Talk:Alexander the Great

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

Add title = Basileus under Philip's name like in Alexander the Great article Lonapak (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 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)

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)

Questioning Alexander the Great's identity

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)

Please see note d in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Incorrect. Remsense诉 23:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

How so? Pigay (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:CONSENSUS; WP:DUE. You really could've helped yourself here. Remsense诉 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Do they not state that Macedonia was Greek, or what? I haven't looked yet. Remsense诉 14:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Just as I said and what other encyclopedias have said ... "ancient". Pigay (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

The Macedonians were considered Greeks by Roman time, starting 168 BC, but not before. Pigay (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Friend, they are exactly where we have been saying they are:

1. Immediately following a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.^[d], the statement you are mad about, there is a footnote D.
2. Footnote D reads Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity; the Macedonians were a Greek tribe.^[328]
3. In the attached citation on footnote D, there is the following bundle of references:
   Hornblower 2008, pp. 55–58; Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984, pp. 50–51; Errington 1990, pp. 3–4; Fine 1983, pp. 607–08; Hammond & Walbank 2001, p. 11; Jones 2001, p. 21; Osborne 2004, p. 127; Hammond 1989, pp. 12–13; Hammond 1993, p. 97; Starr 1991, pp. 260, 367; Toynbee 1981, p. 67; Worthington 2008, pp. 8, 219; Cawkwell 1978, p. 22; Perlman 1973, p. 78; Hamilton 1974, p. 23; Bryant 1996, p. 306; O'Brien 1994, p. 25.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That is not what primary sources are. Remsense诉 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

So pardon my ignrance if I am in the medical field. Pigay (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Your sources that are available online do not even say what is in note (d). How can I take you seriously?

You might even change my mind if you have posted a scanned copy of what you are claiming.

I am asking for a scanned copy because majority of the references mentioned in footnote (d) are not available online, hence cannot be corroborated. Pigay (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you trust me enough for a copy-paste to suffice? Remsense诉 14:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about your references? If yes, then my answer is no. You post the page and then I will seek out the book and double-check. Pigay (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

hexk, I might even buy the book, if i cannot find it in our public libraries. Pigay (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• • against Greece (sorry ...mindblank) Pigay (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. You are correct. The FAQ, as you say, is from someone or some entity at MIT (it's difficult to tell exactly). I bring up the Clinton administration not for any political reason, but because it is the only indication we have of a date. FAQs tend to be fairly time sensitive documents (not to mention that this one clearly is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards), and so the fact that it is from the 90's simply makes it that much less compelling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You only say that the page was from 1995, etc.

Again, I don't need to prove anything. The defenders of note (d) have to prove that their references will back note (d) Pigay (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to request validation of sources, but ultimately your eyes don't decide who lives and dies. The world goes on without you. Remsense诉 16:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Note (d) cannot be VERIFIED, so it needs to be DELETED. Pigay (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH too. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Just post a scanned copy that will back footnote (d).

I realized your references in footnote (d) are even less reliable because those are tertiary sources in the field of history. They are less reliable because they are not peer-reviewed and can insert inflammatory phrases like "almost unanimity".

Only 2 editors disagree with me, you and Ramsense The others either do not have the time or couldn't care less. Pigay (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You can start an RFC if you like. Perhaps it will succeed. But your understanding of sourcing is really not in sync with Wikipedia policies. In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

(Quoted from WP:OR) Dumuzid (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I will do that, but for now, you need to remove note (d) or place a different paragraph or topic about the controversy, until the referencing is resolved.

Post the page(s) that actually back note (d) and we may not even need an RFC.

But I will read about the RFC procedure and will call an RFC until I am satisfied that your references actually say the ancient kingdom of Macedonia was a Greek polity or Greek tribe. Pigay (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You still do not understand how consensus works if you're saying stuff like this, but I appreciate that you're willing to work with us. Remsense诉 15:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am saying until the RFC resolves the controversy, you need to delete note (d) for now, unless you post the actual pages that will back note (d). Pigay (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You do not understand how consensus works. Please learn how consensus works before you talk about consensus. I will ignore all future commentary on consensus until you read WP:CONSENSUS, apologies. Remsense诉 15:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Not just because you were first does not mean you have consensus.

Four weeks ago when I was in Athens, the Kingdom of Macedonia was described as "ancient" but when I cam back from my vacation, it changed to "ancient Greek". Pigay (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Remsense诉 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. Pigay (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been less than an ideal discussion, unfortunately. Doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. Remsense诉 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The ideal discussion is the RFC, so we have to wait for consensus with that. Pigay (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

So when did you build consensus? You knew this is a controversial topic but you just sneakily inserted the word Greek, just like some of the authors in your references.

I want to see the comments or your consenus-making RFC. Pigay (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

and I object. Pigay (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know hoe to hyperlink in Wiki yet, but my quote is there in WP:CONSENSUS. Pigay (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I will concede if the sources say what you are claiming. Pigay (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

These are shorter excerpts of the cited pages, but I truly hope they suffice:

• Hornblower (2008), p. 58 – 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."
• Joint Association of Classical Teachers (1984), pp. 50–51 – H.L.76 The object of Demosthenes’ hatred, King Philip II of Macedon, came to power in 360/59 at the age of twenty-four. The Macedonians were Greek in origin, though other Greeks tended to sneer at their backwardness and distinctness. The amalgamation of local and Greek culture has been vividly demonstrated in recent years by the discovery of the tombs of the Macedonian royal family at Vergina.
• Ermington (1990), p. 4 – 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. The orator Aischines once even found it necessary, in order to counteract the prejudice vigorously fomented by his opponents, to defend Philip on this issue and describe him at a meeting of the Athenian Popular Assembly as being "entirely Greek. Demosthenes' allegations were lent an appearance of credibility by the fact, apparent to every observer, that the life-style of the Macedonians, being determined by specific geographical and historical conditions, was different from that of a Greek city-state. This alien way of life was, however, common to the western Greeks in Epeiros, Akamania and Aitolia, as well as to the Macedonians, and their fundamental Greek nationality was never doubted. Only as a consequence of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the question raised at all.
• Fine (1983), p. 607 – Since so little is known about the early Macedonians, it is hardly strange that in both ancient and modern times there has been much disagreement on their ethnic identity. The Greeks in general and Demosthenes in particular looked upon them as barbarians, that is, not Greek. Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorians and “Northwest Greeks” who, after long residence in the north Pindus region, migrated eastward. The Macedonian language has not survived in any written text, but the names of individuals, places, gods, months, and the like suggest strongly that the language was a Greek dialect. Macedonian institutions, both secular and religious, had marked Hellenic characteristics, and legends identify or link the people with the Dorians.

They are all like this. Does this suffice as proof of that? Remsense诉 16:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that published books are not reliable, in general. I am just saying they are less reliable than peer-reviewed journal articles. Pigay (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And you are simply wrong about that in this case. Remsense诉 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I will call an RFC for that, too. Pigay (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Scanned copy, please. Pigay (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not have one. If you're going to insist that I need to give you one, then I'm going to drop this entirely because it's completely hopeless. Remsense诉 16:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

but where did you get the book? Do you actually have the book? Pigay (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

how did you get the quote, if you do not have the book? Pigay (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I called the local library and carefully transcribed the excerpts by hand as they were read out to me over the phone. Good luck with the RfCs. Remsense诉 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The quotes describe the arguments for (and not against) the controversial topic whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks in terms of blood, name, culture, religion, language and customs, despite the ancient Greeks' refusal to accept the ancient Macedonians as Greek because the former were barbarians and not as cultured as the Greeks.

Only Fine (1983) decsribes the stance of modern scholars. But it is a hard pill to swallow because it is like doctors saying "you may take this drug now because it is almost FDA-approved". (pun intended).

I'm focusing my RFC on Fine because it summarizes modern scholarship - if "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" should be considered controversial still or considered acceptable to be descriptive of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia.

But thank you for wishing me good luck in the RFCs. Pigay (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

.... to increase believability, so I don't have to buy the book. Pigay (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Many of the books are available on the internet archive or portions thereof on Google Books. But also, please see WP:OFFLINE. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You can find scans of Hornblower here, Errington here, the JACT here, and Fine here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked. Only 4 out of 16 are available online, in preview or in entirety, in Google books and Internet Archive. So I wouldn't call that many. Pigay (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the four above, Hammond & Wallbank is available for previews here; Jones for previews here; Osborne previews here; Hammond (1989) available in full here; Hammond (1993) previews here; Starr previews here; et al. I'm not good at math. But that strikes me as (a) more than four; and (b) most of the sources accounted for. Did you even try to locate any of these? But none of this matters per WP:OFFLINE. It is not our job to spoonfeed you sources, online or not. Our job is to provide enough bibliographic information that you can locate them. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The link for Hammond and Wallbank is the 1972 edition. The linked references for note (d) are 1989 and 1993, to start. I am not done checking. Pigay (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No, actually, it's 2001, so sure, I didn't get the reprint. You're talking about the solo Hammond works. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And fine, replace it with Toynbee, which I just checked, and is available in full; and Worthington, available in previews. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I miscounted 4, which are available online but no footnotes or have footnotes but do not say in the footnotes that ancient Macedonia was a Greek polity and tribe, because Ramsense said that he "saw in the footnote somewhere" that is why I'm looking at the footnotes. So 8 out of 16, so far are available (including Hammond[1972]). Pigay (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Toynbee is included in the 8 books available online. Pigay (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many are available per WP:OFFLINE. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I know. I am just saying some of them are not available online. I am actually just fact-checking. Pigay (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If they're not available online, so what? It makes literally no difference to Wikipedia. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Then don't say "Many of the books are available on the internet archive or portions thereof on Google Books" if there are only few. Now there are many because somebody (might be you) posted excerpts of pages in Google books. Pigay (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

21 May 2024 copy edit

@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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2024

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)

• • • 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)

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)

"Undefeated". Alexander was in fact defeated

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)

Are you referring to this Ongin Inscription? Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

More pseudo-history. You have already been told of the rules, please read them. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition to HistoryofIran's input above, perhaps consider removing your personal information. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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."

(see https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/macedonia/) Pigay (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Request for Comment for Alexander the Great's identity

Should the ancient kingdom of Macedon be described as Greek at the time of Alexander the Great?

If you have time, please read the arguments in the references in footnote (d) in Alexander the Great's page already posted online above (see "Questioning Alexander the Great's identity) but if you do not have much time, please focus on Fine (1983) who summarizes modern scholarship as "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" but did not qualify the timeline and did not use the phrases "reached consensus" nor "reached unanimity".

Based on the references in footnote (d), the debate regarding this matter has been ongoing for decades among historians but only references that sided with the argument that the ancient Macedonians were Greek are included in the references in footnote (d).

I am not a historian, hence, I do not have access to published books nor to scientific journals. My only references are from tertiary, but reputable, sources: (1) from MIT.edu that states: "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."; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica and (3) National Geographic Society, the latter two of which describe the kingdom of Macedon on the topic Alexander the Great as "ancient", not "ancient Greek".

Two editors above argue that the MIT.edu source is dated and was published "during the Clinton administration". I do not know exactly when the MIT page was published.

In addition, the two editors claim they have consensus, because there are two vs. one (me) and based on this consensus, the "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" is the proper description.

As a compromise, I asked the two editors to add a subtopic under Alexander the Great's page that describes the debate among historians that includes both arguments, and revert to "ancient" to describe the kingdom of Macedon until the historians have reached consensus on this matter.

Please comment. 142.186.63.204 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit unusual for a brand-new user without a registered account to call for an Rfc. I would encourage you to register or to log in under one of your existing identities, if such already happen to exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This is presumably User:Pigay, who commented above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to be discreet. I've been wondering whether some other red-linked users on this page are perhaps not distinct individuals. The request for an Rfc seems a clear socking violation if you are correct, particularly the prohibition against "posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The RfC opener, when commenting above under the usename "Pigay", believe that the sentence "Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognizes [the Macedonians] as Greeks" means that we should not say that the Macedonians were Greek on the grounds that scholarship was not unanimous. This fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV is not surprising, considering that Pigay refused to read that policy on the grounds that they "weren't interested". You can't argue with someone who doesn't want to listen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Ancient Greeks did not unanimously consider Macedonians as Greeks before Alexander. Even in the 340-320s Demosthenes often labelled Macedonians as barbarians, as opposed to the civilised Greeks. However, members of the ruling Argead dynasty were considered Greek as they were allowed to compete at the Olympic games. So Alexander can be described as Greek, but not his kingdom. The merger of the Macedonians and Greeks into one culture only occurred during the Hellenistic era, after the death of Alexander. The best way to deal with this is to follow the lead of Macedonian kingdom: Macedonia , also called Macedon, was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, which later became the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece., so we can say either Alexander III of Macedon [...] was a Greek king of Macedonia. or Alexander III of Macedon [...] was a king of the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedon.. The adjective "Hellenistic" has a broader meaning than "Greek", as it encompasses states far away from Greece proper, such as Ptolemaic Egypt or Pontus. The reference of the note d for the first sentence of the lede is also misleading. I only checked the source to Hamilton 1973, and the word "Greek" does not even appear on p. 23. NGL Hammond (the author of the page cited) is very cautious and only uses "Macedconian(s)". It seems that someone added an overwhelming amount of sources in order to display an apparent consensus for the (wrong) claim that "Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity; the Macedonians were a Greek tribe". On the previous pages, Hammond mentions the lack of consensus: p. 20, "That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars" (that the Macedonians spoke Greek); p. 21, "To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the Macedonians were 'barbarians'". This should be changed and references rechecked because I have the feeling that some editors with a Greek nationalist bias have sneakily misrepresented what the cited sources actually tell. T8612 (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. The statement "some editors with a Greek nationalist bias have sneakily misrepresented" is unduly inflammatory, given the efforts that editors have made above to amass RS. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I only checked the source to Hamilton 1973

  You're in luck then, since I went through all of them before: together, they adequately substantiate note D. I no longer have my carrier pigeon rig and the library won't take my calls any more, so I can't do any more borderline copyright infringement to prove to others that words exist when they're not being directly looked at.Remsense诉 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if we're looking at different versions, but when I look at Hamilton 1973, the first sentence of the second paragraph on p. 23 is "That the Macedonians were of Greek stock seems certain." Can you specify where the Hammond quotes come from? I can't seem to locate them. Dumuzid (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, sorry, it was another book by Ian Worthington; I've messed with my Google Books link. Anyway, I've checked most of the sources mentioned in note d and there is only a clear consensus for the fact that the Macedonians spoke Greek. They express a variety of opinions and are often cautious not to make definitive statements as summarised in the sentence "Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity; the Macedonians were a Greek tribe". On the contrary, a majority tell that the Macedonian political system was quite different from the rest of Greece. Hammond 1989 p. 14, writes "To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the Macedonians were 'barbarians'. The term referred to their way of life and their institutions, which were those of the ethne and not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech.[...] p.19: We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c. 500, as a 'Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20.4), and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non-Greeks', despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking." So I rest my case, this note misrepresents what the sources tell. T8612 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, you've made a great case that the Ancient Greeks did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, but not that the Macedonians weren't, in fact, Greek. We are by no means beholden to anthropological conclusions from over two millennia ago. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• It seems pretty obvious that even if the other Hellenes did not view the Macedonians as "regular" Hellenes the Macedonians themselves regarded themselves as part of that culture and wanted to be seen as equals by the other states. (And in today's language Hellene and Greek are used interchangeably.) Athenians or Spartans having a feeling of superiority towards the northern Hellenes does not mean that they were less Hellenic in actuality. Macedonians were Greek in any and all meaningful ways.★Trekker (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree that "Greek" is not one unified thing in this era. Should Themistocles not be called "Greek" because he was an Athenian? In fact the Greeks in the Classical and Hellenistic period all identified themselves with their city-state or "tribe", not usually as Graikoi, which the entry in my Liddell-Scott suggests had more to do with using the Greek language. I would argue that Alexander was both "Great" and "Greek" precisely because of his legacy in language and culture, which were Greek. Alexander's blood-and-soil Macedonian identity, if blood and soil are your thing, is well represented in the article, so what is the point of this Rfc? Is T8612 really saying that we are supposed to discount the fact that Alexander not only used Greek but programmatically disseminated Greek so that it became the lingua franca in the region of his conquests for more than a millennium? Are we to set aside that culturally he was Greek – I mean, what's more culturally Greek than being schooled by Aristotle? Alexander did more than any other single military-political figure to establish what we mean when we say "ancient Greek". And the article is about Alexander, not the ethnography of Macedon, so this debate doesn't even belong here. Unless you have RS that say "the primary historical importance of Alexander lies not in his being Greek but in being Macedonian," then all this is irrelevant. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Aye. We're calling him Greek because reliable sources consider him to be Greek, not because contemporary sources did or didn't. Remsense诉 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  The question is whether we should say that Alexander was "a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" or merely "of the ancent kingdom of Macedon" (the RFC title's misleading) so this is a bit tangential, but if nationality depends on tutors, Edward VI and Robert Browning were French. :) Another quibble: Graikos is very rare; in the classical period it's Hellene (as in Herodotus V.22 on the eventual admission of an earlier Alexander to the Olympics[1]) or in Homer, Achaian. NebY (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is (as I've stated above) not that relevant, in modern English Greek is used as synonymous to Hellene, hence "Ancient Greece" as common name, not "Ancient Hella". Nothing is lost, but a lot is gained by being clear that Macedon was Greek (and not anything else), by removing it on the other hand we would lose a lot.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes - classical and later Hellene translates into English as "Greek", no question. I used to incline to not specifying Macedon as Greek, but the modern RSs are convincing me. NebY (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I said above that everybody considered Alexander Greek.

A few years ago, there was significant POV pushing and edit warring in articles related to Macedonia, so after a lot of discussions the consensus was to word the "Greekness of Macedonia" this way. I think it was user PericlesofAthens who coined the lede sentence of the article Macedonia (ancient kingdom) to specifically avoid bluntly saying Macedonia was Greek, but implying it was part of the Greek world. I think it was clever to do it like that. T8612 (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. We need to follow secondary sources on this, and those need to be modern scholarly sources which directly examine the question of whether Macedon was Greek.
  • The sources mentioned by Pigay are no good for this purpose.
    • We would not be interested in any institutional statements from even Harvard or Oxford, let alone an institute of technology, and in any case MIT makes no such claim. The FAQ Pigay quoted is "is a FAQ about the Greek main positions"[2] once published by the Hellenic Students Association of MIT [3] but no longer accessible from their current homepage[4], a Clinton-era political summary of the then-current "The Macedonian Issue" which opens with "Greece believes that the use of this name along with the continuing use of irredentist actions and symbols by this new republic against Greece, clearly imply a claim to Greek territory."
    • The National Geoographic webpage is also no use to us. It is not even the considered position of the National Geographic Society; it comes from the editorially independent National Geographic, a joint venture of the NGS and the Walt Disney Company. Its "when King Phillip II became the ruler, he united the southern Greek city-states with the north, and brought them all under Macedonian rule"[5], an appalling misunderstanding and grossly misleading, gives Mickey Mouse a bad name.
  • Our deductions from primary sources aren't viable either, and not just because they breach WP:OR. My own knowledge of them is fragmentary, but I'm aware that:
    • Herodotus has very little to say about Macedon. He doesn't seem to traveled there as he did around parts of the Persian Empire or otherwise researched it much, and his accounts of who took what side, though they colour his history, are as notoriously shonky as his grasp of the strategy and tactics of the Greeks opposing Xerxes.
    • Thucydides says little either but does have a strong familial connection with western Thrace and a very personal connection; he was exiled from Athens because he failed to save Amphipolis, a colony that was an eastern gateway to Macedon or for the Macedonians, the gateway to control over Thrace and the staging post for the invasion of the Persian Empire. Modern colonial history makes us all too familiar with colonisers' self-justicatory scorn for the people whose land they seize.
    • Demosthenes worked hard to gee up the Athenians to take arms against Philip, with all the rhetorical force he could muster. His Third-Philippic attack on Philip as not Greek is well-known. To a modern eye that's seen populist leaders of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries repeatedly othering in speech after speech, it's a little odd he doesn't do it much more often. Did his audience not rise to it?
    • Herodotus migrated to Athens; Thucydides and Demosthenes were Athenian. What was the Spartan view of Macedon? Or the Corinthian, Theban, Argive, Sicyonian, Samian, Thasian, or Syracusan? Little survives of classical Greek literature, and so much of Greece and so many Greeks within it did not produce literature anyway.
  • Was a form of Greek spoken in Macedonia? Was the religion recognisably Greek or perhaps, how Greek was it? Were there Greek qualities to their settlements (bearing in mind that a settlement could lack walls, a centre or even public buildings - cf Sparta, Panopeus - and still be a Greek polis, and that other parts of Greece didn't have poleis anyway)? Is Thraco-Macedonian pottery Greek? And so on, with many more questions I personally can't guess at, for which we need modern scholarship, informed in part by archaeology, that directly considers them. Some of the sources quoted above, and cited in our article, do and say that Macedon was Greek. As long as they're not cherry-picked but satisfy WP:DUE, that's enough - and I'm happy to have learnt something. NebY (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another source: the Oxford Classical Dictionary Macedonia, cults entry begins

  Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonians form part of the Greek ethnos

  [6] NebY (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  So at the risk of droning repetitively, I just want to reiterate that the point of a biography of Alexander is to describe his life and why it became important in how we conceptualize history, particularly ancient history. Alexander's primary notability is that he cemented the collective we have since called the "ancient Greeks." Historians call him Greek because in a highly significant sense he became the Greek, the one who created a unified identity out of disparate city-states and tribes. So to say that Alexander wasn't "really" Greek because he was Macedonian and the Macedonians weren't Greek (which seems to be what is driving the battle on this page, with the Rfc a flanking maneuver) makes about as much sense as saying that Claudius wasn't really a Roman because he came from a Sabine family and was born in Lugdunum. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant when we refer to "the" ancient Greeks and Romans. These are cultural labels of convenience for highly diverse populations, not the result of a DNA test that allows you to claim that you're 8% Viking. Alexander's Macedonian identity is well addressed in this article, but if Alexander had been from Rhodes or Mytilene or Syracuse (as was Archimedes, on whose talk page a similar effort of de-Greeking was nipped in the bud), his historical eminence would still lie in his career of consolidating a supra-nationalist "Greek" (Hellenistic) identity. But in that regard, does the first sentence succeed in summing up Alexander's notability? Can we not defuse this along the following lines:

  Alexander [blah blah of nomenclature and dates] was a king of Macedon who created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India. He succeeded his father Philip II to the throne in 336 BC at the age of 20 and spent the remaining thirteen years of his life conducting military campaigns throughout Western Asia, Central Asia, parts of South Asia, and Egypt. Undefeated in battle, he is widely considered one of history's most successful military commanders. The resulting dominance of Greek culture and language in the region established a unified but diverse Hellenistic civilization that lasted into the Roman Imperial era.

  We need something like that last sentence in the first paragaph, though mine may have some debatable wording, because the rest of the introduction is so dense with dates and names that the average student's eyes are going to glaze over before they get to it (mine do), and it pulls Alexander's number 1 reason for notability into the first paragraph where it belongs. I would divert note d to a later point where his origins are gone into in greater depth. The point of Greekness can be made better and less controversially in the first paragraph by saying why it matters. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I support this general view and suggestion. Paul August ☎ 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  This RFC is to call out the real issue on why the the ancient Macedonians are being used as pawns. What is the difference between calling their kingdom "ancient" vs. "ancient Greek". HUGE. Because it is the key to calling Alexander "Greek", rather than "Greek-Macedonian", or "the Greek" rather than "the Macedonian".

  It looks like the evidence that Alexander is Greek are more objective and reliable and strong (i.e., his being royalty, his mother's Greek lineage, his competing to the Olympics where only Greeks were allowed). But why are these not enough to call him "a Greek". Because they are quite a stretch, akin to calling King Charles III of the UK "a German". To cover the "Macedonian loophole", why not produce evidence that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe. Fantastic! Now Alexander is "pure Greek".

  There is so much bad blood between the Greeks and the North Macedonians and they fight to the right to claim the great Alexander theirs. The Greeks do not want to share Alexander to those poor, backward North Macedonians (History, indeed, repeats itself) that there are so much information blitz out there from opinion pages of the NYTimes, to archaelogical "news" in the National Geographic, to social media, to books and Wikipedia pages saying that the "ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe or polity". But if you look at the references for footnote (d) in Alexander's Wiki page, they do not categorically say that but they imply by using words like "suggest" (Fine, 1983), "common" (Errington, 1990), "amalgamation" (Joint Asociation of Classical Teachers, 1984), "shared", "compatible to Greekness" (Hornblower, 2008) because "little is known about the ancient Macedonians" (Fine, 1983).

  And if one uses the Hornblower criteria, one can say that the Koreans are Chinese or that the Ukrainians are Russians. They are neighbors hence commonality is common but they are different.

  So just revert Alexander's previous Wikipedia page to that 5 weeks ago and let's call a spade, a spade and call Macedonians as they are - "ancient". Pigay (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  We don't care about your original research in the slightest, so please save us and yourself the time going forward. If you're only interested in writing about how you see things, and not reflecting what sources say, then please refrain from editing Wikipedia. Remsense诉 16:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  You are the one doing original research. Where in your sources that it state that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe or polity. Nowhere. Pigay (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  We went through this exhaustively in the section above. Please re-read that if you need a refresher. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  All implications and suggestions. Pigay (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  ...from experts and in reliable sources. Those are entirely usable on Wikipedia. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Now you seem to be feigning that you cannot read.

  • The crude one-word answer to the question ["Were the Macedonians Greeks?"] has to be "yes." (Hornblower 2008)
  • The Macedonians were Greek in origin, (Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984)
  • Only as a consequence of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the question [whether Macedonians were Greek] raised at all. (Ermington 1990)
  • Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks, (Fine 1983)

  Find a better retort than "almost unanimously isn't good enough", because it is inane, and does not reflect our policy on neutral point of view. Remsense诉 05:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Statement of note (4) is original research. Not one resource stated that "Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity" nor that the "Macedonians were a Greek tribe".

  The authors discussed the criteria and implied satisfaction of some of them but they never gave that conclusion.

  Hornblower's question was "Were the Macedonians Greeks?" and he crudely answered yes to 4 criteria (i,e, shared blood /personal names, religion, languange, customs). but the question to be asked is "Were the Macedonians a Greek tribe?" and Hornblower was not able to answer such question. The definition of a tribe is more complex and includes other criteria, most importantly "social connection" and only anthropologists can declare certain peoples tribes or part of a tribe.

  JACT (1984) stated the Macedonians were of Greek origin, which only satisfies one criteria (i.e. blood connection) and there is a "but" in that statement. JACT continues with "... though other Greeks tended to sneer at their backwardness and distinctness", which implies absence of social, kinship and ideological connection, which are necessary to be part of a tribe. Pigay (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Inane. Were the Macedonians Greeks? and Were the Macedonians a Greek tribe? are perfectly synonymous. Remsense诉 17:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Different authors have different theories. JACT (1984) states that ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin, so you put that as a statement with corresponding footnote. Hornblower (2008) states that crudely they are Greeks, so you put that as another statement with the corresponding footnote. You cannot lump them all up and state/conclude the ancient Macedonians were Greek tribes and that Macedon were a Greek polity. The word "tribe" and "polity" have very significant and distinct meaning for social scientists, specifically in the field of anthropology and political science, which is why it is better to discuss this in the Macedonia page or as a separate paragraph. Pigay (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is not about Macedonia. Why is it necessary to describe it as Greek? Senorangel (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is "the article is to some degree about Macedon because that's where Alexander is from" too obvious of an answer? Remsense诉 05:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, yes, that may well be too dogmatic an answer, even if I ultimately were to agree with you. This article in fact isn't about Macedon. It's a biography of Alexander. Pigay has decided not to be persuaded, so this has become an argument for sport over whether to modify "Macedon" with the adjective "Greek". But the ethnography of Macedon is not of such central importance to this article that it belongs in the first sentence. Please see my comment above with proposed revision to the first paragraph, the intention of which is to separate the non-essential labeling of Macedon there from Alexander's own historical significance in creating what we think of as "Greek"—and possibly arrive at a first sentence that better summarizes Alexander's historical significance. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, Cynwolfe's argument and proposed first sentence make sense to me. A. Parrot (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fine with it also. Remsense诉 13:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Cynwolfe, while your proposed solution for the first sentence is not my preference, I have no problem with it. But I believe Remsense and I are proceeding as to the question of whether Macedon should be described as Greek ever in this article. If we were to elide that fact in the article as a whole, that is something with which I would vehemently disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am satisfied with Cynwolfe's revision. Not sure about your definition of "for sport" but I didn't debate for fun. Pigay (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I know he was a Macedonian king. The reason I questioned this is the existence of debates on Macedonia-related pages such as Talk:Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II/Archive 1, Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (in the archives). There have been other editors and previous RFCs involved. It looks like whether Alexander was Greek was discussed here first, as in "Greek king of Macedon". But whether Macedon was Greek, as in "Greek kingdom of Macedon", should be consistent with the Macedonia-related pages. Senorangel (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• It seems that for the past month an old and long settled “debate” is being discussed all over again, every time initiated by a certain newly-created account. Many editors have already provided long and convincing replies, and even had the patience to provide several quotes that directly confirm the statement in question, eventhough, as someone put it, one user “decided not to be persuaded” even when presented with sources. The current version of the article has been the status quo for a very long time now and is backed by 17 WP:RS (and more in Ancient Macedonians).

The “Greek” before Macedon is not some minor side detail, but a significant piece of information, essential to understanding the ethno-cultural identity and ideology of Macedon under Alexander the Great. It is directly related to Alexander's notability and as such should continue to be unambiguously mentioned. Many have already expressed above why this inclusion is relevant. Under Alexander (though it begun much earlier) two major ideologies of Macedon were: 1) Panhellenism: Macedon controlled all of the Greek world through the Hellenic league and the Asian campaign was popularly advertised as a Panhellenic (all-greek) campaign, continuing the old Greco-Persian conflict. 2) Hellenization: Spread of Greek culture in the places they arrived. Macedon under Alexander literally gave rise to the Hellenistic age and achieved in just a few decades what numerous other Greek states couldn't do for centuries: to turn Greek into the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean and spread it all the way to India. This was obviously not some accidental outcome, but a concious Hellenization process. If the reader wants to read more about the old dynamics between the Greek states and Macedon they can simply read the relevant articles, as it is common in wikipedia.

Being a wikipedia editor for some time now, I have witnessed numerous cases of IP editors or newly-created accounts that target articles related to Macedonian and broadly Hellenistic history trying to remove any mention of “Greek” from the articles, most commonly the lead. I'm not surprised that Pigay mentioned the alleged and unfounded “debate” between modern Greece and North Macedonia in his arguments, and how Greeks "don't want to share Alexander" with North Macedonians (a Slavic nation) etc. etc. The above is an instant red flag and a clear indication that this discussion is motivated by fringe ideas related to modern Macedonian nationalism; an important notion of which is the de-Hellenization of ancient Macedon, which is why for long I wasn't even sure if it was worth partaking in this "debate". Piccco (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did not know that there was an old debate in Wikipedia about this because it was in the Macedonia (Ancient Kingdom) and other links later provided by editor Seronangel. Thank you btw, Seronangel.

Secondly, my assertion is that editors can paraphrase or directly quote statements from books but they cannot insert new key phrases. So if an author mentions that the ancient Macedonians were Greek in origin, it cannot be stated/paraphrased as if the ancient Macedonians were Greek tribes or that Macedonia were a Greek polity. Because origin is different from tribe. Like, all of us are of African origin but not everybody belongs to an African tribe.

Thirdly, I did not know about the "debate" between modern Greece and the now North Macedonia until Remsense and Dumuzid kept mentioning "the Clinton administration". So I looked it up. I found out that there was animosity (not debate) between the two countries and the Clinton administration sided with Macedonia in the embargo imposed by Greece. So, no, this debate/animosity is not "alleged" and not "unfounded" and there is no red flag, no fringe ideas.

Read for yourself.... see https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40781213: "It was at an unlikely time too, when Macedonia was putting up numerous statues of Alexander the Great in its cities, and had named its main airport after him, causing outrage in Greece." Pigay (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As several users above have told you, there has been no "paraphrasing"; the only one who has been twisting words so far has been you. It is clear that when authors refer to the Macedonians with the statements "Greek origin/ tribe/ people/ population" etc. all mean the exact same thing. Users above have provided several different wordings supporting the Greek identity of the Macedonians; perhaps you need to re-read them. Your disagreement with the above is a very clear case of WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:BLUESKY. Not to mention, that the same approach obviously applies to all wikipedia articles, like the Lombards, where sources mentioning "Germanic origin / tribe/ group/ people" are used as synonymous to support them being Germanic.

When I mentioned "debate" I was clearly not referring to "Clinton" but to the fringe theories of the modern Macedonian nationalism which try to claim the heritage of Alexander and detach Macedon from its hellenic identity. A newly-created account whose sole purpose in wikipedia for the past month has been to erase the word Greek from the article of Alexander the Great (and Pella!) despite many people providing quotes and disagreeing with you is a clear indication that this discussion was never in good faith to begin with. Piccco (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are 2 separate but related topics. On the first topic - If you read the link and the quote that I posted, that is exactly what you and I have said - that some people in North Macedonia were claiming the heritage of Alexander. The quote summarized that, which said ""It was at an unlikely time too, when Macedonia was putting up numerous statues of Alexander the Great in its cities, and had named its main airport after him, causing outrage in Greece." I call this debate/animosity, while you call it fringe theory. As I mentioned earlier, the North Macedonians are not anything similar to the ancient Macedonians.

The second topic was related to you accusing me of Macedonian nationalism. To be clear, I am not affected by it. I mentioned the Clinton administration because I was giving you a background on how I learned about about the conflict between the modern Greece and modern Macedonians and that is courtesy of the editors Remsense and Dumuzid in this page, who led me to that debate/fringe theories. Instead of saying that the MIT quote was published in the 1990s, they kept mentioning "during the Clinton administration". I sensed something was off, like there was so much resentment and anger, so I researched on it. That is how I discovered debates about the embargo and cultural heritage, etc.

Pella is the "ancient capital of King Archelaus of Macedonia" according to Encyclopedia Britannica. No mention of Greek. Same as Alexander's page. So you must understand my confusion.

As for the Germanic definition that you say interchanges origin with tribe, people and group, I checked the reference. It is in German and I do not have it so it may take me awhile to get back to you on that.

And since many editors here keep bringing up my newly-created account and my lack of editorial activity, as if these are criteria for bad intentions in Wikipedia, maybe you can think of ways people are recently not busy and busy at the same time - like people may be recently retired and loves travelling at the same time, that they only have time to "audit" pages interesting to them, because they just recently visited Greece.

So back to the question: If tribe is similar to origin, why, in the numerous references in footnote (d), does a single author not mention that "the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe" or that "Macedon was a Greek polity"? Could it be that they are being careful not to use words that are not within their scope of training? Maybe the authors can clarify someday. Or maybe there will be anthropologists and political scientists who will share their expertise in this forum. So now that the non-experts had their say, maybe it is time for the experts mentioned above to comment, if there are any. Pigay (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You managed to write so much without adding anything new. Please try to keep your responces concise and stay on topic. Avoid long replies when it's evident that a topic is not particularly important, like the modern Greece-North Macedonia relations. Regarding the Lombards, just see the first sentence of the article. Regarding the rest: you keep speculating and try to create unnecessary/ non-existent confusion, when the sources couldn't be clearer. Per WP:DENY, I will not try to continue this discussion, since it is evident that you have pre-decided that you do not want to be 'convinced' no matter what. Piccco (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am just replying to your fringe theory and conspiracy theory relating to Macedonian nationalism, which you brought up btw and also old news. Not sure who is off-topic here. See the last paragraph? That is me switching back to the real topic.

As regards the Lombards, that is exactly what I am talking about. If I can see a reference that exactly quotes an author/anthropologist that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, then sure, you and the other editors may place the Greek adjective.

If an author says tribe and another author says people, that doesn't mean those are equivalent. It just means the author that says tribe is an expert on anthropology or has anthropological evidence to state that. Pigay (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not a historian, but I have studied the topic as it often collides with comparative linguistics, which I have extensively studied independently and lately started conducting scholarly research in. Macedonia is almost universally considered a Greek kingdom by the time of Alexander the Great. The academic debate concerns the exact relationship between Macedonia and the rest of Greece a few centuries prior to Alexander.

There also seems to be some confusion regarding the MIT quote. It says that it is generally agreed that by Roman times any regional distinction between Macedonians and other Greeks had been lost, and there was no longer any regional identity (after all the terminology about the region changed and "Macedonia" started referring first to a much larger area, and then to one to the East of the Ancient kingdom). It does not comment on the Macedonians, when they had a distinct identity, like Athenians and Spartans, being Greek or not, which as is established by other sources is generally agreed to have been the case by the time of Alexander.

Since this isn't an article about the language I will not go to any more detail right now, but if there is any interest regarding that I could summarise the actual arguments used by scholars regarding the language's nature. They happen to be quite simple, even though the topic is contentious, and can easily be followed by non-experts. A lot of the debate about Macedonia's nature rests on that because of the traditional Western European approach of tying nationality/ethnicity/identity to language.

I also saw a point that the scholarship being "almost unanimous" means that we shouldn't plainly state the view of the vast majority. Almost everything in academia is "almost unanimous", and the definition can change depending on who you count as part of the academic community of each domain. I can find examples of published researchers denying climate change and the Holocaust, and saying that vaccines cause autism. One of the main principles behind scientific journalism (which is kind of what we're doing here) is trusting the community as a whole and not considering any members of it as ideal sources of truth. As such, Wikipedia should, and does, filter out fringe academic opinions, only mentioning them when the situation calls for it.

In the end, I do believe that in this article Macedonia should continue being called a "Greek kingdom", as the average reader may not be aware of the fact that it was Greek, and this is useful information that is communicated very succinctly. It's the same principle used for other such articles of lesser-known polities that are part of a more well-known whole. Antondimak (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• As an old editor who, in the past 12+ years, has been involved in most debates about the "Greekness of Macedonians", I feel it is pointless of my part to repeat the obvious that fellow editors in this RfC have already done (and they have done a good job here, if I may say): present WP:RS on the matter, explain how the article's lead section is already carefully-worded and the result of a long process of consensus-building that achieves to deliver to the readers the key info about that person the article is about, and all this, while scrutinly abiding by the Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. This is how the WP:LEAD had come to be, and if our goal here is to improve Wikipedia, then I am afraid the changes User:Pigay is seeking to make, not only are unecyclopedic, but also do cancel all the hard efforts and are bringing the page back to more unstable periods from before a WP:CONSENSUS was developed, and are a disservice both to the project as whole and to the readers (whose knowledge is supposedly our primary concern here, as editors). The new-coming editors, sure, may feel that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, that the RS are misused or cherrypicked, or that the rest of the Wiki community are either "wrong", "misleaded" or whatever. Or even feel that it is about "mean Greece VS poor North Macedonia" (quote is mine) or whatever. However! This hardly is the case, if it is, at all. Why? Articles such as Alexander the Great's are some fine examples of articles which have been worked very hard by many different editors who put politics aside, looked on the academic facts and archeological evidence, and through their editorial analysis and input striven for the best, both the reader's and the project's, by trying to reflect it as neutrally possible, with Wikipedia's guidelines in mind. And exactly this is our duty as editors, both old and new: to acknowledge this fact and respect the hard work made by other editors instead of trying to argue on bits and pieces over things that have already been concluded a very long time ago. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, 2 months ago, Alexander's page's description of Macedonia is "ancient kingdom" similar to Wikipedia's Philip II of Macedon's page as of today, July 2, 2024. [["Philip II of Macedon was the king (basileus) of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia from 359 BC until his death in 336 BC. "]

  If articles such as Alexander's are "fine examples of articles which have been worked very hard by many different editors who put politics aside, ...", etc. etc., then why is there a need to change Alexander's page to add "Greek" to the description of ancient kingdom of Macedonia? That's hardly neutral at all. What is neutral is Philip II of Macedon's page's description of ancient kingdom of Macedonia. Pigay (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a particularly persuasive argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCONTENT says: "This means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page. While consistency with other pages is not a good argument by itself, comparisons between pages are often made in order to illustrate a more substantial argument;" BUT "as such, comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning." Pigay (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, the vast majority of articles about ancient Macedonian kings do, indeed, include the phrase "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia" in their leads. Piccco (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  The current version "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia", as SilentResident and others have pointed out, has been the standard version of this WP:GA article for many years, having consensus for a very long time now. I don't know which version you are referring to, but I'm sure if the word 'Greek' was at some point missing for a while, it must have been the result of WP:VANDALISM, typical for high-visibility wikipedia articles, which apprantely was swiftly reverted. There is a reason why this talkpage has a warning at the top saying: There are a number of issues which keep recurring in discussions [...] Please check the archives for past discussions before initiating a new discussion, as your query may already have been dealt with. Piccco (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  There was a discussion which started April 21, 2024, the same time I noticed the non-uniformity. Can you please add the link to the archives? Thanks. Pigay (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I noticed; a user with 3 edits, who is blocked for making personal attacks in this talkpage, possibly because they couldn't pass their pov. Piccco (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pigay, besides what editors Dumuzid and Piccco correctly pointed out, do not forget that Philip II's article is a totally different case to Alexander's article, since each article covers a ruler who reigned during a chronologically and historiographically different political era: As problematic is to remove "Greek" from Alexander's page, is also to add "Greek" in Philip II's page. Coz back then the kingdom of Macedon wasn't clearly and beyond certainty defined as a Greek entity. To my understanding, the editors reflected upon this fact when they concluded on the WP:CONSENSUS for Philip's article on how the article lead should be. Each period was different, hence why each article in Wikipedia reflects this accordingly. To treat both periods as being Greek or non-Greek, on some groundless logic of "mutual exclusiveness/ inclusiveness", is not how an encyclopedia works. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  While the general consensus sees the Macedonians as being essentially an ancient Greek people and Macedon as part of the Greek world regrdless of the external perceptions or the exact time we are talking about, by the time of Alexander this is, indeed, much clearer, as I had pointed out in my first reply in this discussion. Piccco (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, Piccco. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  So Archelaus of Macedon ruled prior to Philip II of Macedon. But there is "Greek" in Archelaus's page Pigay (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Read my comment above, as well as the article of Ancient Macedonians to understand. Thanks Piccco (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I read. Where am I wrong? You said: " ...back then (referring to Philip II's reign) the kingdom of Macedon wasn't clearly and beyond certainty defined as a Greek entity.

  Hence, prior to Philip II's reign, Macedon was not a Greek entity yet. Pigay (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was. I told you to read my comment, which 'corrects' or explains better SilentResident's reply, with which SilentResident concurred replying "ideed". And then, read the Ancient Macedonians. Thanks Piccco (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  A final reminder to all participating editors: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines require from editors to stay on topic, not derail discussion by repeatedly bringing up articles or topics for which this talk page isn't meant for: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal. Discussions about improving other articles, may be opened on their relevant talk pages where editors interested about these other articles may find easier and be given a chance to participate, if they desire. Not here. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  So are you saying that it was possible that ancient Macedon alternately became Greek and non-Greek. That is the problem with the origin quote. Because it is claiming that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks even from the time the Argead dynasty was founded, hence it is the claim to the "Greek" adjective to the ancient kingdom of Macedonia in Alexander's page. Pigay (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, as I told you, I 'corrected' this statement by SilentResident and they concurred. The Macedonians are generally regarded as an ancient Greek people, regardless of the era or external perceptions; Going further back in time, they were just less active and involved with the ancient Greek matters. They were still part of what we call "Ancient Greece", although in Archaic and Classical periods they were in its periphery, as the main article says, and then thanks to Alexander, became the dominant power in the Hellenistic times. Piccco (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It"s hard to backtrack some comments. Wikipedia is not like FB Messenger where you can respond to a particular comment. Notice that I copy-and-paste the exact comments I am responding to, if it is not directly on top of. Pigay (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: My humble advice to the RfC Closure Volunteers: Any future RfCs on the matter should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. While WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, thus far we are dealing with a case where, although the academic consensus hasn't changed, we are having a new discussion or RfC opening every then and while, tackling on a matter that already has concluded. Editors shouldn't be required to undergo the same bureaucratic process of explaining and analyzing the facts and re-affirming the existing editorial consensus. There is the Archive for that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

According to editor Remsense, "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" .. so there may be consensus in Wikipedia by Wikipedia standards.

Academic consensus is another matter and I have not read a reference that states that it was reached by reputable historical societies or group of historians who are considered experts on the matter. Pigay (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I fail to see the point of removing the word “Greek”. Whose delicate sensibilities are offended by its presence? The plethora of reliable sources constitutes ample justification for the use of the term for both Alexander and his kingdom. Furthermore, I note that the sources that do not explicitly describe them as Greek do not unequivocally claim they were not Greek either. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)