There are a number of issues which keep recurring in discussions, such as Alexander the Great's nationality, the invasion of India, his sexuality, etc. Please check the archives for past discussions before initiating a new discussion, as your query may already have been dealt with.
Here is a list of past discussions organised by topic that you can consult.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not a complete list and may contain errors.
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 Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects 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.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography 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 Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history 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.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Could you clarify what "title" you are referring to? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to post it on Philip II of Macedon page but accidentally posted it here, I want the title of Basileus that's under Alexander's name to be for Philip as well. Lonapak (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 50 minutes ago49 comments6 people in discussion
Alexander the Great was a king of the Ancient Macedonian kingdom of Macedon, not Greek. There is no such thing. Davidzelevarov (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please see note d in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. How did this change come about? This is supposed to be a semi-protected page. Any changes should be revieed thouroughly before going live. Pigay (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is consensus among historians that Macedonians were Greeks by Roman times, not before, hence it is inaccurate to label Macedonians as Greeks during Alexander III of Macedon's time.
From MIT.edu website (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
5) What proof do you have that the ancient Macedonians were Greek?
The vast majority of major historians believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Those who still remain skeptical, say that they need more evidence before proclaiming the ancient Macedonians as Greek. But no one says that ancient Macedonians were not Greek.
Recent excavations close to their ancient capital, Aigai, including the discovery of the `tomb of Philip the II', reinforce the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians categorically.
In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans. Pigay (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The (d) comment has many references. I went through 3 of those references but gave up. I didn't see any proof that mentions that Macedon was an ancient Greek polity nor any mention that Macedonians were a Greek tribe during Alexander the Great's time. During Alexander III's time, was it more like the Greek city states were tribes/polity of the great Macedonian empire? Pigay (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again on note (d). "According to the ancient historian Herodotus, they [the Mackednoi tribe who inhabited ancient Macedonia] were the first people who called themselves "hellenes". However, "the Mackednoi tribe had little to do with southern Greece for centuries". (see https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/macedonia/)
So that is a big NO over the claim that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, until the Roman times, when "Rome took over Macedonian lands and the Macedonian kingdom ceased to exist". (see https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/macedonia/) Pigay (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Had little to do with" does not imply some sort of ethnic or cultural distinction. In the modern United States, it would be fair to say that residents of New Hampshire have little to do with San Francisco. That does not mean they are not aligned under one banner. I find plenty of support in the cited sources, "Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greeks all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II. Then as now, a political struggle created the prejudice" from Errington; "Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" in Fine; "King Philip of the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon..." in Jones, et al. Moreover, even your summary National Geographic source says "when King Phillip II became the ruler, he united the southern Greek city-states with the north, and brought them all under Macedonian rule." This is a tacit statement that the Macedonians were part of a greater Greek world. In order to "unite" the city-states, there would have to be some fundamental commonality. Otherwise it would be more accurate to say Philip "conquered" the southern Greek city-states. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The key word "almost unanimously" means there is no consensus among historians.
The consensus is this: "In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans." (see MIT.edu)
And when "King Philip II of Macedon united the southern Greek city-states... under Macedonian rule", those city-states became the "polity" of the kingdom of Macedonia, not the other way around, as note (d) stated. Pigay (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
While consensus can mean "unanimity," that is not generally the way it is understood on Wikipedia, and this aligns with a different meaning of consensus, to wit: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. "Near unanimity" is as close to consensus as you will ever get amongst historians. Aside from the fact that your MIT source appears to be an FAQ dating from the Clinton administration, your quote once again underlines the fact that the Macedonians were Greeks, as it says (emphasis mine) "the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks." For this to make any sense at all, it must mean that the Macedonians were Greeks, else you would not include "the rest," which explicitly includes Macedonians and Greeks in the same set. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am emphasizing the timeline. Macedonians are considered fully homogenized Greeks by the time the Romans conquered the kingdom of Macedonia and ALL historians agree on this.
Even your source admits to "almost unanimity" on the timeline beginning Philip II's reign, which indicates almost there, but not quite. Some historians need more evidence.
I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules on unanimity, only the historian's. Historians aim for precision, which is why your reference admits to "almost unanimity" and NOT "unanimity" because the author(s) wants to be precise about the term and that is the historians are still debating.
MIT's page may be dated but it is responsible enough to update its pages when necessary. Historians will definitely be up in arms if MIT's statement is incorrect. MIT's prestige is on the line if it gives out fake information.
If the rules about unanimity is what it is you say, it is the more reason to read other encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia because the latter creates its own rules created by who knows? the masses?
By the way, ALL encyclopedias EXCEPT Wikipedia and the little known twinkl.ca, describe the kingdom of Macedonia at the time of Alexander the Great as "ancient" and NOT "ancient Greek".
I am only debating this because Wikipedia's page comes up on top of the search and some people do not have the time to read its references.
So how do you come up with the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned? Was there an online voting? I am definitely concerned but my vote was not counted. I did not know about this. I just joined. Pigay (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Consensus on Wikipedia often preexists in the form of our content guidelines, we don't reinvent it every time there's a discussion. Remsense诉 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You did not answer my question. Just place a hyperlink on Wikipidia's rules on consensus and unanimity on publication. How does Wikipedia's open source come up with the "judgment arrived at by most concerned"? And who are these "most concerned"? Are they historians? Pigay (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That was my mistake...asking for the link. Can you just give me the gist here? I'm interested in reading history and not the convoluted (to me) rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Pigay (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The references are weak. at best, in terms of defending note (d). Note (d) should be removed and the "ancient Greek" should be reverted back to "ancient" in describing the kingdom of Macedonia during Alexander the Great's time. Pigay (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do they not state that Macedonia was Greek, or what? I haven't looked yet. Remsense诉 14:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just as I said and what other encyclopedias have said ... "ancient". Pigay (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to ask you to be a little bit more considerate of my time going forward, because each of the sources I've checked in the relevant footnote do explicitly consider Macedonia of this period to be a Greek kingdom. No one cares about your opinion of them being weak, we don't want to take your word for it. They constitute a clear majority of reliable sources on the topic. Familiarize yourself with both the sources and the "rules and regulations", they're not that "convoluted". Remsense诉 14:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is why I placed "(to me)" because I can read reams of historical pages but not rules. That is why I am not a lawyer. Pigay (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"we don't want to take your word for it"... who's "we"? It's not my intent to demean "you" all but believability is due to prestigious institutions like MIT, National Geographic Society, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. Pigay (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Macedonians were considered Greeks by Roman time, starting 168 BC, but not before. Pigay (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
All these sources say that you're wrong. I'm not going to keep replying, as you're happy wasting everyone's time. Remsense诉 14:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did you just say "all these sources" say I'm wrong? You just said you are going back to the footnotes of the references because you "checked in the relevant footnote do [sic] explicitly consider Macedonia of this period to be a Greek kingdom", and now you are just giving up?
You already read the references, getting the footnotes would be just as easy. I want to know the pages of the references where it says that Macedonians were Greeks before 168 BC because I want to see for myself.
Readers do not have to believe me. They can see for themselves. They can look at the references and read for themselves. Pigay (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Friend, they are exactly where we have been saying they are:
Immediately following a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.[d], the statement you are mad about, there is a footnote D.
Footnote D reads Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity; the Macedonians were a Greek tribe.[328]
In the attached citation on footnote D, there is the following bundle of references:Hornblower 2008, pp. 55–58 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHornblower2008 (help); Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984, pp. 50–51 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJoint_Association_of_Classical_Teachers1984 (help); Errington 1990, pp. 3–4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFErrington1990 (help); Fine 1983, pp. 607–08 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFine1983 (help); Hammond & Walbank 2001, p. 11 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammondWalbank2001 (help); Jones 2001, p. 21 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJones2001 (help); Osborne 2004, p. 127 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOsborne2004 (help); Hammond 1989, pp. 12–13 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond1989 (help); Hammond 1993, p. 97 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHammond1993 (help); Starr 1991, pp. 260, 367 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStarr1991 (help); Toynbee 1981, p. 67 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFToynbee1981 (help); Worthington 2008, pp. 8, 219 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWorthington2008 (help); Cawkwell 1978, p. 22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCawkwell1978 (help); Perlman 1973, p. 78 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPerlman1973 (help); Hamilton 1974, p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHamilton1974 (help); Bryant 1996, p. 306 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBryant1996 (help); O'Brien 1994, p. 25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFO'Brien1994 (help).
In the article itself, you may click on any one of these names to be taken to the full citation for the book, often with a link to where you can read the page or pages in question on Google Books or the Internet Archive.
I am sorry if I am overexplaining in a way that's condescending, but I simply don't know what's left to explain. The only trouble I had finding it was because you abruptly removed it against every other editor present's explicit wishes. Don't do that. If you don't want to read our guidelines on consensus, the least you can do is trust us when we tell you not to do shit like that. Remsense诉 17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, there is no evidence that the historians reached a unanimous decision to declare the Macedonians Greeks before the Roman times. I read the references.
You seem to say "To hell with the historians. They may not reached unanimity but in Wikipedia, there is a different set of rules re: unanimity so I going to publish this truthiness in Wikipedia".
Somebody autoconfirmed me so he/she/X must have read this conversation and judged my evidence worthy of publication. Pigay (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, if unanimity were the standard, then Wikipedia could never say anything about history. Unanimity is simply not achievable on 99.999% of historical topics. And autoconfirmation is, as the name implies, automatic. It is applied once certain thresholds are met. It does not involve a subjective judgment from a live person. You're wrong on the substance here and you're wrong on Wikipedia procedure. Simple as that. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just stick with the EVIDENCE. Editors here do not seem to be trusting the historians, who I believe have PhDs on history, among others, have spent countless years doing research and are members of reputable historical societies. Let's trust them to do the debate for us. If they say "we are still debating", then we stick what they have agreed on, that Macedonians have lost their socio-cultural identity by the time of the Roman conquest of Macedonia.
Why debate about the definition of unaniimity if we do not even have the expertise on the level of evidence required by these group of historians to accept a certain statement to be true.
If the editors here have a background on research, they will understand that a level of significance need to be stated in their research. Acceptable levels are between 0.05 - 0.10 in medical research. A drug does not have to work 99.9% of the time to be accepted as effective but should work within 90-95% of the standarrd deviation.
What I am saying is I will never pretend to know the level of evidence in historical research but the historians, as a group, should have the last say on this matter. And they publish it in their journals. The references cited in note (d) are secondary sources and are not even primary sources, and these secondary sources do not even state what Ramsense is defending in note (d). Pigay (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's frankly impressive how much you keep undercutting your own arguments. See WP:PSTS, where it says, and I quote: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The sources in note (d) all support the proposition and are all scholarly works. So far, the only sources I have seen you present are a brief webpage summary from National Geographic and an FAQ from the Clinton administration. You're wrong on the substance here and you're wrong on Wikipedia procedure. Simple as that. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. Not from Clinton administration, but from MIT.
I just need to check the references on note (d) to verify that those references do NOT state what is stated on note (d). Pigay (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is why Wikipedia has a bad rap.
Primary sources are peer-reviewed scholarly articles usually published in scientific journals and are the gold-standard.
Secondary sources are books that are based from primary sources. Pigay (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you should read the entire document in that page.
"although different fields have somewhat different definitions" Pigay (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
So pardon my ignrance if I am in the medical field. Pigay (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Behind the labels, the deeper point is that your characterization is fundamentally inane. Scholarly books that synthesize and contextualize research originally presented in journal articles are not less reliable sources for that reason—especially as we are writing an encyclopedia article, which is a tertiary source that relies on the synthesis and higher level analysis of experts, including metaanalyses of the state of the field as a whole. Your characterization of books surveying research as being less reliable just isn't based in anything. It is simply ignorant of how history actually functions as an academic discipline, as well as of any relevant site guidelines, so I don't know how other editors can be expected to take it seriously. Remsense诉 03:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now I know why you keep bringing up the Clinton administration. You and Ramsense have a beef with them because it sided with the former Macedonia (now "North Macedonia) as regards to the embargo against the former Macedonia in the 1990s.
I used to work all the time that I did not about this. I thought that Macedonians were an extinct culture. Not that I believe the current North Macedonians were the same culturally as the ancient Macedonians. Pigay (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
against Greece (sorry ...mindblank) Pigay (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Pigay: you wrote Somebody autoconfirmed me so he/she/X must have read this conversation and judged my evidence worthy of publication. Autoconfirmed status is applied programmatically when an editor reaches a specific number of edits over a specific number of days. It doesn't mean anyone "judged" your evidence. Schazjmd(talk) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And where can I find this "other editors present's [sic] explicit wishes"? I don't see them contributing to this conversation stream? Only you. You seem to be a one-man editing team. So what are the other editors' usernames? I don't see them telling me not to edit.
Pardon my ignorance but once autoconfirmed, I'm allowed to edit? Am I not? Unless a lot of editors disagrees with my changes, which is evidence-based. Pigay (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That footnote [d] is your footnote, not the references' footnote. I thought you have given me references from reliable sources at last. But no. Pigay (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You need to post a scanned copy, the reference and the page because I sought but never found.
I am a registered user Archive.org so I do not have problems accessing Internet Archive.
Hornblower (2009) is not available in the Internet Archive because “Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use”
Joint Association of Classical Teachers (1984) - pages. 50-51 are not available in the Internet Archive
Fine (1983) - pp. 607-608 in Internet Archive says “almost unanimously”.
Hammond (1972) - p.11 footnotes does not state Macedonia as neither a Greek polity nor tribe
Jones (2001) - p. 21 - does not have footnote
Osborne (2004) p. 127 not available in online preview
Hammond (1989) - p, 12-13 - not available online
Hammond (1993) - p. 97 - not available online
Starr (1991) - p. 260 has no footnote and p. 367 is not available online
Toynbee (1981) - p.67 does not footnote
Worthington (2008) - not available online
Cawkwell (1978) - not available online
Perlman (1973) - p.78 - not available online
Hamilton (1974) - p. 23 - not available online
Bryant (1996) - p. 306 - not available online
O’brien (1994) - p. 25 - book unavailable in Internet Archive Pigay (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or did you not find the footnotes but instead, you maligned me being "happy wasting everyone's time".
If you are a real seeker of the truth, this debate should be second nature to you and to all editors of Wikipedia, and this debate should not be considered waste of time. Pigay (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please see WP:VNT. When you have a consensus (not necessarily unanimity!) for any changes you'd like to make, then by all means do so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note (d) cannot be VERIFIED, so it needs to be DELETED. Pigay (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Only if we use your super special definitions of words. Luckily, the rest of us have bothered trying to understand their public meaning in context. Remsense诉 18:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gosh! Just place references that will back up note (d) then I will stop.
Eventually, the historians may someday reach unanimity (which is not necessarily the majority) and they will publish. But for now, they are not publishing. That is why your references do not state what is in note (d) Pigay (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many other editors apparently disagree. So, for the moment at least, no change is necessary. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Lalaithan: In your edit of "21 May 2024" with edit summary indicating a copy edit of "was was", you seem to be implying that there was something wrong with the pre-existing text, presumably because "was" occurred twice in a row. The pre-existing text was
But this mania for Alexander, strange as it was, was overshadowed by subsequent events in Alexandria.
However, the pre-existing text, including the parenthetical expression of "strange as it was", was completely grammatical. This is demonstrated by removing the phrase, resulting in
But this mania for Alexander was overshadowed by subsequent events in Alexandria.
In the process, we have lost the presumably pertinent observation about the "strangeness" of the "mania for Alexander". Fabrickator (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then revert it? Rewrite it? Wikipedia edits aren't permanent and I don't have sole editing rights. Lalaithan (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
X: Alexander III of Macedon (Ancient Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος, romanized: Alexandros; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), most commonly known as Alexander the Great,[c] was a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.[d] He succeeded his father Philip II to the throne in 336 BC at the age of 20 and spent most of his ruling years conducting a lengthy military campaign throughout Western Asia, Central Asia, parts of South Asia, and Egypt. By the age of 30, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[1]
Y: Alexander the Great (Ancient Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος, romanized: Alexandros; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), [c] was the king of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia from 336 BC until 323 BC .[d] Born Alexander III, he succeeded his father Philip II to the throne in June 336 BC at the age of 20 and spent most of his ruling years conducting a lengthy military campaign throughout Western Asia, Central Asia, parts of South Asia, and Egypt. By the age of 30, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[1] Pigay (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note: There is no such thing as Greek kingdom, nor ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon, only amcient kingdom of Macedonia (present-day Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia, rtc.) and Greek city-states of Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc.
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Pigay: your account is autoconfirmed, so you can edit the article yourself now. RudolfRed (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did my best but I got stonewalled.
When I asked for the exact reference and page, I was told, here is footnote (d) in the Wikipedia page and here are like 16 references. I already read all of those available online but there is no evidence.
Two editors are saying they have consensus. Wikipedia says they cannot do anything about it even the consensus cannot provide evidence.
Now I can understand why educators will not allow students to rely on Wikipedia because there may be references and footnotes but somebody can just post sources and hopefully something sticks. Pigay (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Its not true that Alexander was undefeated. After Alexander occupied Samarkand he fought a battle against Alp Ërin from the Turkish Commonwealth. And his army is defeated by Alp Ërin and Alexander flees. I will give much more in depth information after I create a page for Alp Ërin. But for now see the Bolbol Uqus work of Alp Ërin (Ongin inscription). HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. But that page is filled with wrongs since no proper reading has been done. And the translation also doesnt make any sense. Not to forget to mention; the Turkish calendar which is used in this inscription is also fully ignored. Anyone who knows Kazakh and Turkish will now what 'yïlqa' means. I can read old Turkic myself and also have the proper translations done by Mehmet Kömen, Haluk Tarcan and Kazım Mirşan please message my telegram=Jesse Kruitman. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
More pseudo-history. You have already been told of the rules, please read them. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
In addition to HistoryofIran's input above, perhaps consider removing your personal information. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would believe the National Geographic Society over the use HiddenRealHistory19, which says that "Alexander was a skilled general who did not lose a single battle."
Alexander ofcourse was a skilled general. Not only skilled but one of the greatest of all, but what everyone ignores is the existance of a Turkish Commonwealth from 800s BC to 500s AC. So this Commonwealth also existed in the times of the Acheamenids, Macedonians and Romans. And this Commonwealth also left behind over 300+ inscriptions and even 5 historians who we know the names of ( Bïlge Atuñ Uquq from Tonyukuk inscriptions, Öküli Çur Tïgin together with Tört Tïgin who was killed and defeated by Darius from the Ihe Hüşotu inscription, Öñre Bıña Başı from Tariat and Sine-Usu inscriptions who beat Darius I.), (Alp Ërin from Ongin inscription who beat Alexander the Great), And there are also the "Yoluğ Tïgin". These are the Palace historians who keep a record of events for the Qagan. For example the Yoluğ Tïgin from the period of Kyros (Cyrus the Great) records a female Qatun from the Massagete (Tomyris!) who lost her son and seeks help from the Turkish Commonwealth's Qagan. She then gathers an army and defeats Cyrus his army. Now this record from Yoluğ Tïgin completely debunks the thinking that Tomyris defeating Cyrus is only a myth! Just like this, Öñre Bıña Başı, Alp Ërin, Çur Tïgin, Bïlge Atuñ Uquq and Tört Tïgin also all have records for Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great and Darius I. Thus these are very important sources for our world history!! Herodotus for example because of his lack of knowledge on the war between the Turkish Commonwealth and the Acheamenids records the conflict with Cyrus in a form of a story taile. Because he does not have the real direct knowledge about. Same counts for the war where Darius was involved. He does mention the Scythians going all the way down to the region of Gallipoli but since he does not own real accurate information again explains this event in a story like manner. So its very important for us to learn about the old Turkish calendar which has been used for 2092 years and accuratly read the inscriptions. Apart from that there's also alot of digging to do, because Öñre Bıña Başı also mentions in Sine-Usu he has 2 more inscriptions and 1 statue in honor of the Qagan and we also know the regions. It just never has been properly researched, please message my telegram for further questions and doubts!! I can provide all proofs you need brother. Telegram=Jesse Kruitman HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply