Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Template:WP1.0

Terminilogy

There are modern expressions which are often used and do not correspond to the expressions used at the ancient times. Therefore this article need a paragraph that would offer en explication as follows: The readers should be aware that in Wikipedia articles related to the Ancient Macedonia, the expressions “Greece” or “Greeks”, which were nonexistent terms at that time, besides signifying “Hellas” or “Hellens”, during the periods of Hellenism often in facts refer to “Macedonia” or “Macedonians” or even to the diadochi kingdoms. The readers should attentively observe the context to determine which intended meaning corresponds to the term that is used. This would facilitate reading and would of course be more close to the state of affairs at that particular moment of the ancient history.Draganparis (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which terms "were nonexistent terms at that time". What matters is which terms are used by mainstream experts today. Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to start working on a proposal. If it's neutral and adequately referenced, we can start discussing where to put it.--Ptolion (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"feel free to start working on a proposal"??? Thanks for the support. This has been a proposition already, I have little to add. For example. When we talk of Hellenistic kingdoms (term non existent at the time) we should explain that we talk about diadochi kingdoms, almost exclusively Macedonian ruled kingdoms after Alexander III. When we talk of Alexander’s Asian Empire, we must say that this was exclusively Macedonians ruled empire. When we talk about Ptolemaic Egypt, we must say that this was Macedonian dynasty, and that Egypt was not simply overwhelmed by the “Greek culture” but that it was a cultural and intellectual centre of the world dominated and driven by the Hellenistic culture.

The expression “Greek” is used only to help the modern reader to locate geographically the events, but the political structures (like kingdoms and states) are called their names as they were called in the ancient times. Again, an example. When we say that Alexander III was a Greek king (like in the article about Alexander III) we must accept that this to say is false and instead it must be simply said that he was a Macedonian king and that the dynasty claimed Hellenic origins. Etc.

A Polis and kingdom in the ancient Greece (to say here "Greece" is correct) had its political connotations which put it over and above ethnic character of its citizens and we can not now impose on all of these political structures "Greek" ethnic character. This is simply mistake of category confusion which normal editor of Wikipedia simply do not recognize (people with whom I quarreled earlier and who even blocked me for a week!). Equally today we do not talk about Germany, Austria and Switzerland as "German" states, do we? Or number of English speaking states as "English" or "British" states! This would be ridiculous. So, this what I suggested must be done all over the places to give the texts more realistic and normal tone. Otherwise people suspect, as I do, that there is invisible hand of pan-Hellenic nationalism involved here. And this is just bad for Wikipedia.

And now, please , do not just exclaim "misplaced comment" to justify censoring the comment and erasing it (to remove the evidence - as I thought that people's intention was - but if you think that it is misplaced, please help put it on the proper place. This would be a sign that my earlier accusations could have been wrong. Draganparis (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My god, not again. WP:DNFTT people, please. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course the term "Hellenistic kingdoms" was non-existent at the time. The English language itself, in which this article is written, was yet to begin its separate existence. It exists now in a sophisticated form, and we use English-language terms here (as Ptolion says) simply as they are used by leading historians of the period. There need be no uncertainty in the meaning of 'Alexander's Asian empire', 'Ptolemaic Egypt' and so forth. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

O yes: there is slow extinction of the expression"Macedonian". Leading historians use the expression "Macedonia" together with the "Greek" and with necessary explanatory expressions, as I suggested. But if the majority here is happy with removing the expression "Macedonia", I will understand.Draganparis (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This page seams to be strongly influenced by the Greek propaganda. Why Wikipedia permits this? I was following what has been happening for couple of weeks and must say that there is a kind of racist turn on the pages on Macedonia. Look just the pseudonyms of the editors. All are obviously Greeks. This is just propaganda pages.Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take care not to insult the great number of editors contributing to this artlcle and take notice of the many discussions and references that made up the article.Megistias (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please no politics, no insults, no false accusations. Please just history. Otherwise I will withdraw the subject that I started.Draganparis (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no "pan-Hellenic" propaganda on this or any other pages. We are just using the conventional terminology used by international experts. As I have told you many times before Dragan, it is not our place to correct the sources just because we believe that they are wrong (with cheap arguments about "Swiss German Queens of England" etc). As long as the sources say Greek (or Hellenic, or Hellenistic etc), so should Wikipedia.--Ptolion (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

While there are a great number of Greek editors here, there are also many non-Greek editors as well--those who actively contribute and those, like myself, who just "watch". Ptolion is correct in one aspect--we often must use the wording used by the historians writing the topic. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or for changing the standard English terminology used by historians. We can be careful in the way that it is used and there have been plenty of "terminology debates" on this and other Macedonian-related pages so that the wording used is as neutral as possible. You have to struggle with ancient Macedon, however, because Alexander himself became less and less "Macedonian" the further east he got. His generals found it harder and harder to recognize their king as he first Hellenized and then Persianized himself. But the terminology used by historians (for centuries really) is a guide to that era--it is the Hellenistic period of history, not the "Macedonian period" and the process of spreading Greek culture and language throughout the ancient Near East was not "Macedonianization", but Hellenization. Those are the common English terms used. That is the guide for Wikipedia--and you can see it reflected at Republic of Macedonia where the article is not named "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is basically what the Greek editors wanted. There, the common English usage is overwhelmingly "Macedonia". Here the common English usage is "Hellenization" and "Hellenic" for Alexander's influence on the Near East. Those are the facts outside Wikipedia. We live with them. (Taivo (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

The END. Thanks for kind answer. (Or this is just another dissimulation of a fair discussion before blocking the opposite opinion?) Yes, if I would continue the discussion YOU will call for “block” of “pipeti-ripeti” or whatsoever accusations. This all is just fine game of history and politics. You blocked me but you tolerate one obviously disturbed personality to develop long gibberish arguments without a single reference; and you gave up on “Greek king” argument! Now you say my Austrian queen of France (Antoinette for example) would be a cheep argument! I wrote a textbook on argumentation and you dismiss here an obvious counterexample. We do not call Monaco France but should call Macedonia Greece!!! All Slavs speak similar languages, certainly more similar then Greek and the Ancient Macedonian were, but we do not call them all Russians or all just Serbs!!! If we did, this would be on the account of blood relations and would be pure racism. The cultures are different, you might say. But culture does not make up political history. The European culture is quite homogeneous, but politically Dutch are not German, although blood connections must be quite strong too. Pursuing cultural history, as I already said at some other place, leads to the movements like Nazism or pan-Slavism, leads to ignoring political entities and finally to nationalistic or racist outburst. You call for non-Greek or non-Macedonian opinion and when you have one (me) you remove my text and block me! And sway under 3 notorious Greek nationalist (ah, just let me not mention their pseudos, they will jump on me and ask for a block again). I just do not know how can you maintain that the “modern historians” call all of this just Greece and you went through all these disputes almost without a single citation. Neither Hammond, nor Walbank or Borza, nor Lane Fox, nor Heckel, Bosworth, even Zarnth, who is quite close to do this, would identify Macedonians with Greeks. Where this affirmation comes from, the affirmation that the expression “Greek” may be used for Macedonians? Where from?

But please do not answer. It has been enough. I do not care any more. We have here a proof that history articles of Wikipedia are far from being ready to become a reliable source of information. (In addition, that Athens had over 1 million of inhabitants and similar things are to find here on Wikipedia. Quite extraordinary ignorance, my friend.) And you are responsible for this too, indirectly. Yes, Wiki is handy, but politically poisoned to its bones. Thanks for “listening”, anyway. You can erase it all and block me for 200 years now. I finished. For me the chapter on "Terminology" is closed. Cheers.Draganparis (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, of course, in its present form Wikipedia could not become a reliable source. But I do not agree that "European culture is quite homogeneous". Moonraker2 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

History should not be manipulated and the term “Macedonia” must be used as first choice. Draganparis is right. The name of Macedonia can not be replaced by Greece, this is just wrong. Yes, then it could be explained that this makes part of Greece today, or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdikka I (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I reread the article yesterday and was impressed at how rarely Macedonia is called "Greek" or "Greece" at all. Your arguments are totally misplaced. I remember participating in long discussions with other editors about how to word the initial paragraph, for example, in order to remove overtly Greek connotations. If you think that this article excessively calls Macedonia "Greece" and Macedonians "Greeks", then you are absolutely mistaken. Reread the article. There's is not an overuse of "Greek" or "Greece" here. (Taivo (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Can somebody please give a source for this sentence (not implying Macedonian dynasty) which states that macedonians are Greeks: Before the establishment of the League of Corinth, even though the Macedonians apparently spoke a dialect of the Greek language and claimed proudly that they were Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdikka I (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on the Ancient Kingdom. On the Ancient Macedonians there is another article.Megistias (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, may be, but I see this differently. Counting is not a proofe that this is not the case. If you just once would say that Macedonians WERE GREEKS (!!?), this is enough. Today you can say that they are Greeks, have Greek passports (some have Bulgarian or "Macedonian Republic" passports). But this to say is quite racist because we speak then about blood!!! If we speak about lands, countries, then there is Greek Macedonia (North of Greece) and the Republic of Macedonia. Blood is not an objective or we are racist then if this would be the point. But in the old ages, they were the other country, and this is OK. Somebody wrote on these pages that Macedonian kings claimed their Greek origins, and if this is true then this is OK. Why should then Macedonians be Greeks? Also they are not "Greek kings". Today, I think Greek king has to do something with English kings, and Spanish queen is she also Greek Queen??? Nobody says this, but she is born in Greece I think. So Alexander is not "a Greek king" but simply just Macedonian king. But this is another text on Wikipedia. In this text is said that Macedonians said that they are Greeks!This I do not believe. So if nobody can give a reference for the affirmation: "...Macedonians ... claimed proudly that they were Greeks" (did they really claimed proudly that they were Greeks???) then this sentence states something that is not supported by the evidence. Therefore we should take away this sentence. Please erase the affirmation that: "...Macedonians.... claimed proudly that they were Greeks".Perdikka I (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been discussed and referenced extensively. You personal opinions do not matter. Megistias (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perdikka and Dragan have both claimed that the ancient Macedonians' origin here is being defined through blood and is therefore "racist". It's always amusing seeing Godwin's law in practice. As I've said above, we use the terminology used in mainstream literature, even if you don't like it and even if you think it's wrong - period.--Ptolion (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with this page for months and I fail to see the overuse of "Greece" or "Greek" in this article at all. In fact, over the last year, the "Greek" presence has actually been reduced. (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Taivo man, pls get this Dragan dude permabanned already, it's obvious (from posting style) he's using more and more sockpuppets every passing day... Simanos (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, sorry. While annoying and time-wasting, I'm not entirely certain that Dragan has actually violated any policy yet. There are admins who watch this page, though, so when the line is crossed, I'm sure they'll take some action. (Taivo (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

I presume we should respect the facts as such...I can't remember any ancient source mentioning "...Macedonians.... claimed proudly that they were Greeks".If some of our Greek friends claim firmly so against the scientific evidence let it be...But still, that is Wikipedia -remove the fairytales 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)(User:Pirinec) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirinec (talk • contribs)

You are probably right. But I think that we should leave modern Greece in peace. We stand all on the shoulders of Greek culture and science and we should respect this and be permissive if Greekness of all of us, who may be not feel Greeks, would be slightly overstated now and then. I stated this elsewhere also and think that it is necessary to restate it here too. But the problems of possible Greek propaganda, which violates WP:NPOV, and which is NOT in favour of that Greek cultural tradition, should be avoided here. I have two issues which are of extreme relevance to this page and should be discussed here. Both concern WP:SOURCES but in slightly different way. These are point 1 and 2 below. These are relevant here because the editors involved on this page, majority of them in fact, just violate number of issues, and this could be corrected at least in part by them alone.

The problem with this article and the discussion pages is that

1. Propaganda material is acknowledged valid to be used here (violation of WP:SOURCES) and

2. It is accepted by the administrator that one editor could impose the rules which are against the rules of Wikipedia, against WP:NPOV and against number of citation rules (WP:SOURCES).

Let me explain these points.

1. This point concerns the propaganda material from the Greek nationalistic site that has been dumped by "The Cat and the Owl" 14:58, 21 November 2009. It was taken from: http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/10/08/historians-greek-ethnicity-ancient-macedonians/ (accessed today) In spite of the violation of WP:SOURCES, it has been later cited and accepted as valid sources without any verification and validation.

2. And, as I mentioned, a view has been expressed that we do not need to give proves, or cite some references or sources, since this “would bring us nowhere” since we know it all - such a view being against the rules of Wikipedia. Again, this position openly violating WP:SOURCES, introducing complete arbitrariness. Here is what was written:

I would advise against making this a reference game. The internet is filled with references of individual scholars, would be scholars etc and would bring us nowhere, since there may be tens of thousands of references as to the Greekness of the Macedonians but the few hundreds at to the opposite would look many in a forum. If we are to seriously debate on this issue, we are supposed to be accustomed with much of the bibliography and the evidence. Those who are not should first research and then suggest an opinion anyways. On my part I would prefer arguments to references. GK1973 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2009.

The editor above refers in the first part of the comment to the damped material mentioned in my point 1. Yes, I agree with GK1973, just dumping long lists of “proofs” does not prove anything. The reference quality must be estimated and measured against counter evidence (see WP:SOURCES). Indeed, there are other rules to respect, like the obligation to have seen the cited reference: the source where the reference has been originally cited must be given. Editors here would say that “copy-paste” is not permitted. But again: the information must be sourced; this is the most important aspect of Wikipedia.

Yet the advice in the second part of the comment of GK1973 is erroneous and extremely important: an advice is given which contains the fallacy of giving unreferenced point of view, custom which Wikipedia does not support. No wonder then that it has been already so often the case on these pages to violate the WP:SOURCES and almost never give references – except for above mentioned propaganda material (just examine the text above, please). All what we have then is just point of view after point of view! I am not saying that this is done with bad intentions. However, we cannot expect good article under these conditions. I plead again to the administrators to look into these pages and to try to respect the rule WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.Draganparis (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The ancient Greek character of the Kingdom has to be emphasized further, as since the people were Greeks or Hellenized very early, the Kingdom itself was Greek par excellence.Megistias (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources in this article are reliable and have been verified and discussed, just because you found some listed in an external site, and you dont like them, means nothing. This article as well as Ancient_Macedonians have been discussed over 3 years, archives on the kingdom are in the top of the page. Megistias (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

O, no, I must apologise for not being clear enough. My affective relation towards these references is just opposite to what my text perheps did not state clearly: I like them very much. The cited works are of great value. I object only on formal ground to the use of references which the author did not consult by himself. The author in question is obliged to give the source where these references came from. This then helps estimate reliability of the references. The editor GK1973 also objected to these references, but in my opinion, on false grounds. I explained this above. Sorry for misunderstanding. Thanks for the suggestion to consult the archives on Wikipedia. Yes, some of these or other references that could be found on other similar sites (see below) are unfortunately given again, and again exactly in the same way, all words absolutely the same, so obvious copy-paste technique was used, and again without citing the source. The sites most often used are:

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2006/12/31/modern-historians-about-macedonia-george-cawkwell/

and:

http://www.macedonia.info/FAQ.htm

Thanks for responding so fast. This is promising.Draganparis (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a short comment, dear Megistias, I missed to pay attention to your kind first response. To the claim that the people were Greek, I could only say I wish they were. However, the linguists seam to reject that the language was related to Greek more then to the other non Greek languages and classify it as “unaffiliated”, between Phrygian, Thracian, Illyrian, Venetic, Messapic and Lusitanian. (B. W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture, An Introduction, Second edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, p. 10 and 464.). The ground for that conclusion is that, unlike any other Greek dialect, macedonian sound change included that the vocal aspirates lost their aspiration and became voiced stops. Apparently this is enough to draw such important conclusions. The people of course become Greek, but after Alexander III. Whether they were Greek beforehand...? We must be prudent and wait to see what the modern history will tell us.Draganparis (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish to add something to the above disscusion between Draganparis and Megistias.

1. Dear Draganparis, You said "The people of course become Greek, but after Alexander III.".

How is it possible for someone or even for a nation to change its nationality for some years?! Did they receive blood (greek) transfusion?

To your opinion, the Macedonians did, but the greeks, turko-bulgars, slavo-bulgars, serbs did not changed their nationality during the 600 turkish empire?!!! This is ridicoulous! Please read the insription IG (Inscriptiones Greacae, V 2, 550 l. 8) where Ptolemaios I, son of Lagos (and not only he) claimed prodly that they he was Macedonian.

2. Dear Megistias, proud and wise descendant of Sokrates! (If Sokrates would read your none-sense he would negate his hellenic origin!!)

You have said, that: "The ancient Greek character of the Kingdom has to be emphasized further, as since the people were Greeks or Hellenized very early, the Kingdom itself was Greek par excellence"

Please, decide now, were they greeks or were they hellenized? Or is it difficult for you, because you are not sure or there is may be no evidence for it? And please, read more carefully the text of Draganparis exspecially regarding the quality of the references!Maxkrueger1 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, my intention has been to sharpen the criteria for argument development by asking for more consistency, for the respect of some fundamental rules of Wikipedia and to stimulate the editors to really read the arguments of the others and give precise comments and explanations. Dear “Megistias” I do not want to elaborate here on the Greekness of the Macedonians again. I made two clear points, and this has been my intention. My discussion on this point finishes there. Citing quality sources is essential and this is simply not done in particular on this talk page; disproving an argument is also essential - not just saying “this is known”. Please always give citations when affirming something, give quality citations and avoid propaganda sites, or admit of using these sites and permit critical evaluation of your citations and your argument. To “Maxkrueger1”: if you want we can discuses the concept of nation at some other place. Please go to the Google or Wikipedia “nation” (or read some works of Hobsbawn or Ernest Gellner) to see that the concept of nation is ambiguous and most of all politically and not racially determined.Draganparis (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The map of the ancient Macedonia is not correct. The northern borders of ancient Macedonia were much nothern, up to Skopje, and this twisting of history (showing Macedonia only in parts that are administrered by greeks since 1912) without realistic facts is not a way to teach future generations. Paonia was part of ancient Macedonia, the same as other parts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.217.26 (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Greek Peninsula?

I have a doubt about the term "Greek Peninsula". The link in the article redirects to the "Mainland" section of the article "Geography of Greece". In this section we can clearly see a map with borders, which is defining the current Greek mainland territory which is apparently the same as "Greek Peninsula" (according to the implicit meaning of the link).(?)
To illustrate my doubt let me place a couple of questions relative to the use of "peninsula" to describe the Greek mainland territory:
1. Are all the sides but one surrounded by water?
2. Where is the isthmus?
Could someone please clarify the usage of the term peninsula and explain what is exactly the "Greek Peninsula"?
Thanks,Ilidio Martins (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First, a peninsula does not require an isthmus. A peninsula is a prominent projection of land with water on three sides. The "Greek peninsula" is the lowermost part of the Balkan peninsula and consists of that part of Greece south of a line that roughly extends from Thessalonika west to the Adriatic. The capital and heart of ancient Macedonia lies just barely within the northeast corner of this area. The wording of this in the article was the result of long, hard debate, compromise and consensus-building so you venture into the waters of contention at your own peril. --Taivo (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time, either. This is the third year running this fellow appears around this time of year to make the same exact point. It's like a natural phenomenon at this point, like perihelion or something. I've come to expect it around the end of May every year. Athenean (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The ground in the mountains has unfrozen from the winter and the trolls emerge from their hibernation? (Taivo (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Apparently some species are migratory. As winter ends, they begin to migrate northward to their summer grounds, briefly swooping by Macedonia on the way. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the mokery that is not constructive and not according to the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and rational thought, I think that if the Greek peninsula is an accurate term then it should be part of "list of peninsulas" in Wikipedia. There should also exist a Wikipedia article of geographical/geological nature describing the "Greek peninsula" and the current article should link to it. I will post a message on the List of peninsulas wiki.
Thanks.Ilidio Martins (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But, in any case, whatever comes of the discussion at peninsulas, it will not affect this article. The wording here is the result of long, hard discussions, compromise, and consensus building. It's not going to change just because you get a bee in your bonnet. But looking at your user contributions, it's plain to see that Athenean is right. You emerge once a year at the end of May to rock the boat here and then disappear. (Taivo (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

What is plain to see is why my contributions are erratic and, in general, why not more people contribute to the Wikipedia project (and I am mean this at many different levels). The reason is that new content contributors are faced with this hostility that has no excuse under the Wikipedia umbrella. New users should be guided and incentivized but what happens is exactly the opposite.
See from this example where an inexperienced contributor (myself) receives unjustified hostility every time a contribution is made. In this particular instance, I even gave Taivo the benefit of the doubt and readjusted my goals to simply change the linking pattern on the pages (no text changes proposed at this moment - assuming Taivo is right).
If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of compromises and not of accurate facts then has no more historical or reference value than a collective opinion article or poll. As a precautionary example, the current political and historical experiment that Slate.com is developing in collaboration with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (http://www.slate.com/id/2254054/) illustrates how dangerous collective memory and opinion can be.
What my experience is telling me is that only some are now "responsible" for the content of these pages. That is not only a betrayal of the Wikipedia spirit but also a very dangerous state of affairs, in a path from educated democracy to dogmatic oligarchy.Ilidio Martins (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
From a simple utilitarian perspective, why not just satisfy my encyclopedic needs using Britannica? I end up giving more money to Wikipedia than I would pay for Britannica anyway. I would have the assurance of professional and unbiased articles and if by any chance they have errors I certainly receive more professional feedback. Why waste my time on Wikipedia when the project is degenerating from what it promised to be?Ilidio Martins (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think that Slate article is relevant to Wikipedia, then it's clear you have no understanding of the way Wikipedia works. --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And if what you want is content that you can use in writing a term paper, you should be using Britannica instead of Wikipedia. Any student of mine that cites Wikipedia as a source gets marked down. Wikipedia is here for broad background, not for detailed research. It's here for when you want to know what a Western Tanager is because one just flew into your back yard. It's not here to give you something you can quote in a research document. Wikipedia doesn't replace Britannica, it just saves the expense of Britannica for those who want to look up a thing or two. --Taivo (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you have a very biased and hostile analysis of my comments. Remember I mentioned Dr. Elizabeth Loftus? Why don't you look her up on PubMed? Check her books too. Slant.com is just a gateway to a target public. You are clearly blinded by your own prejudice!
Relative to what is Wikipedia, nothing like an "auto-referential article" to clarify any doubts... are you sure that you know what are you talking about? Maybe you should check what Britannica says about Wikipedia so that you can use it as a reference in your next post?
What is the point of an unreliable and irresponsible content source in this era? Clearly, most of the Wikipedia articles have bigger and wider objectives than just "broad background"!?
On the other hand, it is really good to know that an experienced Wikipedia contributor has such a negative stance towards Wikipedia content. It really explains a lot... Thanks!Ilidio Martins (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my last comment. I've fed the troll enough. Since you only show up once a year to bitch about "Greek peninsula", I can easily assume that you don't know what you're talking about. (Taivo (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

albanian etymology of the name macedonia

The most reasonable and logical explanation regarding the etymology of the name of the Ancient Macedonia is found in the language of Illyrians and Epirotes, who were the ethnic inhabitants of Ancient Macedonia. The very name of Macedonia, formerly known as ‘Emathia,’ derives in all probability from the Albanian word “E Madhia”, meaning “The Greatest”.(Larned et al 1922) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.223.56 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that the most reasonable and logical explanation? Sounds like a fringe theory to me. Simanos (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. These kinds of folk etymologies shouldn't be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you imposing your personal “opinion” here …! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.133 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

She then went to her house, the daughter of Zeus, Aphrodite, [225] but Hera darted down and left the peak of Olympus; on Pieria she stepped and lovely "EMATHIA", and sped over the snowy mountains of the Thracian horsemen, even over their topmost peaks, nor grazed she the ground with her feet; and from Athos she stepped upon the billowy sea, [230] and so came to Lemnos, the city of godlike Thoas.Homer Iliad Book 14 line 193[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.133 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And? Yes, there was a region called Emathia (just like the Greeks have been called, Danaans, Achaean, Argives, Greeks, Romoioi, Yunan, Yavana, etc). That bit of Homer you quote does not support your "E Madhia" theory. Simanos (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I prefer the theory of 'Ma Sedonia' which is a combination of ancient anglo-saxon and hellenised Latin meaning 'My sheets'. Though both I and User:95.107.223.56, could be completely off-side on this one... Politis (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe nice one :p Simanos (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but other variant also the greek one does not suit that is why ..becuase Emathia (greatness in Albanian ) was example of bravery of its people..

The Macedonian kingdom was created as a result of uniffication of illyrian & thracian tribes into an central kingdom, wich began hardly to conquest other tribes and their lands. If we looked at Ptolemey description about Macedonian territorial situation, we will see that Macedonia covering into illyrian tribes. According to him, into Macedonia covering these tribe: Taulants, Elimiots, Orestidians, Albanians, Eordians, Paionians, Dasaretians, Lyncestian. For more detail see 'PTOLEMAEI, GEOGRAPHIA, BOOK III, The Place when situated Macedonia'.

'Once a time Macedonia was called Emathia, according to name of Emathi, wich was first example of bravery in these place" (M.JUNIANI JUSTINI< EPITOMA HISTORIACUM PHILIPPICARUM POMPEI TROGI, Book VII, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.219.188 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my IP hopping friend but your English is too poor and your sentences are somewhat unintelligible. Your interpretation of ancient texts is also quite poor. Simanos (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand...! Even your name Simanos has less identity then my IP , my friend..

What? That doesn't make sense either. Anyway I'm not about to be dragged into a long talk with you and your fringe theories. Simanos (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What is exactly that you do not understand ...?! The relation of word Emathia ( meaning great in Albania) with territory expansion and bravery of its people ..It is so simple ...! What is the meaning of word Emathia in other version ..ancient “Greek” for instance, I wonder? Thanks for your comments anyway..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.252 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What I said was that your English was too poor. Do you doubt that? As for the etymology of Emathia read that article for it (Sandy terrain or something). This is the Macedonia article anyway Simanos (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No i doubt you and the name "sandy" for ancient macedonia..Cheers ..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.214.87 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Concensus among historians that Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe

^ Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek State, Methuen, (July 2000); Malcolm Errington, A History of Macedonia, University of California Press, February 1993; John V.A. Fine, The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History, Harvard University Press, 1983; Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1998; N G L Hammond, A History of Greece to 323 BC, Cambridge University, 1986; Archer Jones, The Art of War in Western World (University of Illinois Press, 2000); Robin Osborne, Greek History, Routledge, 2004; Jacques Pirenne, The Tides of History Vol. 1, E. P. Dutton, 1962; Michael M. Sage, Warfare in Ancient Greece, Routledge; Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, Oxford University Press, 1991; Hilding Thylander, Den Grekiska världen, (Svenska humanistiska förbundet, 1985); Arnold J. Toynbee, The Greeks and Their Heritages, Oxford University Press, 1981.

Before some editor says the protecting lines 'this has been done to death..' If there is a Concensus ie most historians call Ancient Macedon a Greek state with Greek origins as even the Ancient Macedonians article states clearly, why do we follow any other agenda on Wiki? The new country macedonia is allowed to be called such on wiki according to certain editors..because most people call the country Macedonia. So if most historians agree Ancient Macedon was greek in origin and culture, why does this article call it an ancient kingdom strongly omitting the word 'Greek'? Is it because a few historians are not sure and there are more pro Republic of Macedonia editors than neurtal or Greek? Reaper7 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

it should be called ancient Greek kingdom. Just as the article on Alexander the Great calls him an Ancient 'Greek' King.... The sickness of modern day slavs living in their so called 'republic of macedonia' that is trying to erase history and trying to convince people that 2500 years of history is wrong is spreading onto wikipedia and completely perverting history. I hope reason and logic will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.149.42 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We do too. However wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such it tries to maintain a neutral point of view. A Macedonian (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a point of view that Ancient macedonians are greek, it is a Fact. Reaper7 posted many sources above. Not to mention, that without stating that this article is about the ancient greek macedonians, people will be confused and think that this article has something to do with ancestors of the modern 'republic of macedonia'. Should we instead create a page to disambiguate between 'Ancient Macedonians (Greek), and Ancient Macedonians (Republic of Macedonia)?' This has been going on way too long on wikipedia and is still unresolved. I have come to this page to learn about Ancient Macedonians, and I THOUGHT I was reading about people from the Republic of Macedonia, but it appears that this article is about ancient greeks (such as alexander the great, whos wikipedia page calls him a 'Greek' king on the first line. What can the editors of this page do to fix this problem?

I am Slavic Macedonian from Republic of Macedonia. I came to this page to read about Ancient Macedonia so I can learn about my ancestors, but it is just about ancient Greeks. Why does it not state this on the fist line or paragraph? I have to spend quite some time to read this article, and then I realize that it has nothing to do with the Modern day Republic of Macedonia, but it's called 'Ancient Macedonia', and describes Greek people, greek kings, and greek rulers. This is an Insult to modern day Slavic Macedonians like me. Either call the ancient Macedonians Greek, or call them Slavic, but don't call them just 'Macedonian' because then it needs to be disambiguated, and if you are not going to disambiguate it in the article, then it is written poorly. Does anyone disagree that by not stating the ancient macedonians are greek we are ignoring thousands of years of history and sources?--173.209.149.42 (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)