Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 02:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: hello. Is this review still active? --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: hi again. We are now moving into July here. Should I request that someone else review the article? --Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Hey, I'm really sorry about not getting to this; I've been super inactive in general, but should be coming back now. I'll try to get this done today, if possible. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y (In spite of Copy-editing notice on talk page, the article is quite well put together) 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No Copyvio Y
• No DAB links Y
• No Dead links N "Hellenism in Macedonia" link appears to be dead.

Prose Suggestions

Lede

• "founded in the mid-7th century BC during the period of Archaic Greece and lasting until the mid-2nd century BC." Should lasting be lasted? I think it's good enough either way, but it feels a bit odd to me.
• "During the age of Classical Greece, Perdiccas II of Macedon (r. 454–413 BC) became heavily involved in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Classical Athens and Sparta," may wish to remove the "heavily", or change it to "directly," if its a case of indirect interference before entrance into the war.

Body

• "the latter believed to have had the mythical Heracles as one of his ancestors." Is "the latter" applying to Temenus of Argos here? Given the absence of a singular former, it seems a bit odd; may want to change it.
• " in which the Macedonian kingdom was largely autonomous yet was expected to provide troops and provisions for the Achaemenid army" you may want to change "yet" to "but".
• "In that same year, Sitalces, according to Thucydides, invaded Macedonia at the behest of Athens to aid them in subduing Chalcidice and punish Perdiccas II for violating the terms of their peace treaty." may want to make it "to punish Perdiccas" II..."
• "Perdiccas III had reached the age of majority and took the opportunity to kill his regent Ptolemy" What was the age of majority for them, at the time? If it's in the source you may wish to add it.
• @PericlesofAthens: Thats all my suggestions; and again, sorry for being so late. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply

@Iazyges: hi Iazyges! No worries about the wait. It's summer; people should be busy!

• I removed that dead link that you mentioned in the external links section.
• It honestly should be "lasting" instead of lasted; it makes more sense grammatically (using the past progressive tense, since it was established at the beginning of the sentence, i.e. in the clause, that we were using past tense).
• I changed the word "heavily" to "directly" in that sentence about Perdiccas II. Good catch!
• I tweaked the sentence about Temenus of Argos being a descendant of Heracles, as the old tale asserted.
• Per your suggestion, I have edited the sentence about Macedonia being autonomous while providing military support to the Achaemenid Empire.
• I added an extra "to" in the sentence about Sitalces allying with Athens to defeat Perdiccas II.
• Well, in ancient times, unlike modern times where the law clearly states the age of majority, it was more of a private or communal agreement when a boy was to be considered a young man (usually involving a ceremony of some sort). Like today, the precise age varied from culture to culture, but when we're talking about royalty and princes ascending to the throne, it becomes a different matter. In this context, "age of majority" simply means the moment when the boy prince decides, preferably after careful counsel and consideration, that he is old enough and competent enough to take the throne and have the regent or steward retire from their role as temporary caretaker of the kingdom (or have them killed if necessary). This could happen at any age really, and in the case of Perdiccas III we obviously know the year in which he died, but not when he was born! As far as I know, we do not know his exact age when he had his regent killed in 365 BC. I hope that answers your question! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

The following short cites don't work: Renault 2013, Eckstein, 2013, Gruen1986. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: hello! Thank you very much for pointing this out; I had no idea these sources were missing from the list. I have added them into the "sources" sub-section of the article. Conveniently they were already located in the article "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" where much of the information in this article was originally found before I created the sibling/split article here. Something must have happened in the transfer process and these sources didn't make it to my list. I'll try to be more careful next time! Cheers. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That's great, PericlesofAthens. I usually don't bother others with these fixes if they can be found in other articles with high confidence, but since this one is undergoing GA and you are obviously knowledgeable with the sources, I thought it was better to let you do it. Good luck with the GA process! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Renault 2013 missing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a typo that should have been "2001" instead of "2013" after Renault. I have fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! --Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106180914/http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/sessions/session-24-twilight-of-the-polis-cont.-and to http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/sessions/session-24-twilight-of-the-polis-cont.-and

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPA

User:DiNemea is a single purpose account set up to push a pro-Greek agenda in sites related to Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

While this user has made other edits to Greek pages, this account is so new, yet the edit to this page was so extensive and skilled, that it is probably the work of a banned editor coming back under a new identity, a sockpuppet. --Taivo (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

And the piece d'resistance? User:DiNemea marked his/her POV-pushing edit against WP:CONSENSUS as a minor edit. Sure sign of an unethical editor trying to hide something under the radar. --Taivo (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Greek State (Sources)

The kingdom of Macedonia was an ancient state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.110.200 (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant. The first sentence of the lead in this and other related articles has been decided by consensus to not include the word "Greek" before the word "kingdom". All these sources have been cited before (you're not discovering something that has been hidden) and most are usually included in the articles. The articles themselves clearly delineate the relationship between ancient Macedonia and ancient Greece so there is nothing missing if you actually read the article. But the matter is more complex than you have indicated, so experienced editors, both on the Greek side of the fence and on the non-Greek side of the fence, have determined that the complexity of the matter is best handled in the text of the article and not by planting a Greek flag in a pointy edit in the very first sentence. Your edit violates WP:CONSENSUS. Indeed, the nature of these edits (by anonymous editors like you) is pure real-world politics because these articles lie undisturbed for months and then when something happens between Greece and Macedonia in the real world, within 24 hours there is a surge of attempts to place the Greek flag firmly in front of "kingdom" in these articles. So the edit is clearly just pointy editing and not intended to improve the article. --Taivo (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.239.68 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Locations where a WP:CONSENSUS was reached on leaving the word "Greek" out of the first sentence and the first sentence only include:

• Here, 2009/2010, where toward the end all the major involved editors, some of whom favored "Greek" and some of whom did not, agree that in the first sentence "Greek" was best left out because of the complexity of the issue.
• Here, 2009, which is prior to the preceding discussion, but in the middle of which I made the comment, "This sentence hasn't said "Greek" for a long time", so the original consensus was clearly before then and the discussion at this link was a subsequent one. But note again, that the original consensus was maintained (the end of the above link)
• This (2005) is the earliest mention I've found of the current "ancient kingdom" text. It seems to have been an edit in 2005 which has stayed stable until now (the sentence following "kingdom" was changed from the "Greek peninsula" reference to "periphery" shortly after the 2010 discussion cited above). There have been no subsequent changes to the sentence based on any consensus since. But, as I stated in my previous comment, the WP:POINTy nature of "Greek kingdom" is clear from the simple fact that it shows up within 24 hours of some real-world event surrounding the Macedonia naming dispute. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.35.187 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.35.187 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Ref

You clearly don't know what the term original research means and that it is forbidden in Wikipedia. ALL of your sources are OR and, thus, irrelevant. But they are irrelevant for this discussion which focuses exclusively on the first sentence and the first sentence only. The consensus is that we leave "Greek" out of the first sentence. It's a solid consensus and has held for nearly 10 years, with the support of both Greek-leaning and non-Greek-leaning editors. You're wasting your time both with unacceptable OR and with fighting against consensus without any arguments whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The failure of "Greek" and "Hellenic" in the first sentence

There are several reasons why neither "Greek" nor "Hellenic" precedes "state" in the first sentence.

• The issue is a complex one, thus the simplistic attachment of "Greek" in the first sentence is not accurate from a technical sense. Thus, in 2010, both Greek-leaning editors and non-Greek-leaning editors felt that the first sentence was no place for such simplification. The rest of the article then goes into great detail as to the precise relationship between Macedonia and the city-states of Greece. There is no ambiguity or inaccuracy when you actually read the whole article and don't stop on the 10th-word.
• The placement of "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence before "state" is a pointy edit to many editors because of its over-simplification of a complex issue and because it has been intended as a stick in Macedonia's eye, not as an honest attempt to convey accurate information. The first sentence of this article has remained stable in the parent article since they were written about a decade ago without the words "Greek" or "Hellenic" on any permanent basis. The only times that editors show up to plant the Greek flag there is within 24 hours of some real-world event in the Macedonia naming dispute. Then you can set your watch by the arrival of anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts who might have been summoned by illegal canvassing or might be sock puppets of previously banned users. That is the very essence of pointy editing--to make a political statement, not to improve the encyclopedia.
• The so-called "proof" that these anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts offer isn't valid evidence in Wikipedia's scheme of things. Reliable sources are not primary sources. Using primary sources (Strabo, Arrian, et al.) is considered to be inappropriate original research. No one is doubting that there are reliable sources (not Strabo et al., but modern academic sources) that state that Macedonia was Greek (and many are cited in the article), but there are also reliable sources that state that Macedonia wasn't purely Greek (and many are cited in the article). That's why calling ancient Macedonia "Greek" in the first sentence is an over-simplification and inappropriate as the initial characterization of the nature of the kingdom. It doesn't really matter that Strabo or Arrian or Demosthenes or Harry of Thebes said so. What matters are reliable secondary, academic sources. And they point to the complexity of the issue.
• Per WP:BRD, an editor should be bold to edit. But then if that edit is reverted, then it is required that the discussion move to the Talk Page and be discussed. If, and only if, a new consensus is built should the edit then be actually placed in the article. Until then, the article text should not be touched after the new edit was reverted. I repeat, per WP:BRD, the new material should never be placed back in the article until a new consensus is reached on the Talk Page. Such a consensus has not been reached. Far from it.

--Taivo (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The wording 'subduing Greece'

Hi, I would like to start a discussion about the wording 'subduing Greece'. It not a matter of nationalism. It is rather a depiction of truth. The term is not true since Greece ( the Greek city states and Greek kingdoms) were never totally subdued by the Greek Northern Kingdom of Macedonia. Take for example Sparta. Despite the fact it lacked the power and glory of the past was never conquered by any general of Alexander the Great or himself. The same counts for other Greek city states of the same era. The wording does not reflect reality, it rather mislead to a point of propaganda. In addition, in the case you still can't accept reality, you have to come naider that in order to subdue someone or something you must be allien to it. So, from the point that Macedons were an ancient Greek tribe they could not subdue their compatriots. They could only win a civil war with them. I am sorry but this page lacks in truth and it is biased. If a person that knows nothing of Balkan or ancient history would read this page through would not get anything else than that Macedons are not Greeks.. so pity that propaganda is promoted. Tidewings (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If we said "most of Greece" that would still be accurate, though, because in addition to enlarging the territory of the Kingdom of Macedon itself, Philip II effectively controlled most of Greece minus Sparta & Laconia in the Peloponnese by forcing the Greek city-states to join the League of Corinth, which he led as the nominally elected strategos. In either case, the ancient Macedonians probably considered themselves to be Greek enough (the Macedonian kings certainly viewed themselves as such with their alleged, legendary Argive lineage accepted by the Hellanodikai authorities of the Ancient Olympic Games). That still doesn't change the fact that certain Greeks like the Athenian Demosthenes viewed them as barbarians outside of the Classical Greek cultural world of the poleis. Of course none of this was relevant by the end of the Hellenistic period and era of Roman Greece, when there was no distinction between Maceodonians & Greeks and they all spoke the universal Koine Greek anyway (the still little understood ancient Macedonian language becoming extinct). However, during the reign of Philip II the ethnic identity of the Macedonians was still ambiguous, flexible, and unique compared to Greeks of the south, even Greeks of neighboring Thessaly, which at least was considered solidly Greek. Therefore you are reading too much into the intentions of editors here, if you think this is somehow about that silly anachronistic debate regarding modern South Slavic peoples of the "Republic of Macedonia". That has nothing to do with it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If Tidewings wants to change "subduing Greece" to "subduing most of Greece" I have no problem either way. The latter is technically more accurate. But if Tidewings is trying to change "subduing Greece" to "subduing the rest of Greece", then Pericles is right, the issue is problematic and ambiguous from the historical record alone and has nothing whatsoever to do with Tidewing's unwarranted charges of propaganda. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

hello again. I have read your replies. I agree in many and most of the comments by Pericles of Athens. However, was it just Sparta that wasn't conquered? What about Crete? Also, Pericles we must consider that Alexander considered himself to be Greek as you already mentioned, despite Dimosthenes and other Greeks view, and he proved his Greek origin when they denied him to participate in the Olympics. He proved his Greek origin and eventually he participated as a Greek.. that is well documented. In addition we must consider Alexander's mother roots. And Phillip the second also participated in Olympics as a Greeek in 356 BC. About the Ancient Macedonian language, you must consider the fact that in antiquity there did not exist one koine Elliniki language but rather four Greek dialects, one of which was the Macedonian, now extinct. The royal family of Macedons adopted the Attiki dialect to make formal the bonds with Athenians. Furthermore you make a distinction between Classical Greece and Macedonia, like the game "Total War", and you forget to consider the fact that Macedons were part of Classical Greece and participated in the Peloponessean War in the 5th -4th century BC. In fact they participated actively in it first with the Peloponessean Aliance and then in the siege of Amphipolis with athenians and the aid of Thracians. Anyway this is another story. Also, as you can see I did not mention the first sentence of the page that I see you all are very sensitive about the ancient Greek state thing. Anyway what I propose is remove the term 'subdue' and add 'has won a civil war with most of Greece'. About Taivo's reply, a person that reads through the whole page and has no clue of history (most of the people that visit this page are coming here to get some answers) will get the impression that Ancient Macedonia has some kind of connection with Greece due to reasons of neighboring and war ties, and that it had no ethnological connection with it. That is a major issue for the sake of truth, and logic, and finally can also be seen as propaganda promotion too.. I am not referring to the Northern Slavic neighbor's that migrated in the 600 AD in the region since they have created their own web History promoting pages. What I am saying is it acts as propaganda against the truth of the historical facts. On that basis in the future another third party could base the fact that Macedons did not speak and write Greek at all despite the obiquitous found evidence and traces from the Hellenistic period and before that. Who can not remember famous quotes by Alexander in the ancient Greek language? "If I was not Alexander, I would want to be Diogenis", "Ει μη Αλέξανδρος ήμην, Διογένης αν ήμην". Some facts no matter how obvious to the eye of a person that has studied them are, must be pointed out to the inexperienced eye of his contemporary audience. Tell me what do you get from the Icons of Christ's Birth, when you see the Holy Virgin Mary to be sitted?? To the eyes of the late Roman era and early East Rome this is evident, but what about you. You must probably do a Google search or literature research to answer me that, and of course you are welcome to do so and reply, after all here is an education page and not an imperialistic fight. And hence diplomacy should be used with extreme caution when history comes into the picture. This proves that things must be pointed out to the audience with no knowledge of the story behind it. Despite the fact that my effort was to point out in this page the obvious to the audience and readers, since most of the page viewers readers are not aware of Macedons ancient history because not everybody is Greek, studies history, or gets to go to Oxford for studies, there was an immediate effort to characterize me as Nationalist, a term that I do not accept. Thank you and I am waiting for your reply.Tidewings (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, a lot of the nuance you describe here is covered pretty extensively in my article Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and at Ancient Macedonians. I don't think the article Philip II of Macedon is the place to be discussing all of this, unless of course we're talking specifically about how Philip II's contemporaries thought of him and how he thought of himself. His son Alexander the Great certainly thought of himself as descending from Achilles through his mother Olympias, one of the Aeacidae of Epirus. That doesn't say anything about Philip, though. Yet like his ancestor Alexander I of Macedon, Philip II would have thought of himself as a descendant of Heracles, via his legendary ancestor Temenus. Legendary genealogies aside, how do you condense all of that into the lead section in a sentence or less, without getting excessively wordy or veering off-topic? It's better just to explain this elsewhere in the body of the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Pericles and I have been involved in these Macedonian articles for a very long time (often on opposite sides at the beginning) and he is precisely correct--the issue of the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians is complex and cannot be boiled down to a single word, or, as Pericles notes above, even a single sentence. The majority of long-term editors involved with articles where this issue is usually discussed have come to a very stable and seemingly satisfying consensus: that we do not label ancient Macedonia as "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the lead, but carefully describe the exact nature of their relationship in the body of the article. This way, there is no attempt to overemphasize either their "Greekness" at the expense of their "otherness" or their "otherness" at the expense of their "Greekness". And the truth is very simple: the relationship (linguistic, cultural, ethnic, political, etc.) between Greece and Macedonia changed over time from "other" (or at least "not quite") to "Greek". In an article such as this one, which covers a range of time from early to late, simplistically planting a Greek flag at the beginning is a falsehood being presented to the reader. Indeed, Macedonia wasn't "all Greek" until almost the Roman period, certainly not during the Philippine and Alexandrine eras. The trajectory was always from "other" to "Greek", there is no debate about that, but to blindly plant "Greek" in the beginning of an article that covers several hundred years of that trajectory is simply bad scholarship and false. That's why those of us who have been here for a time and are not single purpose accounts focused entirely on pushing a POV in one article work to preserve the status quo consensus--it is fact-based, neutrally-worded, and not misleading to our readers. --Taivo (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What I am writing and I have documented above is that the wording "subdue Greece" must be changed and not the first sentence. Therefore, Taivo I take your supporting slast speech as never happened since it refers to the first sentence. Furthermore, Greece in antiquity streched From Magna grecia and Sicily, to Crete, And Thrace. Cretans were never involved into hostilities with Macedons. In fact they accepted immediately Macedons as their allies the moment Alexander risen to power. Why would they do that since Greeks of the main Greekland considered all non Greeks barbarians that should not be taken into consideration equally with Greeks? But this as you want to put it in another context should wait for another time. Spartans additionally were not conquered by Macedons. In addition, you make an effort Taivo to oversimplify the fact that Macedons did not last in time both ethnologically, linguistically, and culturally, when they did survive, something that again is not to be taken into consideration for the topic that I started. Your effort here is to change subject. The momentthe topic is to change the wording 'subdue Greece'. You also mention that you and Pericles have been involved for a long time in similar type of articles. So? What does that mean? Are you an expert all of a sudden?? I am not expert and I try to write the truth. I thought Wikipedia is not based on experts but is based on truth and has as aim to promote truth to the public view, isn't that the goal? The page with the wording specifically on Philip's article, misleads. suddenly all of ancient Greece, is Athens, Corinth, Thebes and Thessaly. Well that beats both me and the truth. But even if I take into consideration the provocative speaking that Macedonia transformed into the centuries, then I should also consider the same for Greece? So in that perception Macedonia is Greek today. Or if I turn it around, Macedonia was Greek back then. I am very dissaponted by this page and by the fact that you Taivo, despite the fact of your big experience consider your self as an expert when Wikipedia has made clear that it is not experts but rather the truth that must be written on its pages. I am still waiting for your propositions on the new wording. You can find my proposition above written.Tidewings (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Taivo you also make an effort to present me as single purpose account user. That is bad for your image man. You do not know me. And because of it you will find your self before surprises in the future. I must also remind you my account is knew. ther eis time for me to edit more things both here and elsewhere.Tidewings (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that a threat? And it has been clear from all your comments here that your focus isn't just on the "subduing Greece" line, but on proving (as if anyone was unclear about your purpose here) to push Macedonia as Greece POV. Otherwise, once Pericles and I agreed to "subdue most of Greece" you would have said, "Great, then we are agreed". You didn't. You kept pushing the same "misleading" line of thought that you were pushing during your edit war last month. Your comments aren't focused on "most of Greece" but on "Macedonia was part of Greece" (hence your comment about "civil war" in your earliest post). You're not fooling anyone with your false protest just now. And if you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, then you need to edit in other articles where you're not pushing a POV by editing against long-standing consensus. That's how you'll earn respect, not by simply arguing that you're right and the experienced editors are wrong. --Taivo (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not threating anyone, and just the fact you bring it up shows you are losing your temper without areason. It is the truth that you do not know me hence you should be carefyl how you characterize me.And again you change subject. And no we are not agreed with subdued most of Greece since he did not. Most of Greece was not beaten in wars against Phillip since the largest part kept its previous status. And no he did not subdue the other states but rather won the wars against them. As I said already my account is new and because I see wikipedia lacks in many areas if I judge from this page I will contribute in other pages too after I finish here. Furthermore, who made you wikipedia boss to talk in the name of everyone else on how they think about me. Your expertise?? Wikipedia says in the rules, that wikepedia is not ran by experts. It is also clear to everyone that you are pushing a non Greek and bloored POV portfolio on this page, that lowers the page credibility and accuracy towards history and the readers of wikipedia. It is dissapointing the how facts are presented in this page. May I ask your nationality, since you so bluntly keep saying I am pushing a pro Greece nationalistic POV?? And I am still waiting for your propositions as far as it concerns changing the wording 'subdue Greece', a totally inaccurate, misleading and anti Greek POV promoting. Ancient Greece in classical times incorporated Southern Italy, Sicily, Crete, Aegean islands, Peloponesse, Macedona, Thrace Epirus, Thessaly, and Athens and more.Tidewings (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who is complaining about "subdued Greece". Pericles and I proposed "subdued most of Greece". What is your suggestion? You talk a lot, but you have offered no alternative wording. --Taivo (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, when I say "Greece" I just mean Hellas proper, mainland Greece, not even any of the Aegean Islands or Crete, or the exact boundaries of the modern-day Hellenic Republic. And it certainly does not mean the entire colonial Greek world in the Mediterranean basin and Black Sea region, obviously. Nobody is claiming that Philip II or even Alexander the Great conquered what is now Crimea in Russia/Ukraine, coastal Bulgaria, southern Italy, Sicily, Cyrene in Libya, Massalia in France, Emporion in Spain, etc. So saying "subduing Greece except Sparta" would actually be correct, since I wouldn't even include the Greek cities of Ionia and Anatolia in this category. Mainland Greece here means areas that were culturally and politically Greek in the southern Balkan peninsula. I'll change that to more accurately reflect what the sources say in regards to Sparta. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pericles what you mean, is not what it is, and certainly what the viewers will get, since the viewers are not in your head and thoughts. We are here to bring a consensus to the wording 'subdying Greece'. Classical Hellas was ancient Greece that incorporated without hesitation and doubt Sicily, Crete (not colonial), Aegean islands (not colonial), the city states of Southern Italy (still speaking Greek dialect there after 2500 years) and other places. In fact military power in many of those places exceed by far other main land of the modern day Greece since at that time the main land of Greece could be subject to debate as to what it was. The wording you use is incorrect. Taivo you talk a lot and out of context. the only thing you offered in this chain of talk is to describe why we must not include Hellas and Greece in this page, while I am here to bring a consensus about a certain wording. I am suggesting that since you do not have anything important, or towards the consensus to offer in this talk that I started, you must stay out of it until me and Pericles come to a consensus. After all you Taivo claim that you two both agree on your opinions. Really just out of curiosity what is your nationality?? I guess you come from FYRoM. Pericles, I have already proposed the Civil war between some of Greece. You say that you mean the mainland Greece when you say Greece, but even that is not at all Greece (as I explained above), not of our days, and not of ancient classical Greece, not even close, and certianly the readers cannot know what is in your head. In what context do you place the boundaries of Greece of Antiquity, of the Modern day Greece or of the Ancient times Greece, because depending on your context this page turns up to be not only misleading, like it is written, but totally false. Have you seen the title? 'History of Macedonia(Ancient Kingdom). We must speak only of the ancient Kingdom not of the whole history of Greece and Macedonia..? I thought Taivo that you claim to have expertise in wikipedia.. it seems that your only care is to keep the word Greece and Hellas out of this page and you don't care about the historical facts. You claim expertise and on the contrary you lack eye for the detail and capability in your acts of this page. This page talks about the ancient kingdom and you dare to lecture me above about how Macedonia transformed into the centuries?? What an hypocricy of you Taivo. Maybe I should downrate this page. Tidewings (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly not reading anything that I have written, Tidewings, and your silliness in saying that I don't want the word "Greece" anywhere on the page is pretty astounding. Pericles is quite right, that the word "Greece" in the only sentence that you, yourself, have made the topic of this discussion, will be interpreted by the majority of Wikipedia readers as the southern end of the Balkan peninsula and no more. Most readers see "Greece" and interpret its extent to be more or less the modern boundaries, no matter what time period we're covering. There is one sentence at issue here. Pericles suggested, and I agreed with, a wording that you have rejected. The ball is in your court, what is your proposed wording for that sentence? This article is not about ancient Greece, so any mention of Greece is only relevant to Macedonia's interactions with the city-states south of it. What is your proposal? This is the second time that I have asked you specifically for one. --Taivo (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually the ball is in you court Taivo since you put it that way. The readers are not coming here to read something they already know, but to learn something they do not. From the moment this page has a title that refers to ancient kingdom the concept of this page is to enter text that referes to that era historical facts, and not to modern day Greece. But even in that case the page is even more untrustworthy since modern Greece incorporates Macedonia. In that case we should edit also the first sentence into correctness. I opened the conversation because it is misleading, and I proved already why it is false the wording referring to Greece, since in antiquity Greece stretched from Southern Italy to far more areas. Your initial proposition is rejected as it is the proposition of Subdue Greece except Sparta because it is a lie. I want to hear from you a truthfull proposition otherwise this page is clear that is an anti-Greek POV pushing and lies promoting. Please be my guest and give a proposition without the word Greece and subdue inside, since you are so sensitive with your anti-Greek passion. The fact still remains that you are incapable to view the detail when be objective for at least this page. I want a consensus and I will be open to modulate my initial proposition if we remove the word Greece. Still the fact is you are lack of objectivity towards historical facts and this page thruth. My suggestion is still open, that you should refrain to comment anymore and let me and Pericles come to a consensus from the moment you are biased and have nothing to offer or add in good faith to the topic I started. Please stay out of it because you are both embarrasing yourself and you do not offer anything too. Tidewings (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pericles' last edit is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to propose something else, then do so and justify it. As of right now, I'm satisfied with what Pericles has done in the article. He's actually come to these articles about ancient Macedonia and has done great work to improve them. He has earned my respect for him and his work even though we don't always agree. But we always reach a consensus and compromise if necessary. --Taivo (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Since a consensus must be met by all parties, and since I started this talk and since I already proved without any prejudice and any bias like yours that the wording is false and represents a POV-pushing thesis, what Pericles did is rejected. You either come into consensus with a new wording for the whole 'subdue of Greece' or this page is downrated and reported for inaccuracies, lies and propaganda promoted. I also must say you lack of credibility and objectivity Taivo on this matter. Therefore, stop commenting. Unless you two come to a consensus regarding my point of view this page is downrated as I said. I have already proposed Civil war between only Athens Thebes and Macedons (Phillip won Athens and Thebes), since we talk for ancient History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and in that era Macedons are a Greek tribe. It dosnt mater though for the specific wording this. In any case give me a wording without subdue and Greece inside to discuss on it or this page is a lie to history and propaganda promoting. I do not care if you bring here the Queen Elizabeth herself speaking as an expert as long as she continues to insist into historical lies and inconsistencies . Your claim over expertise or previous debate experience proves nothing and it is just your way to turn things around and out of context for your own POV pushing propaganda. you do not fool anyone by your expertise claims. If you continue this path I will have to assume more things about your intentions that I would rather not. Greece in antiquity incorporated Southern Italy, sicily, Crete, aegean islands, Peloponnese, Athens, Corinth, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace and more. the wording and the one sided edition that Pericles did is not of consensus, and automatically subject of being reported. I am not like you Taivo, that you report immediately for pshing propaganda. Therefore, I am waiting for Pericles to propose formally here a wording acceptable by me too and after we reach consensus to change formally the wording. Otherwise this Page and you Taivo are a disgrace to wikipedia. It must a one of kind your type of edition.. to claim so loudly last month about consensus and then act one sided and change whatever you want. The least this page is up for reporting , not to mention you TaivoTidewings (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tidewings, your comment is so full of error that it's hard to know where to begin.

• You need to learn the meaning of "civil war". A civil war happens when people who are citizens of a single country go to war with each other in order to change the government. If you knew anything whatsoever about the history of ancient Greece (whether you include Macedonia as part of "Greece" or not) you would know that all these city-states were independent countries. Therefore wars between them were not "civil wars", but just "wars". Saying that there was a "civil war" between Athens and Sparta or Athens and Thebes is like saying that there was a "civil war" between the United States and Canada in 1812 or a "civil war" between France and Germany in 1914 and 1940. It violates the meaning of "civil war". Remember that it was the "Peloponnesian War", not the "Peloponnesian Civil War".
• You are acting like donald trump, "If you don't fund the border wall I will shut down the government". In your case, "If you don't change the page the way I like it I'll report you." Wow. First, please state clearly, with an appropriate link, the Wikipedia policy which Pericles and I are violating by disagreeing with you. Demanding that we agree with you when you are factually in error simply proves that you are a classic single-purpose account only here to push your POV without regard for community processes. Second, where, precisely, do you plan to "report us"? Pericles and I have violated no Wikipedia policy in disagreeing with you and your demands so there is no place "to report us".
• Finally, I have asked you three or four times now to offer up the exact wording for the phrase "subdued most of Greece, except Sparta" that you think should be in the article. We cannot agree or disagree with you because you have no point to your tirades other than "I don't like it". You have offered not a single, solitary alternative wording here on the Talk Page. There's nothing to really discuss with you because you have offered no alternatives other than the standard extreme Greek nationalist position "FYROM cannot be allowed to scrub 'Greece' from this article!!!" Since all Pericles and I are talking about here is whether Phillip II subdued "Greece" or "most of Greece" or "Greece, except Sparta", it's impossible to take you seriously because the word "Greece" has not been eliminated in any version of the text options.

You need to get control of yourself here and stop making idle threats if you don't get your way, whatever it is that you actually want. --Taivo (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)