Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Lead

Hello @Aetolorhode. I just wanted to explain my edits here with a few more details compared to what an edit-summary can provide.

There is a silent message in the lead of this article reading "Please do not change the following text without first discussing it on the talk page." That is because, each sentense, particularly the lead, has been individually reviewed by experienced editors, before this page acquired WP:FEATUREDARTICLE status; that means that the article is already as close to perfect as a Wikipedia article can get. A good lead is not only about fitting as many information in one sentense as possible. It's mostly about summarizing important information in concise sentenses, easily readable, and without excessive detail.

The introductory sentense, which used to be a contentious topic in the past, has reasulted out of WP:CONSENSUS in its current version. The emperial phase of Macedon is already properly discussed in the second paragraph. We don't need to become pedantic about nomenclature and chronologies, creating a wordy lead sentense, when the following paragraph does the job already. Paragraph break was also arbitrary.

My above advice applies to all wikipedia articles, especially the Good and Featured ones. Piccco (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the comment. The current form is ok, I do not suggest any changes. Aetolorhode (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice, you see how by discussing changes, the motives behind an edit or a revert become clearer, which is the only way for editors to keep improving in Wikipedia. Piccco (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks again. Aetolorhode (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

League of Corinth pretext

The article should state that "the campaign to invade the Achaemenid Empire[88] which he presented as punishing the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks and liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor" was a pretext. This is well established fact. Sources: SuriMuri (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Cartledge doesn't say it was a pretext; on the contrary, he says Philip decided upon the expedition to exact revenge and to liberate. Kinzl says a panhellenic expedition was an ostensible goal of the League, not that it was a pretext. (NB: Kinzl (2010) is not in the article's bibliography so {{sfn}} citation doesn't work. I've converted it to a crude ref with the information provided, but we need full bibliographic data, not least title and full author name.) Polybius is a primary source; see WP:GRECOROMAN and WP:CLPRIM. Our Neutral point of view policy applies; see in particular the first section, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation, but also the following sections. NebY (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Cartledge says that it was a propaganda. Kinzl says that Philip won a key ally by dangling precisely the right bait and gives as an example the panhellenic expedition. Polybius matters because secondary sources agree with him. The phrase should change. Now is Wikipedia:UNDUE SuriMuri (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

More sources: Olbrycht 2010, pp. 348, 351 quote=What led Philip II to contemplate an invasion of Asia Minor? Doubtless, the wealth of Asia was an attractive lure, for Anatolian satrapies brought a tribute of almost 2, 000 talents (cf. Hdt. 3.90) to the Persian king, much more than the Balkan peoples together would yield if they were made tributary.42 The Panhellenic aspects, often raised in sources and scholarship, were merely a pretext to win over Greeks (cf. Polyb. 3.6.12-13). Strategically, the control of the whole Aegean became, in fact, an essential objective of the Macedonian king.43 SuriMuri (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

More sources: SuriMuri (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Propaganda can be based on true intentions and facts or on false ones; using something as propaganda does not mean it was a pretext and far from saying Philip's declared intentions were a pretext, Cartledge says Philip decided on his expedition with those very intentions. Kinzl does not describe the invasion of the Achaemenid empire as "the right bait". We do not rely on Polybius; we leave it to scholars to assess him. In this modern age, it's comparatively easy to find writers using "pretext"; we should be just as interested in writers who don't. A B Bosworth, for example, in writing the OCD³ entry on Philip II, wrote "The meeting also witnessed Philip's proclamation of his war of revenge against Persia, a project doubtless long in gestation but only now publicized."

As WP:WIKIVOICE says, If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. It is not the case that, as you put it in an edit summary, "It was clearly a pretext. All sources agree". We can say that Philip presented his plans as punishing the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks and to liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor. We cannot say in wikivoice that that was a pretext. NebY (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The source attributed to Davis Hanson was actually from Worthington. I have added another quote from Worthington saying that he exploited them. The meaning in all the sources is the same: Philip and Alexander used avenging the Persians as a pretext, propaganda, bait, exploitation, etc. All the sources agree. WP:WIKIVOICE refers to “conflicting assertions about a matter.” There are no conflicting assertions here. SuriMuri (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

"The meaning in all the sources" you've supplied is not the same; pretext, propaganda, bait, exploitation, etc are not synonyms, nor do those writers use them of the same matters. Your use of them as if synonyms is contrary to Wikipedia's No original research policy; as it says at WP:SYNTH, Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source. What's more, your sources are cherry-picked, taken by you from a blog and some Quora postings dedicated to making a particular argument, not taken by you from your full reading of those books and not selected to be a balanced set of views expressed in those books and elsewhere.

You have still not satisfied WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content, part of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, yet you have reinstated your tendentious and WP:NPOV-breaching claims and more:

−

which he presented as punishing the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks and liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor.

+

under the pretext of punishing the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks and liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor, when in reality he was after the wealth of Asia.

I'll undo that, but as you're making similarly tendentious edits across a range of articles, I'll also provide you with some appropriate notices directly. NebY (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Pretext, propaganda, bait, and exploitation all carry negative connotations. Each involves deception. We cannot use “presented” because that word has positive connotations. What do you suggest? SuriMuri (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how "presented" has positive connotation? It is a rather neutral word. A.Cython(talk) 22:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Even if it's neutral it still doesn't have the negative connotations that pretext, propaganda, bait, and exploitation have SuriMuri (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

As the nutshell of WP:WORDS says, Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking. This excludes selecting terms to convey the connotations you find in words relating to other matters (breaching WP:SYNTH twice over) in cherry-picked sources (breaching WP:NPOV). NebY (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The natural question that arises reading this is why are you so concerned with "negative conotations". As it has been written above, you have cherry-picked certain words out of sources and you are treating them as if they were synonymous or as if your claim is a well-stablished "fact", rather than an interpretation, which differs between authors. In any case, this is a feature article and has stood the test of time. You are currently making this type of contentious additions accross a veriety of articles. Piccco (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• SuriMuri has been indefinitley blocked for sockpuppetry. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Early history and legend

There is some confusion that should be addressed. The section should mention that Macedonia lay outside ancient Hellas. SuriMuri (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no confusion on my part. The first citations says nothing about it. The second is an observation/opinion but not conclusive; note that says But it appears the existence of "But" means that the author was considering the opposite i.e., Macedonia is part of Hellas, but it "appears" that this is not a straightforward conclusion either. As for the third reference, read the whole paper. It is a more nuance picture and completely incompatible with your absolute phrasing.A.Cython(talk) 12:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The section talks about the era before the Hellenistic Period. The early kingdom. Stoppie states: Since Olympus formed the most southern part of Macedonia, the Macedonians did not inhabit Hellas... Herodotus, too, situates Macedonia outside Hellas since he calls the valley of the Peneius Hellas' northern entrance way.... Engels states: But it appears that most ancient Greek geographers did not include the core territories of the kingdom of Macedonia in their descriptions of Greece. They usually drew the borderline of Hellas in the strict sense from the Ambracian Gulf to Mount Olympus and the Thessalian Tempe Valley. We can say "most geographers didn't include Macedonia within Ancient Hellas". What do you propose? SuriMuri (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Stoppie's paper is not a WP:RS, being a colloquium paper not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Reliance upon it by your cherry-picking Quora source https://greekpropaganda.quora.com/ once again indicates breaches not just of WP:V but also of WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NebY (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Stoppie's paper is not a WP:RS, being a colloquium paper not published in a peer-reviewed journal you have just invented a new rule. The book is published by Brill and edited by Hero Hokwerda and is WP:RS and WP:V. Present your sources to demonstrate WP:NPOV. SuriMuri (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Taking a quote out of context is WP:POV. To understand what the author is writing about and compare it the current consensus of the literature you need to place it within the wider context of this very complicated topic. What you are doing is you a quote or two inject the interpretation from Quora and present it as fact while at the same time ignoring the rest of the literature. Not all papers or books are equally notable, academic consensus is rather selective entairtaining certain ideas many of which dropped and rarely some are kept. This is why you need to demonstrate the WP:DUE and what we are telling you is that you are far away from demonstrating this and exhausting everyone else. A.Cython(talk) 18:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Further to A.Cython's response, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community. Presenting a paper at a colloquium or symposium doesn't make the paper one that has been vetted, and collections of colloquium or symposium papers are nothing more than that. NebY (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Both of you present the policies that go against my suggestion, and we will go for RfC. SuriMuri (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Even in the RfC we have to follow WP:POLICIES not your or anyone else suggestions. As others clearly told above. There was a well established consensus and you attempting to alter without due process or even evidence as accepted from everyone else. A.Cython(talk) 22:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Both of you present the policies that go against my suggestion, and we will go for RfC. If you don't present any legitimate policies in 4 days I will just make the change on the article. SuriMuri (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

All Wikipedia policies are legitimate, including those we've identifified as applicable here. No policy can be changed by an RfC on this page. Your declaration that you will breach WP:ONUS and other policies and guidelines does not satisfy WP:ONUS or otherwise justify editing contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, whether specifically mentioned already or not. NebY (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is met: the sources are verifiable and reliable. The sentence complies with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. If you believe a policy is not satisfied, state which one to discuss it. If we disagree on the policy we will take this to RfC. Objecting solely because you do not want the material included, without a policy basis, is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. SuriMuri (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

See above for policies not satisfied; there is now no reason to think that repeating our statements will stop you asking for them to be repeated again. WP:ONUS tells you The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. NebY (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is not met, because this needs to be determined by everyone else, not you. We are telling you that the text-source integrity is not satisfied and you need to convince us that we are wrong. Got it? A.Cython(talk) 11:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Although the other editors have told you already, the onus is, in fact, on the one seeking to make the change and not on those who uphold the stable version. So by that standard it was not met. Announcing that you are going to proceed with your edits either way does not make any difference. Lastly, you stated above that there is "confusion that needs to be addressed", which is not really accurate. The "Early history and legend" as it is, does not make any statement regarding Macedonia's place in the concept of "Hellas"; particularly it does not discuss any ancient authors' perceptions (and modern authors' interpretations), which is what is being discussed/suggested here. In my opinion, per WP:DUE, this area is also not really the place for this whole discussion to begin with. We can always keep adding more and more on anything, but this is not optimal for the section's purpose. Piccco (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• SuriMuri has been indefinitley blocked for sockpuppetry. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC for Early history and legend

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP has been blocked for socking, and the discussion has generated consensus against inclusion of the proposed sentence, which is not supported by peer-reviewed scholarly sources. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

---

Does the sentence “Most ancient Greek geographers didn't include the core of Macedonia in Hellas in the strict sense.” supported by the sources , comply with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE? Please address any policy you consider unmet.SuriMuri (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Context

The sentence refers to the pre-Hellenistic period. The sentence pertains to the second paragraph of the "Early history and legend" section. edited SuriMuri (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

RfC options

Option A: Yes the sentence complies with all policies

Option B: No the sentence doesn't comply with the policy or policies [state the policy or policies]

Option C: The sentence should not be in the article due to other policy or policies. [state the policy or policies]

RfC responses

• Option AYes. The sentence complies with all of these policies: it meets WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE.SuriMuri (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Struck sockpuppet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option C This sentence should not be in the article because it does not represent the conclusions of reliable sources.Czarking0 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option B No, and you are misusing the process. This is the second time you have initiated an RfC (Alexander the Great) with a month-old account in addition to an AfD; all of them are designed to push a nationalist WP:POV and you have admitted to using a non-WP:RS blog WP:QUORA. Your proposal does not make sense. Note that "in the strict sense" is not encyclopedic language. Also, "Most ancient Greek geographers" who are these "most," and when and under what circumstances did they make these statements? Moreover, even the sources you are using present a different picture from the one you attempt to construct:
  • Engels writes a sentence just before the quote you used Ancient geographers differed in their views about the size of Macedonia and, more important in the present context, in their opinion about the Macedonians as a branch of northern Greeks or of neighbouring barbarians. This means that there was a mixed picture and not one of "most" ancient geographers having a particular opinion. Note that in the next sentence the author says it appears, which is a subjective statement by the author, not academic consensus. So, based on your provided source, I cannot verify the conclusion because of WP:CHERRYPICKING for a WP:POV.
  • Karen Stoppie: does not appear to be a peer-reviewed article; it is a conference proceeding, and I could not find evidence that the collection's content was peer-reviewed. The problem is that she is not an established figure, nor is there evidence that her peers acknowledge her work (number of citations or explicit mentions, etc.), thus you are on shaky ground regarding WP:RS and it matters given that you are touching a contentious topic.
  • Even if the above two sources fully supported your claim (they do not), you are far from establishing WP:DUE because you need to demonstrate with evidence that your proposed statement is part of the mainstream academic consensus. You have not done this. A.Cython(talk) 18:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  You will have to present sources stating that ancient Macedonia was geographically part of Hellas in order to claim UNDUE. Our subject is geography. SuriMuri (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  That is not my job. It is your job per WP:ONUS. You want change consensus, you bring the evidence, which you have persistently avoided to bring forth across multiple discussions in various articles. A.Cython(talk) 19:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:What_ONUS_means It's also useful for those who want to whitewash an article. This can lead to misuse.. You cannot claim ONUS to whitewash an article. SuriMuri (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: There was no state under the name "Hellas" in ancient times, e.g. BC. We can speak of ancient Hellas on the basis of sources (Hesiod, Hecataeus of Miletus, Hecataeus of Miletus, and others) whose criteria were language, religion, and customs. The region northern part of the peninsula that is now Greece was ruled for centuries by a small kingdom, said to be related to the rest of the Hellenic population, which expanded greatly under king Philip ca. 4th century BC. The main criterion here, as related in all sources, is the self-identification of the Macedons, who claimed for themselves too the Hellenic identity. Since regions are defined ethnotically by the people who live there, the nomenclature practice that treats ancient Macedonia as much a part of Hellas as Sparta and Thebes is entirely legitimate. -The Gnome (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  There was a geographical area named Hellas and Macedonia was outside Hellas. SuriMuri (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Your own source contradicts you. Engels, Johannes (2010). A companion to ancient Macedonia p. 88 It has been convincingly demonstrated by modern scholars that the independent kingdom of Macedonia – as well as the Roman provincia Macedonia in republican times (cf. J. Vanderspoel, chapter 13) – essentially remained a political (or a military) concept while from a geographical point of view it was almost permanently a changing entity with unclear borders. (added emphasis) A.Cython(talk) 22:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option B. Not as proposed. Per MOS:LEDE, it should summarise the article. The most relevant section of the article is Ethnic identify and the lede already summarises it by saying that Macedonia was on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece. The sources themselves seem legit, so I urge the proposer to add it to that section. Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  We are not talking about the lead. We are talking about the second paragraph of the "Early history and legend" section. MOS:LEDE applies to the lead section only. SuriMuri (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I see now. I've struck my !vote, will need to review the sources again. Alaexis_¿question? 06:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I've restored my !vote against the inclusion. As I explained above, this is more relevant for the Ethnic identity" session. Alaexis_¿question? 19:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option B per User:A.Cython. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Option B, and agree with A.Cython as to this forming a pattern of nationalist editing with other discussions on the same topic. Based on the same, I strongly recommend against making any similar edits here or in related topics suggesting that there is anything resembling a consensus that the ancient Macedonians were non-Greek, or had anything whatever to do with the modern non-Greek state calling itself "North Macedonia" beyond some territorial overlap. P Aculeius (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  What does all this have to do with the RfC? The RfC is about whether the policies are met. Refrain from casting aspersions per Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. State a Wikipedia policy that applies to the sentence not being included. SuriMuri (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not an aspersion; you've been arguing against the mainstream view across several articles that the Macedonians weren't Greeks, and the reason for doing so is fairly transparent. However, I was going to delete this portion of my comment anyway. Due to your reply, I can't do that now, so I'm striking it. P Aculeius (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No, this is not true. I present sources with quotes. Present any legitimate Wikipedia policy that goes against the inclusion of my recommendation. You have none. What exactly does your vote have to do with the substance of the RfC? What does forming a pattern of nationalist editing with other discussions on the same topic have to do with countering the RfC? you've been arguing against the mainstream view across several articles — this is a lie. Only on Wikipedia is this treated as the "mainstream view," because mainly editors from Greece are voting against any opposing view. This is a partisan vote that goes against the rules. The Macedonians were the main enemies of the Greeks in the latter part of the 4th century BC, and on Wikipedia you present them as Hellenes. Across multiple articles, the same people object to anything that presents the Macedonians as non-Greek. I challenge you to provide any source that say Macedonia was part of Hellas in the pre Hellenistic Period. SuriMuri (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

RFC does not preclude the discussion of other issues. You do not get to decide what editors can and cannot discuss Czarking0 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I just say to present policies. Can you present a legitimate policy? SuriMuri (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option B, reaffirming (per A.Cython that the WP:ONUS is not on people who object to this framing to find positive evidence for its converse. If the consensus is that the proposed sentence is bad (and it is bad), we don't include it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:What_ONUS_means It's also useful for those who want to whitewash an article. This can lead to misuse.. You cannot claim ONUS to whitewash an article. SuriMuri (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  If we're going to recommend Wikipedia essays to each other, I think WP:BLUDGEONING would be a useful read. You seem to have replied to just about everyone who disagrees with you here: that is neither helpful nor constructive. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option B As User:A.Cython already pointed out, it is indeed suspicious that this is coming right after the RfC in Talk:Alexander the Great, from the same account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoptolemos7 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Option B First, a detail to add to above comments: not only is Stoppie's colloquium paper not a peer-reviewed WP:RS, it also doesn't include any claim about "most ancient Greek geographers", mentioning just two. Zooming out, we have seen the proposer's statement that "The majority of my information I have acquired it from this site " - greekpropaganda.quora.com, a polemical blog in Q&A form dedicated to arguing that Macedonians were not Greek (and that modern Greeks are descended from people who carried out a genocide of ancient Greeks and replaced them). We've seen citebombing with long snippets quoted in the refs, as here, and arguing at length based only on the text in the snippets, with other text in those works ignored, as mentioned above. There's no sign that the proposer's read the works fully or read widely enough to select them as WP:DUE. We can have no confidence that their sourcing is independent or other than selective; rather, their process indicates a prima facie breach of WP:NPOV here. NebY (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  To claim that this violates WP:NPOV, you would need to present sources stating that Macedonia was part of Hellas. In that case, the sentence can be amended to present both views. Your WP:UNDUE argument is weak, since this is only one sentence about geography. Both sources are reliable. Stoppie’s paper appears in a volume published by Brill, a well-known academic press, and edited by Hero Hokwerda. The Quora page is outside the scope of this discussion. I am not quoting Quora; I am quoting published books. SuriMuri (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option B/C WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRY POV-pushing, per arguments presented above by the other editors. This statement is far from a "fact", it rather discusses the perception of two (not "most") ancient authors, which many times are really up to modern interpretation as well. The sources themselves state that ancient views on Macedon were far from clear and unanimous, and also Macedonians royals themselves wanted to be perceived as part of "Hellas", which was more of a concept, rather than a state with fixed borders. Additionally, this whole discussion is a much larger and complicated topic and is entirely undue for the "Early history and legend" section. Adding more, is not necessarily optimal. Piccco (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

SuriMuri (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Additional sources A fourth - century curse tablet from the Macedonian capital , Pella , published in 1994 , is the strongest evidence of the Greekness of the Macedonian language so far discovered; by using the non-Thessallian adverb opoka, it inidcates Macedonian wa a form of North-west Greek. What of religion? Macedonian was essentially Greek; Zues especially.

He goes on to state directly The question “Were the Macedonians Greeks?” perhaps needs to be chopped up further. The Macedonian kings emerge as Greeks by criterion one, namely shared blood, and personal names indicate that Macedonians generally moved north from Greece. The kings, the elite, and the generality of the Macedonians were Greeks by criteria two and three, that is, religion and language. Macedonian customs (criterion four) were in certain respects unlike those of a normal polis, but they were compatible with Greekness, apart, perhaps, from the institutions which I have characterized as feudal. The crude one-word answer to the question has to be “yes.”

Before addressing the point that this is overlapping with the Hellenistic period I will point out that the chapter title is Greek Identity in the Archaic and Classical period and that the next chapter is titled "Greek Identity in the Hellenistic Period" Czarking0 (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not the question. The question is about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. SuriMuri (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd urge all the participating editors to try to arrive to a compromise version. A lot of arguments were either irrelevant or ran counter to the policy (cherrypicking, second-guessing RS). I don't think that the statement most ancient Greek geographers did not include the core territories of the kingdom of Macedonia in their descriptions of Greece is a fringe view (maybe it should be attributed). Note that this is the opinion of ancient geographers which in no way contradict that the Macedonians and (other) Greeks were related. This is a statement about the ancients' perception. Alaexis_¿question? 20:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The creator of this RfC has been blocked as a sock. NebY (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

References

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

Increase protection level?

Is it worth requesting that the level of protection on this and all other ancient Macedonian-related pages be increased? The current level of protection did not prevent the recent activity by the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelenHIL sock, and the above RfC which seemed not to be a good use of the time of contributors. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Endymion.12; apologies for the late response. There's a single sockpuppet here and every other editor is well beyond EC. Placing a semi/ECR on the talk page is even morei ll advised. This area doesn't have WP:ECR, and the amount of disruption does not justify a permanent extended confirmed protection. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Very well, just a thought. I do not know how these things work. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)