Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
No to "southern Greeks"
We once again have Greek nationalists inserting their POV into a carefully-worded article that tries to avoid nationalism in either direction. They want to write "Macedonians and southern Greeks" implying that the Macedonians are "northern Greeks". They are hiding behind the smoke screen of "that's what the source says" even though we always try to reword sources to make them less POV unless the point of the post is about their POV. I have already reverted this once today and they are tag-teaming to keep it in place. The quote in the article has actually said "Macedonians and Greeks" for a very, very long time. It is just yesterday that one of our resident nationalists has tried to slip his personal POV in here. Since the recent talks between Macedonia and Greece, the ugly side of POV-pushing Greek nationalism has raised its head throughout Wikipedia's articles on Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, good old Taivo and his personal attacks. Source clearly says "southern Greeks", and just because no one corrected "Macedonians and Greeks" mistake for long time it doesn't mean we should not correct it now. Reliability is a must and hence a false reference is not acceptable. Macedonian (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:JDL and all that. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing whatsoever false or unreliable about not using the adjective "southern" when paraphrasing a source, especially when that "southern" is pushing a Greek nationalist POV in violation of WP:NPOV. This article is a carefully crafted compromise and the wording has been written in such a way that neither Macedonian nor Greek POVs are being pushed. Every time that some real-world event intercedes we see a rise in nationalistic editing on this article and Republic of Macedonia. Some of the editing is innocent, some is subtle POV pushing (as here), some is overt vandalism. But the measure of the level of POV-pushing editing (whether pro-Greek as here or pro-Macedonian as at other times) is always real-world passions being enflamed by some event on the border between Macedonia and Greece or in Athens or Skopje. Don't hide behind that innocent-sounding "it's what the source says" nonsense. We always paraphrase sources, especially when those sources are badly worded or pushing a POV that we wish to neutralize per WP:NPOV. Would you still have made the edit had the source said "Macedonians and southern Macedonians"? I think not. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- You misuse the expression NPOV. The source ("A Companion to Ancient Macedonia") is a reliable and widely used source in the article and the fact that you insist on not using "southern Greeks" as per source, indicates your wish to censorship the article to your POV, which itself is a serious violation of NPOV. Macedonian (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing whatsoever false or unreliable about not using the adjective "southern" when paraphrasing a source, especially when that "southern" is pushing a Greek nationalist POV in violation of WP:NPOV. This article is a carefully crafted compromise and the wording has been written in such a way that neither Macedonian nor Greek POVs are being pushed. Every time that some real-world event intercedes we see a rise in nationalistic editing on this article and Republic of Macedonia. Some of the editing is innocent, some is subtle POV pushing (as here), some is overt vandalism. But the measure of the level of POV-pushing editing (whether pro-Greek as here or pro-Macedonian as at other times) is always real-world passions being enflamed by some event on the border between Macedonia and Greece or in Athens or Skopje. Don't hide behind that innocent-sounding "it's what the source says" nonsense. We always paraphrase sources, especially when those sources are badly worded or pushing a POV that we wish to neutralize per WP:NPOV. Would you still have made the edit had the source said "Macedonians and southern Macedonians"? I think not. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:JDL and all that. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing remotely "Greek nationalist POV" about the usage of "southern Greeks". The source is reliable and is not pushing a "Greek nationalist POV". The author had his reasons for using that wording, and that's good enough for us. It is not up to you to question an academic source on this matter. I would also like to remind you that "close paraphrasing" is a slippery slope and can go both ways. For example, we could also "paraphrase" "Greeks" to "southern Greeks" across this topic area. This obsession of yours with seeing "Greek nationalist POV" under every stone is not healthy and needs to stop. Casting aspersions on experienced contributors also needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- The use of "southern Greeks", if truly NPOV, would refer to Peloponnesians, not to Thebans and probably not to Athenians either. If, however, "southern Greeks" contrasts with "northern Greeks/Macedonians", then it is highly POV. The slavish mimicking of a POV source is not appropriate to Wikipedia and simply saying "that's what the source says" is too often a mask for an editor's own POV pushing. If you can demonstrate that this author's use of "southern Greeks" is not pushing the POV of Macedonians as Greeks, then I'll forget it as a misunderstanding, but as it stands, it simply sounds like another attempt to push a "Macedonians are Greeks, period" POV that is inappropriate for this article and violates WP:NPOV. And just because an editor has been on Wikipedia for a while doesn't guarantee that they are immune to the pressures of their own POVs, whether they notice them or not. That's why we watch pages--to make sure that NPOV always prevails. The timing of this edit, immediately following an overt nationalist who went through the article changing "Macedonians and Greeks" to "Macedonians and other Greeks" throughout is simply too suspicious to pass without discussion. Your simplistic "that's what the source says" simply makes me more suspicious. --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing remotely "Greek nationalist POV" about the usage of "southern Greeks". The source is reliable and is not pushing a "Greek nationalist POV". The author had his reasons for using that wording, and that's good enough for us. It is not up to you to question an academic source on this matter. I would also like to remind you that "close paraphrasing" is a slippery slope and can go both ways. For example, we could also "paraphrase" "Greeks" to "southern Greeks" across this topic area. This obsession of yours with seeing "Greek nationalist POV" under every stone is not healthy and needs to stop. Casting aspersions on experienced contributors also needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your "suspicions" mean nothing to me, and I do not need to demonstrate anything to you. Edward Anson is an academic expert on the subject, and if he saw it fit to use "southern Greeks", then he must have had his reasons, and whatever those were, they are good enough for wikipedia. He is not a "POV source", but rather as good as source as we could hope to have in this area. Similarly, the "Companion to Ancient Macedonia", where Anson's chapter is published, is a top academic source on the Ancient Macedonians. If you actually read Anson's chapter in the Companion, you would see that he is not pushing the "Macedonians are Greeks" POV, nor is the Companion itself. Khirurg (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hiding behind the "that's just what the source said" is nothing more than a POV-pushing smokescreen. Here at Wikipedia we are not just the blind automatons that you are conveniently using as a front for pushing a Macedonians as Greeks POV. Your protests have convinced no one that you're not pushing a POV here, following, as it does, the rampant nationalist editing of "Macedonians and other Greeks". The wording of the sentence that you're trying to remake to suit your agenda has been stable for months, if not years. Indeed, you are violating here not just WP:NPOV, but WP:BRD. You made your edit, it was reverted, but you failed to take up the issue on the Talk Page before reinserting your text. It is you who are in violation of Wikipedia's policies, not me. We compromise in Wikipedia all the time, choosing, for very good reasons of NPOV to not slavishly mimic the wording of a source if that source's wording is not NPOV. Your WP:POINTy edit is simply another example of using clever wikilawyering to push a POV edit. --Taivo (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your "suspicions" mean nothing to me, and I do not need to demonstrate anything to you. Edward Anson is an academic expert on the subject, and if he saw it fit to use "southern Greeks", then he must have had his reasons, and whatever those were, they are good enough for wikipedia. He is not a "POV source", but rather as good as source as we could hope to have in this area. Similarly, the "Companion to Ancient Macedonia", where Anson's chapter is published, is a top academic source on the Ancient Macedonians. If you actually read Anson's chapter in the Companion, you would see that he is not pushing the "Macedonians are Greeks" POV, nor is the Companion itself. Khirurg (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do us all a favor and read the source you are disputing, then come back here and tell us with a straight face that Prof. Anson is pushing a Greek nationalist POV. I can't believe we are even having this discussion. As far having "convinced no one", the only one complaining here is you. Your strong feelings on this issue are well known, but no one else seems particularly exercised about this except you. Khirurg (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Are those cricket noises I hear? Khirurg (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
(unindent) And now Taivo is resorting to sterile revert warring [1], without any discussion whatsoever (wonder why). Disappointing. Khirurg (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am strongly opposing to the phrasing "Macedonians AND Greeks" because 1) this goes against what the sources say, 2) it promotes the infamous nationalist Slav Macedonian POV which wants the ancient Macedonians a non-Greek people or at least it opens the possibility for such false interpretations, 3) it comes in contrast with what the vast majority of the international academics and scholars do believe on this matter, and 4) it goes against the established consensus on this matter. Another edit war or revival of old disputes is pointless and isn't going to do this FA article any good. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Macedonians and Greeks is wrong by definition since it implies that Maceodonians were non-Greeks/Hellenes. Another issue is that geographically speaking they "were" southern Greeks: inhabited the southern part of the Greek peninsula.Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- And now all the fire-breathing Greek nationalists join the fray. As predictable as the sun rising in the east. "Macedonians and Greeks" is WP:NPOV to everyone except for Greek editors who think that they own the patent to anything labelled "Macedonian". --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- The only "fire-breathing" I see is coming from you. If I submit this to dispute resolution, would you participate? OR are you going to try to have your way with brute-force edit-warring as usual (bad idea this time)? Khirurg (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- "As usual"? You are new to this page and have no idea of my history. The only edit warring was you in violation of WP:BRD. Please do submit this to dispute resolution. --Taivo (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I am not "new" to this page [2] and I know exactly who I'm dealing with and your history. Want me to pull the diffs of your revert-warring history on this article? It's not pretty [3]. I have to admit you've had a pretty good track record at getting your way in this article so far, but this time Taivo, things going to be different. You will NOT impose your POV with brute-force edit-warring, and you will NOT falsify an academic source. Not this time. Not anymore. When time allows, I will submit this to DR. In the meantime, it would be a good idea to stay away from the revert-warring. And the aspersions, while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Forgive me for not recognizing your once-or-twice-a-year attendance. And you had a typo in your taunt: "You will NOT impose your POV" should have been "You will NOT impose your NPOV". Just another example of how Greek editors are blind to what is and is not WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I am not "new" to this page [2] and I know exactly who I'm dealing with and your history. Want me to pull the diffs of your revert-warring history on this article? It's not pretty [3]. I have to admit you've had a pretty good track record at getting your way in this article so far, but this time Taivo, things going to be different. You will NOT impose your POV with brute-force edit-warring, and you will NOT falsify an academic source. Not this time. Not anymore. When time allows, I will submit this to DR. In the meantime, it would be a good idea to stay away from the revert-warring. And the aspersions, while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- "As usual"? You are new to this page and have no idea of my history. The only edit warring was you in violation of WP:BRD. Please do submit this to dispute resolution. --Taivo (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- The only "fire-breathing" I see is coming from you. If I submit this to dispute resolution, would you participate? OR are you going to try to have your way with brute-force edit-warring as usual (bad idea this time)? Khirurg (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- And now all the fire-breathing Greek nationalists join the fray. As predictable as the sun rising in the east. "Macedonians and Greeks" is WP:NPOV to everyone except for Greek editors who think that they own the patent to anything labelled "Macedonian". --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Macedonians and Greeks is wrong by definition since it implies that Maceodonians were non-Greeks/Hellenes. Another issue is that geographically speaking they "were" southern Greeks: inhabited the southern part of the Greek peninsula.Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Plain "Greeks" is fine, so is "southern Greeks" or "rest of the Greeks". If i moderately follow the perspective of Taivo, or indeed that of SilentResident which more or less comes from the opposite part of the same line, the use of any of these terms has a subtle POV attached, but this is unavoidable. The point is, IMO, if these perspectives are so important to make this a major issue of neutrality instead of a matter of subjective preference. Most of the readers coming to this article won't be as polarized over the issue of "Greekness" as an engaged content contributor might be, and there is a whole section on identity for them, as well as various terms being used across the text like "ethnic Macedonian" or "southern Greek traditions" when in need to elaborate on Macedonian distinctiveness. So, importance loses weight in my eyes.GroGaBa (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Source (Anson p.17) has "Macedonians and the southern Greeks", period. Only Taivo (well known for his "anti-Greekness of Macedonia" POV and his personal attacks against other editors, see archives, talk pages etc) tries to erase anything which he thinks supports a connection of "Greek" with "Macedonia" and this is exactly what he is trying for once again by insisting on removing the word "Southern" and hence misrepresenting the source, hiding his POV pushing under the NPOV carpet.Macedonian (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- That citation above (Anson p.17) is fact. However there are also another scientific opinions exactly on that period (5th. century BP). For example per Ian Worthington's book (as editor) Alexander the Great: A Reader, Routledge, 2012, ISBN 1136640045, p. 18: "There was a distinction in the ancient Greek world between those who lived south of Mount Olympus and those who lived to its north, the Macedonians. The proper term for these people was 'Makedones', a name that is Greek in root and ethnic terminations, and may have meant 'highlanders'. However, the Greeks referred to them as 'barbarians' as late as the last quarter of the fourth century (Din. 1.24), which indicates that they did not see them as Greek speaking and hence not as Greek. Yet many of the Macedonian proper names and toponyms are Greek; the people had the same Greek pantheon of gods etc..." That means despite the fact both groups had same Greek pantheon of gods, at that time the Greekness of the Macedonians was still disputed by the southern Greeks (during the 5th. BP). Jingiby (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is NOT on their identity, we have an "Ethnic Identity" section on that, discussing why (some, mainly Athenians) southern Greeks thought of the Macedonians as non-Greeks. Moreover Ian Worthington in "Philip II of Macedon", Yale University, 2008, says: "Not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." Again, Anson p.17 has "Macedonians and the southern Greeks". Macedonian (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- And, of course, the Greek editors pick only the sources and quotes which emphasize the Greekness of the Macedonians. No one is arguing about the heavy influence that Greek culture had on Macedonian life. No one is arguing that the Macedonians were closely related linguistically to the Greeks. The argument is over the implication that "southern Greeks" gives that the Macedonians were "northern Greeks". That is the POV portion of your edit. We paraphrase sources all the time when their exact wording might violate WP:NPOV. Putting blinders on in order to push a POV through "exact wording" is against Wikipedia policy and practice. --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are most welcome to add any reliable source which clearly says Macedonians were not Greeks. I, unlike you, won't insist on misrepresent the source, because paraphrasing and misrepresenting are completely different things. Macedonian (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Only a Greek nationalist such as yourself would think that "Macedonians and Greeks" misrepresents this reliable source because it doesn't imply that Macedonians are "northern Greeks". --Taivo (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- On the contrary, only a "Macedonians were not Greeks" POV pusher like yourself would have a problem with "southern Greeks", as per source. Macedonian (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Only a Greek would see NPOV language as "Macedonians were not Greeks". That is the problem with this page. All editors who are not rabid "Macedonians were 100% Greeks and nothing else and Greece owns the copyright to the word 'Macedonia'" are "anti-Greek". You know good and well that I am neutral and have reverted all attempts to push POV in both directions. But Greek nationalist such as you have no concept of true NPOV on this page. To you and your Greek nationalist friends anything short of "Macedonians were 100% Greek" is POV-pushing. The reason that neutral editors like myself look to be POV-pushing to Greek nationalists is that Greeks tend to know English better than Macedonians and participate in the English Wikipedia to a greater extent than Macedonians. Therefore, NPOV editors are reverting Greek POV pushers more often and look to be anti-Greek. I'm not anti-Greek, I'm anti-nationalist agenda in either direction. --Taivo (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- This sentence said "Macedonians and Greeks" for years before the nationalists decided that it didn't properly reflect the Greek nationalist agenda. --Taivo (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, please, "not anti-Greek, I'm anti-nationalist agenda in either direction"?? I guess you don't want me to go through the archives and remind you your stance on the issue, right? Now back to the subject, the sentence was misrepresenting and now it is not. Wikipedia:NEUTRALEDITOR: "editors must be honest and guard against consciously or unconsciously framing material in a manner which misrepresents its original meaning or presents it with a slant or point of view not found in the source"....."Another quality of the editor's hat is a type of bias which editors are required to adopt, and that is a bias in favor of using all types of reliable sources, regardless of the sources' points of view. Refusal to use a source because "it is biased" [as you claim] is ts totally wrong, because most reliable sources are biased; they were written to make some point, otherwise they would not exist". Macedonian (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- What a load of crap. Find pro-Slavic edits and you'll see that I have reverted them, too. As I said, most POV-pushing on this page is Greek because they tend to know English at a higher level and frequency than Macedonians. So stop that BS about me not reverting in both directions. And I never said that the source should not be used. I said that we should not blindly replicate sources' POV unless their POV is the subject of discussion. We should always paraphrase to preserve an article's POV. Removing "southern" from the quote does absolutely nothing whatsoever to misrepresent the source when we're talking about religion and not the source's POV. Just keep pushing your Greek agenda, Macedonian, you have a long and "distinguished" history of doing that. My point has never been to eliminate the WP:RS from being used. You're using the smokescreen of "accurate quoting" just to mask your own pushing of a Greek POV in violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lol. I'm just glad you guys are arguing fervently over this minute wording and trivial stuff instead of suggesting huge sweeping changes like the guy above who thought it would be a great idea to split the core article into three of them.Pericles of AthensTalk 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- What a load of crap. Find pro-Slavic edits and you'll see that I have reverted them, too. As I said, most POV-pushing on this page is Greek because they tend to know English at a higher level and frequency than Macedonians. So stop that BS about me not reverting in both directions. And I never said that the source should not be used. I said that we should not blindly replicate sources' POV unless their POV is the subject of discussion. We should always paraphrase to preserve an article's POV. Removing "southern" from the quote does absolutely nothing whatsoever to misrepresent the source when we're talking about religion and not the source's POV. Just keep pushing your Greek agenda, Macedonian, you have a long and "distinguished" history of doing that. My point has never been to eliminate the WP:RS from being used. You're using the smokescreen of "accurate quoting" just to mask your own pushing of a Greek POV in violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, please, "not anti-Greek, I'm anti-nationalist agenda in either direction"?? I guess you don't want me to go through the archives and remind you your stance on the issue, right? Now back to the subject, the sentence was misrepresenting and now it is not. Wikipedia:NEUTRALEDITOR: "editors must be honest and guard against consciously or unconsciously framing material in a manner which misrepresents its original meaning or presents it with a slant or point of view not found in the source"....."Another quality of the editor's hat is a type of bias which editors are required to adopt, and that is a bias in favor of using all types of reliable sources, regardless of the sources' points of view. Refusal to use a source because "it is biased" [as you claim] is ts totally wrong, because most reliable sources are biased; they were written to make some point, otherwise they would not exist". Macedonian (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- This sentence said "Macedonians and Greeks" for years before the nationalists decided that it didn't properly reflect the Greek nationalist agenda. --Taivo (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Only a Greek would see NPOV language as "Macedonians were not Greeks". That is the problem with this page. All editors who are not rabid "Macedonians were 100% Greeks and nothing else and Greece owns the copyright to the word 'Macedonia'" are "anti-Greek". You know good and well that I am neutral and have reverted all attempts to push POV in both directions. But Greek nationalist such as you have no concept of true NPOV on this page. To you and your Greek nationalist friends anything short of "Macedonians were 100% Greek" is POV-pushing. The reason that neutral editors like myself look to be POV-pushing to Greek nationalists is that Greeks tend to know English better than Macedonians and participate in the English Wikipedia to a greater extent than Macedonians. Therefore, NPOV editors are reverting Greek POV pushers more often and look to be anti-Greek. I'm not anti-Greek, I'm anti-nationalist agenda in either direction. --Taivo (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- On the contrary, only a "Macedonians were not Greeks" POV pusher like yourself would have a problem with "southern Greeks", as per source. Macedonian (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Only a Greek nationalist such as yourself would think that "Macedonians and Greeks" misrepresents this reliable source because it doesn't imply that Macedonians are "northern Greeks". --Taivo (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are most welcome to add any reliable source which clearly says Macedonians were not Greeks. I, unlike you, won't insist on misrepresent the source, because paraphrasing and misrepresenting are completely different things. Macedonian (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- And, of course, the Greek editors pick only the sources and quotes which emphasize the Greekness of the Macedonians. No one is arguing about the heavy influence that Greek culture had on Macedonian life. No one is arguing that the Macedonians were closely related linguistically to the Greeks. The argument is over the implication that "southern Greeks" gives that the Macedonians were "northern Greeks". That is the POV portion of your edit. We paraphrase sources all the time when their exact wording might violate WP:NPOV. Putting blinders on in order to push a POV through "exact wording" is against Wikipedia policy and practice. --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is NOT on their identity, we have an "Ethnic Identity" section on that, discussing why (some, mainly Athenians) southern Greeks thought of the Macedonians as non-Greeks. Moreover Ian Worthington in "Philip II of Macedon", Yale University, 2008, says: "Not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." Again, Anson p.17 has "Macedonians and the southern Greeks". Macedonian (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- That citation above (Anson p.17) is fact. However there are also another scientific opinions exactly on that period (5th. century BP). For example per Ian Worthington's book (as editor) Alexander the Great: A Reader, Routledge, 2012, ISBN 1136640045, p. 18: "There was a distinction in the ancient Greek world between those who lived south of Mount Olympus and those who lived to its north, the Macedonians. The proper term for these people was 'Makedones', a name that is Greek in root and ethnic terminations, and may have meant 'highlanders'. However, the Greeks referred to them as 'barbarians' as late as the last quarter of the fourth century (Din. 1.24), which indicates that they did not see them as Greek speaking and hence not as Greek. Yet many of the Macedonian proper names and toponyms are Greek; the people had the same Greek pantheon of gods etc..." That means despite the fact both groups had same Greek pantheon of gods, at that time the Greekness of the Macedonians was still disputed by the southern Greeks (during the 5th. BP). Jingiby (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
LOL, my "Greek agenda"?? My "Greek agenda", Taivo, happens to agree with the vast majority of the reliable sources on the issue, and you seem to be the one who always have a problem with that and with anything which connects in any way Macedonia with Greece! You don't really care about NPOV, what you actually care about is that the article won't "harm" the Slav-Macedonian editors, as you have confessed (like as if ancient Macedonians were Slavs!):
"You are just baiting the Macedonian editors", "so putting the word 'Greek' in every sentence of the article (especially the first one) is just baiting our Macedonian editors", "What is the point to stating that Macedon was an ancient 'Greek' kingdom? The point is to bait Macedonian editors"[4], "Adding the word 'Greek' in front of 'kingdom' does nothing to change the content of the article, but only plants a Greek flag in front of Slavic readers", "It's all about waving a Greek nationalist flag at the Slavic Macedonians in the first sentence", "... while not overtly ramming a sharp stick in the eye of Slavic readers..."[5],
and you have also admitted that you don't consider ancient Macedonia to be Greek: "Athens, Sparta, and even Syracuse were 'Greek'--either by being part of the historical core or being settled by Greeks. Macedon was neither. It was not a part of the core and it did not have a history of 'Greekness'" [6], "I don't really consider Macedon to be a part of Greece" [7].
So enough with the "I, Taivo, care about NPOV" bs of yours. Pericles of Athens is correct and adding the word "southern" according to the source should't be an issue at all. It's only you, Taivo, who have a problem with that, and your long "non-Greekness" of Macedonia POV pushing "in favor of the Slavic readers". Too bad for you, Wikipedia is not censored. Macedonian (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- LOLOL. You simply prove my point, Macedonian, that if any editor is not pro-Greek and doesn't support the continual pushing of a Greek POV, then they must be pro-Macedonian. Please point to a single, solitary instance where I make the Macedonian nationalist claim that the Macedonians were Slavic. That's what a Macedonian POV looks like. You have proven my point in spades. Thank you for showing that I am neutral and neither Greek nor Slavic in my views here. And if a Slavic editor were pushing a Slavic POV, then I would have said exactly the same things about not antagonizing the Greek editors. It's just that nationalist Macedonian editors don't know English in such numbers as the nationalist Greek editors. Try again. You have utterly failed to prove that I have a pro-Macedonian bias. Again. And, I remind you one more time, arguing against the Greek nationalist POV does not mean that someone supports the Macedonian nationalist POV. -Taivo (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Take, for example, this edit, where I made the sentence more neutral, so that Macedonian isn't identified specifically as a separate language and leave it ambiguous as to whether it is a language closely related to Greek or a dialect of Greek. If I am so pro-Macedonian, then why would I do that? Your assertions are based on your own prejudices--that if someone isn't pro-Greek, then they are pro-Macedonian. I am neither. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I never said that you claim the ancient Macedonians were Slavic, you are too clever for such a hilarious claim. But yes, once more, my "Greek agenda" agrees with the vast majority of international scholarly opinion on the issue, which you are always too keen to disregard. Macedonian (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- So far, everyone here agrees that the Macedonians were an essentially Greek people. No one disputes that. And obviously, essentially Greek doesn't make them 100% Greek. About the sentence, if something has to reflect the complicated relationship between the Macedonians and their southern Greek neighbors (and their western Greek neighbors too) is the one the source uses, not the one we could prefer or we see as NPOV for A or B reasons. There has been so much fighting in the past about the Greekness of the Macedonians and disagreements on how to use careful wording on the sentences in a neutral way that could not contain any POV, but now these times are long gone; now we have reached a momentum where the international community is increasingly convinced that the term "and" between "Macedonians" and "Greeks" no longers reflects upon the archeological and other findings from the region of Macedonia. That there is some sort of relationship between Macedonians and the rest of the Greek world has become an established fact which will be very difficult to challenge or deny at all. To do so, to deny this fact by using such wording, isn't going to resolve Greek POV issues since the line separating the Greek views on ancient Macedonians, with those of the scholars, have long been blurred. You can claim this is done thanks to successful Greek propaganda, or due to the recent archeological findings, or just the scholars, or other factors, or whatever. But the fact remains: trying to change a sentence just because it may seem too Greek-POV to you even if it coincides with what the sources and the international scholars overall do believe about it, only is bound to serve Ethnic Macedonian nationalist POV, not NPOV. Which I am sure is no one's intention here. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's exactly my point. Macedonian (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Of course that's your point since it is a mild statement of Greek POV. Silent Resident started well, pointing out that Macedonians have a Greek component to their ethnic, linguistic, and cultural makeup. I have never disputed that there is a Greek component. But that doesn't make them definitively Greek in an absolute (near 100%) sense. We can quibble (as scholars do--there is no unanimity on any of the ethnic, linguistic, or cultural fronts) over the amount of Greek in their makeup, but no one (except nationalist Macedonians) can say that amount was zero or even close to zero. But to set up the dichotomy of Macedonians (northern Greeks) versus southern Greeks is to disregard the non-Greek component of their identity and to rid the article of any NPOV ambiguity within which all scholarship can unite. It is not "Macedonians and other Greeks". --Taivo (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Nor can it be "Macedonians and Greeks" I am afraid, as you have probably realised already by now. Because this "Macedonians and Greeks" disregards the Greek component of their identity which has bigger weight than their non-Greek component. The non-Greek component stems from politician Demosthene's words against them, while their Greek component stems from their Greek culture, Greek arts and Greek religion. While the one component stems from a politician's words, the other stems from the facts and archeological evidence. If I had to pick between the two, I could go for "Macedonians and other Greeks" than "Macedonians and Greeks". Show me who you are to tell you who you are. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Macedonians and southern Greeks" is superior to "Macedonians and other Greeks". The latter is simply overtly pushing the Greek POV. At least the former maintains a small amount of ambiguity. --Taivo (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, then, the "Macedonians and the southern Greeks" is a good compromise and is in line with what the source says. I guess there is nothing else to be discussed here. A good day to all. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, over several days the WP:CONSENSUS became clear. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, then, the "Macedonians and the southern Greeks" is a good compromise and is in line with what the source says. I guess there is nothing else to be discussed here. A good day to all. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Macedonians and southern Greeks" is superior to "Macedonians and other Greeks". The latter is simply overtly pushing the Greek POV. At least the former maintains a small amount of ambiguity. --Taivo (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Nor can it be "Macedonians and Greeks" I am afraid, as you have probably realised already by now. Because this "Macedonians and Greeks" disregards the Greek component of their identity which has bigger weight than their non-Greek component. The non-Greek component stems from politician Demosthene's words against them, while their Greek component stems from their Greek culture, Greek arts and Greek religion. While the one component stems from a politician's words, the other stems from the facts and archeological evidence. If I had to pick between the two, I could go for "Macedonians and other Greeks" than "Macedonians and Greeks". Show me who you are to tell you who you are. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Of course that's your point since it is a mild statement of Greek POV. Silent Resident started well, pointing out that Macedonians have a Greek component to their ethnic, linguistic, and cultural makeup. I have never disputed that there is a Greek component. But that doesn't make them definitively Greek in an absolute (near 100%) sense. We can quibble (as scholars do--there is no unanimity on any of the ethnic, linguistic, or cultural fronts) over the amount of Greek in their makeup, but no one (except nationalist Macedonians) can say that amount was zero or even close to zero. But to set up the dichotomy of Macedonians (northern Greeks) versus southern Greeks is to disregard the non-Greek component of their identity and to rid the article of any NPOV ambiguity within which all scholarship can unite. It is not "Macedonians and other Greeks". --Taivo (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's exactly my point. Macedonian (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- So far, everyone here agrees that the Macedonians were an essentially Greek people. No one disputes that. And obviously, essentially Greek doesn't make them 100% Greek. About the sentence, if something has to reflect the complicated relationship between the Macedonians and their southern Greek neighbors (and their western Greek neighbors too) is the one the source uses, not the one we could prefer or we see as NPOV for A or B reasons. There has been so much fighting in the past about the Greekness of the Macedonians and disagreements on how to use careful wording on the sentences in a neutral way that could not contain any POV, but now these times are long gone; now we have reached a momentum where the international community is increasingly convinced that the term "and" between "Macedonians" and "Greeks" no longers reflects upon the archeological and other findings from the region of Macedonia. That there is some sort of relationship between Macedonians and the rest of the Greek world has become an established fact which will be very difficult to challenge or deny at all. To do so, to deny this fact by using such wording, isn't going to resolve Greek POV issues since the line separating the Greek views on ancient Macedonians, with those of the scholars, have long been blurred. You can claim this is done thanks to successful Greek propaganda, or due to the recent archeological findings, or just the scholars, or other factors, or whatever. But the fact remains: trying to change a sentence just because it may seem too Greek-POV to you even if it coincides with what the sources and the international scholars overall do believe about it, only is bound to serve Ethnic Macedonian nationalist POV, not NPOV. Which I am sure is no one's intention here. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I never said that you claim the ancient Macedonians were Slavic, you are too clever for such a hilarious claim. But yes, once more, my "Greek agenda" agrees with the vast majority of international scholarly opinion on the issue, which you are always too keen to disregard. Macedonian (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Take, for example, this edit, where I made the sentence more neutral, so that Macedonian isn't identified specifically as a separate language and leave it ambiguous as to whether it is a language closely related to Greek or a dialect of Greek. If I am so pro-Macedonian, then why would I do that? Your assertions are based on your own prejudices--that if someone isn't pro-Greek, then they are pro-Macedonian. I am neither. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that this is all settled now. I will toss in my 2 cents by saying that, regardless of the heated political rhetoric of Demosthenes, the one thing that really demarcated the Macedonians from other Greeks was their lack of a polis system. Well, at least outside of the poleis founded in Macedonian territory such as Amphipolis, established by the Athenians and retaining its local democratic government even under the Macedonian kings. Kingship was not exclusive to the Macedonians in the Greek world, of course, but most other Greek monarchies were tied to civic institutions, like the Spartan kings who had to obey the clear constitutional laws of the greater oligarchic/democratic Spartan government. The Macedonians had a fairly unique feudal and absolute monarchy, although even that was seemingly tempered by the power of the army and ad hoc citizen assemblies. As for culture, it's obvious the Macedonians embraced everything that was Greek, including the universal Koine language, religious beliefs, funerary rites, architecture, education, philosophy, literature, eating habits, etc. One cannot say the same for otherwise Hellenized Thracians and Illyrians, not until they were completely assimilated and lost their original cultures (a process that wasn't complete until the Eastern Roman Empire). As for ancient Macedonians being 100% Greek or not, I'm not sure the scholarly argument is really based on genetics, if that's what you guys are talking about. It's seemingly entirely about culture, especially since the 2nd-millennium BC proto-Greek tribes who migrated into the Greek peninsula ages before the Mycenaean civilization even existed had to absorb preexisting peoples there, some of whom weren't even Indo-Europeans. That's the same story for just about every country of Europe, Italy included with the Latin tribes that migrated there and absorbed non-Indo-European peoples like the Etruscans. Yet we don't go around saying that Romans descended from Etruscans weren't 100% Roman. We shouldn't do the same for Macedonia, because it's silly. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- The argument that the lack of a polis system demarcated the Macedonians from other Greeks too has lost ground, and is only used by Ethic Macedonian nationalists who are rather desparate to make their unfounded claims of the purpoted non-Greekness of Macedonia sound more valid. The rest of the world no longer idendifies the polis as an indicator of Greek culture and ethnicity. An example of this is Ancient Epirus, a Greek kingdom consisting of poor villages and towns, of which none had a greatness and glorious architecture alike to the Southern Greek cities. That Epirus wasnt a polis but a kingdom consisting of poor and forgettable towns and had an even less democratic system than Macedonia ever had, was never used as excuse by the Albanian nationalists to claim that the kingdom wasnt Greek, nor was a valid reason to question Epirus' Greekness at all. Thankfully. For now Greece, and the rest of world only have to deal with Ethnic Macedonian nationalists. I think the new Zaev government in Skopje has realized that its country's nationalist policies as they wete promoted by VMRO-DPMNE had it isolated from the rest of the world and hence why now is trying to ammend things. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- My arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that is said or promoted in "Skopje". That's the misconception that many of the most nationalistic Greek editors push around. But if you look at the linguistic evidence, your comment, that they adopted Koine Greek was only based on the written record. Yes, the Macedonians wrote in Koine, especially post-Philip/Alexander. But there is fairly clear evidence that the vernacular, about which we have onomastic evidence and a few other odds and ends, was clearly not Koine, and probably not actually intelligible with Greek (although closely related). It was supplanted by Koine by Roman times, of course. You seem to think that the only argument for the distinctiveness of Macedonian language and culture are the comments of Demosthenes, which you then denigrate by saying that Demosthenes hated Macedonians. Such a simplistic and inaccurate argument is insulting to anyone who is at all interested in the history of this region and period. Don't insult our intelligence. Ancient Macedonia was close to Greek, but not quite Greek. Of course, if you think of "Greek" in a very broad sense, then that isn't the case. It's much like Scotland and England. The Scots language in a narrow sense is not English and most linguists recognize it as a separate language, although very closely related. Upper class Scots began to adopt London English in the 17th century, however, and today many upper class Scots don't even speak the Scots tongue, but speak only London English. Most writing in Scotland is done in Standard British English. Most broadcasting is in Standard British English. But most day-to-day communication is in Scots and not in English when speaking amongst themselves. The situation in ancient Macedonia appears to have been much the same. Like the linguistic situation, Scottish culture also appears to be an Anglicized, but distinctive one. Thus, if one wants to use "English" in the broadest possible sense, Scotland is "English". But if one wants to be accurate, then "English" is used in a narrower sense and Scotland is not "English". Greek nationalists always want to use "Greek" in the broadest possible sense so as to push their side in the copyright dispute with Macedonia. Modern Macedonia is Slavic and there is no cultural continuity with ancient Macedonia, but ancient Macedonia in a strict sense was also not fully "Greek" in the same sense that modern Scotland is not fully English. --Taivo (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The "Linguist evidence" is, unfortunately, no much better indicator than the ones already used by those who oppose the Greek character of Macedon. By saying that the Attic Greek (when you say Greek, I assume you mean something like that, but I apologize if you did not), like the polis system, shall be an indicator of one's Greek idendity or culture, is to argue about whether a green apple and a red apple are the same while missing the point that both still are apples. Most of us already know that the linguistic perception is lacking, as the Macedonians weren't the only ones who had differences in their language characteristics and or vernacular. Everyone knows that other Greek regions, especially at earlier times, such as the Mycenaean and Doric, too had their differences, but were later supplanted by what came to be known as the Koine Greek, just like the Macedonian was. However, could these differences that existed at a given time, make the arguments about the Greekness of the Mycenean and Doric people, be any valid? Of course no. Languages and dialects by themselves can not be a safe and clean indicator for one's culture, given how Greece's notoriously rugged and highly mountainous land (Greece is one of Europe's most rugged lands, with over 100 large mountains surpassing the 1.000 m. mark) has contributed to this unusual record of having that many different languages/dialects being concentrated in such a small geographical part of Europe and the world, and over such sort chronological periods. This, coupled with the vast difference in type of governance, where you could, by climbing a Greek mountain, see on the one side of that mountain a democratic land and on the other side a monarchy with a King and a royal family. The Greeks geographically were isolated from each other by many large mountains and this has undoubtly discouraged any direct forms of communication between the people and settlements. There are many factors, key factors if I may say, which contributed to some parts of Greece developing different languages and or dialects, but the number one factor was always Greece's unique geography, which not only has contributed to the variation in the formation and development of different political systems and languages, but also has contributed in the development of Greek shipping into a key element of Greek economic activity, in contrast with what we saw in England and Scotland, where geography and landscape were a lot smoother, favoring farming and easier direct communication between the people and the cities. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Your "Scots and English" example is irrelevant, as the Scoti (Gaels and Picts) addopted the language of their conquerors, the Germanic Anglo-Saxons. It would have made sense if the conquering Ango-Saxons addopted the Gaelic languages of Britain. Macedonians, on the contrary, forced their hegemony over the rest of Greece without the need to make their "Macedonian" language the common language of the "conquered" Greeks, exactly because they spoke a dialect of Greek already, as we know by the increasing volume of surviving public and private inscriptions that there was no written language in Macedonia but Northwest Doric Greek. There may be room for argument over spoken forms, or at least over local survivals of earlier occupancy, but there is no evidence for a different "Macedonian" language that cannot be as easily explained in terms of dialect or accent. This tells us that the Macedonians did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca but spoke it as natives, though with a local accent, common with the accent of the Northwest Greek dialects of Epirus. Otto Hoffmann, German linguist (Die Makedonen, Ihre Sprache und Ihr Volkstum, Göttingen): "Whoever does not consider the Macedonians as Greeks must also conclude that by the 6th and 5th centuries BC the Macedonians had completely given up the original names of their nation - without any need to do so - and taken Greek names in order to demonstrate their admiration for Greek civilization. I think it not worth the trouble to demolish such a notion; for any hypothesis of historical linguists which is put forward without taking into account the actual life of a people, is condemned as it were out of its own mouth." Macedonian (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- And my two cents in the whole Scottish/British affair about languages; I do believe that the choices of the people over their languages can reveal more about the people themselves than their languages can do. In this context, I shall note the way the Macedonians have handled their language transition, (for me at least, I don't know for you) reveals more about their Greekness than the language itself can safely do. Given the circumstances; the fact that the Macedonians were rather quick to adopt the Greek lingua franca and without any hesitation, contrary to the famous Scottish resistance to the English lingua franca, speaks by itself. If the Macedonians felt quite different from other Greeks - at least the way the Scottish differiented themselves for the British, then I am failing to understand how they have never shown any form of resistance (political or social) to the transition to Koine Greek. Resistance to foreign languages is part of the human nature, and we have witnessed it almost anywhere in the world. Societies almost never abandon completely (and without showing at least some form of resistance) their previous language if the new language is seen as foreign. But such a thing never happened in Macedonia, where the transition was as smooth as in the other parts of Greece. I may be wrong and that this isn't the exception to the rule, but I admit, this has striken me alot. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Taivo I'm really sorry but your claims do not appear to besupported by serious bibliography. Off course there were various Hellenic dialects in the Greek world, the Macedonian was phonetically closer to NW Greek and Doric.Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- And, of course, all the Greek editors line up to push the utter Greekness of ancient Macedonia. I stand by my analogy since there are far more similarities than there are differences. But this whole issue is moot in relation to this thread. This thread was about one adjective and the WP:CONSENSUS was to retain "southern" since I was the only non-Greek editor to participate and object. This thread is complete as far as I'm concerned. I didn't make the Scots/Macedonians analogy for debate, but for simple clarification of the issue from a non-Greek, non-Macedonian viewpoint. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, in your place, I couldn't be so eager to dismiss other editor's valid points just because of their Greek ethnicity. That the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe is not merely a Greek or an Ethnic Macedonian position, but the international community's position. Although this "Greek view", or how you call it, appears to have been adopted now by the new government of the Republic of Macedonia, as well. Just yesterday, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Macedonia, Nikola Poposki, acknowledged the Greek culture and language of the Ancient Macedonians by stating:
"«Για το παρελθόν θα συζητάμε; Με αυτό θα μείνουμε; Με τους μύθους για το ποιος έχει τις πιο ένδοξες ήττες; Ή θα προσπαθήσουμε να λύσουμε τα προβλήματα για να εξασφαλίσουμε το παρόν και το μέλλον; Ιδιαίτερα από τη στιγμή που την υπεράσπιση της ταυτότητας την φέραμε σε ένα πεδίο που η άλλη πλευρά προηγείται με 99-1, από την άποψη της δυτικής σκέψης, της φιλοσοφίας. Ανοίξτε καμιά εγκυκλοπαίδεια. Δεν υπήρχαν έθνη εκεί. Αυτός ο κόσμος είχε τέτοια κουλτούρα, αυτή ήταν η γλώσσα αυτού του πολιτισμού, τα αρχαία ελληνικά» σημείωσε ο υπουργός Εξωτερικών της ΠΓΔΜ."
[8] Here is translation for you, Taivo: "«Will we be discussing the past? With that (shall) we will be staying? With myths about who had the most glorious defeats? Or will we try to solve the problems to secure the present and the future? Especially since we defended our identity in a field where the other side precedes us with 99-1, in terms of western thinking, philosophy. Open any encyclopedia. There were no nations there. This world had such a culture, that was the language of this (Macedonian) civilization, the ancient Greek language» Macedonia's Foreign Minister noted." - So, as you can see for yourself, it is not just the Greek side, nor the international community, but also the Ethnic Macedonian side that is acknowledging -better late than never- the Greek culture of the Ancient Macedonians. I can predict that the Greek editors who are highly interested in the history of the region, are going to keep coming to this article, so it is in the best of the article's interests that you listen to different opinions on this matter, and evaluate them instead of dismissing them alltogether because of their (editor's) ethnicities.. After all, Wikipedia is a project which is moving ahead, and we can not turn a deaf ear to these developments. Opposing views will always exist about every matter, here and there, especially by nationalists and others, but it is hard to turn a blind eye to the increased acceptance of the Greekness of the ancient tribe in the eyes of the international community. Especially now that the Republic of Macedonia, which until recently, was the political flag bearer in disputing that tribe's idendity, is finally acknowledging the facts. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, in your place, I couldn't be so eager to dismiss other editor's valid points just because of their Greek ethnicity. That the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe is not merely a Greek or an Ethnic Macedonian position, but the international community's position. Although this "Greek view", or how you call it, appears to have been adopted now by the new government of the Republic of Macedonia, as well. Just yesterday, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Macedonia, Nikola Poposki, acknowledged the Greek culture and language of the Ancient Macedonians by stating:
- And, of course, all the Greek editors line up to push the utter Greekness of ancient Macedonia. I stand by my analogy since there are far more similarities than there are differences. But this whole issue is moot in relation to this thread. This thread was about one adjective and the WP:CONSENSUS was to retain "southern" since I was the only non-Greek editor to participate and object. This thread is complete as far as I'm concerned. I didn't make the Scots/Macedonians analogy for debate, but for simple clarification of the issue from a non-Greek, non-Macedonian viewpoint. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Taivo I'm really sorry but your claims do not appear to besupported by serious bibliography. Off course there were various Hellenic dialects in the Greek world, the Macedonian was phonetically closer to NW Greek and Doric.Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- And my two cents in the whole Scottish/British affair about languages; I do believe that the choices of the people over their languages can reveal more about the people themselves than their languages can do. In this context, I shall note the way the Macedonians have handled their language transition, (for me at least, I don't know for you) reveals more about their Greekness than the language itself can safely do. Given the circumstances; the fact that the Macedonians were rather quick to adopt the Greek lingua franca and without any hesitation, contrary to the famous Scottish resistance to the English lingua franca, speaks by itself. If the Macedonians felt quite different from other Greeks - at least the way the Scottish differiented themselves for the British, then I am failing to understand how they have never shown any form of resistance (political or social) to the transition to Koine Greek. Resistance to foreign languages is part of the human nature, and we have witnessed it almost anywhere in the world. Societies almost never abandon completely (and without showing at least some form of resistance) their previous language if the new language is seen as foreign. But such a thing never happened in Macedonia, where the transition was as smooth as in the other parts of Greece. I may be wrong and that this isn't the exception to the rule, but I admit, this has striken me alot. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Your "Scots and English" example is irrelevant, as the Scoti (Gaels and Picts) addopted the language of their conquerors, the Germanic Anglo-Saxons. It would have made sense if the conquering Ango-Saxons addopted the Gaelic languages of Britain. Macedonians, on the contrary, forced their hegemony over the rest of Greece without the need to make their "Macedonian" language the common language of the "conquered" Greeks, exactly because they spoke a dialect of Greek already, as we know by the increasing volume of surviving public and private inscriptions that there was no written language in Macedonia but Northwest Doric Greek. There may be room for argument over spoken forms, or at least over local survivals of earlier occupancy, but there is no evidence for a different "Macedonian" language that cannot be as easily explained in terms of dialect or accent. This tells us that the Macedonians did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca but spoke it as natives, though with a local accent, common with the accent of the Northwest Greek dialects of Epirus. Otto Hoffmann, German linguist (Die Makedonen, Ihre Sprache und Ihr Volkstum, Göttingen): "Whoever does not consider the Macedonians as Greeks must also conclude that by the 6th and 5th centuries BC the Macedonians had completely given up the original names of their nation - without any need to do so - and taken Greek names in order to demonstrate their admiration for Greek civilization. I think it not worth the trouble to demolish such a notion; for any hypothesis of historical linguists which is put forward without taking into account the actual life of a people, is condemned as it were out of its own mouth." Macedonian (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The "Linguist evidence" is, unfortunately, no much better indicator than the ones already used by those who oppose the Greek character of Macedon. By saying that the Attic Greek (when you say Greek, I assume you mean something like that, but I apologize if you did not), like the polis system, shall be an indicator of one's Greek idendity or culture, is to argue about whether a green apple and a red apple are the same while missing the point that both still are apples. Most of us already know that the linguistic perception is lacking, as the Macedonians weren't the only ones who had differences in their language characteristics and or vernacular. Everyone knows that other Greek regions, especially at earlier times, such as the Mycenaean and Doric, too had their differences, but were later supplanted by what came to be known as the Koine Greek, just like the Macedonian was. However, could these differences that existed at a given time, make the arguments about the Greekness of the Mycenean and Doric people, be any valid? Of course no. Languages and dialects by themselves can not be a safe and clean indicator for one's culture, given how Greece's notoriously rugged and highly mountainous land (Greece is one of Europe's most rugged lands, with over 100 large mountains surpassing the 1.000 m. mark) has contributed to this unusual record of having that many different languages/dialects being concentrated in such a small geographical part of Europe and the world, and over such sort chronological periods. This, coupled with the vast difference in type of governance, where you could, by climbing a Greek mountain, see on the one side of that mountain a democratic land and on the other side a monarchy with a King and a royal family. The Greeks geographically were isolated from each other by many large mountains and this has undoubtly discouraged any direct forms of communication between the people and settlements. There are many factors, key factors if I may say, which contributed to some parts of Greece developing different languages and or dialects, but the number one factor was always Greece's unique geography, which not only has contributed to the variation in the formation and development of different political systems and languages, but also has contributed in the development of Greek shipping into a key element of Greek economic activity, in contrast with what we saw in England and Scotland, where geography and landscape were a lot smoother, favoring farming and easier direct communication between the people and the cities. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- My arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that is said or promoted in "Skopje". That's the misconception that many of the most nationalistic Greek editors push around. But if you look at the linguistic evidence, your comment, that they adopted Koine Greek was only based on the written record. Yes, the Macedonians wrote in Koine, especially post-Philip/Alexander. But there is fairly clear evidence that the vernacular, about which we have onomastic evidence and a few other odds and ends, was clearly not Koine, and probably not actually intelligible with Greek (although closely related). It was supplanted by Koine by Roman times, of course. You seem to think that the only argument for the distinctiveness of Macedonian language and culture are the comments of Demosthenes, which you then denigrate by saying that Demosthenes hated Macedonians. Such a simplistic and inaccurate argument is insulting to anyone who is at all interested in the history of this region and period. Don't insult our intelligence. Ancient Macedonia was close to Greek, but not quite Greek. Of course, if you think of "Greek" in a very broad sense, then that isn't the case. It's much like Scotland and England. The Scots language in a narrow sense is not English and most linguists recognize it as a separate language, although very closely related. Upper class Scots began to adopt London English in the 17th century, however, and today many upper class Scots don't even speak the Scots tongue, but speak only London English. Most writing in Scotland is done in Standard British English. Most broadcasting is in Standard British English. But most day-to-day communication is in Scots and not in English when speaking amongst themselves. The situation in ancient Macedonia appears to have been much the same. Like the linguistic situation, Scottish culture also appears to be an Anglicized, but distinctive one. Thus, if one wants to use "English" in the broadest possible sense, Scotland is "English". But if one wants to be accurate, then "English" is used in a narrower sense and Scotland is not "English". Greek nationalists always want to use "Greek" in the broadest possible sense so as to push their side in the copyright dispute with Macedonia. Modern Macedonia is Slavic and there is no cultural continuity with ancient Macedonia, but ancient Macedonia in a strict sense was also not fully "Greek" in the same sense that modern Scotland is not fully English. --Taivo (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The argument that the lack of a polis system demarcated the Macedonians from other Greeks too has lost ground, and is only used by Ethic Macedonian nationalists who are rather desparate to make their unfounded claims of the purpoted non-Greekness of Macedonia sound more valid. The rest of the world no longer idendifies the polis as an indicator of Greek culture and ethnicity. An example of this is Ancient Epirus, a Greek kingdom consisting of poor villages and towns, of which none had a greatness and glorious architecture alike to the Southern Greek cities. That Epirus wasnt a polis but a kingdom consisting of poor and forgettable towns and had an even less democratic system than Macedonia ever had, was never used as excuse by the Albanian nationalists to claim that the kingdom wasnt Greek, nor was a valid reason to question Epirus' Greekness at all. Thankfully. For now Greece, and the rest of world only have to deal with Ethnic Macedonian nationalists. I think the new Zaev government in Skopje has realized that its country's nationalist policies as they wete promoted by VMRO-DPMNE had it isolated from the rest of the world and hence why now is trying to ammend things. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
If I may introdude I find the Demosthenes statement interesting because it's not only him that separates the Macedonians from the Hellenes during the same time period. The panhellenic orator Isocratos does the same except he's willing to accept Philip II as a Greek ruling over non-Greeks and urging him to go after Persia instead of them. Example where he makes a distinction between hellenes and Macedonians. "I assert that it is incumbent upon you to work for the good of the Hellenes, to reign as king over the Macedonians, and to extend your power over the greatest possible number of the barbarians. For if you do these things, all men will be grateful to you: the Hellenes for your kindness to them; the Macedonians if you reign over them, not like a tyrant, but like a king; and the rest of the nations, if by your hands they are delivered from barbaric despotism and are brought under the protection of Hellas." "He, on the other hand, held entirely aloof from Hellenic territory, and set his heart upon occupying the throne of Macedon. For he knew full well that the Hellenes were not accustomed to submit to the rule of one man, while the other races were incapable of ordering their lives without the control of some such power." Aside from that you also have Herodotus story about Alexander I having to prove his Greekness because he was a Macedonian thus a foreigner and his statement on Thessaly being the northern most part of Greece. I just thought about throwing it out there since I find the subject if the Macedonians were hellenes or not to be interesting. Apologizes if I responded wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:8900:E6:CDB:72FA:68D3:2AD9 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Macedonian empire-->Empire of Alexander the Great
I suggest the "Macedonian empire" to change into "Empire of Alexander the Great" because the empire was not only Macedonian. Macedon was part and leader of the Hellenic (Greek) league against Persia. There were not only from Macedon but also from other Greek states. The empire expressed the Hellenismim. Alexander's empire and also the kingdoms after Alexander's death were called Hellenistic, not Macedonistic. A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. If we go with your logic, then the Athenian Empire should be named something else just because it wasn't Athenian only. A poor argument, and the reason behind your proposal is just the Republic of Macedonia-Greece spat over the ancient kingdom. Sorry but the term "Macedonian empire" is fine and there is no reason to fix something that ain't broken. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
See also
Perhaps it's necessary to put in "SEE ALSO" the article of the Greek region called Macedonia. Dourvakis (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. Wikilinks to relevant articles are already present within the article itself (See History section for example). There is no need to clutter the See Also with duplicates of them. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Taivo's continued protest
Taivo seems to be the only person actively trying to stop the Wikipedia article from calling Macedonians Greeks, something which, although against his agenda, is irrefutable fact. If he carries this on without providing evidence it may be necessary to form some sort of a movement to get him banned from blocking and reverting our edits. --Robandrew (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I should warn you that marking a major edit as a minor edit is a serious and deceptive breach of Wikipedia editing practice. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let me illustrate: changing "one, two and three" to "one, two, and three" is a minor edit; changing "it effects us all" to "it affects us all" is a minor edit. Changing "ancient kingdom" to "Greek kingdom" is not a minor edit since it is pushing your POV and a violation of WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
SINCERE APOLOGIES
ALL THE DISCUSSIONS BELOW WERE AS A RESULT TO A RECENT HACKING OF MY ACCOUNT BY MY YOUNGER BROTHER, I WOULD HAVE DELETED IT ALL BUT THIS HAS BEEN DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY SOME
--Robandrew (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Getting rid of arbitrary wording, which may lead to supporting of the falsehood of Macedonians not being Greeks
Thankfully, most of the document is quite clear, however there are a few instances where it still talks about the Macedonians, and then just Greeks, without calling them something more appropriate, such as "the rest of Greeks" (Something which has been implemented throughout most of the article. If this proposal does not meet sufficient opposition, I will start imposing it.
I wish you all well. Με τη βοήθεια τού Θεού, σας εύχομαι υγεία και χαρά. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robandrew (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do not "start imposing it". The wording in the lead and other places in this article is a very carefully crafted consensus. Any arbitrary changes to the current wording to satisfy your Greek POV will be resisted and reverted. --Taivo (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article is pretty clear that the Ancient Macedonians most likely spoke a northern Greek dialect or at the very least a sibling language to Greek (with scant traces of Thracian/Illyrian/Phrygian loanwords), and then nothing but Koine Greek by the end of the Hellenistic period. That should be sufficient I think, that and the description in the lead about how it was the dominant state of Classical and Hellenistic Greece, responsible for spreading Greek culture throughout much of West Asia and North Africa. The question of the Macedonians' Greekness in the eyes of other contemporary Greeks is also sufficiently answered in the article where it explains the Olympic Hellanodikai authorities deemed the royal Argead dynasty of Macedon to be of Greek lineage in the 5th century BC and then accepted all Macedonians as Greeks in the 4th century BC when they began to regularly compete in this and other pan-Hellenic games. The Romans were confused by earlier politicized accounts of firebrands like Demosthenes calling the Macedonians barbarians, since the Romans made no distinction between Macedonians and Greeks, and this too is explained in the article. Might I remind everyone that this is a featured article as well, so drastic changes to any part of it are unwelcome without proper consensus-building here on the talk page. To be honest, though, this is a dead horse that we've beaten to a pulp already. Why does nobody ever want to argue about artwork or military units? It's always about the ethnic thing. Someone please pleasantly surprise me by starting a heated argument about Philip II's military reforms instead. --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not know what you are talking about Taivo. There is no dispute by any historian worth his title that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek Kingdom, and that is what I would like to insert in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robandrew (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I Challenge you, Taivo, to find any proof that the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks. If you find any that I deem acceptable, I will revert my edits--Robandrew (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose that you failed to read Pericles' comment above about not making edits to this article without first building a careful consensus here on the Talk Page. You will find that I am not the only editor who objects to your edits, I'm usually just the first to respond. I also note that you are a new user, so perhaps you need to read WP:CONSENSUS before proceeding further. --Taivo (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am just going to note that this whole dispute over whether the ancient Macedonians were "Greeks" (or any other nationality) is essentially meaningless because all national identities are just made up. In terms of genetics, there is usually more variety within any given population than across populations. Whether someone is a "Greek," a "Slav," or any other ethnicity really only depends on what people call them. Regarding the ancient Macedonians, there is certainly no doubt that they spoke a dialect of Doric Greek and that they considered themselves Greeks. They shared much of their culture with the Greeks to the south, but they also had customs and cultural practices unique to them alone. Prior to the Macedonian conquest, some residents of the Greek city-states to the south of Macedon seem to have questioned whether the Macedonians were truly "Greeks," regarding them more-or-less as half-civilized, half-barbarian hooligans. Really, "Greek" is just a word and whether or not the ancient Macedonians were "Greek" depends on how you choose to define the word "Greek." People can play all sorts of games trying to redefine national identities. If you change the definitions enough, you could easily argue that North Americans are really ethnically Australians or even that Germans are really ethnically Chinese, because none of these are objective categories. For solely practical purposes of naming and classification, I think it would be most natural to call the ancient Macedonians "Greek," but since the issue is so absurdly politically controversial right now, it would probably be best to avoid explicitly calling them anything other than "Macedonians" for the purposes of this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is certainly not the case that the ancient Macedonians "spoke a dialect of Doric Greek" with the certainty that you push. The Ancient Macedonian language article notes that there is scholarly debate over the exact linguistic nature of the Macedonian vernacular. (It wasn't Slavic, of course.) It was either a dialect of Greek or a closely related but separate language. There is no scholarly consensus or unanimity on the issue. That's why we leave the ambiguity in the article. No one is saying that they could not have been Greek, but no one should be saying that they had to have been Greek either. The evidence is not definitive in either direction. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist: The debate over whether or not the ancient Macedonian language is a dialect of Doric Greek or a separate but closely related language is merely a matter of classification. Everyone agrees that Macedonian and Doric Greek are related and they more-or-less agree on how closely they are related; the dispute is about at what point a dialect ceases to be a dialect becomes a separate language. The debate is essentially along the same lines as the ongoing debate over whether or not the Scots language is a dialect of English or a separate but closely related language. Everyone agrees that Scots and English are closely related and no one is debating how closely related they are; the dispute is simply about how best to classify them. As the Scots language article notes, "...there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing a language from a dialect..." Both of these disputes are nothing more than debates between lumpers and splitters dealing with classification, not with the objective reality of what the language is.
- In any case, whether the ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of Doric Greek or a separate but closely related language is entirely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make above. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed that point entirely. If you will re-read my statements above, you will see that the whole point I was trying to make is that national identities are just made-up and this whole debate about whether or not the ancient Macedonians were "Greeks" is completely meaningless. Whether they were "Greeks" or not depends entirely on what we decide to call them. Arguing about whether they were "Greeks" or "not Greeks" is like arguing about whether or not a straw has one hole or two or whether or not water is wet. All of these things depend entirely on subjective definitions rather than objective physical realities. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies for making it sound like I was opposed to your entire point when I was just pointing out the error in one of your details. Your main point is quite valid and a good argument for why definitive statements of "the ancient Macedonians were Greek" are not actually accurate in a broad sense. "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" is accurate. "Macedonia was an ancient Greek kingdom" is or is not accurate for the very reasons that you state above--the facts are clear, but how one interprets the meaning of those facts can change depending on how one draws lines of demarcation and how one labels the resulting divisions once one has drawn the lines. In this case, there are differences of opinion among scholars and, therefore, Wikipedia must be neutrally vague and not espouse one set of lines and labels over another. --Taivo (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Labeling aside, the very first sentence contains the word "Greece" twice, so it's not like readers are being misled into thinking we're talking about FYROM (i.e. ancient Illyrian Paeonia/Dardania) or something. The lead section very accurately reflects the well-sourced body of the article in regards to the Greek culture of the Ancient Macedonians, including their religious beliefs, education, imported philosophy, art, architecture, literature, and arguably their entire geopolitical outlook. I think readers are capable of understanding the nuances here, if not from the lead then certainly by the time they are done reading the entire article. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @PericlesofAthens: @TaivoLinguist: I would say that, for general purposes of cultural classification (i.e. grouping cultures together based on their similarities), it is probably more accurate to call the ancient Macedonians "Greeks" than "non-Greeks." If I were writing a book about them, that is probably what I would call them, simply for the sake of grouping similar cultures together. Nonetheless, I would definitely not call them that without first qualifying exactly what I meant in saying it. I would not call them "Greeks" on Wikipedia either, because people would inevitably misunderstand the nuance of what I was saying and it would result in too much arguing. It seems to me that we have a consensus to maintain the current wording of the first sentence, which describes ancient Macedonia as "an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece" and does not refer to the Macedonians themselves as "Greeks." --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Labeling aside, the very first sentence contains the word "Greece" twice, so it's not like readers are being misled into thinking we're talking about FYROM (i.e. ancient Illyrian Paeonia/Dardania) or something. The lead section very accurately reflects the well-sourced body of the article in regards to the Greek culture of the Ancient Macedonians, including their religious beliefs, education, imported philosophy, art, architecture, literature, and arguably their entire geopolitical outlook. I think readers are capable of understanding the nuances here, if not from the lead then certainly by the time they are done reading the entire article. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies for making it sound like I was opposed to your entire point when I was just pointing out the error in one of your details. Your main point is quite valid and a good argument for why definitive statements of "the ancient Macedonians were Greek" are not actually accurate in a broad sense. "Macedonia was an ancient kingdom" is accurate. "Macedonia was an ancient Greek kingdom" is or is not accurate for the very reasons that you state above--the facts are clear, but how one interprets the meaning of those facts can change depending on how one draws lines of demarcation and how one labels the resulting divisions once one has drawn the lines. In this case, there are differences of opinion among scholars and, therefore, Wikipedia must be neutrally vague and not espouse one set of lines and labels over another. --Taivo (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is certainly not the case that the ancient Macedonians "spoke a dialect of Doric Greek" with the certainty that you push. The Ancient Macedonian language article notes that there is scholarly debate over the exact linguistic nature of the Macedonian vernacular. (It wasn't Slavic, of course.) It was either a dialect of Greek or a closely related but separate language. There is no scholarly consensus or unanimity on the issue. That's why we leave the ambiguity in the article. No one is saying that they could not have been Greek, but no one should be saying that they had to have been Greek either. The evidence is not definitive in either direction. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am just going to note that this whole dispute over whether the ancient Macedonians were "Greeks" (or any other nationality) is essentially meaningless because all national identities are just made up. In terms of genetics, there is usually more variety within any given population than across populations. Whether someone is a "Greek," a "Slav," or any other ethnicity really only depends on what people call them. Regarding the ancient Macedonians, there is certainly no doubt that they spoke a dialect of Doric Greek and that they considered themselves Greeks. They shared much of their culture with the Greeks to the south, but they also had customs and cultural practices unique to them alone. Prior to the Macedonian conquest, some residents of the Greek city-states to the south of Macedon seem to have questioned whether the Macedonians were truly "Greeks," regarding them more-or-less as half-civilized, half-barbarian hooligans. Really, "Greek" is just a word and whether or not the ancient Macedonians were "Greek" depends on how you choose to define the word "Greek." People can play all sorts of games trying to redefine national identities. If you change the definitions enough, you could easily argue that North Americans are really ethnically Australians or even that Germans are really ethnically Chinese, because none of these are objective categories. For solely practical purposes of naming and classification, I think it would be most natural to call the ancient Macedonians "Greek," but since the issue is so absurdly politically controversial right now, it would probably be best to avoid explicitly calling them anything other than "Macedonians" for the purposes of this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Question
I have a question pertaining to this sentence: "This assuaged the fear of Eumenes II that Macedonia could no longer pose a threat to his lands in the Hellespont"
Why would Eumenes II fear that Macedonia could no longer pose a threat to his own land in the Hellespont? Did he want a good challenge from Macedonia, or am I missing something here? Mimihitam (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly that sentence has been mangled. I've changed it to read: "This assuaged the fear of Eumenes II that Macedonia could pose a threat to his lands in the Hellespont" Paul August ☎ 20:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have suspected the same thing, but I just wanted to make sure that it was indeed mangled. Mimihitam (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2018
 | This edit request to Macedonia (ancient kingdom) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Macedonian Empire List Names 124.180.195.182 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018
| This edit request to Macedonia (ancient kingdom) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Imperial infomation 2001:8003:1800:1000:11CD:F466:9453:62F7 (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019
| This edit request to Macedonia (ancient kingdom) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
macedonia was an ancient GREEK kingdom,please put that in the description. Argead dynasty is from dorian tribe,which is a greek tribe that settled in the north of ancient greece. Slorking (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. The current wording has been worked out by long-standing WP:CONSENSUS based on the wide range of historical facts and interpretations, not just one point-of-view. --Taivo (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done: per above. Gangster8192 02:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
