call the kingdom Greek. Maybe it should be called "Dorian Greek kingdom" because the Macedonians were a small part of the Dorian tribe which stayed on the northern part of the Greek peninsula after the descent of the Dorians. As for Taivo I'm not trying to convince him, he has made it obvious to me that he has a problem with the wording "Greek kingdom" because this upsets a certain number of readers and his heart goes out to those people. But at the same time he disregards the fact that having it say "kingdom on the northern periphery of the ancient Greek world" means it was adjacent to it but didn't belong to it, and this is also antagonistic to another number of readers, particularly those who are of Greek descent and/or those who care about truth. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminders, Shadowmorph. You are quite right that the previous consensus form of this sentence was "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" without any mention of the "Greek world" at all. "Greek"-pushers then arrived and the current wording is the most recent compromise wording. I agree that there is some repetition, but we need to work on ironing that out carefully so as not to upset the apple cart. AnonymousCoward, you are wrong about the meaning of "periphery". Periphery does not mean outside, it means on the edge. We carefully chose that word for the compromise because it can be read with ambiguity as to whether the entity is inside the circle or outside the circle. A periphery is a gray area. We chose that word on purpose. Your continued push to ignore our readers and to use the word "truth" as if you are the sole possessor of it, is rather un-editor-like. I will take Shadowmorph's advice to grant you more of an assumption of good faith, but your continued use of the word "truth" in this fashion stretches my patience in that regard. The sentence "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of the ancient Greek world" is absolutely true. --Taivo (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't know how it can be complex, apparently wikipedia has fallen prey to the will of the most influential person in here, facts no longer seem to matter and the way this article is edited is to make it as obscure as possible to understand that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom. As i said other articles don't have that issue, Epirus is described as an "ancient Greek state" because most if not all historians agree on it. Here although most if not all historians agree on the fact that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom we have problems regarding the feelings of certain readers that might feel "antagonized" by the generally accepted truth. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Most historians quoted in Greek high school textbooks may; but Epirus was not Greek in antiquity. (I do not mean to deny that Epidamnus was a Greek city; but it was a colony among barbarians. That's why its strategic situation in 431 was so difficult.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the Macedonian kingdoms talk page but if you're saying that Epidamnus was in Epirus you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidamnos#mediaviewer/File:Map_of_ancient_Epirus_and_environs.png

As you can see here Epidamnus was north of Epirus and was indeed a city among barbarian tribes. The black letters represent the Greek peoples. You've created an account on wikipedia, i suggest you read its articles too before commenting on such matters. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I prefer, on the whole, to trust Grote and Mommsen and Finley than Wikipedia and its editors. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)\

Wikipedia and its editors base the articles on references and research done by those specialized in the subject at hand. Now that the subject is history they are basing articles such as the one about Epirus and Macedonia on historians, archaeologists and professors. Where you put your trust is your own prerogative, though where wikipedia puts its trust is the thing that matters. Personal preferences aren't gonna taken into consideration at the expense of truth. And if you think wikipedia and its references aren't a reliable source, present the reasons why your personal preferred references are much more reliable than the existing ones. Otherwise what you claimed is void of meaning.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

language

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

"FYROM"

This reference has no place in this article for two reasons: 1) WP:MOSMAC prohibits the use of "FYROM" (or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") in reference to the Republic of Macedonia; 2) modern Macedonia has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. You shouldn't even have bothered to open a section on this talkpage. This kind of POV should be reverted on sight. Perhaps the account which adds this should be given a DS warning if they continue, in addition to any other warnings. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, DrK. Yes I know that this is pointless, but in case the editor in question continues vandalizing the page, I've fulfilled the requirements of WP:3RR reporting and notification. --Taivo (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thorough as always. :) Best regards Taivo. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence in lead

• The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the fringe of typical Greek city states affairs at a time even fully subordinate to Achaemenid Persia, to one which came to control the fate of the entire Hellenic world and the eventual latter's overthrow, occurred under the reign of Philip II.

This is utterly unintelligible. What does "at the fringe of typical Greek city states affairs" mean? Do affairs have a fringe? How can time be subordinate to Achaemenid Persia, never mind "even fully subordinate to Achaemenid Persia"? And what in the name of all that's holy is an "eventual latter"? Can somebody familiar with the subject translate it into English? Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that to me. I think I now understand it sufficiently to edit the sentence for clarity. On looking at the revision history I found that the sentence evolved over a period of time by successive edits and additions, which is how it became so unwieldy. Hopefully my edits have made it readable without introducing inaccuracies.

By the way, if you found my criticism overly aggressive, I apologise. I'm like that sometimes; I don't think about the authors when discussing the text. Scolaire (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never made any comment that would even remotely appear to endorse such an edit [1], so would the individual responsible kindly enlighten us as to how this is "per Athenean's comment". It is moreover a bit weird and incongruous to mention that a kingdom is located "modern-day Greece outside the area controlled by Sparta and Corinth", since we are referring to ancient city states. "located in ancient Greece outside the area controlled by Athens, Sparta, etc..", now that would make sense. Athenean (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How is "Ancient Greek Kingdom" different from "kingdom located in Greece"? Really?? Do you really need me to explain this to you? I also never made made any comment endorsing the "modern-day Greece" nonsense you added, so I really fail to see how this is [2] "per Athenean comment". Athenean (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So what you're trying to say it was located in Greece but was not Greek? Luxure Σ 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Because if it wasn't Greek then why would it be located in it? Oh yeah, so don't reply but as soon as I revert you will cry me a river. Luxure Σ 05:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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