Talk:Ancient Macedonians

Lead

First, I have to say that I am completely against these peculiar efforts to show the affiliation of the Ancient Macedonians with the Greek ethnos in general as they were developing through the past month. Let's see what I wrote, what FP's corrections and comments are and whether we can work along these lines to produce an exact and coherent text :

I wrote :

"It is generally accepted that the Ancient Macedonians consisted a Greek ethnos throughout their history, a fact disputed by certain scholars, who propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC."

FP commented :

"if "some" (notable) scholars "dispute" this, it's not "generally accepted", and not a "fact"."

and wrote :

"While many authors regard the Ancient Macedonians as a Greek ethnos throughout their history, some scholars propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC."

First we have to present the theory that prevails nowadays and we all know that this theory is supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars in universities and museums, as well as "authors". To this purpose I said "It is generally accepted", which clearly means that "most by far (scholars, authors etc) believe" I maintain that if "some scholars dispute this" then this is the expression we should use. If they didn't we would simply write "It is accepted", without the "generally". Also, a "fact" can be something that is not a universal truth. If I dispute a fact, then this does not make it less of a fat even if I am right. So, I suggest that my wording was clear and describes the situation well and with due weight on every aspect, it is non aggressive and to the point.

FP's corrections, to my mind, have weaknesses. Both words in "Many authors" can be misleading. "Many" we use to denote a number and not a proportion, so "Many" could be 6-10 scholars out of 100.000. Also, "authors" is too general and bears no academic value. What do we care what authors have to say? It is the words of scholars we are to use. The use of the word "fact" I will not insist upon. It is to me of low importance and only brought it in to make a contrast by using the word "dispute", which FP does not use. No problem with that. So, how about :

"It is generally accepted that the Ancient Macedonians consisted a Greek ethnos throughout their history, although some scholars propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC." ?

GK (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. "Generally accepted" has a very clear, very strong meaning: it entails that any opposing viewpoints are negligible. Which, in this case, they clearly are not. About the other points: "many" is just that, "many", relative (obviously) to the number of competent authors who have commented on this issue. Which is just right here. And in my wording the contrast between "many" and "some" already concedes a numeric preponderance (which, incidentally, I'm not even certain about, but I'll let that pass.) And "authors", in academic parlance, means exactly what is meant here: people who have contributed to the pertinent academic discourse on this matter. I don't think people would misunderstand it as "novelists", "poets" or whatever in this context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "It is generally accepted" does not entail any overwhelming meaning. Nor does it imply that other opinions are "negligible". "It is universally accepted" does mean all the things you say. Exactly as "Tom is a generally quiet boy" does not mean that Tom is always quiet... In this case, "generally" is the correct word. It is not strong and it gives an amount of weight appropriate to the situation, which is that the (great) majority of scholars and scholarly institutions recognize that Ancient Macedonians were indeed a clear part of the Greek ethnos. Anyways, I don't have a problem with using another expression as long as it makes it clear that it is the majority of the scholarly world that accepts opinion A. "Many" does not contrast with "some" as you think it does. "Many authors maintain that the Earth is hollow" is a correct sentence as well. There are at least 30 such authors who have maintained such theories. "Many" allows for other opinions to have a bigger support. "Authors" are also authors of historical books and contributors to historical magazines who have no proof whatsoever of their expertise on the matter.

Your proposal is :

Many authors assume that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek ethnos throughout their history, although some scholars propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC.

The word "assume" means "to accept without verification or proof" which is clearly degrading and wrong. So, since you do not dispute the fact that it is the majority of scholars who agree with opinion A, I would propose :

"Most scholars propose that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek ethnos throughout their history, although some have suggested that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC." GK (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable sentence, although I maintain we should use Hellenistic given it's more appropriate for the period in question Hxseek (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We cannot use "hellenistic" in this sentence. Hellenistic is a term coined to describe the culture developed and the era after Alexander III while here we are talking about the period between the 8th or 7th century and 5th or 4th BC.. I think that it presents both sides properly and respectfully. I have no problem with "concur" of course. GK (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

|The slight problem I have identified, however, is that these "most scholars" which connect the Macedonians as being Greek simply mention this as a sweeping categorization. Ie many of the sources noted in footnote 16 simple state something like 'the Macedonians were a Greek tribe". It is only those which actually go into the issue on a deeper level which highlight that the issue is not so straightforward. Obviously Hammond, but also Mallory, amongst others. So if we look at the provided references accurately, the converse might be true. Most scholars who have actually studied their origins, rather than mentioned a Greek-Macedonian link passingly (as part of a general history of macedonia or Alexander, etc), actually express reservations rather than confidence about the nature of Macedonian civilization prior to the 5th century BC. Hxseek (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hxseek that the question is not so clear cut. The book sources specialized in language are very reserved in favoring any of the hypothesis. They just leave all the options opened because there are no sufficient data. None denies that in 4th century koine greek was in use, but if another non-greek language was in use before ..... do the math yourselves. Aigest (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions are personal. The sentence presents both theories with respect and due weight. What you claim Aigest is clearly put : "although some have suggested that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC." What Hexseek is suggesting is out of the scope of the sentence, since what no one doubts here is that "Most scholars propose that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek ethnos throughout their history". Hxseek says "It is only those which actually go into the issue on a deeper level which highlight that the issue is not so straightforward." which describes any in depth work on every nation/tribe/people in the Balkans, Europe, Asia Minor...the world. The conclusions are more or less straightforward regarding the "ethnicity" of the ancient Macedonians as is generally accepted by the world's scholarly institutions BUT there are very competent and acknowledged voices proposing other theories and ways to approach the issue. Who is more or less academic is not for us to judge. I hope that we will let this sentence be and put this matter behind us focusing on improving the article. What was always the problem was a general lack of respect to what we did not agree to and this attitude should stop if we are to ever do something here that will last. When the academic community embraces as a whole the idea that there can be no purity in nations and as such the whole notion of nations should be discarded as a self-proclaimed or imposed illusion, then we may rethink our position about this and any other article that describes any group of people. I would not like us to again engage in endless theoretical discussions about the details of the issue, we should only accept the current consensus, whether we agree with it or not, whether we regard some of the academics (those we each agree with) more competent and scholarly than the others (we do not agree with) and put it in words in a respectful and as neutral as possible manner. I hope that this sentence achieves this goal. In the article we can present all theories in more detail but I hope laconically and in a manner that will not shift the interest from the people to the dispute. For example, the whole chapters about the participation of the Macedonians in the Olympics and those about the "ancient sources" should go. They only serve as an argument for or against the ethnic affiliation of the Macedonians to the Greeks and are of very little value to understanding the ancient Macedonians. Some of them (maybe a list of notable personnas and a list of sources without pinpointing certain texts) should be incorporated someplace in the end and all comments as for the Macedonians' Greekness or non-Greekness should be done away with. Right now the article looks like a forum thread. GK (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that personal opinions are personal, however I was noticing to you guys that in linguistic field, there is no majority of linguists whom affiliate Ancient Macedonian with any other language whatsoever. Or better said, the majority of the linguists don't agree in the issue. Before replying take a look at this chapter with a broad and multiple POV discussions on the subject. From what I see above you are pushing the things into "majority" area, while Hxseek was being more neutral. From what I know from linguistic field, I can say that his position is more based than yours. If you find the above author (Gandeto) biased and not expert in linguistic, I wish to bring your attention that apart Boardman(CH historian) Mallory (linguist) Woodard (linguist) which state that no conclusion can be done on ancient macedonian language, there is also another scholar Adrados (linguist) which says that "from this point on it is generally believed that we are dealing with a language that is different from Greek.". I am not saying that his opinion is right or wrong, but we can see clearly that linguistically speaking the situation is very different from GK opinion. Aigest (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gandeto is a polemicist pamphleteer writting in a self-published book. It is telling of the paucity of your sources that you would cite him.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

JS Gandeto is actually a psycologist aka Josif Grezlovski ... A Macedonian (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I also have to agree that your choice of examples was rather poor. I will say that this should not be another "my sources vs your sources" game nor do I want to engage in a discussion about this (believe me, this topic has been exhaustingly discussed and if you need you could look it up in the archives). The fact that officially, ancient Macedonian is classified as a Hellenic language along with Greek is proof enough that the majority of linguists and historians view it as a close sibling to say the least. And of course, our focus here is not the ancient Macedonian language but the people GK (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you – again? – use the word "officially" in this context is proof enough that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to assessing academic consensus. Sorry for being blunt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Gandeto was an illustration of a different POV if you didn't get it. Now let me get this straight. Do you consider Bosworth, Mallory, Woodard and Adrados poor sources?! What do you think is the essence of their claims? Aigest (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you - again? - do your best to sabotage an effort to produce the compilation of an acceptable lead in articles that have to do with ancient Macedonia comes as no surprise to me. Your lack of understanding of what certain English words mean should make you more careful instead of more arrogant, FP. I have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about because I used the word "officially"? Did you think that officially only has to do with states only? Check out official first and then tell me whether that http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IEG is or is not an official classification of the ancient Macedonian language compiled by the Institute for Language Information and Technology, an autonomous research center at EMU. What did you think? That I meant officially acknowledged by whom? By the EU? The UN? The US? Greece? RoMacedonia? Should I again assume (by now I hope you know what this word means at least) good intention on your part? It is really interesting the way you attack me for using a word you thought I used wrongly and let arguments uncommented that have nothing to do with the issue (the people), some of which are taken from books of acknowledged ultra-nationalist sources, while I, the "ignorant nationalist" (I guess), tried to just let it go and get back to the issue. A question like "officially classified by whom?" would have sufficed and would be very welcome and justified, since I did not give any more information but I guess that personal attacks work better for you. Sorry for being blunt. So, what is your problem yet again? Do you now doubt that it is the majority of scholars and scholarly institutions who classify the ancient Macedonians as a Greek people? Do you think that theory B amasses more support? Or is it just that you wish to say something without saying anything? GK (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Official" means: "published, done or approved by someone in authority", or "given a special position of importance by an organization" (Collins Cobuild Dictionary). The crucial term is "authority". In academic life, nobody has the authority to "officially" pass judgment on a controversial issue, and nobody in their right mind would ever pretend that's what they were doing. Nobody could possibly speak from such a position of authority conveyed by an organization, because there are no organisations whose business it is to convey such authority on anybody or anything. Academic organizations such as Linguistlist are not in the business of having opinions, and therefore nobody and nothing could possibly pronounce an opinion on an academic issue officially in their name. Got it now? The list you refer to is an entirely informal, anonymously compiled resource, where somebody has tried to pull together data from whatever sources they felt most appropriate and cram it into a uniform scheme, for purely practical reasons, and they had to fit in XMK somewhere. The idea that by doing this they were making an "official" pronouncment on an open academic question, which is an object of ongoing normal debate, is just mind-boggling.

BTW, I didn't ask you what you were referring to, because I already knew. We've been through this before. That's why I'm so impatient with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

so... according to you, this list (http://linguistlist.org/about.cfm) (http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/LLDescription.cfm?code=xmk%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&CFTREEITEMKEY=xmk+++++++++++++++) is the unsigned work of some unnamed person, maybe even a student of sorts or even an amateur linguist or electric engineer (this is not how they describe it of course, but maybe you haven't really looked through the site?), which is kindly hosted by the said institution, supported by SIL International (http://www.sil.org/) (http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=xmk). Without an effort to convey judgment as to the credentials or quality of the said institution, I am no linguist myself and I really do not personally know the people, they have made a darn good job at making it clear that what they publish reflects their institution's position. On the other hand, since I have never exchanged a word with them they may as well have just sought to find a place to put xmk and that's about it. But, in this case, you had better take it out on them and not me. By the way, I contacted them, and I hope that they will answer back. If they do accept that the list only reflects the position of a certain editor and that they do not hold any academic responsibility as an institution for the content of the list I will not use the word "officially" again regarding the said list. Should they answer though, that they accept academic responsibility then the word "official" is correctly used, since they will have "officially" AS AN INSTITUTION voiced an opinion. Happy? GK (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Heheh. I just had a look at what the Linguistlist guys say about the sources they use. [1] Guess what their principal source was for their treatment of (modern) Greek? Me. (or, to be fair, our learned friend Pitichinaccio.) Other than that, the only part of the sources listed for their "composite tree" that would obviously have gone into the Greek/Macedonian part would seem to be Katičić (highly relevant, of course), and a bunch of unnamed "Multiple sources Integrated by The LINGUIST List." These guys are citing Wikipedia as their source!. Grin. (Oh, and, by the way, if you continue to insist on calling this thing an "official" whatever, don't forget to summarise its content correctly: if it is "officially" decreeing anything, it is that Macedonian was not Greek.) Interestingly, they also quote Bloomfield's classification, as an alternative tree, where Macedonian stands completely alone [2]. (Note: don't get me wrong, the Linguistlist compilers are good guys®, and it's a highly useful resource, for what it's worth.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, point made. If the same organization presents 2 trees then they most possibly do not have an "official" opinion on the matter. I stand corrected and hope that their reply will not change that. They give a sizable list of sources, but I will not go through them. Again I am content that the tree presenting xmk as a separate language is only given by Bloomberg, while their "composite tree" boasts a much more extensive base of bibliography. I also clearly stated that "that ancient Macedonian is classified as a Hellenic language along with Greek is proof enough that the majority of linguists and historians view it as a close sibling to say the least.", so your second point I think is invalid. I believe I was very clear on that. GK (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Aigest, we have already established that there are scholars who doubt the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians prior to the 4th or 5th century. We also know that there are scholars who express doubts on whether the ancient Macedonian language was Greek (as is the majority of your examples) and those who maintain that it certainly was not Greek, as is the case with this Gandeto guy, who is not a POV you should have presented unless you did not know who it was, which is understandable. It is as if Greeks tried to cite the authors of their ultra-nationalistic sites as "just a point of view". First, we are not discussing language here, you should make your comments in the appropriate article, not here. Secondly, asking us to give our opinion on your "sources" will not lead anywhere since we know their POV and we have already classified it. The only goal such a discussion would achieve would be to again see long lists of scholars and institutions who support that ancient Macedonian was Greek and other (always less extensive but sizable) lists of scholars who support that ancient Macedonian was probably Greek but we cannot be conclusive, more or less what we can say about most extinct languages we have only sparse evidence we can with certainty attribute to them. Lastly we also would see some lists (even less extensive) of scholars who claim that ancient Macedonian was not Greek but more akin to Illyrian (I suspect that this is your position), Thracian or, in some really extreme cases, even Slavic. The question here is NOT whether the Macedonians spoke Greek or not but whether at least 51% of scholars and scholarly institutions maintain that they were a Greek people. Even those who support that they most probably were a Greek people (or in your case that they most probably spoke a Greek dialect) fall in this category, since they give a probability of more than 50% that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek people (or spoke Greek respectively). So, again, do you people, and I do not mean only Aigest, REALLY doubt that it is the majority of scholars and scholarly institutions (and I am not even saying "vast" or "large" majority as many Greeks would feel better with) who claim that the ancient Macedonians were (or most probably were) a Greek ethnos? GK (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@GK. I am not favoring neither of hypotheses already expressed. I am just saying that the authors I mentioned above remain skeptical about the Ancient Macedonian language. Illyrian, Thracian, Thraco-Illyrian, Pelasgian, Hellenic etc all are unprovable hypotheses, because we have too few data. From the language rules ph->p, dh->d bh->b etc, Ancient Macedonian is connected with the Old Balkan languages of Thracian, Illyrian, Dacian but not with Greek which has another rule on these consonants; on the other hand there are data linking it with Greek, (names, writings etc). Since the data are so few and very contradictory, the expert remain skeptical. This is the state of art of Ancient Macedonian language for the moment. Aigest (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No. That is not what I'm doubting. The way it was worded - ie throughout their history - is , with no offence, slightly weasal. Because the sources which are later presented in support of such a statement actually do not go into such discussion. Any book that does objectively states that we do not really know much about 7th century Mcaedonians.

The problem will never be solved if we do not rapidly upgrade our way of thinking and continue attempting to sheepishly apply macroethonyms such as "Greek", "Thracian", "Celtic", etc, etc; labels which do not do justice to the reality of language shift, indentity adoption, fluidity of ethnicity, etc which has always occurred amongst human beings. That you, GK, personally do not "believe" in this is, I'm afraid, a shame, coz you appear to otherwise be an educated guy. Not to altogether dismiss 'traditional' theories, but traditionalism is about 4 decades out of date, and has obviously failed miserably at explaining the full picture of how peoples came to be. This does not change the fact that Alexander spoke GReek and saw himself as a Greek, so you needn't worry about blatant revisionism Hxseek (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

with "throughout their history" I mean from the day that the Macedonian state was "officially" established. This might be sometime during the 10th, 9th or 8th century BC. Before that it and into the 2nd, 3rd or 15th millennium BC of course it is of no concern to us. As for the fluidity of ethnicity and identity adoption, don't get me wrong, in theory it is very appealing and sometimes useful to use as an argument but as a theory it does not elliminate the need/practice to classify peoples (culturally, linguistically etc) nor does it negate the fact that the (vast) majority of scholars does it too. You seem to be concerned with eras much older than the specific timelines we occupy ourselves with here. We are talking 2-4 centuries long. The process you are advocating is what transformed the non-Greek Macedonians to Greeks according to the proponents of theory B and certainly what transformed the various pre-Greek tribes into Greeks. Of course a people can change, be amalgamated or even sucked into another culture but for some reason this debate exists and as long as we do not find a suitable, respectable and as neutral as possible description, all kinds of editors will understandably barge in and destroy the article. My efforts actually are to delete all this useless and irrelevant information in the article which only serve to "prove" that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. I think we all agree that the article now looks like a forum thread. If we clearly explain the situation in one sentence then we will at last be free to make it an informative article about the people. GK (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the second millenium, but as late as the 6th century BC ! Ofcourse some classification is required, don't get me wrong, otherwise it gets too 'airy-fairy', but then if we are going to classify we still need to take all components in in due consideration. My intention is not to turn this into an article on thoeretical frameworks of ethnology, but i think an explanatory sentence here or there is not inappropriate Hxseek (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Future could you please re-state your objections and proposals along with any supporting sources? We need to have excerpts in-context from the relevant sources to decide how to proceed. But most of all we need to be clear on what precisely the disagreement is about.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What I was discussing above was not so much a disagreement about any particular piece of wording in the article, but about GK's use of a faulty argument here on the talkpage. The more general problem I have with the actual wording is, I guess, mainly that it still presents the whole issue as if it was a dichotomy: they either "were", or "were not", "Greek". Presented this way, both of these (alleged) positions presuppose that there is such a thing as an objective property of "Greekness", which objectively either applies or doesn't apply to them. But this is exactly the misunderstanding at the basis of the whole nationalist logic that distorts this debate so much in popular perception. Our best specialised sources (including e.g. Borza) simply do not frame the issue in these terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I have been trying to say, F.P. ! If we look at their language, customs, organization, way of life, and the way they were seen etc, we would see features of both Hellenes and barbaroi. That is why we cannot say either A or B, and that is why ancient sources themselves were sometimes at odds as to the Greekness of the Macedonians (- something which appears to be continuously and intentionally neglected or removed from the 'ancient sources' section on this article - ie Thuclydies and Demosthenes)

I am working on a draft intro ethnology section. I will submit it on T.P. soon, I hope 152.76.1.243 Hxseek (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone says A, B or maybe A or maybe B. Saying "none of the above" is not an option. There is no nationalistic approach on the subject, just opinions and theories. The Spartans had many "barbaric" customs and of course were called "barbarians" more often than the Macedonians, as were the Athenians. This has nothing to do with what we have to write. All this hiding behind our finger is really strange. If you people agree with what I have proposed then what the heck is the purpose of raising nationalistic arguments any more? So, FP, if you do not object to the wording of the lead, can we just go on with reshaping this article? I still have seen no one except Hxseek commenting on what I have proposed about deleting the whole article and start adding real information. Please, STOP trying to again transform all this into a sharade of endless arguments. The fact that I do not yet answer to the scholarly provocations is because I want to move on and stop arguing about things which are mainly irrelative to the article. As to an objective property of "Greekness" it is not what is or should be discussed and FP, you know that this comment is out of context here as was your selective attack on me. I surely do not trust your scholarly self reached opinions and you do not trust mine, so CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON? Do we have a sentence that pretty much summarizes the situation so that we do not have to again deal with this issue? GK (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GK, I am willing to work with you, however, you need to open your mind, so we can put this 'ethnicity' business to rest. However, in order for us to move on, you have to become familiar yourself with modern anthropological theories. Read Barthsl works on ethnicity, Renfrew's critique on language-based ethnicity and so-called Urheimats, etc, and come to grips that ethnicity is a tool of political and ecnomic factors, and is thereby complex, often multi-levelled, and liable to change. When you have done so, you will realize what I am trying to say and look past the fact that I am Slav who is merely trying to undermine Greek glory Hxseek (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, when you produce some specific study based on any of these theories regarding the ancient Macedonians then we can also include it in the article. Synthesizing theories in order to make our own conclusions is not what we are supposed to do. I want to say LESS about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, not more. This is why I suggest we present both theories in a single line and move on. This is not a study about general anthropological theories regarding ethnogenesis. This is an article about a specific people with hundreds of books and studies as references. All these arguments about how complex the whole issue is is not our scope. The same applies to any other people and any other process of ethnogenesis. Maybe you should write an appropriate article presenting these theories and not want to apply them in specific articles about specific people as original research. Whatever these books say about the Macedonians we may include if we see fit. This has nothing to do with Greek glory. If I wanted to do that I would suggest we leave the article as is, not change it. So, reading Barthsl and Renfrew is helpful, but unless they have occupied themselves with the specific issue, then we cannot include their opinions/theories in the article. What I am saying is that you make efforts to produce your own theory based on the writings of those or any other scholars. This of course is not objective and will never be accepted by those who will not like your personal conclusions. GK (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about that, GK. We ofcourse should stick to the topic at hand and not get too general and discussion oriented. However, at the same time, we should not shy away from some discussion, especially when there are works which discuss the issue specifically about Macedonians. We should not shy away from it because of the controversy associated with modern political issues, but study it becuase it is interesting in itself. There is nothing wrong with this, it is not engaging in 'racialism' or what have you. the identity of Macedonians was shaped by a multitude of factors, and I will include this as discussed by some recent very good scholarly works. Hxseek (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the overwhelming majority of classical historians and professors at leading institutions around the world consider the Macedonians to be Greek, the onus is on the detractors to present reliable sources stating otherwise. This should NOT be in the lead. There are some scholars (people with PhD's) who believe no airplanes hit the WTC on 9/11, there is a conspiracy section on that page for such things. it is NOT in the lead. stating that some scholars believe that the ancient macedonians were not greek in the LEAD makes it seem like there are a significant number of these people, which there are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.179.190 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Content

The whole origins section is awkward and out of scope. Both the "ancient sources" and the "participation in panhellenic events" sections should go. I propose that for starters we direct this section to Ancient Macedonia - Early history and legends. The atticization section also is meaningless, since it talks about language and attraction of Greek minds, which also has nothing to do with the Macedonians... Actually the whole article is crappy... I have always been a proponent that it should not be merged with Ancient Macedonia but it needs to be completely redone. I suggest that we start from scratch. Completely erase everything, have a good lead as start and start adding sections, even with very poor content at first. We should not concentrate on the ultimate question so that we are not thrown off track and start adding material that has to do with the Macedonians :

1. Appearance in History

2. Tribes

3. Culture

4. Traditions

5. Religion

6. Expansion of the Macedonian identity (conquests and macedonization of certain non-Macedonian cities within Macedon)

7. History of Migration (in Hellenistic times)

and anything else you would like to add, like funerary customs, inventions, famous artists, writers etc. I need you guys to agree with the almost total deletion of the contents in this article if we are to make something good out of it without endless reversions and empty debates as to the Greekness or not of the ancient Macedonians.

GK (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 5.

I agree, like i said earlier, we need to synthesie all the evidence to construct a decent ethnology section, ie include historical accounts, archaeological finds, linguistic evidence, customs, etc. Becuase all these things are reflective of their ethnicity and identity. And yes, we should not focus on whether they are A or B Hxseek (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have ordered a few good books, hope to come in next few weeks. I will chew through them Hxseek (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

-> There is a promising new book about Ancient Macedonia to be released in Dec 2010. It looks to be quite useful. Should we postpone our re-do here until it is released, so that we may reference it ? Hxseek (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, if the 'promosing new book' you are going to read about Ancient Macedonia is in line with the current scholarship consensus it can be included in this article. If it is not, then it is the minority, and cannot give undue weight to this article. If this book (which I assume by the nature of your edits will have nationalist anti-greek undertones) refutes modern consensus and the works of the majority of the scholars on Ancient Macedonia, it can be cited in its own section, but cannot be used as a basis for this page. Therefore there is no need to wait for a single particular book to be released before re-doing this page or adding content. There are 2500 years worth of written materials, and thousands of books from scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries that are available for sources of your study. --174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is the book: A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, by Joseph Roisman, Ian Worthington, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010[3], then I think Hxseek will be a little disappointed... A Macedonian (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is the book, and I found the book very good. Unlike you, Mr A "Macedonian", not all editors are short-sited nationalists who merely regurgitate the "facts" out of propper context and full discussion just to aggressively push their own POV Hxseek (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you do sound disappointed Hxseek... However -even if you are so-, I kindly have to ask you not to use such comments when you referring to me or any other editor, as they are considered personal attacks... Thank you. (Without quotation marks), A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of the term 'Ancient Macedonians'

Either this article needs Disambiguation, or portion of initial paragraph of the article should inform the reader that this article does not refer to the history of the people of the modern 'Republic of Macedonia'... There is much confusion about this on wikipedia !!

This situation is unique on wikipedia because today there are unfortunately two cultural groups who call themselves 'Macedonians'. This confuses people because when they read ancient sources they might think they are referring to the ancestors of the slavic people who make up the modern day Republic of Macedonia (RoM), when infact, they are referring to the ancestors of the Greek Macedonians who live in Modern day Greece.

Sadly due to this confusion, many people do not know that there are Greek Macedonians, and Slavic Macedonians (who live in the 'Republic of Macedonia) are different peoples and cultures.

For example, If I were to read about the 'Ancient Egyptian' people, I would assume that I would be reading about the ancient peoples who make up the cultural and historic background of the Modern day Egyptians living in the same geographical area. (i.e. the people who built the pyramids)

Imagine if the article was about a small town in Sudan called 'Egypt' that had nothing to do with what I was looking for!? This would require disambiguation, either to say 'This article is about the Ancient People of the small town of Egypt, Sudan' with disambiguation pointing to 'Ancient Egyptians', or vice versa.

If I am modern day Slavic Macedonian, and I come to this Article, I am very shocked to find that it is NOT talking about my country and my people. My children will come here to read about their country and slavic heritage, but they will find an article discussing different people culturally, from a different geographical area, and a different time period. it is in fact talking about the Ancient Greeks Macedonians!

I want to know about the Ancient Slavic Macedonians from the Modern day RoM so that my children can find out the truth about their slavic heritage. We either must have disambiguation, or some paragraph describing that this article does not describe the ancestors of the slavic modern day macedonians. Because in accordance with wikipedia rules, when two different articles share the same name, there must be disambiguation.

Should I create another article called 'Ancient Macedonians' myself, and declare that is is discussing the ancestors of the modern RoM? And then there will be a disambiguation page?

or should this article just be edited to eradicate any confusion?

I propose either A) 'The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient Greek people inhabiting the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axius in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula.'

or B) The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient people inhabiting the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axius in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, not to be confused with ancestors of todays Slavic Republic of Macedonia'

This way the reader knows immediately which 'Ancient Macedonians' the article is talking about. It is very important to resolve this ambiguous issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.149.42 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

About the unscientific allegations that the ancient Macedonians of Alexander's time were not Greeks please see the opinion of hundreds of international scholars here.

About the unscientific allegations that the ancient Macedonians of Alexander's time were not Greeks please see the opinion of hundreds of international scholars who wrote a letter to President Barack Obama regarding the issue.

Can someone still explain why this article is lacking the term 'greek' people in the opening line?

http://macedonia-evidence.org

"Macedonian Greeks have been located for at least 2,500 years just where the modern Greek province of Macedonia is. Exactly this same relationship is true for Attica and Athenian Greeks, Argos and Argive Greeks, Corinth and Corinthian Greeks, etc. "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.149.42 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(over-long copy-and paste text dump snipped; contents can be seen at the link provided above. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize there was a limit on text posts, I apologize. I was merely trying to get my point across that the majority of scholars who will unequivocally consider the macedonians greek, far far far outweigh any detractors.

Here are 5, among over 300 professors and chairs of classical history and archaeology from leading universities (including harvard, oxford, cambridge, brown, princeton, ...) who state unequivocally that the ancient macedonians were greeks. these people have spent their lives researching the subject, they are the experts.

John Duffy, Professor, Department of the Classics, Harvard University (USA)

Christian Habicht, Professor of Ancient History, Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (USA)

Antony Snodgrass, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge (UK)

Robin Lane Fox, University Reader in Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK)

Julia Lougovaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Columbia University (USA)

Alan Boegehold, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Brown University (USA)

The point I am trying to make, is that by not sufficiently stating that the Ancient Macedonians described on this page are Greek, there is confusion to the lay-person that this page is describing the ancestors of the modern 'Republic of Macedonia' . Either this page should state in the first line that this page describes the ancient greek people, (and a section on the page somewhere indicating that there is a small group of people (probably less then 1% of scholars), who might think otherwise) OR this page should be renamed to 'Ancient Macedonia (Greece)' and we must create another page for disambiguation pointing to 'Ancient Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia)'.

It is sad to say, but since there is a modern country that people call 'Macedonia', we need to be specific to prevent confusion..... As a slavic macedonian from Republic of Macedonia (RoM), I do not want my children typing in 'Ancient Macedonia' , and thinking that they are reading about the ancestors of the modern-day 'Republic of Macedonia'.

I think there are 2 options. Either A) the first line should read that 'the ancient macedonians were a greek people' , so the reader IMMEDIATELY knows that they are talking about the macedonia as it pertains to the classical world (and the rest of the opening paragraph can be adjusted accordingly), or B) we need two pages for 'Ancient Macedonia' in order to disambiguate between ancient 'greek' macedonians (as defined by 300+ leading scholars), and Ancient Slavic Macedonians. (If people still want to complain about the ethnicity of the Ancient Greek Macedonians, then they can create a small section on that page linking to the tiny minority that disagrees with the consensus among historians)

I know the RoM is a new country politically, but we surely have an ancient past just like the Greek Macedonians. I am sad to come to this page and not see enough of a disambiguation. I am also sad to see many countrymen from RoM ignoring the fact that we are not greeks and have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians of greece. All I want is for clear disambiguation between the ancient people of my country (RoM), and the ancient greek macedonians of greece. --173.209.149.42 (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view 2

"Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars."

The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the ancient macedonians were a greek people. Why is this not expressed in the opening sentence? What Agenda do anti-hellenic POV cliques have here to refute this? The wikipedia article on alexander the great clearly states in the opening sentence that he is a 'GREEK' king. The onus is on detractors to put forward a convincing argument that goes against the consensus that among scholars the ancient macedonians were part and parcel part of the greek ethnos. Just like Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Aegina, Thebes, Megara, etc, etc, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the predominant view in the specialised literature (Borza is still the standard work) is that they were a group that shared ethnic descent with the Greeks but which, during the time of classical antiquity, had diverged culturally and politically to such a degree that they neither regarded themselves as part of the same unit as the Greeks further south, nor were regarded and treated as such by them; and that under these circumstances framing the question in terms of a simple "yes"/"no" dichotomy (they either "were", or "were not", "Greek") is an inadmissible over-simplification, because it implies that the category of "Greekness" exists as an objective essential property, which, of course, it is not. As long as the debate on this page will continue to be framed in terms of such a dichotomy, because contributors cannot free themselves from the simplistic assumptions of ethnic essentialism, it will never lead to any sensible result. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

However other notable scholars clearly agree that the "Greekness" of ancient Macedonia and Macedonians exists, take for for instance Ian Worthington: ... not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable. ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008). Anyway, since there is a debate amongst scholars on the issue (although them who argued against the "Greeknes"" of ancient Macedonia/Macedonians are minority) I think it's best to leave the article as it is. A Macedonian (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, A simple yes/no dichotomy is absolutely admissible as there is no over-simplification of 'Greekness' due to the overwhelming evidence for it. It is a concept that can absolutely be objectively quantified by various traits and properties of the people and culture. I think the problem here is your definition or interpretation of the semantic meaning of the work 'Greek'. In this situation, it describes the group of people who shared the same general religion and language in that part of the world in ancient times.

That the Macedonians spoke Greek (whatever dialect), participated in the Olympic games, and practiced the Greek polytheistic religion, make them Greek by definition. If your definition of 'Greek' is different to the majority, then that is a separate issue, and should not come into play on this page. If you wish to highlight small differences between The macedonians and other greeks, then you are free to create a section of the article to do that. However, since the literature casting them as separate is the extreme minority in academia, this article has given them undue weight, which is in violation of NPOV wikipedia policies.

That the Ancient Macedonians were considered Greek, is the wide-ranging consensus of ancient scholars at hundreds of major universities including Oxford, Cambridge, and Ivey league institutions. I can provide a list of Professors and authors who are considered experts on the topic if that is what is required to put this to rest. Literally hundreds and hundreds of sources from modern scholars, and ancient contemporaries can be provided, their email addresses and phone numbers can be provided as well. Your single citing of Borza's work, again, part of the extreme minority, in now way give you carte-blance to remove the term 'Greek' as a descriptor from the lead of this article. The removal of the term greek is POV editing, and i'm afraid a very large group of sources will have to be compiled and this bring this to arbitration if you and similar POV editors (who may or may not be in a clique) continue to edit-war this page.

I have looked at the page of Alexander the Great and read the discussion and arbitration regarding him being called 'Greek' on the first line of the article. It was a long drawn out process, but luckily reliable sources from the majority, as well as the NPOV spirit of wikipedia prevailed. Note that Alexander, and Philip, and the rest of the royal familiy, and the generals of Alexanders armies, are all defined as Greeks on wikipedia.

Again, this article should be structured as not to give undue weight to minority opinions. Because of this, The Ancient Macedonians will be defined as greek in the article, and any minority works discussing their differences with other greek city-states can be discussed IN the article.

Just so you know, the Greeks were a very different culture and people to almost any others in history. There was no 'same unit' for all Greeks. Every Greek city-state regarded themselves as different from the others, Each city-state had its unique differences. Athens a democracy, Sparta run by Tyrants. They were culturally and and politically different from eachother, yet nobody questioned their Greekness.

Your statement that "during the time of classical antiquity, had diverged culturally and politically to such a degree that they neither regarded themselves as part of the same unit as the Greeks further south, nor were regarded and treated as such by them;" applies to almost all Greek city-states, who each saw themselves and different and superior to each other, and is absolutely not a valid argument for removing the term 'Greek' to describe the ancient macedonians. The onus is on you to provide a significant amount of reliable sources disputing the fact that the ancient macedonians spoke greek, participated in the olympic games, and followed the greek polytheistic religion -- the general guidelines for considering a people 'Greek' and part of the Greek world. I'm sorry, but whatever cultural or political differences they had with other city-states does not remove their Greekness as defined by the vast majority of scholars from respected, reliable Universities around the world.

Although I am editing from an IP, you should not dismiss me. I will create an account later if logic does not prevail. The other IP edits seem to have come from a University in Canada, I assume that history students, or professors, are passionate about the historiological accuracy of articles like these. I am a new user to wikipedia and am still becoming familiar with all the nuances, but I am taking time out of my busy day to deal with this issue. --174.117.97.72 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

posting by banned user User:Crossthets removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to include this discussion, with appropriate reliable sources, in the article. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, more or less, in Modern discussions section. A Macedonian (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fellas, please just step back and refrain from aggressively toned editing. As F.P. has stated, it is not simply a matter of yes/ no. What many do not know, and perhaps certain editors connected with this article choose to ignore/ delete, is that the Macedonians also had many lifestyle, religious, organizational and cultural features with other peoples, eg Thracians. Even Persian influences were present. These facts, in themslevs does not mean, that they were 25 % "Thracian", 75% "Greek", or whatever. All peoples borrow, intermix, etc with others. Macedonia has always been a melting pot, and there is no reason to deny that during the period of 7th to 2nd centuries BC, to the contrary , probably more so than ever. Identity is subjective, and cannot be compared against a 'check-list' of objective criteria, eg language, religion, - althugh no doubt they can and often do enable recognition of 'sameness'.

If you are an honest person and scholar, you will know that the earliest period of Macedonian existence is one of obscurity. Certainly, Macedonia was not part of "Mycaenean Greece". Yet, no one in their right mind will deny that at least the Macedonian nobility wanted to be seen as part of the "Pan-Hellenic civilization". On the other hand, contemporary Greek attitudes as to Greekness of Macedonians was rather ambivalent {something which continues to be excluded in the 'ancient sources' section on this article}, but certainly were eventually seen as Greek (by both Greeks and Romans) by the 3rd or 2nd century BC. One must also clarify, compare and contrast, what being "Greek" meant 2, 500 years ago compared to today - they are rather different things.

Great volumes of work regarding 'ethnicity'- how it forms, is maintained, is liable to change, and is often manipulated to achieve political goals have been written by western scholars over the past 4 decades. Unfortunately, these developments have failed to permeate historical scholarship in eastern Europe and Greece, until very recently. What is regarded as 'traditional' and 'accepted' is actually outdated and simplistic.

What I want to see happening with this article is to develop it into a sophisticated, academic article whose main purpose is not to argue whether they were greek or not, but discuss all the aspects involved in the how, why, and when of Macedonian formation. This was a complex and highly complicated affair.

To that anonymous editor's statements about modern Maceodnians and Bulgarians. This should have nothing to do with Ancient Macedonian article. But your comments do highlight how scholars and lay people like yourself have unfortunately 'nationalized' an issue from a time when nationality did not even exist ! FYI: the scholar who instigated the protest of American recognition as RoM received criticism by other scholars, and many of those who initially signed his document subsequently withdrew their support

FYI # 2: You might not know, and apparently nor dos the esteemed former Macedonian PM, Mr Gligorov, modern Macedonians are not simply invaders from Russia or Poland. This is also an outdated idea. Yes, there were invasions/migrations, but this has always happened. The "Sklavenes" who raided the Balkans in the 6th century were merely bands of relatively disorganized young warriors merely looting and raiding, numbering in the hundreds (not hundreds of thousands). They did not wipe out the 'indegenous' Balkan, including regional Macedonian, inhabitants, nor could such few numbers of people cuase the evident large-scale "demographic" changes in the Balkans. Rather, the appearance of Slavs and Slavic language throughout the Blakans, Greece included, was the result of numerus, complicated and still poorly understood mechanisms lasting several centuries. They related to the decline of the Roman order, economic collapse, restructuring and re-orientation of the Balkan interior toward central Europe, in particular the Avar khanate. So if it it's "bloodlines" your concerned about, then modern FYROMANIANS (as some arrogant people like to call them) have the very same Bakan blood that Greeks and Albanians do. And, of course, you do know that Greek Macedonia was almost entirely Slavic, and was only fully re-Hellenized in the 21st century due to the efforts of that great humanitarian, Mr Metaxas. I wonder how much "Macedonian" blood all the Syrians, Armenians, Pontic Greeks and Siciliians that the Byantines imported have ?

Happy New Year !

Hxseek (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits (Jan 22) by HxSeek and Future Pref.

Please see the above sections, and try to come to a consensus with the other editors before attempting to simply present a slanted view from Borza (a fringe view in Academia). HxSeek's edit was POV editing. Furthermore, it was too long and did not belong in the Lead as it was counter to the academic consensus. If you wish to present alternative views they are usually done in their own section.

For example, on the wikipedia page for the Moon Landing, the conspiracy theory that the americans did not land on the moon is not in the lead, as it is far outside consensus. It has its own section.

Again, the consensus among Academics is that the Macedonians were undisputedly Greek, just like the Athenians, Corinthians, Thebeans, Spartans, and the rest.

Here are 5, among over 350 professors and chairs of classical history and archaeology from leading universities (including harvard, oxford, cambridge, brown, princeton, ...) who state unequivocally that the ancient macedonians were greeks. these people have spent their lives researching the subject, they are the experts. John Duffy, Professor, Department of the Classics, Harvard University (USA) Christian Habicht, Professor of Ancient History, Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (USA) Antony Snodgrass, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge (UK) Robin Lane Fox, University Reader in Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK) Julia Lougovaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Columbia University (USA) Alan Boegehold, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Brown University (USA) The rest of the list of Scholars is here. http://macedonia-evidence.org

All these people disagree with Borza.

Attempting to put his views in the Lead is editorializing. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to present the facts to the lay person as they are. For historical topics, we present the Academic consensus.

No, that is most definitely not an established consensus. It is the nationlists' caricature of what they perceive the consensus to be based on a one-dimensional oversimplifying reading of the literature, and stating it another million times will not make it truer. Hxseek's version is vastly superior to the old one. You also conveniently overlook that he isn't even quoting Borza, but the best and most recent piece of relevant survey literature, (A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. J Roisman, I Worthington. Wiley Blackwell, 2010. Macedonians and Greeks. Johannes Engels, p 82), clearly the best WP:RS that we

could wish for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The Academic Consensus according to 350 leading scholars is that the Macedonians were Greek. See the link I sent you. Saying that it is not established consensus is nonsense. HxSeek's nationalist undertones trying to discredit the consensus A) does not belong in the lead. and B) He was quoting borza, and Borza was on the refernces. HxSeek also conveniently REMOVED this reference http://macedonia-evidence.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And he very rightly did so, because unlike the new Roisman book, http://macedonia-evidence.org/ clearly isn't a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

http://macedonia-evidence.org/ is a reliable source, backed by over (now) 390 scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is clearly a political advocacy site; as such it stands outside the rule of (peer-reviewed, etc.) academic discourse. That some academics have supported it is of no relevance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"That SOME academics have support is is of no relevance". There are now over 390 Academics supporting this view. Including the Professors and Chairs from Harvard University, Princeton, University of Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK), Columbia University, Brown University... You are stating that these

people are of no Relevance? A statement like this brings your credibility into question. The Academics make the consensus, not yourself of HxSeek, nor Borza, nor Roisman. What HxSeek tried to do was call into question the Greekness of the Macedonians in the lead to push your POV, and did so using fringe and minority beleifs.... I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but I would guess that HxSeek is pushing Modern Day views from the 'Republic of Macdeonia', who frequently try to call into question the Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians to fit their political agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how I overlooked this, but there is already a section regarding HxSeek's text in this article. Its called 'Modern Discussions'. HxSeek's text (though, would still need some changes) would be much more appropriate there. Though if he would like to discuss new authors and works, it should be an additive revision. He should not simply remove old text and dump his own unilaterally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

174. national advocacy sites like macedonia-evidence aren't reliable sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that the new paragraph could be merged and integrated with the section that's already down in the body of the text. [[User:Future Perfect at

Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] ☼ 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely belongs more in the "Modern discussions" section than the lede. Moved. Athenean (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus is it's best suited in latter paragraph, fine. However, don.t make BS allegations of POV u when it is rather obvious, I would have thought, that

my addition was in good faith and neutral.

I have included the most recent work by a body of experts. I put effort in that to make the article better. If that despoils ur nationalistic POV, then so be it.

The worst thing is, all these books and experts which continue to be quoted either (a) aren't even discussing the issue at a depth (b) are misrepresented by editors as self-evident conclusions, when the case is contrary. This is shameful, and it merely shows that people will resort to lying for the sake of blind- sighted nationalism. (case in point, that article of mycaenean pottery, which actually proves nothing ) - as FP pointed out also

In fact, many of those "list" of scholars who signed the letter of protestation as to the Greekness of Macedonians withdrew their names, and the scholar who instigated the whole affair was public ally criticized. Again, this is conveniently left out'. Or is it mere ignorance?

The simple truth is, if u've bothered to actually read anything recent and in-depth, that a considerable body of scholars have, highlighted that ethnicity was a complex issue. Certain scholars have evolved their understanding of the issue, and changed their conclusions, Eg Engels. Indeed a large corpus do mirror essentially what Hamond concluded. A great man, and much admired for his love of the region, his conclusions, however, are actually based on very tenuous pretense- and only Borza was able to see this. Currently, AFAIK, there is an article awaiting publication which might bring even greater critique to Hammond's methodology. Nothing against the guy, but his writing is essentially half a century old, and he has fallen behind the anthropological "8- ball".

So is the issue straightforward? No. And further work is required in this article. Eg the ancient sources section. I'm sure that every primary school kid knows that historical sources need to be critiqued and contextualized. This is not "post-modernism", but basic history. Moreover, certain editors seem most knowledgable with literary evidence which connects the Macedonians with Greeks, but seem blissfully unaware of sources which point to the opposite, even if written by the very same ancient authors. Strange coincidences and patterns are clearly evident. Is anyone here a nationalist ? It is certainly neither F.P., nor I. So let's be mature, open-minded and un-Balkan about this

Hxseek (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You should read Jonathan M. Hall' books: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997) and Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (2002). On Ancient Macedonians he also authored a chapter "Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Ethnicity" in Irad Malkin's Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (2001) You will find there a lot of good quality material about construction of Ancient Greek and Macedonian

ethnicities and also about how the perceptions changed -from "aggregative" (a sense of identity built on mythical genealogies) in the Archaic world to "oppositional" in Classical times (a sense of identity built against Persians and other outsiders). Daizus (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those pointers, sounds interesting. At last we're getting some fresh input in terms of serious literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

General question: When we say something like: A great man, and much admired for his love of the region, his conclusions, however, are actually based on very tenuous pretense- and only Borza was able to see this. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that in this field of Macedonian ethnicity anyone can develop a theory, publish the theory in a book and that's that? What happened to peer reviewed academic journals in this area? All this talk about ...only Borza was able to see this. Did Borza bother to put forth his theory of rebutting Hamond's conclusions in a paper published at a peer reviewed journal? Did that hypothetical paper gain acceptance in the wider academic community? How many cites did it get? Did Borza just write a book about it, in which case the book represents only his views? Is Borza somehow a unique genius who captured some idea which eluded every other scholar? Same of course goes about the "aggregative" and "oppositional" theories expalined above. What is the acceptance of these theories in the wider academic community? I would be disappointed to find out that someone came up with these concepts, published a book about them but did not publish them in a peer-reviewed academic journal. All these theories are just that: "theories", until they gain acceptance in the wider academic community through publication in respected journals. They should also be widely cited in academic works following their journal publication. Anything less than that should be academically suspect. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Publish them "in a peer-reviewed academic journal"? Borza had a lifetime of publishing in the field. You might want to check the recent festschrift in his honour, Macedonian legacies: studies in ancient Macedonian history and culture in honor of Eugene N. Borza, edd. Timothy Howe, Jeanne Reames, Regina Books, 2008. As usual, it should contain a bibliography of his publications, and you will glean something about his reputation from the list of contributors. By the way, the status of journal articles as a privileged measurement of impact in the field differs somewhat between disciplines. In history, monograph

publications (with major academic publishers) have traditionally been regarded as at least as important, and papers in collected volumes (like the Malkin one mentioned above) are usually peer-reviewed just like journals. In B.'s case, the monograph In the Shadow of Olympus still seems to be the central and most frequently cited work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. K, for Jonathan Hall being "widely cited in academic works", try Catherine Morgan's Early Greek States Beyond the Polis (2003) or Irad Malkin's The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity (1998) or Margalit Finkelberg's Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition (2005) or ... search more and see for yourself. Hall also authored numerous chapters in edited volumes - this alone substantiates the currency of his theories. Daizus (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies (and patience) about Borza and Jonathan Hall. This is very helpful. Regarding Future's reply, I can see why a monograph can be authoritative when it is accepted and cited by the academic community. Finally, was Borza's rebuttal of Hamond's conclusions widely accepted as well? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to gauge what's "widely accepted". Certainly he is heavily referenced and published. Part of the problem is that only borza and Hammond go Kongo the "nitty-gritty" of the archaeology. Hammond concludes that the Macedonians were Greek only due to ONE reason - he argus that that the Macedonians represented a " pool" of NW Greek speakers who lived in central Epirus since Bronze Age - the same group which led the Dorian migration and those that remained later became part of the Argeaad's royal led migration. Otherwise, he saw the Macedonians as virtually totally un-Greek. Saw it was their language- an Aeolic form, which linked them to Greeks. (see his vol 1 on Macedonia).

However, hiis linguistic conclusions are wrong, or at least jumping the gun. Quite simply , linguists aren't so bold as to definitively conclude that they spoke Greek, in fact, certain features suggest that it is not! As per Chadwick, echoed by Mallory and Engels in latest publication. Not only that, but his " pool of Greek speakers " theory (a) lacks any Tangible evidence (the earliest epigraphic finds are from5th century!) (b) overlooks the fact that linguists are not even sure when and from where Greek speakers arrived (c) relies on mythological traditions as historical "fact" and (d) relies on the ethno-political situation from the 5th century to "trace back" events to preceding millenium, as if things remained 'frozen' in time; and (e) is unaware that the Dorian invasion hypothesis has been seriously discredited.

All these things are well discussed, rather less so, however, in direct connection to the question of Macedonian origins. So it becomes clear that the only basis which Hammond makes his conclusion is not on very firm footing. He, rather, does not engage in the more rewarding discussion of anthropology which sees ethnicity as a negotiation between groups in opposition, which Engles and Hall have attempted to do so

We can always work on this later. For now, I think we can accept my paragraph as a conclusion for the 'discussion' section .

Hxseek (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't synthesize sources like that, i.e. that Hammond states that the Macedonians were Greek-speakers and then claim that linguists do not consider their language Greek. It is also not for you to judge that "his linguistic conclusions are wrong", unless you have a reliable source that explicitly says so. You can't just pick and choose which parts of a scholar's work are "correct" (i.e. they conform to your POV), and which are "wrong" (the ones that don't). You are engaging in the same kind of behavior that you accuse your opponents of. Your paragraph, while overall an improvement, contains several errors and needs work. For example, the first sentence kept the Cawkwell and Worthington references that state the Macedonians were Greeks, but you changed the wording! Unacceptable. Also, what is the point of the sentence "The formation of a Macedonian ethnos went hand in hand with an emerging Macedonian kingdom negotiating its role in greater Balkan political climate"? Then there is the issue of selectively quoting from the Companion. While it is without a doubt the top-notch source on the subject, by using it selectively, any old POV-pusher can use for his/her own ends. I don't have time to delve into the matter deeply as of this time, but will do so at the first opportunity. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was this removed from the end of the lead? "Some scholars have suggested that they had formed a distinct ethnos before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC, however most scholars concur that the ancient Macedonians were Greek people throughout their history.[1][2][3]" It is a short and concise description of the ethnicity/culture/langauge of the Macedonians according to the majority consensus, and definetly is appropriate to be in the lead, as it has been for ages. Can someone with an account restore it? I cannot because I don't have a confirmed account and this page is protected. According to WP:NPOV the article must give precedence to the majority consensus. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I have done some research and I feel that HxSeek/FP are agenda pushing and editorializing. For example, they used a source written by Ian Worthing (currently #24) when they state that trying to identify the greekness of the 'macedonians' is 'highly problematic'.... in an attempt to make it seem like this a real issue in academia when infact it is not.... they attempt to give undue weight to the minority view by doing this... but they decline to inform the reader what Worthington's actual position is.

Ian Worthington: "... not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable. ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008)

What they have done in effect, is picked and chosen from what they want the reader to see... Ian Worthington in basically says 1. "Idenfitying the greekness of the Ancient Macedonians is highly problematic because ......." but comes to the conclusion that 2. "not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable" .. How convenient that HxSeek/FP have chosen to use Worthington for the first part, but ignoring his conviction that the Ancient Macedonians are undeniably Greek in culture and ethnicity.

They end their text off with quoting borza (a fringe view in academia), to basically say "It's not important to worry about if the Macedonians were part of the greek culture, who cares if they were practically identical ethnically, culturally, and linguistically to the other greeks, what matters is that they were Macedonians". They are basically trying to say that it's not important to discuss the Majority view in Academia that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek people.... How does that make sense? Isn't the point of this page to DISCUSS the ethnicity, culture, and language of the Ancient Macedonians? I'm dumbfounded.

Really, this blatant editorializing and not within the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't know how to make it more clear that HxSeek/FP are not editing within WP:NPOV, and are agenda pushing. I really hope some other users with accounts will become aware of this. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

-- I did some research on Eugene N. Borza, who HxSeek/FP like to use as a source to try and understand their motivations.... Here is an interesting quote from him.

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival. ("Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999)

Very interesting what Borza has to say here. Could it be that HxSeek/FP are some of the modern Macedonian Slavs Borza is talking about, who attempt to discount the Greekness of the Macedonians in order to create a false history for themselves? Is it possible that the very man they quote to discount the 'greek' identifier of the ancient Macedonians, states the very reason for them wanting to do so??

I think that the Modern Discussion section could be expanded to add some of the reasons for the increased frequency of Modern Discussion regarding 'Greekness of Ancient Macedonians' in the past 20 years (With the creation of the republic of macedonia), and what effect in particular the topic Borza speaks about has to do with it.... 174.117.97.72 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

-> cont

We'll just go ahead and ignore the anonymous user's nonsense.

Athenean, whilst I disagree with u'r accusations, I would be happy to go through things with u. I, too, am busy this coming week. So we'll pick it up then

Hxseek (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming more and more evident the IP is just another reincarnation of a banned troll, so yes, let's just ignore them. What we should now all do is (1) read the new literature that was provided here, (2) rewrite the main body of the text on that basis, (3) tweak the lead to reflect it, but only at the very last stage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A sensible plan Hxseek (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FP, you state that "(1) read the new literature that was provided here, (2) rewrite the main body of the text on that basis, ". Sorry FP. That is NOT how wikipedia works. This is how it works --> (1) Read the new literature that was provided here, (2) Determine if the new literature fits in with the majority consensus on the topic. (3) tweak the lead to reflect it. The key point here is (2)... If it does not fit with majority consensus you cannot tweak the lead according to WP:NPOV. You are however, welcome to include material from the new source in a section of the article to highlight what the new source says in opposition to the majority consensus. I would be happy to help you and HxSeek deal with the minority views that discount greekness once and for all so we can put it to rest, and finally discuss the ancient macedonian culture, language, and ethnicity, which a majority of all scholars will tell you is Greek. Yours and HxSeeks calling into doubt the consensus should not take up so much of this article in accordance with WP:NPOV . 174.117.97.72 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep talking about "majority view" and "consensus", but it is evident that you actually have no substantive idea about history, archaeology or linguistics. So do everyone a favour, and SFU Hxseek (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"For the last two centuries ... Macedonians.[30]" I read this paragraph, and I felt the need to express my opinion about it, examining it as a text of an encyclopedic article: I did not like its writing style at all! At all! It could be a paragraph in a lecture about the ancient Macedonians, or in an scholar's book on the same topic, but — in the way it is written — not a paragraph in an encyclopedic article. Reading it, I feel like reading a professor teaching me as the supreme authority about what I should and what I should not know (and believe!) about the Macedonians!

See for instance the last sentence: "Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century”,[29] what matters most (why does this matter most? Because Borza says so?) is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians." This sentence is a mixture of two excerpts of two different authors of two different books! These excerpts are obviously put one next to the other, and then the editor of the sentence decides that what matters most is the opinion of Author No 2! It is obviously the wrongest way one could choose in order to present and connect these two opinions.

Non to speak about weasel expressions and qualitative subjective remarks like "It is clearly observable", "have been shown to be" etc. In general, this paragraph constitutes IMO an excellent example about how an encyclopedic text should not be written. Its authoritative and didactic style makes it a no no. I can understand the good intentions of its editor, and I recognize that its editor helps by adding new sources, but, in terms of writing style and structure, it needs to be reworked and rewritten. As it is now, it gives the impression not of a NPOV text, but of the opposite, namely of a text where an academic expresses her/his personal believes and exposes his readings, in order to impress us.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yannis, this is exactly what I brought up a couple days ago, but I didn't realize that if you do not have a username nobody pays attention to you. I suppose I should get one as soon as possible. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit there's something to this. It should be toned down. Unfortunately I can't do much about it as long as I haven't had a chance to read the new literature cited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

About Engels' article: I gave a quick read through Google Book (and only the pages I was allowed to read!), because I haven't yet the book in my hands, to Engels' interesting article about Macedonians' identity, and I feel the need to point out that there are some very interesting remarks in his article, which are not reflected in the aforementioned paragraph. I mention three of them:

• Page 96: "Increasing urbanization and the corresponding adaptation of a Greek way of life were important long-term developments which finally led in the

Macedonian region to a fusion of Macedonian and common Greek identity."

• Page 96: "These 'Greek' gods stress the close links of Macedonian religion to the usual Greek pantheon. The names of the most important Macedonian religious festivals are also typically Greek."
• page 97: "This is also a strong evidence of a process of fusion of regional Macedonian and common Greek religious identity in the Hellenistic period"

In the last excerpt, see the juxtaposition between regional (Macedonian) and common (Greek). Engels does not examine the Macedonians as a non-Greek people. Of course, he mentions in 97 the commont cults with the Thracians and others, and he absolutely correctly underlines (p97) the complexity and fluidity of ethnic identities in the ancient Greek world; he also correctly points out that we need to learn more about "Macedonians" and "Greeks". I agree in both conclusions of him! Therefore, this fluidity, this complexity, this uncertainty, if you want, should be mentioned in the new text you want to prepare. And it

is correctly referred in the "bad paragraph" I talked about before. At the same time, however, Engels (and not only him) mentions a very interesting process of "fusion" between "Greek" and "Macedonian", which basically takes place through the adoption of the common Greek way of life by the Macedonians. This is something basic for the understanding of the Macedonians, which existed in the previous text (maybe to the extreme, when using the word "hellenized"), and now lacks. Even if one does not believe that the Macedonians were Greeks, one cannot ignore this "fusion", which takes place by the "adaptation of a Greek way of life". You don't like the way "hellenization"? Ok! F... it! But in a serious encyclopedic article you cannot ignore the process itself, which is beyong doubt.

These are my comments, as regards Engels. If it happens to read any of the other "new sources", I'll comment on them as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: I now remembered another very interesting remark by Engels (p84). He writes that, although in the ancient Greek world there were doubts about the

"Greekness" (in the way that the authors in question percieved it at the time) of the Macedonians, no such doubts were expressed about the "Greekness" of the Epirotes, who present so many common traits in terms of historical course and social organisation. But he swiftly gives a possible explanation himself: Contrary to the Macedonians, the Epirotes never achieved a status of hegemonial power in Greece! This is a very interesting approach! Engels (possibly!) means that if other Greeks felt the Epirotes as a serious threat, maybe another Demosthenes would emerge, and would question their "Greekness". And he is probably quite right! I don't think that this excerpt of Engels needs mentioning in the article, but I wanted to underline it here as a very interesting and perceptive scholarly approach.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What have you people been doing again with the lead??? What are these "independent families"? God... not again... GK (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GK, I would request that this sentence be removed form the lede, since I cannot edit as the page is under protection. "Traditionally ruled by independent families, the Macedonians seem to have accepted Argead rule by the time of Alexander I of Macedon." It is not sourced with a reliable source. Further, the majority view is that Macedonia was settled by Greeks from Argos, therefore there were no 'independent families, that accepted Argead rule. If there were people in the area before the Argives arrived, they have left no written history, and conjecture about 'hypothetic' peoples in the area accepting Argive rule is pure conjecture, and does not belong in the lead. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

About (part of) Anson's article: After reading part of (because of Google Book again — I think I'll buy this very interesting book) Anson's article as well (unfortunately I could not access page 20), I tend to agree with GK1973. I really fail to see what was so wrong with the last part of the lead, which was scrapped in favor of a very ugly paragraph (which actually is a collection of random quotations with no encyclopedic cohesion and written in an awfully didactic styly). Some excerpts from Anson:

• Page 18:"By the second century the literary evidence suggests that the Macedonians and their southern neighbors saw themselves and each other as Greeks." Isn't this the description of a process of hellenization? Isn't this what the lede was previously saying?! The whole parapraph of Anson pp. 18-19 is a collection of proofs about how the Macedonians had gradually become Greeks!
• Page 19: "The Macedonians after all when they emerge onto the world stage share so much with the southern Greek world." See also the words chosen and used. If there is a southern Greek world, then who lives in the northern Greek world? Quiz!
• Page 19: "Even though Macedonia was a land of much diversity bla bla bla the evidence suggests that this region was certainly part of the Greek cultural milieu in the fifth century and, by the end of the fourth century, was recognized as such by the inhabitants of the southern regions of the

Penninsula." Not only did we have a progress of hellenization of the Macedonians, but, at the end, the southern Greeks accepted the northern ones as members of the same "cultural milieu". Isn't is what we would nowadays call "compatriots"?

The man is crystal clear! Does he question the core of what consitutes the"19th and early 20th century scholars' conclusions"? I think not! His text shows me a different approach but the same conclusions. Where is then this novel approach on the Macedonians which is supposed to change what we knew until now? Nowhere? No, there is a new approach, but not where FutPer and Hxseek tried to present it. The novel approach has to do with the focus of the interest of modern scholars: They want to see beyond "Alexander the Greek"; they want at last to find and re-invent "Alexander the Macedonian"; they want to know more about Macedonia itself and its identity, and they try to see history through the Macedonian eyes, because the "usual suspects" who wrote down

Macedonia's and Alexander's history were Greeks but non-Macedonians. These historians and authors told us about "Alexander the Great", "Alexander the Greek", "Alexander the emperor of Persia", they told us about his empire, his achievements and his Diadochi, but what about Macedonia itself and its people? This is what now modern scholars want to know better; they try to cover a gap, and their efforts deserves our respect, because they undertook a difficult task and they try to explore a field with little to help them. At they same time, these scholars discover a distinct Macedonian identity (as there was a distinct Epirotan, a distinct Athenian and a distinct Aetolian identity), and try to explain us that the ancient world percieved ethnicity differently; it was something more complex, something more fluid, and it is wrong to understand it as we understand modern ethnicity distictions and borders. After all, even Pericles was first Athenian and then everything else ("Greek identity" existed for Pericles, Demosthenes and the other ancient Athenians only when it served their interests, and it was never "common", in the way we now understand this word).

So, let's re-examine my previous question: What was the problem with the lede, and why is the current proposal better?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not followed very closely the text in this article, but I think the basic idea promoted by Hall, Engels et al is that the Greek and Macedonian identities were not pre-existent, but constructed in time. For example, Engels says (page 90): "In antiquity, mythological ancestors have been often invented with the clear intention to strengthen the sense of ethnic unity. This may also be true for Makedon as the mythical ancestor of the Macedonians." As such Macedonians became Greeks, they were not Greeks from the start (as identity, not as language, which is a different discussion with different arguments - see also Engels on pages 93-95). And here is how they disagree with previous scholarship seeing the Macedonians an archaic Greek tribe migrating from Argos or whatever other mythical place of origin. Do they assert anything about the Greekness of Macedonians in 8th or 7th century BC? (the current lead gives "the kingdom of Macedon established by the 8th or 7th century BC") Do they argue about a Macedonian Greek identity maintained through black-and-white pottery or Myceneaean sherds? Daizus (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't they agree that "they [the Macedonians] were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC"?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't cherry pick the sources! This article is not about Macedonians in 5th or 4th century BC only. It is also about an "ancient people" creating a kingdom in 8th or 7th century BC (and apparently existing before that: the text is not very clear on this point, but it tells of excavations unearthing "black-and-white pottery, characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece" and "Μycenaean sherds" which were "dated with certainty to the 14th century BC"). Many Thracians or Illyrians or Phrygians or Lydians were also "linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by" some century BC. This is not an article about how Ancient Macedonians became Greeks (or were Greeks descending from Zeus himself), but about Ancient Macedonians. Daizus (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, if you want to talk about cherry picking, look at which sources were cherry picked by HxSeek/FP for the 'new paragraph' as pointed out by Yannis. Further, your point unfortunately makes no sense. You say "This is not an article about how Ancient Macedonians became Greeks... This article is about Ancient Macedonians". Well, if this is about the ancient Macedonians, and if the ancient Macedonians were Greek, then this article will discuss their Greek way of life, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The majority of scholars consider the Ancient Macedonians as a Greek people from the 4th-5th century onward. If you don't want to talk about how they 'became greek' then fine, we can skip their etnogenesis then and just state them as Greek directly in the lead and ignore the 7-8th C's. The article is not 'Ancient Macedonians in the XXth Century' , its simply 'Ancient Macedonians', therefore, if their culture changed from barbaric to Greek, that should absolutely be discussed in the article. Your comments tend to be part of the same agenda-pushing type that FP/Hx have been displaying, it is a shame, because rather then contributing to the article, you simply wish to only focus on calling the consensus into question. Why not do some research on the Language of the macedonians, how about their Religion? How about their habits in their daily lives? Of course you would not be interested in this because all sources will identify these things as part of the greater Greek culture, something which Borza himself says upsets those from FYROM circles. At the end of the day, in accordance with WP:NPOV we must give appropriate weight to the majority view,... which is not being done right now... This article has been slowly picked away by those with an agenda for way too long. What I don't understand is why people like Yannis, GK, and others, don't assert themselves to protect the article ? 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Foolish statement. U want to talk about language, see Chadwick, Mallory and Engels, and see how "consensus" it is. U want to talk about their way of life, see Hammond, the "Companion", etc, and observe exactly who their way of a life was more like - "Greeks" or northerners. Sure everyone knows they worshipped Zeus, and other Greek gods, but did u know the way they worshipped was different, and they worshipped Thracian gods and other illyrian cult deities ?? This is important.

Sure, lets talk about language! The majority view in Academia is the ancient macedonians spoke a Greek dialect similar to Doric (see Hammond, Lewis, Boardman, etc) for a period of time prior to Koine Greek being standardized in the 4th Century BC. After Alexander the Great, I don't think there is a single Academic who would state that the macedonians didn't fully speak Greek like all the other city-states. Furthermore, the volume of the surviving public and private inscriptions indicate that there was never any written language in ancient Macedonia but Greek. According to WP:NPOV, the article should be weighed as such. Secondly, much of a muchness on how they worshiped each god, the important issue is which gods they worshipped and the general religion. This is an encycleapedic article, not a specialized work. It would be overkill to state that 'The athenians burned incense for 3 days and jumped on one foot while worshipping Zeus, The spartans juggled rocks and then ate 3 eggs during prayers, while the macedonians did three cartwheels and drank one glass of milk". Generally, if a topic has so much information with a majority view in academia is available, then that topic would be better off in a separate article 'Ancient Macedonian Religion'. You are getting rather specific here, and I don't think its useful to the article. Infact, it isn't. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In responce to Yanismoarou, Dazius is exactly right. Essentially, what we are changing the focus to is to investigate how Macedonians formed, why, and what made them the way they were. If we want to explore how they were integrated into the broader Greek community, then one must explore the process - which took centuries! They were not Greek because they used black and white pottery in the 13th century, but they became Greek because they were eventually seen as such by outsiders, Greeks and non-Greeks alike. That is what you missed, Yanis. Nobody disputes the 'end result', but the process is important. That is the interesting thing - how human societies develop. Afterall, that is why we study history.

Hxseek (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your statement is incorrect: "but they became Greek because they were eventually seen as such by outsiders, Greeks and non-Greeks alike.". They became Greek because they viewed themselves as Greek. They spoke the same basic language and shared a common Alphabet, (there were many Greek dialects, Attic, Doric, etc.), they shared the same religious beliefs, and the majority view in academia is that they were culturally and ethnically similar to the other peoples living in the region. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

174.117.97.72, my point makes no sense for someone not being able to get it.

First, I said nothing of Borza or FYROM, find another way to deal with your frustrations. I'm neither Greek, nor Bulgarian, nor Macedonian, I don't care about your petty quarrels. Second, I said the "article is not about Macedonians in 5th or 4th century BC only". You can talk about 5-4th century Macedonians, but this article starts in 14th century BC, suggesting the population of later Macedonia was Greek in that age! Can you present a single inscription mentioning Greeks/Hellenes in 14th century BC? Or Macedonians? Saying the inhabitants of later Macedonia were Greeks because they used "Greek" pottery, is like saying many Greeks today are Americans because they have Coke bottles and cans. Searching for Macedonians in Myceneaean age is like searching for Americans in 14th century AD Europe and Western African coast. This mumbo-jumbo about cultures and languages misses the most important thing - the identity. I would welcome to see something about the tribal, "barbaric" Macedonians, but this article is focused on how Greeks they were from the beginning of time! The first attempt to suggest otherwise is under siege. Daizus (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue of their Greek identity in 15th century BC... Even in Attica and the Peloponnese the Greek identity was not fully formed at that time. The issue here is that HxSeek unilaterally decided to take sentence out of the lead that stating that the from the 4-5th century BC onwards, (possibly earlier but to be safe lets say 4-5th) the majority view by academia is that they were a greek peoples. This was a statement backed by reliable sources, illustrating the majority view supported in modern times by various academics.... Chamoux, François and Roussel, Pomeroy, A. R. Burn, Cawkwell, Ehrenberg, Errington, Hammond, Robin Lane Fox, Robin Osborne, Arnold J. Toynbee , Ulrich, Wilcken, Ian Worthington , and many more... I could continue but i think my point is made. The statement has been in the lead for YEARS for a reason. That HxSeek reads 1 new book and thinks that justifies his removal is reprehensible to the spirit of Wikipedia. If we look at the point Yannis brought up on the editorializing nature of the paragraph he wrote, its not much of a stretch to surmise that HxSeek removed this for agenda-driven reasons. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and contrary to WP:NPOV 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek identity did not exist at all in 15th century BC! In fact, for the 2nd millenium BC we don't know all Greek speakers had a single name and identity for themselves, or conversely, whatever names and identities they had, those included the Greek speakers only.

Millions of people believed the Earth is flat or that the Sun goes around the Earth. Claims held for many years are of no relevance, if they are not widely held today, and by experts. Thus, from a review of a volume I mentioned above we learn that "[a]n important intellectual advance in anthropology of the past generation was the recognition that, however much its participants believe (or want to believe) that it is innate, ethnicity is a construct -- a fact already recognised by Herodotos." I"m almost sure this view is dominant or about to be dominant in academia, at least in the study of ethnicity and group identities. See the books I mentioned above and you can continue with Ton Derks, Nico Roymans (eds.), Ethnic constructs in antiquity: the role of power and tradition (2009), Kathryn Lomas (ed.), Greek identity in the western Mediterranean (2004), Lee E. Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece (2010), and many similar others. Daizus (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, but what does this have to do with the article? We are straying off-topic here. The issue of what the Macedonians identified as (or if they even identified as anything at all) in the 8th or 7th century BC is moot, as there are no written records from that period. I'm going to have to agree with the Yannis and the IP editor here, there is nothing wrong with the sentence that was removed from the lede, with the addition that we replace "history" with "recorded history". Athenean (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead never delt with 15th Century in the first place. To even go there is pure conjecture. As per HxSeek, I decided to take a look at what Engles has to say about the Macedonian Language and it appears he confirms that the only written records that exist from ancient Macedonia are written in a dialect of Attic Greek, and later on Koine Greek, (See page 94 of the book Daizus linked to in his earlier posts). No matter what specific words one tries to nit-pick in order to define a particular dialect, the consensus from recorded history is that they spoke one form of greek or another, until finally the spoke Koine Greek like the rest of Greece. Athenean brings up a good point here. Maybe it has been semantics all along... and to use the 'recorded' identifier in the sentence that HxSeek removed from the lede should make any grievances moot. As seems to be the majority consensus, I would agree with restoring the sentence at the end of the lede with the change so that it reads

"Some scholars have suggested that they had formed a distinct ethos before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC, however most scholars concur that the ancient Macedonians were Greek people throughout their recorded history." And of course, cite the appropriate sources, to represent the majority view in accordance with WP:NPOV, as it was before. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was not about the lead. However looking at the allegedly NPOV but very original synthesis above, I don't think this is a fight worth fighting for. Daizus (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to give my two cents, briefly, I fully agree with Yannis that Hxseek's paragraph, while well-intentioned and containing some good parts, has a strong editorializing flavor ("what matters most", "it is clearly observable that") and needs work. Also the last sentence "Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century”,[29] what matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians." is heavily SYNTHy. It takes a conclusion from the Companion, and one from Borza and SYNTHesizes them together for a conclusion that is supported by neither source. The "what matters most" claim is also unfit for an encyclopedia. I also find it strange that this article discusses the origins and nothing else, so a merger with Macedon is something I would support. Athenean (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly will wacth out for that. Point accepted, though, given the current state of the rest of the article, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black Hxseek (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I cannot make a change to a protected page, I would like to make a request that in accordance with the above discussion; that the text added by HxSeek be either fully removed, or at the least, request that the last sentence of the text be removed. ("Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century”,[29] what matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians."). Dr.K, Yannis, Athenean, and others all aired their grievances with the entire text... and particularly the last sentence which to many seems to have an editorializing tone to it. As Athenean states, 'It takes a conclusion from the Companion, and one from Borza and SYNTHesizes them together for a conclusion that is supported by neither source.' HxSeek seems to agree that the tone may be a bit-overboard and not fit for an encyclopedia when he states in response to Athenean 'I certainly will wacth out for that. Point accepted' 174.117.97.72 (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also agree with simply deleting this article and re-directing to Macedon. Since , for the most part, this page only deals with the Origins, it not much more then Macedon already touches upon. Either that, or rename this page 'Origins of the Ancient Macedonians' (specifically not 'Origins of the Macedonians'). By the way, as far as Ancient scholars are concerned, the Ancient Macedonians were settled by Greeks from Argos, a view shared by a many modern scholars.174.117.97.72 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the last clause ("...what matters most"...) as an unencyclopedic value judgment (I think we all agreed on that) as well as a "It is clearly observable that". I've purchased the Companion and should receive it in the next several days, and look forward to going over it. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch

http://portal.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite4_1_10/01/2011_372433

Sorry if that link doesn't post correctly. I've been reading all the help stuff and am still confused. (I come form the age of whiteout and typewriters.  :) )

Anyway, the article, titled "Archontiko dig bears witness to rich warrior society" about the continuing digs at Pella/Archontiko over the decade have revealed some idea of the material culture of the region from the late Iron Age to the Hellenistic period. I use this as an example because I just happened to have been looking up information on these very digs. That is, from the 7th century BCE forward. Someone coming to this page wanting to know about, you know, the Ancient Macedonians, as they lived and died, will not find that in this article. It is simply an article on how Greek or not-Greek they were. Nothing about them or their culture and history. So frustrating. One might get the idea that this article isn't about the Ancient Macedonians at all, except as they relate to modern politics. Oh dear. Gingervlad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody says this is a nice article; it is an awful article! In terms of quality, it is pure garbage, a failure! See the structure: a huuuuuge section about "Origins" (which, after you try to read it, you then needto take pills in order to recover) and then .... nothing! Nothing! It is so empty, it makes me wonder from times to times if we really need it, or if it could be simply incorporated into Ancient Macedonia. But if its editors believe that we need it, they must add some content to it like this extremely interesting article Gingervland provided us with.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a merger is certainly worth considering. I seem to remember Dieter Bachmann saying this for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All this should (and will?) be incorporated in the re-do of the entire article. So we can have subsections about Macedonians (their way of life, culture, religion, language, etc). Then we need to follow with a section on how they appear on the world stage, and what circumstances brought this about. If the latter sounds like 'origins', then be it. There is nothing wrong with examining this. It is only controversial because disruptive editors (like the anonymous nationalist above) make this into a personal crusade of defending Hellas against usurpation, souring the atmosphere and disrupting people who actually have positive approaches to the topic at hand.

Hxseek (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already made a proposal above (before Christmas) as to what this article should incoroporate. I do not agree with a merger, having separate entries for peoples is normal and in this case, Macedon cannot actually include all information about the Macedonian tribes and customs. "Macedon" was actually Argead Macedonia only. GK (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all it is wrong to link the ancient Macedonians with the Argeads alone. For example we also know that the Lyncestians claimed descend from Corinth and the Orestai (according to some sources an Epirote tribe, to most though a Macedonian) from Orestes himself... I will be occupying myself with this article shortly, but anyone who would like to see this one brought up to some kind of standards should be ready to help researching about the ancient Macedonians and their historical/archaeological past and occupy himself with the Ancient Macedonians and not with other non Macedonian tribes who inhabited these lands before them. GK (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse there should be a focussed approach, but we should neither limit it too much. Ie, some background from the period immediately preceding the 7th century BC is required, obviously focussing on upper Macedonia (and Orestian highlands where the Makedones were supposed to have migrated from) as well as the Pierian coast, where they first expanded to. Obviously, we should not waste time with Strymon Macedonia, Chalcidice, Paeonia, etc, which were obviously 'foreign' and acquired later. Hxseek (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The background you mention should be given of course but not analyzed, as I guess you agree with. If there are no specific articles for toponymes or ethnonyms presented in this article, these should be made and linked to. But mentioning entities like "Emathia", "the Bottiaians", "the Pierians" etc is of course only logical. On the other hand giving details about non Macedonian entities should be of course limited to what is useful and belongs to the flow of the text. For me, what is of paramount importance is for anyone willing to contribute in any way, to understand that this article should not be about the land but the people. So, any historical data about how Macedonia (or any ancient Macedonian kingdom or political entity) expanded, conquered, lost etc should not be our focus. The people, their traditions and customs, their tales are... GK (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But land and people are inextricably linked. Hxseek (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Language

As a starter of upgrade, I have put something together for Language.

The exact character of ancient Macedonian language remains a matter of discussion, although it was surely an Indo-European language. The lack of consensus is not only due to the relative paucity of evidence, but is also a result of differences in opinion amongst linguists as to which features of language are the most defining. That Macedonian which is available to us comes from surviving inscriptions and personal names (onosmatics).

NG Hammond put forth the idea that Macedonian was a ‘broad’ and ‘retarded’ version of Aeolic Greek dialect. Hammond’s supposition was based on a sentence given by the 5th century writer, Hellanicus, who made the mythical figure of Macedon a son of Aeolus. Hammond’s conclusion has been criticised by Borza and Crossland.

An extensive analysis of Macedonian words was performed by R Crossland. He highlighted that one third of the Macedonian words known from inscriptions have no satisfactory etymology viz-a-viz Greek. Thus his results differ to those of Kalleris, who argued that ¾ of Macedonian words are of Greek origin. Unlike Crossland, Kalleris failed to exclude from his analysis obvious Attic loans.Template:Hcref Other words, especially the place-names counted by Kalleris to be Greek, could well be of a general IE derivation. Certain phonological features in Macedonian differ from those of Greek dialects, eg the change if Indo-European voiced aspirates to unvoiced. Macedonian, like Illyrian and Thracian, did not undergo this development. Crossland concludes that the evidence does not suggest that Macedonian was a Greek dialect.

Direct ononsmatic evidence has been utilized to further analyse the linguistic picture of lower Macedonia. In addition to Greek names, various names of a Brygian- Phrygian, Thracian, and Illyrian character also existed, prompting suggestions that Macedonian was a hybridized Brygian – NW Greek language . Hatsopoulous’ analysis also revealed a large sub-set of the greek names are specific to the pastoral commnunities of western Macedonia and Epirus. Whilst the Greekness of a majority of Macedonian names is significant, borrowing or emulation of names from a culturally ‘prestigious’ neighbour occurred throughout history. Pre-Greek and Greek names often co-existed within the same family well into Roman times.

Contemporary anecdotes as to the relationship between Macedonian and Greek languages are not detailed enough to help us conclude how different/ similar Macedonian was to Greek. Writers like Plutarch and Arrian testify that Maceodnians continued to speak in distinct Macedonian “style”, or in the “Macedonian language”. However, this could equally symbolize a situation whereby Maceodnian was either separate language to, or a mere dialect of, Greek.

Recent syntheses regarding the question have summarized that Macedonian “surely shared a substantial part of its vocabulary with north-western Greek dialects but there were also demonstrable influences from Illyrian, Phrygian and Thracian”. Mallory’s position is that the available evidence could equally suggest that Macedonian was (i) either a peripheral Greek dialect, (ii) a separate but ‘sister’ language, or (iii) an altogether separate Indo-European language.

Whatever the exact nature of the attested Macedonian texts, it is probable that prior to the 5th century Macedonian tribes were themselves linguistically, or at least dialectically, heterogeneous because a “mountainous geography naturally isolates populations, resists large-scale economic integration, and creates refuge zones”. Even ‘’within’’ individual language communities, a diversity of dialects would have been spoken. As Jonathan Hall states, multilingualism was the rule, not an exception.

Standardization began in the 5th century, with the rise of Athenian Empire. The prestige associated with its ‘’koinized’’ vernacular led to its widespread adaptation within Greece as well neighbouring regions already involved in extensive contacts with the Greek world (ie southern Thrace, Illyris and Macedonia). As Macedonia defeated Athens for empirical supremacy, it continued to utilize an established lingua franca. However, local “Macedonian” continued to be spoken into the Antigonid era.

Notes

^ a: generally pertain to terms of a political and military nature

+couple of extra reference will need to be added

A good start, but somewhat POV-ish (unsurprisingly?), and suffers from the editorial and didactic tone we talked about earlier. Any position that states that the language is related to Greek is "criticized", while those that state otherwise are not. Other problems are zero mention of the epigraphic evidence, which is all in Greek (is that maybe why?). Also, the recent Hellenic hypothesis is excluded, as is the work of Masson. Athenean (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

i am not criticizing evidence which "supports" a particular side, but explaining , from the sources themselves, why some of the differences have occurred. On the balance of it, no one conclusion is enforced

What exactly are u referring to w.r.t. the " epigraphic evidence" please? Masson's evidence is considered in mallory's and engel's summary. If there is anything in particular u want to include from it, feel free to state so.

and u can leave out the snide commentary, Athenean. Be a man and not a girl Hxseek (talk)

Wow. Edit-warring (3 reverts), taunt-laden edit summaries, juvenile personal attacks, and sexism. I strongly suggest you improve your behavior, because this is the last time I'm going to warn you. By the way, I own the book (my copy came today), and it's "Anson", not "Anon". Athenean (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

K, k. Settle down. Try to act in good faith, esp given the effort I have put in. Hxseek (talk) 04:33, 30 January

2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one throwing insults around. And I would much more willing to assume good faith if for once I saw you make an edit pertaining to something other than the "Origins" question of this topic. Athenean (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

U insinuate. As I said above, I am trying to do something on all aspects bit by bit. Yes, I am interested in "origins". My interest in that extends far beyond Macedonians, but all Europeans , celts, mycaeneans, etc, etc. Its all fascinating. Run-of-the-mill Roman history, battle of so and so, dont interest me. I like the esoteric and difficult questions of language spreads, group formation, etc. Does that mean I'm some whack racialist ?

I'm not terribly interested in discussing you specifically, but I'm just saying, if one looks at your contributions on the topic, it's pretty much "Origins" and nothing else. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I digress. Athenean (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are digressing. I asked you, in good faith and out of respect, to offer some input into the linguistic issues. Instead you appear to be fixed on criticizing

my interests and taking a less than cordial tone. Work on that, please Hxseek (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you re-added Borza's value judgement "What matters most is that...". That is a value judgment, and needs to go. Several editors have already agreed on that. Also, why is "The Macedonians were fully part of the Greek cultural world by the 5th century BC" changed to "Anson has suggested that Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century.”."? Again this is weasel wording. Why the quotation marks? Why hedge using "Anson has suggested" and not just take Anson at his word like the previous version did? Also, if you're going to quote Anson, he says the were "certainly part of the Greek cultural milieu" (page 19) and "clearly part of a broader Greek cultural world, but in your version you removed the emphasis, while attributing the quote to Anson. All this hedging, weasel-wording and innuendo. Is it just me, or am I seeing a pattern here? Athenean (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have issue with just stating it as fact, although there is nothing weasel with stating that something is a scholars view or theory. We can extend the quote too. U'r issue with Borza is personally motivated. It is a nice summary to tail off with, and puts the whole "issue" into perspective .

now, stop nit-picking for the sake of arguing. U'r accusations are unwarranted, and if anything, expose a bitterness within you.

Hxseek (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest edits

The editorial, didactic tone is back ("Despite the ambivalence about their origins..." and "While it is clear that..."), and the distortion of the sources. Also, there is nothing wrong with "dubious" about Britannica, though it is generally not an ideal source. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if vouz prereferee, I can change " it is observable" to Hall, Hornblower, Borza, Green, Hammond, Engels, Anon argue that the Greeks were not convinced as to the Greekness of the general Macedonians into the 3rd or 2nd century. I just thought the former is less of a mouthful Hxseek (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"It is clearly observable" is verbose and unnecessary. Why do you need it? The only reason I can think of is so as to place additional emphasis on the fact that the some Greeks did not consider the Macedonians "brothers", i.e. weasel-wording. The wording "On the one hand, Greeks, into the fourth century..." is perfectly suitable and neutral, there is no need to "clearly observe" anything. The additional wording is also un-encyclopedic. The sources you mention are authors who are not constrained to used neutral, succinct language, but we are. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll change that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just get rid of it, please. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)