Talk:Alexander the Great

message: Add title        = Basileus under Philip's name like in Alexander the Great article Lonapak (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024 

message: 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  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   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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  21 May 2024 copy edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is presumably User:Pigay, who commented above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment for Alexander the Great's identity