Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Template:WP1.0

Comment about "Greek"

At the risk of equally offending everyone, I will make this one comment and then back out again. Luxure, you have to remember that this discussion is not being held in isolation. Everything relating to Greece and the word "Macedonia" is colored by the current geopolitical issue between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia over the name. And because this discussion, while about the ancient world, concerns the name "Macedonia", it cannot be divorced from that modern conflict. While your position, Luxure, may be objective (I haven't actually read all the comments in detail), well-argued, and based on a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia and make it more accurate, it is hitting directly against modern Greek sensibilities from editors who are equally sincere in their desire to improve Wikipedia, but who approach the issue from an entirely different angle, subconsciously colored by modern events. No matter how "objective" we all try to be, there is no way that we can ever really divorce ourselves from our personal points of view and it is evidenced by the positions we consistently take, by the reliable sources we consider to be "the most reliable", by the terminology we choose to employ, etc. WP:ARBMAC2 was a major effort to move the article about Macedonia to Republic of Macedonia and to establish WP:MOSMAC where "Macedonia" is the default name for the modern country. It was a major compromise for our Greek editors. It was also a compromise to not call ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom". I suggest that you gracefully back off this current effort for the sake of good will towards our Greek-leaning editors, who have actually accommodated the English Wikipedia a great deal over the last few years. Just my two cents. --Taivo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with you referring to the state of FYROM as the "Republic of Macedonia" and I also disagree with you on the fact that it's not just the "Greek leaning editors" in my opinion who defend the mainstream academic conclusion on the issue, in the sense that people don't have to favor Greece or Greeks to defend them but favor what the majority of experts say about this dispute, I can't help but agree with the message you're trying to convey. Yes people who agree with me or Athenean for example have made serious compromises as you said and yes Luxure and any other POV ( by definition) pushers should accept they have to walk halfway to meet us in the middle of this disagreement as well. Unfortunately as long as modern politics interfere with historical facts we'll have to make compromises and accept what you've said here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — TheAnonymousCoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Taivo your comment: It was also a compromise to not call ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom". This is what I am trying to get removed but it seems they cannot see it. Apparently according to the fittingly named "AnonymousCoward" I am a pov pusher (rich considering WP:SPA) because I do not agree with the user. Serious compromises? Are you kidding? They will not and can not see both sides of the argument. The 2 users have not made any compromises so far (the way it was previously was fine). I would like to know what you think about this Taivo. Luxure Σ 06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You have only been on Wikipedia for two years, so you were not involved with WP:ARBMAC2. Neither was TheAnonymousCoward, an WP:SPA. I was. So was Dr.K. It was a major compromise for the Greek editors to give up "FYROM" in article text and as a title for Republic of Macedonia. It was hard work and, in the end, the involved Greek editors were gracious in conceding. I'm not going to get into the middle of the personal attacks that you and TheAnonymousCoward are throwing at one another. I've said what I have to say. --Taivo (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You 2 as my metaphorical parents? Thanks for the laugh! Dr K has earned my respect and out of understanding and respect for the both of you I will drop it. Goodnight, Luxure Σ 12:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Drop it before the ban hammer hammers you into oblivion. You're the most despicable person I've ever had the displeasure of meeting online.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither party involved here appears to be maintaining a neutral point of view, and my advice is that you all recuse yourself from this specific discussion. It's quite clear that neither side is willing to hear both sides of the argument, and both have completely assumed that the other party is not acting in good faith, without substantial evidence to make such claims.

This conduct is in bad taste, and both parties should drop it altogether. There is established precedent regarding this debate already, see WP:ARBMAC2. Thank for your contributions, but please find a different way to contribute before this situations escalates too far. ExParte ^{talk | contribs} 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Daric used as currency as well rather than simply one?

Does this provide us with any potentially useful info for the article? Should it be added to the infobox, and/or in any of the sections?

"From the later 6th century for a period of 200 years throughout the finest period of Athens to the rise of Macedon and the appearance of the Macedonian staters, the daric became the gold coin of the Aegean as well as the Persian dominions in Asia."

- A.R. Burns, p. 323 Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, Routledge 2013 ISBN 978-1136194467.

This is a 2013 reprint of a book first published in 1927. That's not to say it's wrong -- A. R. Burns was a notable economist -- but the perspective of modern historians and numismatists could be different. For one thing, a lot of coin hoards have been found since 1927. It would be better to look for a more recent source. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonian view

Is the Republic of Macedonia's view on the ancient kingdom covered anywhere on Wikipedia? --Yoozem or loozem (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it isn't. But it should be. Present-day Macedonia is a nation which bears the name of the ancient kingdom and -- as controversial as this might be -- it does identify itself as the successor of that kingdom and does consider it to be part of its own history. Have you seen the larger-than-life statue of Alexander the Great in downtown Skopje? Sure they wouldn't have erected it there if they thought of him as of just a random figure from antiquity, right?

I think you should consider covering this -- as a minority view, obviously. No coverage at all looks like a breach of your neutrality policies. --Yoozem or loozem (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for that. That content should be covered under politics of the Republic of Macedonia or in some similar place dealing with contemporary geopolitics. This article is not about modern consequences, but only the facts of the ancient kingdom. As such, it steers a neutral path. There are plenty of editors who have wanted to call this a "Greek kingdom" rather than the neutral "ancient kingdom". --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The view held by the Republic of Macedonia is already covered in the article: Macedonian nationalism which is better suited for this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive use of the term 'North' in the lead

@TaivoLinguist:, the term 'North' (inc. Northern and Northeastern) is repeatedly used at least 3 times on the first couple of paragraphs on the lede which is not needed. Can you explain why have you reverted my edits? Why this word has to be repeated that much? -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead of the article is supposed to provide an understandable summary and overview of the article content in an way that it is compact and readable to the editors, not a place where a certain information is repeated more times than than necessary. Please revert your reversion or I will have to do it myself. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Taivo has reverted my edits on the grounds that there is a consensus on lede about careful wording. However the consensus reached is about careful wording that meets Wikipedia:NPOV and other related criteria, not about repetitive use of the same information 3 times on the lead. The editors should keep the lead as compact and clean as possible. For more info, please check: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You were not here for the consensus so that you need to read the history before editing further. The consensus was specifically to avoid saying exactly what you have written, that ancient Macedonia was "in classical Greece". That's why the wording "on the northern periphery of classical Greece" was specifically used. Read the archives and you will see that the wording itself is the consensus and must not be changed without building a new consensus. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus wording is very specific and is used for a very precise purpose. Greeks want ancient Macedon to be an ancient Greek kingdom. Macedonians want ancient Macedon to be a non-Greek kingdom. So the wording "on the northern periphery of classical Greece" is purposely ambiguous so that "on the periphery" does not specifically imply in or out, but just on the border. Changing the wording interferes with that ambiguity. Saying, as your edit does, that "Macedonia was in classical Greece" violates the spirit of the compromise wording that has a solid consensus. --Taivo (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. Do you happen to remember the the year the consenus you mention of, has been reached? I could love to update myself on this, but there are alot of archives spanning a long time if I do not have an aproximate date of the said discussion. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall the precise year because the issues surrounding Macedonia (in general) are complex and have been swirling for about a decade on Wikipedia. They move from article to article, focusing primarily on Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Perhaps about 2010? The key is that the current wording is stable and has been stable for several years. In the area of Macedonia, stability is much to be desired. --Taivo (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You need a clear statement on consensus for the current version to stay as is. I checked the archives here in the Talk Page so I can update myself with the latest developments on this front, but there isn't a clear statement on consensus. There is a lengthy discussion in the archives dating around 2009 and 2010, but there are no clear statements on consensus. Am I am missing something? Or maybe the dispute resolution was handled somewhere else? -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I will look through the archives, but you are wrong about the need to find one in order to maintain the text as is. Per WP:BRD, if you make a change and someone reverts it, you do not get to push the change through without coming to a new consensus. The status quo always prevails until a new consensus is built when someone objects to a change. That's Wikipedia policy. And I strongly object to your proposed change because it is clearly POV while the current text maintains the WP:NPOV that was so hard won in this troubled subject area. --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I had forgotten that the 2009 consensus was on "an ancient kingdom centered in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula." This was stable until September 2014 when the current wording became the consensus. Your request for a definitive "this is the final compromise" is rather naive in this subject area. Because of the emotions involved in the Balkans, it's important to remember that nationalists regularly appear to disrupt the proceedings in various ways. The appropriate compromise was proposed by Principal Protagonist A (User:Stevepeterson) here and accepted by Principal Protagonist B (User:TaivoLinguist) here. There was still some back and forth from other editors on the Talk Page (as there always is when dealing with the Balkans), but the matter settled on the "periphery" wording and has remained there ever since. Your edit, to once again make ancient Macedonia part of Greece, is completely against WP:NPOV. Since 2009, neutral editors on this page have had one overriding mission--to keep the word "Greek" from being associated with Macedonia in the first sentence since it is a WP:POINTy POV association. --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did not say or imply anything about you doing something wrong. I will check later the archives in depth just in case and perhaps add an invisible note on the main article about the number of archive the consensus you talked about was recorded, so future editors could be better informed. However I can not help but note what you have expressed about POINTING is not invalid, but it is not valid either, because POINT can not be used to sacrifice the weight of historical facts and recent scholarly consensus about the ancient Greek kingdom, for the sake of compromises and stability in the lede.

Your argument is not invalid, however, it can not negate the problems the lede is suffering from, which, is stable only thanks to your multiple reverts of other editors' edits and not thanks to the lede itself reflecting the established facts and the opinions of most international scholars on this matter. To put it straight, while this may be a compromise, it is taking in account, not the recent scholarship and established facts, but the political views only; the opinions of the nationalist Ethnic Macedonians on the one side, and the opinions of the Greeks on the other side. While compromise among editors is a core element of Wikipedia, so do are the reliable sources from scholars and established facts. I mean, more specifically, that the recent consensus among the international scholars about the Greek identity of the ancient kingdom of Macedon is currently not taken in account, and thus, is not reflected on the lede, even when we were supposed to not allow modern-day political disputes to affect how the articles about ancient kindoms of old, are presented in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, although in the main body of the article the Greek character of the kingdom is evident, in the lede I realize now this is being avoided intentionally, which frankly raises some questions of consistence between the beginning and main parts of the article. Well, that is only my opinion and nothing more. Still, I have later to check the archives for more details about that consensus, and see if a new consensus is required to amend the previous version of lede and also check what the 2014 changes were exactly and how they fit in all this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with SilentResident's edit. Nor do I see any valid source-based arguments against it, only an appeal to tradition, the weakest type of argument. SilentResident makes a valid point that the whole "North" thing is overdone in the lede. And the source we are quoting in the lede backs the wording chosen by SR. Athenean (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, Athenean, the lead as it stands is not false or misleading and that the article amply describes the relationship between ancient Macedonia and the Greek city-states. You know that we are not talking at all about stripping the relationship from the article at all. We are just avoiding placing a pointy flag in the eye of Macedonian readers in the first sentence. SilentResident is just the latest in a long line of editors who want to stab that Greek flag in any article that has the word "Macedonia" in it. Does "north" occur too many times? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the actual result of SilentResident's edit. His edit called Macedonia a Greek state in the first sentence, which is what we want to avoid, and what the consensuses have always sought to avoid. Edit the heck out of "north", just don't slip that Greek flag into the first sentence. --Taivo (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but bad faith accusations and ad hominems, an even weaker form of argument than appeal to tradition. And still no rebuttal to the edit. There is no "Greek flag" anywhere except in your imagination. Athenean (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. I am reading your comment, Taivo, and I am puzzled. You are saying the kingdom is not Greek, however isn't this your mere opinion? Isn't this position contradicted by the main body of the article itself? The main body of the article clearly states that the kindom's legislative body was the Synedrion, which is Greek type of governance. The religion of the kingdom was the Greek polytheistic religion of the Twelve Olympic Gods. The people's language is recorded, in no other alphabet but in the Greek. And the people of the kingdom were given Greek names. And if that isn't enough, the kingdom's currency too was the Tetradrachmon, a Greek currency. All that without mentioning the increasing international consensus among scholars the last years about the "Greekness" of the kingdom. However, Taivo insists that we ignore the article itself and turn a blind eye to these established facts? Note: I am not saying that the Kingdom is Greek: I am saying that the main body of the article contradicts the lead. First time I find a case where an ancient kingdom should not be identified by its culture, religion, people, language, currency, and politics. How comes? (Edit: my apologies if I gave the impression of Greek flagging, or how Taivo calls it, since this is not the case here. The case here is that a kingdom's history and records are ignored in the name of an unrelated dispute that happened 2.000 years AFTER that kingdom ceased existing. No offense, but I don't think it is very appropriate to depend the handling of a historical political entity to a modern-day political dispute and the views stemming from it. Historical political entities should be handled based on facts and be left out of any modern political disputes.) -- SILENTRESIDENT 05:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of you are refusing to read my comment in its very literal sense. At no point do I say that the article should strip all mention of "Greek" from the article, yet that's what you accuse me of. Athenean, you have been involved in all of these previous discussions, so your characterization of the issue is surprisingly forgetful. All that I have ever said, from day one, is that the first sentence, as a result of consistent compromise for the last 7 years, should not say "Greek kingdom". Yet, SilentResident, you accuse me of claiming that ancient Macedonia was not Greek or heavily influenced by Greece. I have said no such thing. But you are the newcomer and can be forgiven for ignoring the history of this issue. SilentResident's edit, however, does precisely the opposite of seven years of compromise and consensus. His edit says "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom in classical Greece". It wasn't "in Greece". It was in "Macedonia", north of classical Greece. But whether you call Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" (which was the previous problematic and contentious wording) or "in Greece" (which is SilentResident's wording), it is still the same needless pointy Greek flag waving. Was Macedonia culturally Greek? It doesn't matter in the first sentence. The article is plain and clear. But plenty of Greek editors (such as User:Dr.K.) have accepted the current compromise wording as a good way to keep the Balkan peace while not compromising the quality of the article or the information. The point is that not every sentence in the article needs to say "Greek" and keeping it out of the first sentence is a simple and easy way to maintain a level of harmony. --Taivo (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

SR's edit did not say "Greek kingdom". And yes, last time I looked at a map, Macedonia is located in Greece (by the ancient definition, not the unrelated 19th century definition). There is nothing POV or factually incorrect about SR's edit. Athenean (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Taivo on this one. The formula "on the northern periphery of Classical Greece" is accurate and fairly neutral and has been a long-standing compromise. Let us keep it and protect it. To avoid some repetition to north/northern, I would suggest to simplify the start of the next paragraph from "a small kingdom in northern Greece, outside..." to just "a small kingdom outside..." It has already been clearly established in the first paragraph where it is, so the point here is to place it outside the city states area. Using the term Greece here is somewhat anachronistic, since there was no "Greece" at that time. Regards! --T*U (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"Outside"? Definitely not. And "Greece" is certainly not anachronistic, all sources use "Greece" (what else would they use?). Maybe not in th modern sense, but there was certainly a "Greece" back then too. Athenean (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, my intention is not to disrupt this peace, but to point out on the problems the lede currently has. I can understand that the dispute in the past was handled in a very unfortunate way, by taking in account various political viewpoints and finding a middle line between them (compromises). I can't be more clear than this: historical entities should be left out of politics and be treated accordingly. The primary goal here is to be objective and strive for the accuracy and quality of information.

Taivo, I have read your worrysome comments, where you have stated particularly that: the "Kingdom in Greece" is POINTY and, the "Greek Kingdom" is POV. But you are wrong. I am really sorry to say this but POV is not when a historical fact is noted. POV is not when the reliable and peer viewed sources are taken into account. POV is when for the sake of the stability and peace, concessions are made to the information's quality and accuracy, in an attempt to satisfy the one or the other political side of a modern dispute that is unrelated to the ancient kingdom, so that the peace is maintained.

With simple words, instead of taking in account the fieldwork and opinions of the scholars, historians and archeologists abroad, (whom the job is more related to the ancient Kingdom than the mere opinions of the editors), we have editorial bias in its place. The article appears to give more emphasis on the opinions of editors than of scholars, for the sake of "maintaining stability and peace". Do you see how problematic this is and how this violates Wikipedia's core principles? I am kindly asking once more again for the political entities of old to be left out of modern political disputes. The kingdom's article should be handled based on historical records and facts and not based on personal opinions of editors. Wikipedia is not democracy. Wikipedia is not a blogspot either. Editor's opinions can not have more weight than the events and facts themselves. Citing peer viewed sources and facts are very important aspect of Wikipedia, even when it does not favor the views of certain editors. -- SILENTRESIDENT 06:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear editors, I was not here when the big debate occurred on this talk page. I can imagine the pain you all have been through. The dispute must been a very tense and difficult phase in your Wikipedic life. But this does not mean I can't bring the alarming situation in which the article has stuck: in a case where we have 2 editorial sides disagreeing about whether Earth is a spherical planet or a flat planet... And at the end, a compromise has been reached suggesting that Earth is somewhat... half-spherical and half-flat (!) planet, for the sake of peace and stability, which frankly is not a very encyclopedic solution. No offense, I do not mean to underestimate how politicized anything related to Macedonia currently is, but soon or later this should be tackled, not because of the sake of some editors here, but for the sake of Wikipedia. -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What arrogance, SilentResident: "Dear long-time editors, I have come here to solve all your problems by bringing absolute truth". You are not a neutral party to this. I have looked at your list of contributions to Wikipedia and it is almost entirely related to Greece. Please do not pretend that you bring a neutral point of view to the table with any fresh insight. Your comments about "historical fact" and "peer-reviewed scholarship" have been made before and are nothing new. You only bring the same tired argument that you want to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence. Your attitude toward the article and its "alarming situation" contains not one single, solitary word that hasn't been said a hundred times over the last decade. Don't pretend that you are a breath of fresh air. Like every member of the Greek flag-planting party, you bring the mistaken notion that we are talking about the "Greekness" of the entire article when we are talking about nothing more than the first sentence and avoiding an excessively provocative and unnecessarily pointy word there and only there. Your contempt for a neutrally-worded first sentence, Wikipedia consensus, and constructive compromise is noted. But until you build a new Wikipedia consensus, your opinion does not override the existing status quo. --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You called me arrogant, you called me biased, you called me a pretender, you accused me for undermining a neutrally-worded first sentence, you accused me for undermining consensus and constructive approach, and you are diminish me as "a member of the Greek flag-planting party"... I am speechless. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Attacking other editors or groups of editors is a blatant violation of WP:NPA and you may risk getting reported to the administrators. Don't push your luck. I expect an apology and I recommend that you take a breath from Wikipedia. Such arrogant and insulting behavior of your part, shows that you are unfit to your role as an objective editor. No matter what, nothing justifies such an editorial misconduct and aggressive behavior towards the other editors. Please be polite. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)