Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 2

message: Macedonia ... Established as a kingdom, according to some authors, by Caranus or Gavanus, descendant of Temerus, son of Hercules; but, according to Herodotus and Thucydides, by Perdiccas, another of the Temenidae of Argos. The name, traditionally derived from Macedo, son of Jupiter or Osiris, at first designated only the district of Macednon, near Pindus mountain.
one source.
Macedon son of Zeus and Thyia, brother of Magnes, according to other source.
MATIA 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ancient macedon 

message: the black-on-white Vergina Sun looks sort of like the Black Sun. I suppose the image is ok on Vergina Sun, but for this article, I would prefer an image of an actual artefact, maybe :Image:Vergina sun.jpg, or a coin or something. dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually feel sorry for you.
11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the image 

message: Whew, after the war over "Greek"/"Not", I'm almost afraid to mention weapons... :I Still, given Alex3, & the influence of Phil2's phalanx on the Roman manipular legion, IMHO the article should mention it... Also mention the gastrophetes (crossbow).  Trekphiler 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military 

message: This is the definition as it is stated in Britannica:
* ancient kingdom centred on the plain in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula, at the head of the Gulf of Thérmai. In the 4th century BC it achieved hegemony over Greece and conquered lands as far east as the Indus River, establishing a short-lived empire that introduced the Hellenistic Age of ancient Greek civilization. 
Hence I'm editing according to a sourced version. Miskin 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedon as part of Greece 

message: This is a contraversial issue in the hands of politions. I will note that as of January 1, 2004 it is internationaly recognized as the Republic of Macedonia, especially by the United States of America.
Please lets not make this into a propaganda site were Greek nationalist write history their own way and Macedonian nationalist write history their own way. 
Note: Just like Greeks think Macedonians are stealing Greek history, Macedonians think Greeks are stealing their history. So lets not be ignorant, nationalistic, and "haters", and lets accept both views.
:Thank you for your input, but are you sure this is the right page to post this? This is the article about the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, not the modern country. Secondly, in my view, it is perfectly legitimate for nationalists (and anyone else) to write history in their own way, as long as sources are provided and valid arguments are made. If you believe that there is a connection between the modern country and the ancient kingdom, then you should provide some evidence. Last, please remember to sign your contributions to the talk pages (You can do this by typing four consecutive ~). All best, TheArchon 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Macedonia (terminology), especially the maps. Ancient Macedon was in present day Greek/Aegean Macedonia. The (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia used be Paionia, and was inhabited by Paionians, a people of Thraco-Illyrian (i.e. Albanian) ethnicity. Also, that genes "research" was widely discredited and ridiculed by the scientific community as lacking scientific merit (click here), apparently, according to that, the Japanese also have sub-Saharan origins. If you are into genes research, try reading this. --Telex 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a matter of where ancient and modern Macedonia was/is located, it is a matter of the people living there. The Slavs entered the Balkans at 600 A.D, whereas Ancient Macedon ceased to exist as an independent nation at around 200 B.C. It is about 800 years difference there, pal. And let me remind you that the Greeks has more evidence on their side, for example, you do know that all macedonian texts found is written in Greek? You do know that the Macedonian culture was Greek? You do know that the ancient Macedonians worshipped Greek gods? You do know that all macedonian names but one is Greek? Not one has Slavic roots. The only arguments the modern macedonians has is some words of Demosthenes and their location. That is about it. Not to mention that ancient macedon was closer located, no, actually it practically was exacly the greek province of Makedonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beares (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add on, that link of yours appears to have a lot of faults in it. The Turks entered Asia Minor at ~1000 A.D, Medieval times. How can they be of the "oldest Mediterannean people"? Not to mention the French, which actually has Germanic roots. Is Germany located around the Mediterannean? No. And last of all, the Slavs. It is widely known that they lived in Russia, and did not enter the Balkans before 600 A.D. And ah yes, the Greeks were Indo-Europeans.Beares 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The study attached by the anonymous user is quite interesting. However, it is scientifically questionable for a number of reasons. First, there is no reference to the size of the sample and the selection process, or the methodology used. Therefore it is impossible for us to form an independent judgement re its validity. However, a clue may be found in the fact that it was published in a relatively obscure journal, and that it has not been cited in any other research ever since (Entirely as an aside, please note that a large number of authors is often a warning sign for bad science, because it hints at mass production of articles.) Even if the extraordinary suggestions in the article are taken at face value, all that the study claims is that the inhabitants of the RoM are genetically closer to the Basques, the Jews and the Iranians, among others, than to the Greeks. There is, in other words, no reference whatsoever to Ancient Macedon. As to the National Geographic site, I cannot understand what it is supposed to show, because it works at a scale of tens of thousands of years. Perhaps you could enlighten us? (Please remember to sign the post.) TheArchon 07:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia or Republic Of Macedonia 

message: This article mentions Borza, Hammond and Fox in its sources. Even though the two latter are widely considered as experts, 99% of the article's content reflects the views of Borza. Borza is one of the scholars who have extreme opinions on the subject and are not in agreement with the wider academic community. I know this because I have a Classics-related degree, and I find it strange that he was chosen as the primary source for this article. I corrected the Macedonia (region) link to Macedonia (Greece) because the original territory of Macedon was only a sub-region of the current Greek Macedonia. The central-Northern parts of the modern region were purely non-Macedonian, non-Greek lands. Anyway I think the article should be subject to large rewrite. anon
:Borza becomes a source in the language/Hellenic controversy section, not a source in the other sections. And so many people wrote this article, without Borza as a reference; Borza is not overrepresented, and in fact Borza is only vital for one or two sentences. This article is constantly in the process of being rewritten, and I'm certainly not satisfied with it. The French Wiki has an article that focuses on the Macedonian army which alone is better than this article. Bottom line for now however: the Ancient Macedonian language is of unknown/disputed classification at the moment, and Borza or no Borza, a Wikipedia article can only promote the completely Greek theory to a certain point. About the wider academic community, read this, a fine, neutral-minded essay by Ernst Badian, professor emeritus of History: . This Wikipedia article should be along those lines when it comes to the Hellenic controversy. Alexander 007 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking myself if we shouldn't remove the "Hellenic controversy" section and transfer it to Ancient Macedonian language. I have a feeling that we give to much importance to linguistics and ethnic questions, while we are not giving enough importance to political and social history. To be honest, I have a feeling that most of the article is a mess. Opinions? Aldux 16:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Language and Hellenic controversy would have its best place in Ancient Macedonians, an (as yet non-existent) article specifically about the ancient people (including the Macedonian people before unification under Macedon), and not about the kingdom, which was, after all, a kingdom, an empire, not an ethnic group or language. And the article has needed a fix since it was created, but writing/rewriting Macedon was never a priority for me. Alexander 007 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the discussion of the Macedonian calendar would be better in its own article, as in Attic calendar. Alexander 007 16:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I have neither the knowledge to start such an article myself, nor the courage: an article like Ancient Macedonians would be subject to constant attack from Greek and Macedonian nationalists, transforming it into a battlefield. But Ancient Macedonian Calendar, seems easier to do, and I may do it myself when I get a new computer; the one I've got now is literally disentegrating ;-) Aldux 16:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ancient Macedonians will not be easy, and many references will be needed. I've been putting off the article since back in August 2005, when I think I first thought of it. Alexander 007 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Is it not obvious, by this page in and of itself, that this content is disputed? The name Macedonia and anything related to it is internationally disputed. Thus, it needs to be placed in the article. Not to do so, would unethically and illegaly mis-represent information. I will be adding it in. Thanks -
:Have you read the article lately? The controversial stuff has been removed to a new article. The policy is to specify the "totally disputed" content, otherwise I can place the tag on any article I want. Alexander 007 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, is this (from the Columbia Encyclopedia) internationally disputed as well, because it is pretty much identical to what is mentioned in the article? Latinus 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Content 

message: The external links that have been restored or introduced all represent nationalistic POV, either Greek or Macedonian, and I feel we don't need to stuff the External links section with nationalistic propaganda. Aldux 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Matia. The controversy section has been moved to a new article recently written by Alexander007, titled Ancient Macedonians. The transfer of this section had been first discussed in Talk:Macedon#Rewrite. Ciao! Aldux 16:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aldux. I'll try to catch up. I've restored at first the external links, and then removed two. talk to +MATIA 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: I'm not much of a fan of these massive navigation templates.  That said, it is not clear to me why :Template:Ancient Greece topics and :Template:History of Greece were removed from this article.  User:Aldux states that it was for the same reason that the Greek language template was removed from the Ancient Macedonian language article.  As I understand it, there is some uncertainty about whether or not the Ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek or not, and there is not enough information available to settle the issue.  However, there really isn't any dispute about whether or not Macedon (the Kingdom) is an important topic in the study of Ancient Greece or Greek History.  I'd like to ask Aldux to reconsider that edit.  Jkelly 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jkelly. I've restored the :Template:Ancient Greece topics, as you're probably wright that whatever language was spoken in the country, Macedon is an important topic for Ancient Greece. But I maintain my objections for the :Template:History of Greece. This template is part of the History of Greece series, and Macedon is already covered in Ancient Greece, which is in the series (while Macedon is not). Also, one template seems to me to be enough.--Aldux 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Jkelly 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The burglar screams to scare-off the landlord! (Very appropriate Greek proverb -fits like a glove!)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, thought of that too, but it didn't have the "SCREAMS" part... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition/reversion of templates? 

message: "Macedonia is one of the greek states back in the ancient times, and still stands in modern times(not f.y.r.o.m.)"
I took the liberty to delete this sentence for several reasons:
* It is clearly POV
* Ancient Macedon doesn't stand today
* There are no more greek states, only one united Greece
* Macedon was a kingdom
* It clearly states at the top that it is in Northern-most Greece, so the (not in Republic of Macedonia) part is pretty much useless 
Zaebangad 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its "point of view" (POV?) but the rest of your arguments stand. Also, the situation of (ancient) Macedonia as 'Greek' was a question itself of the ancients. Those of the Greek city-states to the south of Macedonia considered it only semi-civilized and therfore only semi-Greek.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence 

message: Calling this article "Macedon" is somewhat bizarre and possibly occurring under the influence of Greece/FYROM politics. 
The standard term for the ancient state in English today is "Macedonia". "Macedon" is an older and poetic term. And when "Macedon" is/has been used, it has/has had equal application to the modern region as to the ancient kingdom.
This article should be titled "Macedonia (ancient state)" if it is to be separate from a general article on the history of the Macedonian region. -- 64.175.66.2, 01:36, 15 September 2006 
:I have some sympathy for this argument. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to use the same approach that distinguishes ancient Rome from the modern city; in other words, have the article at Ancient Macedonia, similar to how ancient Rome is at (surprise!) Ancient Rome. I'd be interested to know what other editors think of this suggestion. -- ChrisO 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I'd be ok with all Macedonia (ancient), Macedonia (ancient state) and Ancient Macedonia. In fact, all of these should be redirects, regardless of the final name. •NikoSilver• 10:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Ancient Macedonia isn't bad, a better solution could be Kingdom of Macedonia; but I agree that the present Macedon isn't fully satisfying.--Aldux 10:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Aldux, about Kingdom of Macedonia, though IMO Ancient Macedonia would be the best for the article's title (but in this case, we would have a problem on which 'Ancient Macedonia' we are refering to: the early kingdom? Philip's kingdom? Alexander's empire or the Roman province? or maybe all?-in any case still they have nothing to do with FYROM;-)...). Hectorian 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingdom or not, it has to keep its simple name (like Greece vs Hellenic Republic, Germany vs Federal Republic of Germany etc). Everybody used to call that thing (and still often does) simply Macedonia. So we must do the same and simply call it Macedonia, but since that one is taken as a dab page, we'll add the parentheses: Macedonia (ancient). This is the simplest way of referring to it, and helps with the pipe trick too. •NikoSilver• 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that parenthesis are IMO quite ugly, and, when possible, should be avoided. After all for the article on modern Greece's monarchy the article is titled Kingdom of Greece, not Greece (kingdom). Also we should keep in mind this is an article on the ancient Macedonian state, and ancient Macedonia, as Hectorian noted, tends to indicate the territory and would extend also to Roman Macedonia.--Aldux 18:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is that this is not an article on the Macedonian region in antiquity, but of a definite political entity that ended in 167 BC (or 148 BC, if one prefers). To this entity, much of what we call today Macedonia was not truly part. Also, the modern republic is called Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia (country); and as for Macedonia (Greece), Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (Greek), we could easily remove the parenthesis, and in my opinion should.--Aldux 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ordinary Name for the Ancient State is "Macedonia" 

message: This article states: "Macedon or Macedonia (from Greek Μακεδονία; see also List of traditional Greek place names) was the name of an ancient kingdom in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordering the kingdom of Epirus on the west and the region of Thrace to the east." I believe that stating Macedon was part of Ancient Greece is a Greek biased opinion and that both sides should be represented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82FirebirdTA (talk • contribs) 
This is taken from the head of the Britannica article, so it's as neutral as it gets. Miskin 12:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth does it matter what Britannica says when the views are clearly not represented properly?? --B. Jankuloski 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brittanica is one of many good tests for what the mainstream view of the subject is.  The only real question here is whether "Macedon was not part of ancient Greece" is a significant minority viewpoint worth mention, or a fringe one that isn't.  I suspect it is the latter.  Jkelly 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Question: Anybody think it is worth creating a separate article for the "Macedonian Empire" and reducing this article to the history before Alexander's time (or else making the Alexandrian period be a brief description here with the Empire article listed as "main"). I suggest this because
* Although the Empire was technically short-lived it was nevertheless very significant.
* The importance of the Empire is distinct from the longer history of Macedon (in the same way that there are separte articles for the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire).
* There are cases in other articles where it is convenient to be able to link to the Macedonian Empire as the reason for later historical trends but linking to this article in those cases is a little strange.
Comments?
--Mcorazao 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have to sort out the articles after Alexander's death. See Hellenistic Greece and Hellenistic civilization (aka Hellenic Empire). Also, Macedonian Empire redirects here... NikoSilver 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split up? 

message: The map included is not very clear in delineating the boundaries of ancient Macedonia. I have found a better one
Additionally the map CREATED by Niko Silver in this discussion page (which he used in the naming dispute article re: modern macedonia) is false and incorrect. The ancient macedonian borders went further north and not so much east into lower thrace. 
I am sure this is merely an oversight on Niko's behalf, and not a blatant attempt to falsify history. 
Hxseek 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's alright. Once you manage to find a copy of Rawlinson's 1899 map, please do upload it. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: Why is this page protected? I think we need to work on it, and I don't see any serious signs of edit-warring anymore. Can we have it back please? I was about to add also Pella in the "capital" field, per Aldux's comment. NikoSilver 09:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- protection over a single trolling user is premature. I'll lift it, hoping this will not construed as "wheel warring". If anybody disagrees with this, let me know and I'll re-protect, but I don't believe in following too much red tape in cases like this. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just just notify Majorly first. I agree with dab that the only reason for the edit war was a single rather clueless user against informed consensus (although, since I was the other party to the edit-warring, I shouldn't be talking too much). Niko, if you could help getting Italiotis back on track if he decides to return, that would be a great help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do my best, since I value his original contribution (which is the infobox -regardless of content). He has a strong chance of becoming productive and collaborative. BTW, nobody has officially "d" him yet. NikoSilver 09:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it was El Greco who first did the infobox. Italiotis hasn't done much except edit-warring so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies to El Yunani (:-)), thanks for setting the record straight, and I'll still try to help Italiotis. NikoSilver 09:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: btw, could we rename this to "Kingdom of Macedonia" (:fr:Royaume de Macédoine, :el:Μακεδονικό βασίλειο; compare Kingdom of Armenia)? Gets rid of the archaic "Macedon" and is still unambiguous. Also, can we merge Ancient Macedonians into a "Population" section? That article seems to exist purely for pov-pushing reasons, rehashing material covered at the xmk article. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kingdom of Macedonia" is fine by me, although I'd prefer "Macedonia (ancient)". "Macedonia" is by far the most common name in my view, and the qualifier used should be in parentheses, according to the frequency of use of the term in academia. The merger also finds me agreeable, with the original titles preserved as redirects to the specific sections. NikoSilver 10:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Macedonia" is the region. "ancient Macedonia" is simply the region in ancient times. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonia is [present tense] the region, it wasn't, it was just the kingdom/empire. Plus, our earlier comments about merging the empire section here make the "kingdom" description addressing only part of the scope of the article. I still think that "Macedonia" (-period) is the most frequent term in academia (English or otherwise), and the qualifier "(ancient)" definitely serves the purpose of covering both the kingdom and the later empire. What do you say? NikoSilver 10:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think for reasons of convention we should stick with the name Macedon. Philip, Alenander etc. are listed as "NN of Macedon" globalwise, in all museums and bibliography of the world.
I will include some examples:
Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26524/ancient-Greek-civilization
British museum: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/c/copy_of_a_gold_stater_of_phili.aspx
I think that we are safer to keep in as is. Italiotis 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Macedon" isn't terrible, and this isn't a very urgent move request. It's a question of English stylistics really. "Macedon" has an antiquated ring to it, say, of posh English grammar schools. Even the OED has "Now arch. and hist.". It isn't wrong, it's just very old-fashioned. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that I also would prefer Kingdom of Macedonia; it puts emphasis on the state, gives the name used by most sources and clearly defines time span and borders. Macedonia (ancient), apart from a personal antipathy for using parenthesis, could include in such a name all antiquity, and in its borders cover also the independent maritime poleis. Also, upper Macedonia for several centuries was independent, even if apparently inhabited by tribes closely related to the Macedonian state ones.--Aldux 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kingdom of Macedon" is more professional, but I think I can also warm up to "Macedon". We might revive this obsolete form as the "Wikipedia solution" to the "Macedonia" terminological confusion. I usually like old-fashioned terminology, so I won't be too outspoken against it: I just draw your attention to the problem :) dab (𒁳) 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, let's just leave it where it is, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move, mergefrom? 

message: Why is the Vergina Sun not included as a "probable" or "uncertain" or "debatable" or even "disputed" symbol? I read the original article, and the prevailing theories I understand include such a possibility. Is it that remote? I really am not aware of any previous debate on it. NikoSilver 10:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things that are "probable" or "uncertain" or "debatable" or "disputed" should generally not be in infoboxes. If it needs disclaimers of any type, it's better served further down in the text, where it can have a suitable caption including whatever hedging or explanation is needed. There's nothing that would make it more informative up in the infobox than where it is now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but from my previous experience, I was under the impression that uncertainties (if noted so) are included in infoboxes. I remember the XMK infobox, for example. Where is the relevant debate that results in the conclusion of your first sentence? BTW, I'm certainly not willing to edit-war over this. NikoSilver 10:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is my own, personal, strongly held, well-considered editorial opinion, arrived at after observing dozens of unnecessary edit-wars. It is always the case that if you try to press a piece of uncertain or potentially controversial information in an infobox, you end up with more trouble than if you just include it in the text. Infoboxes should be crispy, short, clear, otherwise they are not worth it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually we do have coats of arms in all relative articles except the Roman Empire. Check the last fields of the infobox there. Indeed, descriptions like "coat of arms" or "flag" are anachronisms, but those descriptions do not appear in the infobox. Plus, there is a field called "symbol", and I find this quite descriptive. As for the "troll magnet", I doubt any Greek or ethnic Macedonian troll would dispute this. They both worship it. NikoSilver 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hah, very descriptive! How about "symbol"? It would definitely match the description. NikoSilver 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So you suggest that it is a remote marginal opinion. I thought that would be the case initially (when I asked "is it that remote?"). Ok, if it is so, then I suggest we make this evident (and properly sourced) in the relevant article. I wouldn't have jumped to include the symbol if it was cited as "such an obvious construct of current day Greek nationalism" by other academics. I see, though, that your 'citation needed' tags in your last edit at Vergina Sun are aimed to the other theories, rather than to Andronikos's hypothesis. BTW I don't find Andronikos a nationalist, but his being Greek definitely doesn't help much. NikoSilver 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to keeping it around in the article body. But we need a WP:RS for "has been interpreted as a symbol of the royal Macedonian dynasty of the Argeads". I am sure Andronikos is perfectly respectable at a source, but we'll still need to name him as the proponent (or others, such as there are). It is not impossible that there were "symbols" for ruling dynasties. There certainly were seals of individual rulers, and if a design element was inherited in a dynasty, you might argue it had become a "symbol of the dynasty". That would probably still be an anachronistic concept. I doubt that any BCE polities should have their infoboxes graced with "national symbols". The earliest bona fide "state symbol" might be the Byzantine double-headed eagle of the High Middle Ages (11th century?). For any earlier "symbols", you'll have to roll in heavy academic references to convince me. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think it is mistake to treat the Vergina Sun as a national symbol. National symbols with the modern interpretation of the symbol were not introduced till the early middle ages. Symbols in antiquity were mostly related to religious cults. We cannnot be sure what the use of this symbol was about. What we are sure though is that it is a solar symbol which was simply covering the remanings of Philip. It is a symbol of significant importance but from scientific point of view we cannot be sure about anything further to that.
I suggest the following wording to be put as the description of Vergina Sun.
'Vergina Sun, the 16-ray star covering the royal burial larnax of Philip the II of Macedon(Vergina , Greece)'
I will include in the box for the star if no objections.Italiotis 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sun (and my unawareness of previous debates on it) 

message: Hi guys. Should we include also a link to Diadochi. As the Diadochi Wars gave birth to all the subsequent states after the death of Alexander? I will include a link under the section: See Also. Italiotis 10:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Diadochi should certainly be (and are) referenced from the "Empire" section. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also Dab we should put a more specific reference in the infobox for the attalid dynasty around Pergamon. Pergamon was as important centre of hellenistic culture second only to Alexandria. So I think the Attalid kingdom should be regarded as of equal importance along with the two larger states and included in the notable successor states. CheersItaliotis 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please feel free to edit the article: it is only after you run into opposition and are reverted that you should come to talk and explain yourself. I am not opposed to linking the Attalid dynasty as a "spin-off state" of the Macedonian Empire on a par with the Ptolemaic Empire. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diadochi 

message: Hi guys. I would like to make a proposal. As Wikipedia succesfully kept Macedon away of Athens-Skopje name conflict i would suggest to do the same with the rest of Macedon s deriving words. So i suggest for the people to use: Macedon and Macedones and for the language: Macedonic and Ancient Macedonic Language. We should henceforth referred as Macedonia/Macedonian only to the region after being conquered from the roman empire and named in Latin oficially as Macedonia(roman province). In that way we will avoid confusion with the use of the word Macedonian/s that today may mean ethnic macedonians, (modern) greek macedonians, etc and we will obtain a higher flexibility to effectivily ameliorate the article without having any disruption or having to use long ineffective description such as ancient macedonian language etc. I will start giving it a go if no objections. Please list your thoughts. Italiotis 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You cannot just begin to call things "Macedonic" because you feel like it. There is an entire (long) article about Macedonia (terminology) -- so if you want to contribute anything to "Macedonian" as a term, you want to try Talk:Macedonia (terminology). Be aware that the present situation is the result of much discussion.  --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Italioti, no-can-do. WP uses the most frequent names in academia, it doesn't try to solve problems that exist in the world. More in your talkpage shortly. NikoSilver 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that's just going to open a pandora's box. El Greco(talk) 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedon project 

message: ::Please reinsert the Greek in the Macedon article before the kingdom and put these references in it.
* The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History: Revised Edition by Colin McEvedy,ISBN-10: 0140513485,2003 ,Page 62,"... demon strate that not even the forces of nature could thwart the advance of the Great King. The most northerly Greek state, the Kingdom of Macedon, had already submitted to Xerxes' envoys: Thessaly did not resist either. ..."
* The Art of War in Western World by Archer Jones,ISBN-10: 0252069668,2000, Page 21,"... King Philip of the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon perfected this system,and his son, Alexander the Great, used it to conquer Greece and the Persian Empire. ..."
Megistias (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Selective quoting is one's friend. I don't care enough to remove (or discuss) it again, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinsert the Greek, we have more sources here to fill the obelix's stomachMegistias (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please reinsert 

message: ::The kingdom was Ancient Greek this is not an article about the specifics of linguistics.Megistias (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They dont care about sources they want to be politically correct.Megistias (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: to the contrary, I think this is quite a quotable source. It appears that there is something like an emerging consensus that the Macedonians were marginal NW/Doric Greeks, perhaps with an Illyrian adstrate. If academic consensus tilts this way, we can certainly reflect that, but we'll obviously continue to indicate that this is a topic of controversial debate. Greek nationalists who have of course "always known" the "Macedonians were Greeks" anyway are of little interest here, or anywhere else. dab (𒁳) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thracians/phrygians were in mostly contact with them and it was thracians/prhygians that were thrown "out" .How could the adstrate be Illyrian? They would have perhaps a phrygian lingual adstrate since they were in contact with phrygians for a great while before the phrygians migrated. Megistias (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Paul Kretschmer (May 2, 1866 – March 9, 1956) is kind of old.All the finds in spanning 52 years were not used in his theory.Megistias (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And "Geschichte des Hellenismus Zweiter Band: Das Wesen Des Hellenismus
by Julius Kaerst"Publisher: Teubner (1926).Is 82 years old. Megistias (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The source is quotable to attest the fact that 50-100 years ago the predominant theories were that Macedonians were mixed(thracoIllyrophrygo)-Hellenes and now that they were not.Megistias (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous.The kingdom was ancient Greek they were ancient Greek and we are wondering about language and that alone.This is not the language page.Megistias (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We need an RFC here.We have the sources and you are just ignoring them on a whim.Megistias (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might be forgetting about what WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view requires: "that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Wikipedia isn't in the business of judging whether or not the Macedonians were Greeks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The predominant view should be pointed out i am not saying that the other views be excluded, thy can be included just fine.The fact is that this is about the kingdom and not the language.The above written sources are pretty clear.Megistias (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The kingdom that started the Hellenistic age was hellenic and the people hellenes.The sources are there.Megistias (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It was removed again are you guys playing here?The references are clearMegistias (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The real controversial thing  here is how come after removing sourced material for so many times and promoting your own opinions based on your imagination since no sources agree with you guys arent banned yet.This wiki is your personal playgound?
*And the first king is Karanus not Perdiccas.Megistias (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We have 100 sources for this article and for this as well  and they are been ignored against wiki rules just because some of you have certain "political beliefs".Megistias (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Like other articles its admins abusing power and/or adhering to their personal beliefs instead of wiki rules and sources.Megistias (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The sources say ancient Greek out it back in.This is against the rules.Megistias (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Megistias, while other people try to present a case, can you really do no better than sound like a broken record? dab (𒁳) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The references are being ignored.Where is the supposed opposition? This is not about the language specifics.Megistias (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The kingdom 

message: I have reverted the last revision from to the older one from future perfect at sunrise. The map used here  shows how ancient Macedon is split within the modern states in the area which I concider irrelevant. Such maps are relevant in the page of Macedonia name dispute and not in the actual historical site. The older map is far more detailed and accurate sholwing the provinces and important cities of the kingdom of Macedon, and it is far more neutral as it really focuses on the historical facts without any other implementations. Melathron (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I added Britannica Online link (Macedonia: Hellenism in Macedonia) at the external links section, will someone merge the video info in the article since my knowledge in English is not enough for me to do it? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica Online 

message: From The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Greece, Robert Morkot, Penguin 1996, page 72. 
 
In the years of Macedonian expansion under Philip II, (359-336 BC) the Athenian orator Demosthenes referred to Greece's northern neighbours as "barbarians, claiming that they had only recently ceased to be shepherds.  Certainly the Thracians and Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the Northwest, the peoples of Molossis, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek.  It is now accepted that the Maceodnians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially "Greeks".  The main difference between Macedonia and the city states of the south was that it was ruled by a king and powerful nobility
Reliable, contemporary and secondary.  I am adding it to the intro.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable. However, the recent dump of thirteen references, most vague references to entire books, into the introduction is not. When I came across this article (through a link from elsewhere) I immediately could tell it had been edited by a Greek-nationalist partisan, which is not how Wikipedia articles should read (and I'm ethnically Greek myself!). --Delirium (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, since I edited this article I suppose you are referring to me when saying “I immediately could tell it had been edited by a Greek-nationalist partisan”, which allow me to assume you think you got super- duper “I know everything” powers (hmm... perhaps hence the name “Delirium” :)),  as I actually respected WP:RS so I provided reliable sources on Macedon. Now, to get serious, there are far many articles in wikipedia using a lot sources at their intro without annoying anyone. And per NPOV: Why don't you provide reliable sources which actually state Macedon was not Greek? Add them in the article too. That would cover all POVs, wouldn’t? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: References say they were Greek.Megistias (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing that they weren't: the scholarly consensus is tentatively that they probably were, with a few significant dissenters. I'm arguing that the way it's presented in the intro, as a baldly stated fact and with 13 references, is not neutral. As for references saying that it was not Greek, several of The Cat and the Owl's own references discuss the controversy, and mention dissent in the classical-scholarship community (Julius Kaerst is a notable scholar who thinks Macedon was not Greek). --Delirium (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Julius Kaerst, Gesch. d. hellenist. Zeitalters (Band ii., publ. 1909).Since he is from the 1900's you have made a mistake in mentioning him since we are discussing about modern scientists and not those who could be a an archaeological find themselves(a little joke).The position today is and not a surprising on that they were a marginal ancient Greek tribe.Megistias (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, anything before the 1950s is not considered a contemporary source.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Kaerst is not a "signifigant" or any other type of "dissenter" since he is from 1900's and the finds of the last 30 years have changed all assumptions to a direction of certainty.Modern political issues are irrelevant and should not effect the articles or create some sort of "neutrality" issue.This is on antiquity not on today.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Its Greek and this removal should be reverted.diff.This little argument is ridiculous.Megistias (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Even sources were removed.Its pov not to mention they were ancient Greeks.Megistias (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 

message: This is the worst kind of pseudo-history and myth dissemination: the one performed under the veil of freedom of speech and opinion.
Locking the page does lift slightly the veil and gives us (readers) a glimpse of what is behind it: a propaganda machine puppeteered by Greek agenda.
Be historically responsible, give Wikipedia back to the public.
Ilidio.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilidio.martins (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you begin by reading the Wikipedia article, and then perhaps WP:5P in order to get a rough idea what we are doing here. dab (𒁳) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: ahem, Alexander's empire lasted for less than forty years. Your "secondary side effect" has shaped Europe-as-we-know-it. The article is fine as it is. It mentions Alexander and his conquests in a brief section, because these are not the main scope of this article. The scope of this article is the period 800 to 146 BC. In a first period, say 800-450 BC, there was no "Classical Greece", and Macedon was a petty kingdom like all the others. In the second period, say 450-146 BC, Macedon had been Hellenized and was clearly part of the Greek/Hellenistic world. You may want to study the history of this talkpage in order to avoid rehashing topics that have already been discussed to death. dab (𒁳) 16:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the article isn't locked. You can edit it while logged in. But I do suggest you make a coherent suggestion as to what you want to change first, ideally backing up your case with academic references (see WP:RS). Yes, the 4th century BC Macedonian Empire certainly does fall under "Ancient Greece", more precisely "Hellenistic Greece". dab (𒁳) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please unlock page. 

message: Enough said! Here, I found people that:
1. Do not present rational and clear arguments; 2. Do not present reliable references; 3. Treat my comments with satire; 4. Are not able to reach a compromise/midpoint; 5. Promote ethnical/racial divides; 6. Make false accusations; 7. Show complete disregard and disrespect for different opinions/points of view;
You can take a look for yourself in previous sections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilidio.martins (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The way this article is being managed completely discredits Wikipedia 

message: I would like to inquire the opinion of the curators of this article about it's use of references. I think referencing is scarce and of dubious quality/pertinence in some cases. As a primer I would point to the previous discussion topic where we mentioned several references that seemed to bring some deepness and range to the debate.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too many footnotes used, that's true. What do you propose? 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing. 

message: It is stated in the article that Pieria constituted part of "Upper Macedonia" but this is not so. I quote from N. G. L. Hammond, "Connotations of 'Macedonia' and of 'Macedones' Until 323 B. C.", The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 1, (1995), pp. 122 "To summarize, 'Macedonia' was the name of the homeland between the lowest reach of the Haliacmon and the southern foothills of  Lower Olympus both before and after the pre-Temenid era. When conquests followed, 'Macedonia' became the name of the whole area ruled by the king. That area naturally varied from time to time. But within it some distinctions continued in use: 'Macedonia' as the homeland, and 'low Macedonia' or 'Macedonia by the sea', and 'inland Macedonia' (usually called 'Upper Macedonia' by modern historians), which were units of their own and did not include for instance Chalcidice and Paeonia" The area described as "between the lowest reach of the Haliacmon and the southern foothills of  Lower Olympus" corresponds roughly to Pieria so I think there should be no confusion. BTW I hope this will also settle the issue about the extent of the original Macedonian Kingdom--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without being an over-simplification, present-day Pieria was the original Macedonian kingdom. Pieria was the 'Emathia' land seen in numerous primary sources. As N. G. L. Hammond puts it (quoting W.H. Heurtley, 1939 and others) in his article about "Macedonia" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2003,  "The original Macedonia was Pieria and Mt. Olympus, and from there the Macedonians acquired the costal plain of the Thermaic Gulf [...] --157.228.x.x (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pft, "original". Didn't the Temenids expel the poor Pierians before settling there? Good catch. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper Macedonia Pieria 

message: This poorly written Wiki article attempts to make it appear that ancient Macedonians were distinct from ancient Greeks. I would gambit the article is largely edited by people from Fyrom/Republic of Macedonia with irredentist aims towards Greece (contrary to both US and UN resolutions to refrain from propaganda against Greek Macedonians). Despite the occasional voice of objections there is no major dispute among most scholars that ancient Macedon was inherently Greek in nature. (at least more than anything else) The Hellenic age (the greek word for what we in english call "greek") is evidence beyond dispute of this.
To give an example of historical distortions found in this article...
By saying the "northern-most part of Greece" it makes it seem like it bordered Greece. There was no "Greece" state in ancient times... there was only a collection of autonomous city states and Kingdoms that self-identified as Greeks. (Mycenae, Athens, Argos, Ithica, Sparta, Macedon Corinth, etc...) 
Another example of irredentism.... the Wiki article states....
This statement is very deceptive. It was common during times of conflict for Greeks to label each other "barbarians" (non-Greeks) as an insult. (similar to saying "unAmerican" today) While Demosthenes used "barbarians" to describe Macedonians... he also used it describe the Athenian orator Aristogeiton [Aristophanes, ‘Nephelae’ (line 491). And even Demosthenes himself as described by as a "barbarian" by Aeschine. Plato characterized the Lesbian Aeolic Greek dialect as ‘a barbarian register’ while addressing Pittakos of Mytilene. Athenaios VIII 350a  Socrates calls Strepsiadis “ανθρωπός αμαθές ουτώσι και βάρβαρος“.  (Strepsiadis…was a well-known Athenian) - Protagoras 3410 etc... etc... There are countless instances of Greeks describing each other as barbarians.
There are other examples of bias in the article but the most telling is how it lightly brushs over the Hellenic period of Macedon (similar to the golden age of Athens).... in which Macedonia spread the Greek Language, Greek culture, and Greek ideas to the region. They unique flavour of macedon among Greeks... was very similar to how Athens also had unique aspects to it... as did Sparta... as did most of the Greek mini-states.
If Macedon wasn't Greek.... then Greek philosopher Aristotle wasn't Greek either (since he came from Chalcidice in Macedon). To go down this road we would also need to rewrite a fair portion of Wiki articles related to antiquity and the Hellenistic period. To do this to suit the political needs of a country whose population is roughly a quarter Muslim and most of the rest are ethnically slavic (who have called themselves Yugoslavians, Serbians, and Bulgarians in the last hundred years) amounts to roughly helping the Taliban blow up Buddhist statues for political ends. 
Because of political nature of the article I would advise a complete rewrite by people will credentials in ancient studies. History is not a popularity contest. Just stick to the facts as we know them.  What's ironic is that virtually every last piece of "evidence" that Macedon wasn't Greek... is either translated from Greek or comes from Greek artifacts. The citizens of Fyrom can't even read inscriptions from Macedon... as they are almost all writen in Greek. (Their own "Macedonian" language was called Bulgarian less than a hundred years ago)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currency of ancient Macedonia by NO mean was "greek" drahma. There were more, drahmas and tetradrahmas, but the main currency was STATER.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.247.75 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "greek drahma"?? How about "greek stater"? Just read before you post... GK1973 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly written article