Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

The consensus stating the Macedon was not a Greek state was small

We need a rerun. With modern archaeology and understanding of history - it is clear Macedon in Classical times was not on the periphery of Ancient Greece - but part of it - hence why they were allowed to compete in the Olympic games. Now did other Greek states view macedonians negatively and even slur their name at times of civil war like Demonthenes? Yes. Does that make them not Greek? Nope.. We need to rerun the arguments - this consensus is outdated. Reaper7 (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope. It's not outdated, but the result of careful discussions in multiple articles and a careful consideration of all the reliable sources, not just the ones that say "Greek" without a careful consideration of all the data. Macedonia was on the periphery of the Greek world, it was nowhere near the center of the Greek world. --Taivo (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia became part of the Greek world thanks to the effort of its kings. In the beginning of the classical era, Macedonia was still considered as a semi-barbaric state, although its kings were accepted as true Greeks, hence why they could compete in the Olympic games. T8612 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect I am afraid, Macedonia was a Greek speaking entity before any kings decided anything. The people spoke a Greek dialect - not because the Kings wanted it that way, but because they were a Greek people. The Macedonians worshipped Greek Gods not because of the effort of their kings, but because they were a Greek people. Macedonia did indeed often get referred as semi barbaric by its enemies in Athens and other Greek states, but so so so sadly, this does not negate the actual identity of the people - one of a Greek language, whose leaders were proud of their Greek heritage and whose subjects had Greek names, Greek religion and Greek language. Sadly, wiki has been duped into doubting these basic facts. Philip II himself described himself as Greek (Hellene) - and you have just stated yourself he was Greek. His Wiki article however purposefully refuses to acknowledge him as Greek, unlike his son - who is called a king of a Greek Kingdom on wiki. However, I am repeating what has been put better by User:Melathron, User:Factuarius, User:A.Cython, User:Macedonian, User talk:SilentResident, User:NickTheRipper, etc etcReaper7 (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, the Macedonian kings were considered to have Argive Greek lineage by the Hellanodikai Olympic authorities, but the Macedonian people themselves weren't allowed to compete until the latter part of the 4th century BC during the early Hellenistic period, after Philip II had already quelled Greece, set up the League of Corinth, and his son Alexander the Great took the throne and invaded Persia. By that point, who was going to say no to the Macedonians, who politically and militarily dominated everything? Personally I think they were Greek and spoke Greek (as I discuss in my post below), but since there is still some debate about the true classification of their native language and not just the polemics of Demosthenes, I think we need to be more cautious about using the Olympics as a standard when participation in it was clearly politicized. Notice how the Latin Romans, who clearly were not Greek, were allowed to compete in the Ancient Olympic Games simply because they had become politically dominant in the Mediterranean after defeating Carthage in the Second Punic War. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"Now did other Greek states view macedonians negatively and even slur their name at times of civil war" I doubt whether the many wars between rival Greek-speaking states can be considered civil wars. These states were not a single unified polity. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Macedonians were Greek speaking. I agree. Religion and culture was all Greek. What were their non-Greek elements that allow wiki to state they were not a Greek people? Reaper7 (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's due to the debate that still goes on about their native language. With the small evidence available, personally I think Macedonians spoke a northwestern dialect of Doric Greek and this is supported by various scholars. However, not all scholars agree and there are other theories that the ancient Macedonian language was a sibling language to Greek, two parts that made up a hypothetical "Hellenic" branch of the larger Indo-European family. There are others who even think it should be considered closer to Illyrian, Thracian, or Phrygian, or its own singular branch of the Indo-European family entirely. Whatever the case they were culturally Greek otherwise, of course, even if they subscribed to absolute monarchism, drinking customs and burial traditions that seemed Archaic to Greeks of the Classical era who dwelt in oligarchic and democratic poleis. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So it is only about language that damages their 'Greekness'? What do the majority of scholars state concerning the Greekness of the Macedonian dialect? If a majority believe Macedonian was a Greek dialect - the minority who disagree should be mentioned, but their minority disagreement should not dictate the consensus of academia. To reiterate - your opinion (as you humbly put it) - of it is in the majority of academic belief - should be used for this article. Those who disagree to various slightly diluting points (dialect vs virtually Greek dilaect etc) - their opinions should be included, but should not dictate the 'Greekness' of Macedon. To reiterate - your opinion (as you humbly put it) - if it is in the majority of academic belief - should be used for this article. Those who disagree to various slightly diluting degrees (dialect vs virtually Greek dialect etc) - their opinions should be included, but should not dictate the 'Greekness' of Macedon concerning this article. When Herodotus visited Macedonia in the 5th Century - he stated the royals and the peoples are Greek - of Dorian decent. Herodotus is famed for describing various dialects. No such mention here. Is it possible as Greek playwrights have often mentioned, Macedonian was simple a dialect of Greek that was mutually intelligble with Athenian Greek. Reaper7 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I personally haven't done a head count of how many scholars support whatever position, but you are welcome to do so if you want to bore yourself to death with countless hours of research. LOL. You could also just use the existing article ancient Macedonian language as a barometer for gauging how many scholars generally support this or that position in terms of classifying the language. If it's worth anything, though, major publications and "companions" to ancient Macedonia by both Blackwell and Brill clearly side with the scholarly faction that affirm Macedonian was a northwestern Doric Greek dialect. Meanwhile, it seems that most scholars who argue otherwise, i.e. that Macedonian was a sibling language or a different branch of the Indo-European family but slightly related to Greek, include publications that are rather old, from the 1960s or way earlier, with the exception of B. Joseph (2001) and Hamp & Adams (2013). That might be something to consider. Also, see my post above where I replied to your other post about the Olympics, which I don't think is the absolute best way to decide whether they were Greek or not. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We should also consider various phases of the Kingdom of Macedon from the Archaic and Classical to the Hellenistic period. I say that because by the end of the Hellenistic period those who belonged to the late Kingdom and early Roman province of Macedonia actually didn't speak their native Macedonian tongue anymore, they spoke the universal Koine Greek as a first language. That was at least the case by the 1st century BC, as Cleopatra VII Philopator spoke Koine Greek as a first language in Ptolemaic Egypt, for instance. She would have considered herself Greek too. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't want to bore myself to death (love the language by the way!), but maybe you should concerning this subject as I suspect your opinion - which you state is your opinion, is actually the academic mainstay opinion. So it is a little weird. Like me saying it is my opinion the world is not flat.. True - it is my opinion, but usually you state something as your opinion on things that may be contentious. As it stands I don't believe the Greekness of the Macedonian language is contentious. I believe the majority of academia believe it was a Greek language or Greek dialect as the article states. So therefore we are back to my original point. What are the non Greek elements that prevent us stating Macedon was essentially a Greek kingdom, Philip was a Greek king and the Argead dynasty was a Greek dynasty? Because currently there are many editors fighting (in good faith I am sure) to remove the word Greek from essentially Greek entities. As for the Olympics - I agree, not a great barometer and very political. However - I fear readers of these articles are not getting the current belief amongst the majority of current scholars - that Macedon was essentially a Greek ancient kingdom - rather the reader is seeing an entity on the periphery of ancient Greece - like the Thracians - who were genuinely on the 'periphery of ancient Greece.' Reaper7 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Thracians themselves are thought to have underwent Hellenization, Romanization, and, Slavicisation by the Late Antiquity period. They were not remote enough to not be affected by the political and cultural transitions in the Balkans. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article on the Ancient Macedonian language states that Macedonian was already marginalized by the 4th century BCE. The Macedonian aristocracy adopted Attic Greek as the official language, leading to the later transition to Koine Greek. By the 3rd century BCE, it is doubtful that the Macedonians themselves were able to speak or write in the language used by their ancestors. Dimadick (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Matters not if the language was already essentially mutually intelligible to the average Athenian Greek in the 5th Century BC. Languages evolve anyway. It appears the majority of scholars - and the majority of actual archaeological evidence - point to the fact ancient Macedonian was essentially a Greek dialect. Those who believe the Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect are in what seems to be a minority. Reaper7 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Pericles is spot on about the ancient Macedonian language and the gradual switch from ancient Macedonian to Koine Greek that was not complete in Philip's time, but was underway. You also want to treat ancient Macedonia as a monolith: always X and never Y before becoming X. The truth that even ancient Greek authors recognized is that Philip's reign began a transition from ancient Macedonian language norms to Greek norms. By Cleopatra's time, for example, ancient Macedonian was surely extinct--all the evidence points in that direction. But in Philip's time ancient Macedonian was still a local vernacular, as evidenced by the historical note that Alexander addressed Cleitus in Macedonian and not in Greek. And you disparage the linguists who conclude from the evidence that ancient Macedonian was a sister language and not completely intelligible with Greek. Eric Hamp is one of the foremost Indo-Europeanists on the planet and has been for decades. His conclusion bears as much weight as any ten other scholars in linguistic circles. Brian Joseph is also highly respected in the field of Balkan linguistics. Many of the scholars who weigh in on the "Greek" side of the debate aren't linguists, but archeologists who simply chose to take the easy route in classifying the language. Hamp and Joseph, as solid and well-respected historical linguists, bear much more weight than 20 archeologists. But aside from your misconceptions about linguistics, you simply refuse to look at the evidence of Greek authors who are split on the issue of whether Macedonians of Philip's day were "Greek" or "barbarian". The issue is complex, but rather than letting the article describe that complexity, you want to bull your way into making the article declare that endpoint in the process as definitive. That's not encyclopedic writing, that pushing an agenda. --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

And your argument that Philip was of Greek lineage and therefore the kingdom should be called Greek ignores the fact that Catherine the Great was German. Should Imperial Russia during her reign therefore be called German? --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid you misappropriated my point about Philip and it appears your use of the word agenda is not in good faith - as to be expected with you sadly. Please attempt - just attempt to keep civility. My point about Philip is that he self identified as Greek, spoke Greek, worshipped Greek Gods and came from a Greek family - and yet his wiki page refuses to say he was a Greek King. This whole arena in wiki is badly fractured and needs a new consensus. As for your long tried and tested Alexander addressing his troops in Macedonian and not Greek that was used ad infinitum by North Macedonian academics trying to claim Ancient Macedonians spoke a completely different language to Greeks - that sadly in reality could be more to do with the accent and quirks of the Macedonian dialect at the time rather than a separate language that you are arguing. The majority of modern academics do not believe the language was non-Greek. Athenian playwrights mocked the heavy Macedonian accent and the slighty different endings on certain words - doesn't make it a separate language. The evidence we have - contemporary tablets ect are that the Macedonian dialect of Greek in the common vernacular at the time was mutually intelligible with ancient Greek and even modern Greek to an extent. Reaper7 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You can edit Philip II's page. The Argeads were Greek, there is no doubt about it. The problem is about whether the Macedonian people were Greek. In the Hellenistic era it was obvious, but not in the Archaic and Classical eras. T8612 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, in fact - Taivo himself blocks the edit of Philip II being a Greek King constantly, have a read - Blocking Philip II as a Greek king despite his own self identification. So back to my original point - the whole idea of Macedon - even for Philip II himself who self identified as Greek - it seems the word - Greek - is toxic. It shouldn't be - especially with historical Greek speaking characters who identified as Greek and came from famous Greek families. Reaper7 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you are using Philip's claim to be Greek as an excuse to call his KINGDOM Greek. They are two different things and the edits at Philip's article are not directed at Philip, but at Macedonia. That is an unwarranted leap of logic. That's like calling Catherine the Great's Russia a "German kingdom" because she was. But my point remains the same: you cannot label the entire range of Macedonian history (we'll both assume I'm talking about the ancient non-Slavic kingdom) "Greek" just because that's where they ended up at the end of their independent history. Philip was at the beginning/middle, not at the end of that transition. So calling Philip "Greek" personally might be justified, but calling Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" (which is the persistent edit that the consensus objects to) is not. And I don't care if all your archeologist friends call Macedonian just a dialect of Greek. The most reliable people on the list of authors at the ancient Macedonian language article are the three actual Indo-European and Balkan linguists who say that Macedonian was a sister language to Greek (Hamp, Adams, and Joseph). Linguists are far more reliable as sources than are archeologists who learned Greek in grad school, especially three linguists who are world-renowned for their expertise in Indo-European and Balkan languages and the historical linguistics of the group. And since you say you know my editing history in this area, might I remind you that means I also know your editing history in this area. You are far from some innocent bystander and have committed your own share of editing misadventures. I was a participant at WP:ARBMAC just as you were. --Taivo (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you are off again but at least this time you have taken the warning and stopped the personal attacks. I will have to repeat. Philip II self identified as Greek, spoke Greek, was from a famous Greek family and worshipped Greek Gods as well as practised a Greek cultural existence. You have blocked him being described as a Greek King and continue to. That for me is deeply disturbing and very unfortunate for readers of his article who will get a confused idea of who he is thanks to your work. Catherine the Great has nothing to do with it. Sorry - however I see why you are attempting to introduce that straw man. Byzantine and Roman kings and queens as with others - could be foreign to the state they ruled. This was not usually the case for Macedon I am afraid. Now to Macedon itself. Macedon was not on the periphery of the Greek word. Thrace was. Macedon was an essentially Greek state. There was more Greek than non Greek about it and that is the consensus of modern academia and archaeology. You can squabble over Macedonian being a sister language or dialect of Greek.. it matters not. Now if there is more Greek than non Greek about Macedonia - Macedonia should be described as an essentially Greek state - rather than a state on the periphery of ancient Greece that later came to dominate Hellenistic Greece. What is non Greek? Now why was it that there was more Greek than non Greek about Macedon? Religion, language, customs - even lineage.. We have a Dorian people speaking a Greek dialect with Greek rulers and a Greek existence descended from Dorians. But - we need to start small. We need to start with Philip and the Argeads - both are Greek entities. You have blocked Philip being called a Greek Taivo - actively and recently. Macedon - is not essentially Greek because of the ruling family. Macedon is essentially Greek because of religion, language, history and culture. This article needs to tell the reader Macedon was an essentially Greek kingdom. A non descriptive state on the periphery of Classical Greece does not correctly describe the state to a reader. That line better describes Thrace. Reaper7 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have not actually read anything that I have reverted at Philip's article. Perhaps you need to do your research before making your comments. The edits at Philip's article have not been to call Philip a Greek King. Not once. Not a single time. The edits that I have reverted have always been to call Macedonia a Greek kingdom. Those are completely different things. Perhaps you need to reword your accusations about what I have reverted in the past because you are lying about it despite my careful explanation in my previous post. Perhaps you need to read what I wrote before claiming that I have done something that I have not done. And you have not read any of the careful discussion that went into the original choice of the word "periphery" (you weren't involved at the time as I recall, perhaps that discussion was still during your year-long topic ban after WP:ARBMAC2, and haven't bothered to do your subsequent research on it). You make the common error of assuming that "periphery" means "outside". It means no such thing. It basically means "on the border"--neither definitively in or definitively out. Both North Dakota and Saskatchewan are on the periphery of the United States. Macedonia during the reign of Philip was not completely Greek--and many Greeks said so themselves. And you ignore definitive linguistic sources that say that the Macedonian language was not Greek, but a sister language. Indeed, the linguists who make that claim are far more reliable as historical linguists than any of the other sources cited in the language article. The reason that we make no definitive assertion in the first sentence about the Greekness of Macedonia in this article or at the article about Philip is that the issue is more complex than the simplistic flag-planting that is against the long-standing consensus on the matter. --Taivo (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying some facts about categorization's new name

The category "Category:Kingdoms in Greek Antiquity" has been moved to "Category:Ancient Greek Kingdoms", however, of all the Greek kingdoms, only one has become so marginalized: The Kingdom of Macedonia. The change of the categorization's name resulted today in disagreements on this article, about whether Macedonia fits under the category's new name, a disagreement which in my opinion wouldn't have happened today if the whole Macedonia Naming dispute didn't occur in the past, at all.

Wikipedia is based on scholarly sources and not on political pov. The vast majority (note the word vast) of the modern scholars regard this political entity (here we are not talking about its subjects or other aspects of its affairs such as language or religion which are separate issues) and its administration, as Greek. The Kingdom was founded and ruled by the Argeads, Greeks from the city of Argos. This is indisputable, even among those scholars who do not agree with "Greekness" of the initial history of the region of Macedonia and its people. The scholars, furthermore, do agree that the Kingdom was "indisputably" Greek during its middle and late periods (this time, even linguistically), which are the most notable periods of Macedonia in world history, a view only challenged by a very tiny minority of scholars who are primarily based on what is today the Republic of North Macedonia, and who hold the view that this kingdom wasn't Greek at all - not just in its early period but also its middle and late ones. but, today, this view has been increasingly shunned by the international community, which, in combination wiht the Prespa Agreement and the official position of the government of North Macedonia which denounced all claims on the ancient Kingdom and its history, have led to this POV's significant recession, even here in Wikipedia.

Now, the categorization isn't about language or people's identity (which understandably have more differing views over their Greekness), but about Macedon, the political entity, as is this article about. Sure I can see that some editors here may feel that the Kingdom wouldn't be classified as Greek, or point out to a few sources here and there about the Greekness of its rulers and monarchs, but this is not the case anymore. Ancient Macedonia is a Greek kingdom and still falls under the same category as before, regardless on whether the initial history of the region and its language and people were considered fully Greek or partially Greek. I hope this has been made clear and why I have restored the categorization back to the article after goodfaith attempts to remove it due to POV concerns. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this all before and this change of name for the category is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the consensus that has been the case for several years--that Ancient Macedonia was not a purely Greek kingdom, but was only on the margin of the Greek world. Your attempts to continue to push your POV through changing a long-standing category label is against the WP:CONSENSUS that has been created here over much discussion. It is a ruse to work your POV into the article and raise the Greek flag where it has been agreed over the course of several years that it won't be raised. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the usual assumptions of bad faith, mud slinging, straw men, and false claims of consensus. The seasons change, but some things don't. Even if we take your claims about "not purely a Greek kingdom" and "margin of the Greek world" at face value (for the sake of argument if nothing else), the inclusion of Macedonia in the category "Ancient Greek Kingdoms", is still very much due. Whatever the origins of the Macedonians, everyone in their right mind considers Macedonia to have been firmly part of the Greek world by the Hellenistic period. So, due. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Part of the Greek world by the Hellenistic period" does not make it a "Greek kingdom". The problem is that this category was accurately and uncontroversially named "Kingdoms in Greek antiquity" until just a few days ago when User:Ymblanter unilaterally changed them. Then they became controversial. The stable naming prior was just that "stable". We have argued this issue multiple times in the past and the result is always the same--the best wording for this and other ancient Macedonian articles is to avoid the label "Greek kingdom" while describing the complex relationship in the article. That goes for the categories as well. Notice that the name change of the categories has engendered much debate as well. Slipping "Greek kingdom" unilaterally into a category name is just as consequention IMHO as trying to insert it here into the article where it has been rejected regularly over the years. User:Ymblanter should have known better. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Taivo, that was very low of you. You accuse me of POV but it was you who removed the categorization, not me. I simply reverted your edit, not the other way around. The categorization was there for a very long time, before you come and remove it, leaving Macedon as kingdom not belonging to the Greek World. Sorry to say that, but it is clear that from the moment you lose your patience and accuse others of bad faith, and are upset for simply sticking with what the majority scholarly opinion on the matter is, shows that you have took the whole matter in a very personal way which is unfortunate.

Difference between me and you is, that, I am pointing to the academic consensus, when you look upon... editorial consensuses? Are you telling us that the opinions of editors are weighting more than the opinion of scholars and their sources? Really?

Do I have to remind you that no editorial consensus can override NPOV policies? Otherwise it is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's rules are quite clear: No editorial consensus can override NPOV, which is what the majority of the world's scholars do believe about the kingdom of Macedonia. To imply Macedonia as not being Greek, is not only going against Wikipedia's NPOV rules but dangerously crosses the WP:OR lines. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You have to acknowledge that the only reason Macedonians weren't classified outrightly as a Greek tribe is due to issues stemming from the linguistic and archeological findings. But that was about people, not the kingdom, which is the present article's concern. The subjects not being fully Greeks is doesn't mean the kingdom and their founders (and that it is it, the Argeads) werent Greek. If can you provide me a source claiming that the political entity itself wasn't founded by the Greeks at all, then we will remove the categorization alltogether. But you gotta present us really strong and clear sources that this is about the political entity, not the people. For the people, a separate article exists, with different categorizations, and that isn't our concern here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not unilaterally changed them, I followed our established procedure at WP:CFDS. The categories there wait for at least two days while being tagged for speedy move; in this case, they were waiting longer (on somebody else's request which I processed). Just one objection is typically enough to stop the speedy move procedure, and then CFD is required. They are at CFD now anyway, and everybody is welcome to comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, I don't recall any kind of advertisement for such a move at the relevant sites where such a move would be noted. You've been involved with the Greece/Ancient Macedonia issues before I do think, so to make a move like this that had no comments should have raised all kinds of red flags with you. At the least, you should revert to the status quo ante, judge the issue after a reasonable comment period, and then make a decision. At this point, you're not asking the question, "Should I move this from an old form to a new one?", but "Should I ignore the objections to my move or move it back?" Notice the critical difference. It is the opposite of Wikipedia's usual way of doing business, it's a case of turning the principle of WP:BRD on its head. We should be discussing whether or not to move something to a new form, not the reverse.

User:SilentResident, your outrage is duly noted, but you need to understand that you are working on a false assumption that I was making something new. I was trying to prevent an objectionable new form from becoming the norm. Read my comment to Ymblanter. Your arguments about the Greekness of Ancient Macedonia have been discussed many times in the past and you know very well how carefully we have constructed the wording of the lead to this (and other) articles to accurately reflect the real situation. Now you are taking advantage of Ymblanter's mistake to push your long-held POV as if you are the one who deserves to be angry. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I think this move had to be discussed and should not have been a speedy one. The least you could have done is to advertise it on the relevant wikiprojects. I would have opposed it if I had known about it. T8612 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The fage for speedy moves of categories is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, and the procedure is clearly explained on the top of the page. Anybody can nominate any category citing the speedy move criteria. The category has to be tagged for speedy move, and it was done [1]. We do not notify projects, but most projects pick these speedy move tags and include such categories automatically to the lists. Often, the proposals do not get any comments; sometimes there are suggestions to slightly modify the target. One unanswered objections blocks the move, and after two days the move is considered to be opposed and has to go to CFD. In this case, there were zero objections, just one user proposed a slightly different target, and the nominator agreed. After two days since the last exchange I, as administrator patrolling CFDS, sent the request for processing [2]. This was perfectly according to the policies, and this was what I routinely do every day several times per day for already several years. I am not involved, at least not consciously, with the topic of Ancient Greece or Macedonia, I have no interest in either topic, and I probably had reverted some vandalism or blocked some disruptive user or protected an article in the topic in the past, but I do it multiple times in a huge variety of topics, and by all definitions I am not involved. Now, when some users objected, I, out of my good will, opened a CFD discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Ancient Greek categories, which I did not even have to. Now, if someone is unhappy with our policies and practices, for example, if you believe administrators should be required to notify all related projects before processing categories, please propose this at WP:VPP. If you think I have abused my admin tools, I obviously disagree, but by all means please go to WP:AN and try to get the community input. However, if you want the category moved back, I am afraid your only option is to comment on WP:CFD in the topic I indicated above. I do not have this page on my watchlist (never had), and, whereas I might respond to pings, I do not have to, and I think I made my position sufficiently clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, I offer my apologies for assuming that you had more involvement in this than a strictly administrative role. I have obviously seen your name elsewhere and mistakenly assumed that I had seen you in Greek/Ancient Macedonian issues. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. We typically cross our paths in Ukrainian articles (including Kiev/Kyiv discussions).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Taivo, remember that the "careful wording" which has been achieved in the past, wasn't an accute reflection on today's academic consensus regarding the ancient kingdom. Was a necessary compromise of that time, among editors who maintained different POVs, for the sake of Wikipedia's stability. I am sorry if my memory fails me, but you also happen to be one of these editors and participants in this compromise. Am I right? However this was made at a time when the Macedonia question and dispute was at its height. Am I mistaken to believe that these days have been long gone? It is hard to turn a blind eye to the growing consensus of the scholars on the matter. If we start ignoring this and rather put editorial compromises above what the mainstream POV held by the majority of the scholars and academics on the matter, who believe that the kingdom was founded by Greeks and wholefully hellenized during its middle and later periods, then I can see this being a dangerous precedence for Wikipedia's standards which can extend to other articles. I do not EVEN want to think about this possibility. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What a wonderfully subtle way to accuse those of us who don't want the subtlety of Ancient Macedonian life falsely subsumed under the Greek label of sabotaging Wikipedia. The Macedonian kingdom, for example, was founded by a couple of Greeks at the top, but the kingdom, which is far more than the guys on top, comprised Macedonians and Macedonian culture (I assume that I don't need to keep putting "ancient" in front of "Macedonia(n)"), which was not really Greek until very much later. Philip was Greek, but the men and women who cooked his bread, saddled his horses, scrubbed his clothes, etc. were not Greeks, but Macedonians. That's the point of keeping "Greek" from subsuming all discussions and information about Ancient Macedonia. England was still English after 1066 when the Normans took the crown because the people were still English. Richard I, the Lionheart, didn't speak a word of English and spent only about six weeks of his life on the island, but his kingdom was still English. Your aspersions about editors who oppose your "Greek uber alles" view of Ancient Macedonian history are not out to destroy Wikipedia, but to make it more accurate by ensuring that exaggerated labels like "Greek" don't make "Greek creep" the overarching theory of ancient Balkan history. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Kingdom comprised Macedonians, indeed, but all the sources point out to the fact that everything in their governance and culture was Greek: the kingdom's religion, burial customs, coinery, economy, administration, literally everything. You know this very well, and no sources at all, absolutely no sources exist to claim otherwise. All the sources confirm this and I have yet to see any reliable sources claiming otherwise. What the problem here is with your personal view, isn't that you have a different view from the majority on the issue, is that you are pointing out to totally different cases i.e. English and Normans to make your point, and yet you would rather look more closely, i.e. at the Greek world of that time, lets say during the Hellenicstic Era and the Diadochoi, who ruled over non-Greeks and were established on Asian territories far away from the Greek homeland, yet NONE disputes that they were Hellenistic kingdoms, even though the Diadochi had "men and women who cooked the bread, saddled the horses, scrubbed the clothes, etc.". It is clear that you are not here to look at the forest as whole, but selectively pick at few trees that may look different to the forest, just to make a case.

I am not expecting you to have your opinion on the matter changed, since I am not interested in editorial opinions, so don't get me wrong that I am here to pressure you or whatever. I only am asking that we respect the facts, that this kingdom already meets far more criteria for being classified as indisputable part of the Greek world. If you don't want to listen to me, then at least you can respect what the sources say on the matter. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Everything" is a complete exaggeration when characterizing the sources and you know that. We've been over this for years and the consensus is consistent: Ancient Macedonia's cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and political relation to the Greek city-states was complex and not your "literally everything" as you try to push your POV. The sources are not in complete agreement as you try to imply. Read the archives. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

None denies that it is complex. The difference between you and me is that you regard the complex = non Greek. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, a simplistic inaccurate formulation of a complex situation is your argument. Read the archives. This has been litigated over and over and over again here and the result is always the same--it's more complex than a simple "Ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom" can convey no matter how hard you want that Greek flag to fly over Ancient Macedonia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In case this isnt made clear to you, everyone, including me, have read the sources. The sources however arent about the middle and late periods of Macedon's history during which was fully hellenized. The disagreements are about the less notable and less well-known period of Macedon's history, the early period. You removed Macedon's categorization as a Greek kingdom pointing out to its early period while ignoring completely its later, more notable and more important periods of its history which these alone permit the kingdom's classification as Greek. This is where the problem with your edit was. No source in the archive can justify this edit. If you dont want to acknowledge your faulty positions, then no problem. At least next time take in account the whole kingdom and not specific aspects of its early kingdom to push your 'not Greek" POV into the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your characterization of my edit as "not Greek" is simplistic at best. My positions are not faulty, but carefully considered so as not to characterize Ancient Macedonia myopically. There are two issues here: (1) the unfortunate change of category without proper notice (from "Kingdoms of Greek Antiquity" to "Ancient Greek Kingdoms") that is being discussed elsewhere and will be resolved at that location, and (2) my removal of the category label "Ancient Greek Kingdoms". The first I did not discover until after my removal and that discussion will be definitive and will resolve the second issue. Thus, this is a pointless thread. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Macedonia(kingdom history)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Macedonia(kingdom history). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 03:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Preserving the original contents of that redirect, created April 25, 2010 by User:Superdudeman555 (talk), since it's likely to be speedily deleted.

Media:Example.ogg in about the 7th century bc a king (caranus) founded macedonia, his father was a king in the island of peleponese. when philip II conquered macedons first empire, which included thessalia, epirus, illria, paeonia, dardania, and moesia. he established to conquer southern greece, when his son alexander III was born. philip later got remarried to another wife while leaving his epirian wife olympias. when philip had his son, alexander found out he would rule instead of him. then one day after battle philip suspiciously got stabbed by his bodyguared. historians say that his ex-wife olympias, and his son alexander planned this. without crying he took the empire and with his best friend hephestian to conquer persia. alexander takes persia, and in india hydaspes, then he takes egypt, then he gets poisned and dies in babylon. after, macedonia became a roman province, and under the roman empire. after the roman empire falls it became apart of the byzantine empire with constantine ruling. then king marko starts the prilep empire, which was during the bulgar-asian empire.after thats over it becomes the theme of macedonia which was located on adrianople, and constantinople. after it becomes apart of the ottaman empire until the 1900s. then in ww1 it becomes a province or territory of europe. in wwII it becomes apart of the kingdom of the serbs, croats, and slovens later named yugoslavia. in 1992 it seperated and became a republic, and macedonia got its confederation. some old cities in macedonia are heraclea lynkenstis stobi, skupi, manastir(bitola), pella, thessaloniki(solun) florina(lerin), and lychnidos(ohrid). one city named manistir now named bitola, has on of the monasteries in macedonia, and is the city of counsils of europe. macedonia has one of the most or the most monisaries in the world. it has one of the deepest lakes in europe(lake ohrid). king basil I and basil II(vasilios) the bulgar slayer were the biggest macedonian kings in byzantine, and his biggest enemy was tsar samuil the macedonian. other kings are philipII, alexander III, basil I the macedonian, and the bulgar slayer, king marko, tsar samuil, constantine I and constantius chlorus, his father. the saints are st. petka, nedelja, naum, trifun, and clement. if it wasnt for serbia bitola would be bulgaria, during the balkan was france and britain divided macedonia to albania, bulgaria, serbia, and greece, and signed the treaty of bucharest. macedonia today is known for its mountains and wonderful monistaries mainly in bitola.

The nomination reads, "this redirect does have history (it was an unsourced, rambling schoolboy essay created in 2010 and blanked-and-redirected 20 minutes later), but I do not think it has to be preserved as potentially useful content (it is not) or for the sake of licensing and attribution (it has not been copied/merged elsewhere, as far as I can tell). Cheers, gnu57 03:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)"

Agreed - it's embarrassingly bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.17.116 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a charming little example of someone's first Wikipedia contribution, and worth preserving at the target's talk page. P Aculeius (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Too Long tag

Firstly, I don't really appreciate the adding of this tag if you're not going to discuss this in earnest on the talk page. I think it's completely unwarranted and should be removed immediately. You're essentially tagging a Featured article where the issue of the article's length was already hammered out, vetted and discussed thoroughly by the community before the success of the nomination. The article is already split into several sub-articles and it is hardly the biggest offender in terms of article size (for instance, compare it with the page for the Roman Empire). Either defend your use of this tag or I will remove it within days. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the points raised by PericlesofAthens. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DHHornfeldt WP:SIZESPLIT is about prose length, which can be seen here (on the right side), which means that the text of the numerous references do not count. The prose for Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is 91,671 characters long, not too much for an article covering 600 years of history. T8612 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you. An article that is over 100,000 characters in prose should be split per the suggestion of WP:SIZESPLIT, but this article falls short of that and rather falls into the lower category of "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". It has already been determined in the Featured Article Candidacy process that this article warranted its current size, including the late addition of the entire "Legacy" section for a more comprehensive approach highlighting the importance of Macedon in world history. It's an enormous subject that warrants plenty of detail and lengthy treatment. I'm not going to just remove entire sections like "Currency" just to satisfy an editor who does not understand that a huge sweeping subject like a historical kingdom demands extensive coverage. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens and T8612:

• “At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries.” WP:LENGTH
• “A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers.” WP:LENGTH
• “While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness.” WP:LENGTH (I am a general reader.)
• Thank you for pointing out the prose size criterion (91,671) and where to find it, however:

“Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading.” WP:LENGTH (A delay/lag after a minor edit is what first alerted me to the page size issue.)

• “Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage.” WP:LENGTH ~If you think this is true simply revert the tag. DHHornfeldt (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Since you're new on Wikipedia, I suggest you don't make changes to featured articles (articles with a star in the top right corner) without discussing the issue on the talk page. T8612 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Macedonia (ancient kingdom) → Kingdom of Macedonia – Unnecessary disambiguation: there is no medieval or modern kingdom of Macedonia. Kingdom of Macedonia already redirects there, as does Macedonia (kingdom). The disambiguated title without parentheses is probably to be preferred. Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Florian Blaschke and 2pou: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Florian Blaschke: This move won't succeed via a mere technical request. This has been move protected since 2009 (to autoconfirmed users) and 2014 (to admin). In its history, there has also been an RFC at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 14#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section, and again in 2019 at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, the latter even leading to establishing a specific naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). You could try to open a full RM, but it's probably going to take a lot of convincing people. -2pou (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: the WP:COMMON NAME is Macedonia or Macedon, not "Kingdom of Macedonia". Parenthetical disambiguation is needed since Macedonia is ambiguous. The current parenthesis is fine. The general reader may not be aware there is no modern kingdom. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: essentially per Havelock Jones. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Is Ancient Macedonia an option? Matches with Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian army, Ancient Macedonian language, etc. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems like a solution looking for a problem. There's nothing wrong with the current title, and both "Kingdom of Macedonia" and "Ancient Macedonia" seem to be terms not used much in the sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Readers are more likely to search under "Macedonia" than "Kingdom of..." Very few places are so described in everyday speech, and the idea of a formal title of a country is a modern one, anachronistic when applied to places from antiquity. Difficult to see any advantage to the proposed move. P Aculeius (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the foundation date

Hello. I'm almost certain that the foundation date of 808 BC provided in the infobox is incorrect. Firstly, as far as I can tell, it is not cited in any of the four places where it appears. There are two citations for Aigai in the Capitals section, but the Roisman reference does not provide any date. I don't have full access to other reference from Hatzopoulos, but a quick search inside on Google Books gives me nothing for '808', 'ninth century', or 'eighth century'. Moreover, none of the potentially relevant references in the 'Early history and legend' section on this page appear to have this date either and, in fact, disagree with it.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, no modern scholarly source that I've seen uses 808 BC as the date of Macedonia's foundation. Instead, they employ a few different dating schemes that I've compiled into a table below.

Date for Foundation of Macedonia

Book title	Year	Author	808 BC?	What date do they use?
A Companion to Ancient Macedonia	2010	Sławomir Sprawski (chapter)	X	''middle of the seventh century'' (pg. 130)
A History of Macedonia	1990	Malcolm Errington	X	''middle of the seventh century'' (pg. 2)
Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC – 300 AD.	2011	Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (chapter)	X	''650–148 BC'' (pg. 295)
In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon	1990	Eugene Borza	X	''early seventh century'' (pg. 98)
Ancient Macedonia	2017	Carol J. King	X	''c. 700'' (pg. xvi)
Lexicon of Argead Makedonia	2020	Waldemar Heckel	X	''second half of the 6th century'' (pg. 25)
A History of Macedonia Volume II: 550-336 B.C.	1979	N.G.L. Hammond	X	''about 650 B.C.'' (pg. 4)
Ancient Macedonia	2020	Miltiades Hatzopoulos	X	''the seventies of the seventh century or in the middle of that century'' (pg.12)
Chronologies of the Ancient World	2006	Walter Eder	X	''ca. 650'' (pg. 188)
Dynasties of the World	1989	John Morby	X	''c.650'' (pg. 29)
Women and Monarchy in Macedonia	2000	Elizabeth Carney	X	''sometime in the seventh century B.C.'' (pg. 4)
Encyclopædia Britannica	-	-	X	''700 BCE''

As you can see, none of these sources provide a date close to 808 BC. I also suspected that this issue began long before the page became a featured article. On 30 September 2007, @Dbachmann gave Caranus an uncited reign date of 808 - 778 BC. Then, on 28 November 2013, @TRAJAN 117 added 808 BC to the other parts of the infobox without any citations. I really have no idea where this apparently entirely made-up date even came from in the first place.

I would normally fix this kind of issue myself, but as this is a featured article, I thought it would be better to post my idea on the talk page first. I personally find ''c. 650-168 BC'' to be the most appealing for an infobox. However, ''seventh century-168 BC'' or ''7th century-168 BC'' might also be appropriate. I would also suggest removing the suspiciously exact reign date for Caranus entirely as he is considered legendary (i.e. made-up) by all modern scholars. BusterTheMighty (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this. This is indeed embarrassing, especially since the unsourced date of 808 BC has been sitting around for so long. At the time Dbachmann inserted it, it was contained – though ostensibly as a date of birth, not a date of accession – in the article about that king, so Dbachmann apparently just took it uncritically from there. It had been inserted there by an anon editor earlier that year, in one of that article's first edits [3]. Later additions to that article provided a citation to a primary source, the Chronicon of Eusebius, that placed Caranus' reign "before the First Olympiad", which would indeed be consistent with a birth sometime in the late 800s, so maybe there's some background to such a (legendary) dating there. The date was removed from the Caranus article in 2016 [4]. The main problem, apart from the unsourced nature of the alleged exact year, is of course that we're presenting the mythical figure of Caranus as if he was an actual historical king; we should clearly distinguish those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think to check the Caranus article. It seems that a lot of the strangest edits to history articles on Wikipedia tend to come from someone (mis)reading an ancient or medieval author. Thanks for fixing the page! BusterTheMighty (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Common languages listed in the infobox

Recently there has been an edit war in this article over the issue of common languages listed in the info box, namely the inclusion of the Ancient Macedonian language. Above all else, the lead section and the infobox must reflect information found in the prose body of the article per Wikipedia:Summary style, without supplanting information or omitting vital facts. As it currently stands, the article is quite clear on the issue, that the majority of surviving written inscriptions are indeed written in ancient Attic Greek and Koine Greek, with a small minority in what appears to be a Macedonian Greek dialect (albeit still unclassified, most likely a variant of Northwest Dorian with non-Greek influences like Thracian/Phrygian), but that primary sources indicate the Macedonian language was nevertheless widely used, especially in the military. An example of this is even provided with Alexander the Great issuing emergency military orders to his officers in their native Macedonian tongue rather than in Koine Greek. If it was common enough for its use by soldiers and officers in Macedon's armies (even when communicating with their king), then its inclusion in the infobox is entirely warranted. The existence of a lingua franca like Koine Greek does not preclude the fact that other common languages existed for people of the kingdom of Macedon and colonial Macedonians living elsewhere like in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires. The article explicitly states that the Macedonian language did not go extinct until some time in the late Hellenistic period during the rise of Rome. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

change "Adams 2010, pp. 343-344" in Citation 21 to "Olbrycht 2010, pp. 343-344" Alceides (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. Another time, a little more explanation would be helpful! Often, the editor who responds will not have in-depth knowledge of the article. NebY (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)