Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Template:WP1.0

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. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should this article be redirected to Ancient Macedonians? Your input is welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 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. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia neutrality? Would you suggest that "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia articles." By removing the sources and the historical evidence I provided, you are in blatant violation of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion or mine. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia isn't interested in your convictions. According to Wikipedia: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,[5] 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. Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion or mine. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia isn't interested in your convictions. According to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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

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 [WP:NPA]] 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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^-1000 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is about sources, about reliable sources about the work of people with expertise. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

References

Notes

Vandalism, unjustified removal of reliable sources, POV editing

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 (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia: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)