Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Requested move 9 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There was strong consensus against the move as proposed. From the discussion, it seems that Macedon or Kingdom of Macedon might be able to achieve consensus on a future RM, but for now, it is time to close this one as it has already been relisted once. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom) → Kingdom of MacedoniaKingdom of Macedonia – Per WP:NCDAB, there's every reason for this page to be at the naturally disambiguated title of "Kingdom of Macedonia" – a title for which this page is the unambiguous primary topic (it redirects here) – and very little reason for it to have a parenthetically disambiguated title given that the naturally disamiguated title exists. There was a previous RM on this, but it appears to have overlooked both the preference towards natural disamiguatiom at WP:NCDAB and modern usage patterns, with the Wikinav chart of the undisambiguated base term showing the vast gulf between traffic to North Macedonia versus any other "Macedonia". It is the same in page views. The proposed term is also abundant in scholarship. Given all of this context, and the reality that the current title is in any case tantamount to "Macedonia (kingdom of)", we may as well just flip the title and remove the brackets. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 04:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Support move. This is natural disambiguation, and makes a lot of sense. None of the other Macedonia articles should be moved per WP:MOSMAC. O.N.R. (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence that Macedonia was called "Kingdom of Macedonia" at the time (indeed, it would be rather exceptional in ancient Greek) and little that modern-day historians commonly call ancient Macedonia "Kingdom of Macedonia" (OP's Google search mostly has lower-case "kingdom", and a Google hit only shows that a term can be found once in a work, not that it's a normal term there or overall). Some sometimes use "Macedon" for the domain; formal names like Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Italy or Kingdom of Greece come later. NebY (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    We're not talking about what it was called in ancient Greek; we're talking about useful frames of reference in modern English, and the topic is already labelled as "(ancient kingdom)", so if you object to "kingdom", you should also object to the current title. Wikipedia titles are also in sentence case, so you can consider the proposed title to be "kingdom of Macedonia" (lower case) if you like, but it makes no meaningful or substantive difference. However, "Macedon" also redirects here, so if you'd like to rally around that, sure, we could also move it there – I'd support that also: that's another naturally disambiguated option. So that's two naturally disambiguated options currently being ignored in favour of a parenthetical title. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    "Macedonian kingdom" is yet another, functional, this-time-descriptive option that also finds usage in scholarship. This option basically just straight up eliminates the word "ancient" (which is redundant) and brackets. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I'm not mistaken, I remember seeing the exact same proposal some time long ago (?) and apparently the agreement was to keep it as it is. Ancient sources called this polity Makedonia, which is latinized as Macedonia and anglicized as Macedon. 'Kingdom of Macedonia' or 'Macedonian kingdom' are used in modern sources as historiographical terms; don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with them; it's just that I don't see a meaningful improvement in this change. On the contrary, the word ancient is far from redundant and its omission takes away significant context. As mentioned, there is today a modern country named 'North Macedonia', formerly referred to as 'Macedonia' (still unofficially in use) and the 'Republic of Macedonia, which makes the unambiguous distinction even more necessary. Lastly, the numerous name variations that are equally used in modern scholarship to refer to the kingdom of Macedon (as it is evident above) indicate that there is not a single standard name that is exclusively used for this polity. Compare how the name 'Delian League', despite being a 100% historiograhical term, is nearly exclusively used in modern scholarship, leaving us no room for questioning whether we should chose it as a title or not. This is clearly not the case with Macedon which is referred to in many ways, leaving it up to us to chose which name variation exactly is best fitting in the encyclopedia. Piccco (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    I provided the link to the last discussion. It wasn't particularly well attended. Q: If you believe Macedon is the anglicised form, why aren't you supporting that as the title instead? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I just found the last RM after a wrote the response. Some major editors in ancient Greece-related articles responded, so I'd say the consensus appears pretty solid. 'Macedon' is indeed an anglicised form, but not the most commonly used one, though still somewhat prominent. The latinized term 'Macedonia' has infiltrated the English language and is today essentially an English word too.
    I will also respond here to the question you asked to User:Ssilvers below: the word 'ancient' here is certainly not reduntand, but essential to make a clear distinction. I'm sure, Iskandar, that your suggestion is in good-faith, because you are an editor that I know and respect. However, the term 'Macedonia' and its derivatives, like the adjective 'Macedonian', are extremely ambiguous words, referring to polities, regions, and groups that can be completely unrelated to each other (for more, see the disambiguation pages above). The title 'Macedonia (ancient kingdom)' makes sense as part of a group of articles that refer to Macedonia throughout history, such as: Macedonia (Roman province), Macedonia (theme), Macedonia (Greece), also Macedonia (region). Piccco (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word ancient is very helpful to searchers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    Someone needs to explain this. There's only one kingdom, so surely ancient is entirely redundant? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. if anything, the name should either stay this or Ancient Macedonia. It should have redirect page with that name tho. Setxkbmap (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)(WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 20:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC))
    As a term, 'Ancient Macedonia' is still broad, because it includes both 'Macedonia (ancient kingdom)' and 'Macedonia (Roman province)'. I agree with the redirect. Piccco (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per the same reasoning presented by User:NebY and User:Piccco. Not only is the current title just fine, it is also a bit clearer than just "Kingdom of Macedonia," with the emphasis on it being a state during classical antiquity. :Pericles of AthensTalk 15:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Surely by this logic, any ancient polity without the qualifier "ancient" is inherently confusing because it doesn't specify ancientness. Seleucid Empire? Ptolemaic kingdom? When were they? Who knows?! It doesn't say ancient, so ... Also, "ancient" doesn't actually specify "classical antiquity" at all. There are also iron age kingdoms etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine military history task force, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject European history, and WikiProject Ancient Near East have been notified of this discussion. Reading Beans 04:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participations. Best, Reading Beans 04:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per NeBY. Agree with Pericles that it's also clearer. The emphasis on kingdom for this period is misplaced. Ifly6 (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: The proposal to rename the page to "Kingdom of Macedonia" seems to simplify the term unnecessarily, potentially leading to further confusion rather than clarification. The term "Macedonia" in any form carries significant ambiguity due to its reference to modern states, geographical regions, and ethnic groups. Retaining "ancient kingdom" in the title serves as a necessary specifier that clearly distinguishes the historical entity from contemporary political and regional associations. Moreover, the historical entity we are discussing was referred to both as Macedon and Macedonia in ancient sources. The term "Macedon" is frequently used in academic contexts to refer specifically to the kingdom in the classical and Hellenistic periods, while "Macedonia" can also imply broader geographical and historical contexts. Using "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" as a title provides a clear, concise frame of reference that aligns with scholarly practice and public understanding. If we were to add clarity perhaps Kingdom of Macedon but certainly not Kingdom of Macedonia' InfoWanderer (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
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.

Quoting Polybius about the reason of the Macedonian-Greek alliance

Line 182 mentions that " Philip's plan to punish the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks and to liberate the Greek cities of Asia Minor". This narrative emerged only in the 20th century with William Woodthorpe Tarn. I suggest quoting the opinion of the ancient Greek historian Polybius who lived in the 2nd century B.C. and had access to archives that were subsequently lost. In particular in Histories https://topostext.org/work/129 (3.6.12) he says ""Philip perceived and reckoned on the cowardice and indolence of the Persians as compared with the military efficiency of himself and his Macedonians, and further fixing his eyes on the splendour of the great prize which the war promised, he lost no time, once he had secured the avowed good-will of the Greeks, but seizing on the pretext that it was his urgent duty to take vengeance on the Persians for their injurious treatment of the Greeks, he bestirred himself and decided to go to war, beginning to make every preparation for this purpose. We must therefore look on the first considerations I have mentioned as the causes of the war against Persia, the second as its pretext and Alexander's crossing to Asia as its beginning." This is very important primary source that overwrites modern discourse. SolderUnion (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources do not "overwrite" modern discourse in secondary sources. That's one of the foundational rules of Wikipedia. Secondly, Polybius claims it was a pretext for the war, and that's basically true, but a publicly declared pretext given to the Greek city-states is still a casus belli for war (it was treated as such and viewed as such by the Greek allies fighting with Macedon). Obviously economics and glorious plunder was a major impetus for Philip, a Classical era monarch, but that's an inherently true statement of just about any monarch who lived during that period. It's hardly worth mentioning, especially since it's the opinion of one primary source (though I do appreciate Polybius, he's always fun to read). Pericles of AthensTalk 17:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
There is a policy of Wikipedia:No original research hence your interpretation is irrelevant. The importance of Wikipedia is to provide information so readers can judge for themselves. SolderUnion (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
My "interpretation" just so happens to align with scholarly consensus, which is indeed one of the foundational rules of Wikipedia. You seem very confused about Wikipedia's core mission. It's not to give WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to sources that don't deserve to be highlighted as much as others that are more reliable per WP:RELIABLE. We have very clear guidelines about the use of secondary sources, which take primacy over primary sources written in ancient times: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. Hypothetically, you've been here on Wikipedia for about 15 days (you seem awfully familiar with many site rules, though, just enough to cause a continuous disruption for other editors, which I certainly hope is not your actual goal). Please familiarize yourself with the basics before initiating multiple exhausting and unnecessary threads on the talk pages of multiple articles, which you seem to have been doing with your edit warring and strawman/irrelevant personal attacks. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 20:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Polybius, who lived in the 2 century BC and had archives that have been lost, is not a reliable source when the article about Macedonians is full of quotes of him and you personally have quoted him? You have personally quoted him... SolderUnion (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done having any kind of conversation with you now, since you are clearly not an honest broker here, and being comically misleading about the use of Polybius in the article. The article doesn't cite his primary source work at all! Even a very quick glance at the cited sources in the article would lead anyone to that conclusion. His ideas are mentioned in some footnotes, but these are all attached to secondary source citations where information was gathered. I would advise other editors here to stop engaging in these conversations with SolderUnion, because they are by design a means to distract and waste the valuable time of longtime editors who take their roles here very seriously. I certainly have more important things to do than to educate you any further about how Wikipedia operates (though I get the impression you know full well how it operates, and that you've been around for more than just 15 days). Pericles of AthensTalk 21:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI