This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ancient Macedonians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ancient Macedonians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Although I am certainly not as well read or familiar with the academic side of the topic, I cannot help but wonder... Why all of a sudden a number of scholars and people have decided to rewrite history? Given that no major discoveries have been made in the recent past, or ground-breaking new techniques applied and data unearthed to subsequently evolve into definite results in contrast to what we have known for the last couple thousand years or so, many are poised to cast doubts, introduce controversies and so on. The story of ancient Macedonians, their culture, religion and language, their way of life and in essence, their existence is quite well documented and until recently, almost everyone agreed that it was Hellenic. Suddenly, there are claims from academics and others that they have found the exact opposite, and we should consider them. I ask, what changed? Scarce new data, just a different point of view. Well, history is not something that changes along with one's perspective. History is about the past, not the present. Historical facts do not evolve, like modern science does. Perspective changes with the times and politics, the past doesn't. Especially controversial is the fact that articles about Macedonia attract such a large number of revisionists, which is certainly not irrelevant.
I think that consensus is one thing, but bargaining is another. I saw above the attempt to negotiate the changes in the article. I fear it is not the first nor the last time it happens. Is this the level of information we want Wikipedia to offer? The product of haggling? And the next time a revisionist scholar writes a book? How about the time after that? Next time someone else will object as to what ancient Macedonians were and felt, and the article will change once again... This is a game... None of us lived back then and to try and interpret thousand year old evidence with regard to what they felt and how others collectively viewed them is at least absurd. A scholar may or may not support a view because of many reasons, however to reinvent history is by no means a scholarly act. We should not go down this slippery road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.141.70 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The Talk Pages are not a Forum for the discussion of the subject, but are to be used to discuss how Reliable Sources can help improve the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This article appears to be a copy of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which also contains the word ancient or refers to their "empire". Cosprings (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Recent reverts have centred around this edit:
The ancient Macedonians probably had some [[Illyrians|Illyrian]] roots, but their ruling class adopted Greek cultural characteristics.<ref>http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+al0014)</ref>
First, this does not belong at WP:LEAD per WP:UNDUE because it is a minor and uncertain point about the Ancient Macedonians. There is a whole section about "Modern discourse" concerning the origins of the Ancient Macedonians. Second, the source phrasing is vague, uses WP:WEASELWORDs such as "probably" and "some" and is unattributed to a reliable and scholarly publication. Third it speaks in Wikipedia's voice as if that were a universally accepted fact, which it isn't. Fourth, it is a word by word copyvio from the source. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)