This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
I know there are frequent inaccuracies here and the effect of centuries of propaganda is inevitable but depite that it is reasonably sound. I know there was no nation of ancient Greece. What there was was an ancient-Greek-speaking network of poleis streching all across the Mediterranean. It was vastly larger than modern Greece. So, it wasn't the same at all. Different species of animal. Not a nation. The nation of course is relatively recent. The U. of Copenhagen did a 10-year flag study of the polis, which need to be brought in. So, I'm saying the ideology here is somewhat behind the study. Needs to be brought up to date. Second, overbriefness has resulted in certain inaccuracies. This great plain of lower Macedonia the article begins with didn't exist. There was no plain there. It was the Thermaic Gulf plus wetlands. The states were all squeezed between it and the mountains. I'm working on this under Emathia. And finally, the article does not make clear that "Macedonian" meant different thing at different times. The original Macedonians were around Mt Olympus. So, there is more work here if anyone dares to risk it. Oh, one thing more. Beekes is a good linguist I am sure but he tends to be something of a wild man in some of his etymologies, as when he discovers the source of all the Etruscans in the Mediterranean hiding in a section of Anatolia about the size of a county. "The slim men" indeed. Why don't we name them after their hair-do? Highlanders is much more likely.Botteville (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section stating that there is ambiguity in historical texts regarding Macedonians being Greeks semi Greeks or 'barbarians'.It holds no scientific truth as the Macedonians themselves referred to non-Greeks as 'barbarians'.The sentence also lacks any stated source. Moreover there is currently no debate among the majority of modern historians regarding the ethnicity of Macedonians. Again in this sentence there is no source stated. In my opinion the following sentences:"Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians. This has led to some debate among modern academics about the precise ethnic identity of the Macedonians, who nevertheless embraced many aspects" should be removed and replaced with a sentence starting with : " the Macedonians, who embraced many aspects of contemporaneous Greek culture such as". Knoflook101 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Ancient Macedonians had their own ethnocentrism whereby they could look upon non-Macedonians (including Greeks) as "barbarians." Also, you are conflating the Greek author/historian (who references "barbarians") with the ancient Macedonians themselves. This is referred to as the interpretatio graeca, which even some like Ian Worthington, who believes in the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians, has noted. Currently no debate among modern historians? I highly disagree. Ian Worthington himself has written, in the preface to A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (Blackwell Publishing, 2011), that "there is no consensus" concerning the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the longstanding consensus version of the lead - given the endlessly contentious nature of the Greekness of the Macedonians changes to this should be discussed and agreed first. Golikom (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Golikom There is no debate among historians on the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians. Homer and Hesiod agreed that the Macedonians were Greeks. So what you are doing is completely ruining the article. Alexandros17 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm doing is preserving the long established opening of the article. If you want to change the consensus present your reasons with evidence and explain the necessity of the changes. If the editors agree on the new changes then as new consensus wil form, but you cannot unilaterally change the opening and ignore WP:BRD. Golikom (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandros17, I believe there is no particular point for you to continue making the same edit every few weeks, especially not in this WP:BOLD manner. The current and stable version of the article already confirms what you are saying in the very second sentence of the lead. Personally, I would kindly advice you to avoid engaging in repetitive editing, until you become a little more familiar with wikipedia rules and with the relevant scholarship. Piccco (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
