Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 3

message: I'm removing the cleanup tag added 6 Apr 2005. I didn't see a reason given for the tag either here in the Talk or on Wikipedia:Cleanup, so I don't know what specific problem it was meant to address. The article history only says "Shall I state the obvious?" for the edit that added the cleanup. Perhaps the editor meant to add an NPOV tag? In any case, if someone feels that the article does indeed still warrant cleanup feel free to put the tag back -- just please tell us your reasons, so that we know what to fix. One-dimensional Tangent 20:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing cleanup tag 

message: An anon user recently added the word "Slav" in several places in a way that can appear to be agenda-pushing. It seems that there have been many similar problems in the past. I'm boldly interfering, but giving my reasons for my changes. If someone disagrees, do please make a note here of why.
From the article: "Both Greek and Macedonian Slav nationalists have claimed Alexander as their own national hero, and take great offense when he is described as belonging to the other nation." In this case it seems that "Macedonian nationalist is the correct term, since "Macedonian Slav"s exist in every nation of the region of Macedonia, including the nations Republic of Macedonia and the Hellenic Republic (Greece). Non-slav residents of the Republic of Macedonia have just as much claim to Alexander as Slavic residents of the Republic of Macedonia. The intent of the sentence is to name two countries and note that both claim Alexander; it is not a matter of who resides in those countries. 
"However, this debate is ahistorical, since modern Macedonians Slavs are Slavs who are ethnically and linguistically unrelated to the ancient Macedonians." This one's harder. "Macedonians Slavs are Slavs" is redundant, but the previous "Macedonians are Slavs" is untrue; only 2/3 of the residents of the Republic of Macedonia are Slavs (according to the Macedonian Slavs article), and certainly many inhabitants of the region Macedonia (distinct from the nation) are not Slavic. Further, "ethnically ... unrelated to the ancient Macedonians" is suspect; the Macedonian Slavs article says it well: "while they undoubtedly have a Slavic heritage, the question of whether they are 'immigrants' or the descendants of the ancient Macedonians remains disputed".  But, regardless, there doesn't seem to be any reason to argue this; a competent reader doesn't need to be told that such debates are ahistorical: neither the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia nor the Hellenic Republic existed in the time of Alexander, neither has the same borders as its conterpart in antiquity, and the entire region has been conquered by two different empires in the meantime. Hopefully there won't be any objections to removing the last two sentences of the paragraph.
Related articles: Macedonian Slavs; Republic of Macedonia as distinct from Macedonia; Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Naming dispute with Greece; Rainbow Party (another interest of the same anon).
One-dimensional Tangent 23:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian Slav 

message: Let's get something nice and clear, the debate on the Hellenic status of ancient Macedonian people is irrelevant to the modern political dispute between FYROM and Greece. First of the debate is on the language of the Macedonians and whether should it be considered a Greek dialect or a language related to Greek. The Royal family of Macedon (including Philip II and Alexander III) were acknowledged by everyone in antiquity to be of Greek descent, as they would also admit themselves. Hence the section on "Alexander's ethnic background" (which I removed) is completely based on modern day nationalist conflicts, irrelevant to the article and Alexander himself. The rest of changes I made were on the constant distinction between Greek and Macedonian culture. No matter what language Macedonians spoke prior to Philip II, their ethnic status after Alexander's conquests becomes indistinguishable from Greek (hence the name 'Hellenistic period'). Miskin
:I would very much like all the ethnic politics to be removed from this entry--off-loaded into another article, for example. But this noble goal is not going to be achieved by systemmatically removing the words "Macedonian" and replacing it with Greek. It is not polemical but entirely in accord with ancient practice to use the words together, nor does it beg questions of identity. By speaking of "Greek" and "Macedonian" units in Alexander's army we do not assert anything about the ultimate identity or kinship of these groups. We do draw a useful distinction between military units with different organization, equipment, origins and histories. Similarly, I think it is fair to talk of Greek and Macedonian colonization as some cultural differences can be detected and, at least as far as the Hellenistic monarchies, a distinctly "Macedonian" stamp remains until the end.
:I think this article is a mess, strewn with the verbal ruins of a hundred ethnic battles. But are not going to clean it up by eliding the word "Macedonian" wherever it offends our eye.
:On another edit, although we should certainly get rid of modern politics, we shouldn't remove ancient politics. That some Greek opponents of Philip and Alexander, like Demosthenes, claimed that the Macedonians were barbarians is a fact, regardless of whether the statement is. As Demosthenes was one of the chief lights of political opposition to Macedon, and his writings survive, it is a germane fact. The trick is in mentioning this without using it for modern political ends. I'm not convinced the current wording does this, but I don't favor cutting it out, particularly rolled up with a whole bunch of other deletions.
:Lastly, as I've said before, I'm tired of "ethnic" edits. If someone wants to fool with the ethnic text, let him or her also show some interest—and demonstrate some competence—in the other sections. A disinterested concern for "truth" does not shine through a monomaniacal concern for "fixing" a few passages in what remains a deeply flawed, unbalanced and occassionally dead-wrong article. Lectiodifficilior 17:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listen... 

message: I'd like to discuss this paragraph, entered by User:Kulindar.
:Alexander's character also suffers from the interpretation of historians who themselves are subject to the bias and idealisms of their own time. Good examples are W. W. Tarn, who wrote during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and who saw Alexander in an extremely good light, and Peter Green, who wrote after the Second World War and for who Alexander did little that was not inherantly selfish or ambition-driven. Tarn wrote in an age where world conquest and warrior-heroes were acceptable, even encouraged, whereas Green wrote with the backdrop of the Holocaust and atomic bomb. As a result, Alexander's character is skewed depending on which way the historian's own culture is, and further muddles the debate of who he truly was.
I feel that this paragraph—although true enough—only scratches the surface of Alexander historiography. To get this right would take a full section reviewing the various consensuses and consensus shifts. (Tarn and Green would be there, but they would hardly be the twin peaks of the topic.) But the article is already overlong. I'd favor deleting this paragraph, perhaps removing it to a dedicated article on the topic.
Generally, I think the article needs cutting. In the last Talk post I proposed killing the "titles" section. Other suggestions along these lines would be welcome. Lectiodifficilior 03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. A "Main article: whatever" link would be in order. But what would the new article be? Historiography of Alexander sounds as though it might be an eternal stub. Perhaps moving his military career to a new article, leaving only a medium-longish summary? I don't see that as ideal either, though. One-dimensional Tangent 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on Tarn and Green 

message: I think you are missing the point. Are modern englishmen normans? Maybe they are vikings? Those are irrelevant questions. The question whether Macedon was located in northen Greece or in FYROM is also irrelevant. It is clear to me that Alexander considered himself to be a greek. His education was greek, he read greek poetry and greek was his mother tongue. It is also quite obvious to me that several hundred years before his birth Macedon was not considered to be Greece (eg they were accepted to the plimpics much later then other greek states). I don't understand why this matter is so contraversial here. Gilgamesh he 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said to user:Lectiodifficilior, I suggest we delete this section. I just don't see the contraversy. Alexander as greek as any spartan or athenian. his ancestors were, of corse, of differnt culture, but it has nothing to do with him. Its like claimig that modern inhibitants of UK are in fact normans. I agree that pesantry probably saw itself as macedonians rathen then greek, but if we use Englands' example agian - the saxons didn't see the normans as british in the first generations after the conquest, but several hundred years from it, the norman invadors assimilated in the local population and became similar to it. This exactly the case with Macedon. I don't see any reason for that paragraph in the article. Gilgamesh he 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, let's kill it. But, with all due respect, I think your opinion is a bit unnuanced. Like Miskin you seem to assume that "Greek" is an uncomplicated, unconstructed term, that you can just say someone is a Greek without clarifying what sort of definition you are using—eg., racial, linguistic, cultural, modern, ancient self-identification, ancient other-identification. I think a very strong case can be made on many of the possible criteria, but that is not the same thing as saying the issue is always and everywhere decided For modern scholarship, there remains real debate, particularly on the linguistics, with the consensus in classics and linguistics being opposite. There was also a real debate in antiquity on the subject, a debate that exists and is interesting completely irrespective of the "facts" at stake. Lastly, even if the "essential" Greekness of the Macedonians is granted—something I'm inclined to do—it is also clear that the Macedonians saw themselves as different from and superior to other Greeks. As much as Alexander and Philip called themselves Greeks, their self-identification was first and formost as "Macedonians," at least until Alexander started thinking "higher." Even if Demosthenes in his heart of hearts thought the Macedonians were Greek, he still hated them. I therefore object to edits that seek to remove the term "Macedonian" and substitute "Greek" everywhere, as if Alexander was a modern Greek leader as acceptable to a Spartan or an Athenian as their own. Nor should we erase the clear differences between Macedonian and Greek units in Alexander's army. These edits are not about how the Macedonians saw themselves, but about modern, nationalist conceptions of "Greek," or scoring points in modern politics. Lectiodifficilior 19:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that. Of corse we don't have to substitute "macedonians with greeks. Of corse thet pesantry saw itslef as a differnt ethnic group. I am aware of the fact that no "Hellenic State" ever existed in the classical period. Of corse alexander considered himself as a macedonian, but a greek macedonian. I think you will agree that he was much closer to the contemprary greec culture then to the anient macedonian culture dating several hundred years before his birth. I think he was much more greek then a simple foot soldier in his army. Gilgamesh he 19:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asserting you did. I'm merely noting that is one of the many ways the issue intrudes on Wikipedia edits.I find the peasantry-didn't-think-themself-as-Greek idea interesting, but speculative. I can't think of a single piece of evidence on what Macedonian peasants considered themselves. Lectiodifficilior 20:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Use logic - the peasant is ignorant - he knows only the folk stories and local traditions. He didn't get any education, unlike the nobility. The education is very important in shaping the personality. I am almost sure that the peasantry saw the greeks as aliens. It has nothing to do with the royal family, which considered itself to be greek. Moreover, this dispute is harmaful. Any solution is better then the current situation. I suggest omitting this section from the article. We should try avoid political traps. FYROM and Greece will continue this dispute anyway. We can do nothing, but save this article and start adding the really important stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgamesh he (talk • contribs) 22:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Herodotus who didn't speak any language other than Greek, travelled to Macedonia in the 5th century BC and wrote in his Histories that Macedonians were akin to Dorians. There are countless similar ancient sources that classify Macedonians as a frowned upon kind of Greek peoples, and their language as a dialect of Greek. And now I'm talking about the people of Macedon, not its royal family (who is recorded by every historian as Greek). The only debate concerns linguistics and the nature of the native Macedonian tongue before it imported Attic. All we have is a disputed lexicon of the 5th century AD which contains a handfull of Macedonian words, the vast majority of which are Greek, and a minority related to Greek. People who try to support an "Ancient Macedonian language" related to Greek, (rather than a dialect of Greek) are either biased or naive pseudo-scholars who don't take historical and arcaeological evidence into account (they don't explain why Macedonians participated in Pan-Hellenic events nor why all the archaeological evidence, names and toponyms prior  to Philip II were in Greek, etc). The vast majority of ancient sources verify that Macedonians were in fact Greeks (by language and religion), but they had a lower status in the Greek world because they hadn't adapted the polis and they had no political impact in Greece prior to Philip II. In this respect the term 'Greeks' usually refers to the city-states of central Greece and Peloponnese, hence the references on "Greeks and Macedonians", but that does not imply an ethnic distinction between the two (unless we want to force one). I'm not asking you to replace all Greeks with Macedonians, I'm only trying to make you see how the current state of the article is in a mess. For example the fact that a POV interpretation of Demosthenes exists in the article (although most ancient sources state the opposite) makes this article almost biased. How come there is no reference to Isocrates, who dreamt a Pan-Hellenic (all Greek) alliance against Persia under a Macedonian hegemony? As a last note, whether ancient Macedon and his Kings were Greeks or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the historical heritage of FYROM. That Macedonian-Slavs haven't got the slightest remote cultural or "racial" connection to ancient Macedon is just a fact acknowledged by everyone (even by the wikipedia article Macedonian Slavs. What people say and do on the internet is irrelevant, their politicians never dared to lay such ludicrous historical claims, so when you write that Macedonian Slavs claim heritage to ancient Macedonia, you're supporting an unofficial minority nationalist group and regard it as representative of a nation. The only thing from which Macedonian-Slavs would profit if ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, is that contemporary Greeks would noy be able to claim "copyrights" on the name 'Macedonia'. In my opinion ancient Macedonians were Greeks, but modern Greeks still shouldn't claim copyrights on the name. But when I see that in this article the author has reserved the modern term 'Macedonians' to describe 'Macedonian Slavs', I can't let this travesty go unnoticed. You should either rewrite an unbiased ethnicity section that would concern only ancient politics (with no reference to Greece and FYROM) or remove the section once and for all. Miskin 11:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
*"How come there is no reference to Isocrates?" That's it, I'm not reading another word you write. What the hell are we doing if you can't do us the favor of reading the section you oppose so strongly. The whole point was to contract Isocrates—named and described—with Demosthenes! The current paragraph points out exactly what you want in there—you are free to add "Pan-Hellenic," I think it would be good. I also previously said that although the Isocrates section was longer than the Demosthenes, it lacked a quote and that I welcomed one. 
*Second, we weren't discussing the "facts" of the matter, but how Macedonian "peasants" thought of themselves. This isn't merely did they think of themselves as Greek, but did they define the world in those terms. That is a different question that you want to answer. Your question does have evidence—Herodotus is evidence, certainly and there are other data points. But, as stated, there is no real evidence about the mindset of the Macedonian peasant.
*It is clear you do not respect the article enough to read it, complaining about something that's been in the article for weeks at the center of the paragraph in question and which I have repeatedly mentioned and asked for your expansion of. Why the hell should I or anyone else listen to a word you say?
*Let's kill it. I look forward to you not listening to someone else for a change.
Lectiodifficilior 16:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A new point of view on ethnicity

message: Hi. I reverted it back to where it was before "01:39, 1 Jun 2005" IP address "24.193.12.231" made his edits. Those edits were were larger than we realized. Miskin and I set about fighting over his additions to the Ethnicity section, failing to realize the bigoted Greek-nationalist edits User:Miskin so strenously defended were apiece with garden-variety defacement in other sections. When User:DannyK spotted and fixed these startling "unencyclopedic phrases," this alerted me that something had gone a-cropper without us realizing it.
Examples:
*"So far, The only facts that we have about Alexander's sexuality are NONexistant!"
*"How much can anyone believe a person who wrote about someone 3 centuries apart?? Well the opposing arguments we do have about Alexander (and him rejecting homosexual proposals) are as follows..."
*"(if you do not know who he is then look him up)" (on Nearchus)
*"To be continued.................."
*reference to the "Efimerethes" (that's a gem of Modern-Greeklish if ever there were one!)
I feel two things:
*These stupid ethnic battles are causing us to miss simply stupid edits.
*I take cool satisfaction that Miskin was defending the sponsor of such puerile edits.
Lectiodifficilior 20:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAJOR revert 

message: The edits by 67.101.27.115 are unacceptable. (You see, Miskin, it's not only Greek nationalist point-scoring I object to.) They are ungrammatical, irrelevant point-scoring. To see wheere this guy is coming form, check out his user page (User:67.101.27.115?). All he does is troll around making edits with a strong ethnic bias, generally ungrammatical and often silly, ie., denying that Albanian is an Indo-European language. Lectiodifficilior 04:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 67.101.27.115 

message: 203.59.206.40 is apparently not fond of the possibility of Alexander having been homosexual.  I've reverted his edits but am restoring two paragraphs that seem fine: 
Aristotle was Alexander's tutor; he gave Alexander a thorough training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy.
Later in life Alexander married several princesses of former Persian territories: Roxana of Bactria; Statira, daughter of Darius III; and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. He fathered at least two children, Heracles born in 327 BC by his mistress Barsine the daughter of Satrap Artabazus of Phrygia, and Alexander IV of Macedon by Roxana in 323 BC.
Also, I should note that some of the quotes the anonymous IP ascribed to Aristotle in De Anima -- "'They are a deviation from the norm' he argued '....some diseased things result from nature or habit...' (Aristotle - De' Anima)" -- don't seem to appear in De Anima.  At least, I couldn't find them with ctrl+F.  Mr. Billion 20:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job; his stuff was clearly POV. Maybe the nationalist polemic can die down for a while and be replaced by pro- and anti-gay polemic—wait, that wouldn't be any better. Lectiodifficilior 21:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Dear Friends,
I noticed you had problems with Greek Nationalist vandalism on your sites. And am sure they may have tried to change parts of this article in the past. Dosn't this tell you anything?
However I am quite concerned about your sources. You seem quite biased for a group which claims to be objective. Why are you all so convinced Alexander was gay?? I am an Ancient History Student and have never been taught that his gayness was an actual fact. You seem to be the only online encyclopedia which claims He was definitely Gay or Bi or Homoerotic. 
Are you not concerned about your credibility? I have come accross much evidence that this is all eroneous and based on recent literature.  
Previously I have in fact been active in promoting Wikipedia as objective in many discussion forums I belong to. I feel quite let down that you are not giving an opportubnity for there to be presented an objective view of his sexuality. 
Although I believ in freedom of speach, this is different because you claim to be giving an unbiased opinion. I am seriously considering of printing this artcle and filing a law suit on the grounds of "defamation of a national hero" if you don't do something soon.
JamesTheJust 11:57, 5 Jun 2005.
:Oh, please do. That would be fun! First problem, find a court that accepts such a crime. Second problem, who are you suing? Lectiodifficilior 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am inclined to agree with Lectiodifficilior on this issue, I should also like to ask: what is an objective view? There exist few, if any accounts of Alexander's sexuality written in his own lifetime or even close to it. That you are calling documents written before the first millenium CE as "recent" is somewhat peculiar.
Secondly, that so-called "Greek Vandals" are  changing the page is neither here nor there. There is considerable cause for many Greeks to want Alexander not to have been gay, and so there is no reason to suspect that they are any less biased than, say, a gay person writing here. Yes, it does tell me something: that people have different agendas. As a wiki-site, there is no way that Wikipedia will ever not have these problems, which is in fact one of the beautiful aspects of it and the reason for this talk page, as I am sure you are aware.
You say you are a student of Ancient History. I should like to point out that you firstly do not verify this statement and also that Jimmy Wales has himself stated that "[whether] a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters. ... You can't coast on your credentials on Wikipedia... you have to enter the marketplace of ideas and engage with people." (Jimmy Wales) It would not matter whether you already had a Ph.D. You say you have come across much material to disprove his possible homosexual tendencies, but without stating these credible sources, where is the argument?
Furthermore, what aspect of his sexuality do you question? That he most likely did have the standard paederastic relations of the period, or his "abnormal" relations to his close companion?
Whether Wikipedia has a systemic bias for homosexuality is not possible to show from one article. One must simply remember that there are many sources that state that he may have been and probably was either gay or bi. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to state absolutely whether he was or not, but it is its duty to report such strong tendencies in the research milieu. Thus I do not see how removing such claims would be a more "objective" view. 
Apologies for a long and probably incoherent post,
Hinakana 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia has Homsexual Tendencies? 

message: The moderators are Gay and they are not making Alexander seem Gay to discredit him but they are infact doing so because it excites them due to their own Gayness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 18:52, June 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm aquiver with excitement. If only my wife knew the secret me — the homosexual joy I get from editing Wikipedia. Lectiodifficilior 22:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am gay and so is my wife. I expect the children will all be gay too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Tony, my man, let's be gay together! We can hang out and excite our gayosity by editing this gayolicious entry! Lectiodifficilior 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderators Are Gay ? 

message: PROOF THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS NOT GAY
“When Philoxenos, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a young man in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander)responded in a strict and disgusted manner: “You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?” (From Plutarch’s On the Luck and Virtue of Alexander A, 12)
“But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes. And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless images for display.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 21)
“When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus, of Tarentum, who had two young men of surpassing beauty to sell, and enquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 22, 1)
please consider --JamesTheJust 06:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the document to which he was referring, although it's a different translation. Mr. Billion 02:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think that constitutes as proof --Dumbo1 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROOF THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS NOT GAY or BI 

message: We don't have to read the bulshit. I strongly sugest one of the administrators will block this article so we will be able to rewrite it. Afterwards, I suggest it will remain locked. This is one of most important articles and it has to be written in a proper way. Gilgamesh he 17:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree that there is a lot of irregularity in such controversial articles, but to what exactly are you referring? Hinakana 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: There is no such thing as a Greek Vandal, they are your relatives not mine.
We are not nationalists we are phil-hellenes which means when asked whose side are you on we respond "On the side of Truth"(Plato).
This article is a disgrace. There was obviously no argument to put up such nonsense and yet despite this discussion being overwhelmingly supplied with appropriate historical evidence you refuse to accept it in your article.
The term "Lion of the East" and also "God Of War" are titles used for Alexander.
The intro should read "Alexander the Great also known as Alexander III" because I'm sure hardly anyone came to his page searching for Alexander III.
Remove the category Sexuality it is not needed. Replace with "personal Life" and include relative information regarding his relations other than sexual. For example the only reason anyone wants to know if he was married is to know who his heir was. Hetrosexual marriages are important for this reason they have historical lineage attached. If on the other hand he gave his entire empire to a gay lover (which he didnt) then that also would be historical fact. 
I think someone should start a legal process on this issue. There should be a law to force all Literature posing as authentic sources of information to have a bright red stamp on every article page: "CAUTION, READING MAY BECOME DETREMENTAL TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE." (Authorised by the General Surgeon).
(See I told you about the mods.... :) )
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:44, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think anybody has accused you of vandalism.  Vandalism only enters the issue because User:JamesTheJust inserted an insult that looked like it was attributed to you, and then deleted another user's comment.  Unless you're making a pun about the German Vandals, but that makes an assumption about other editors' genealogy that doesn't exactly make sense.
:The question of in which order to put the titles "the Great" and "III" is a very minor issue and I don't see why it matters.
:I'm wary of edits from you and JamestheJust because it seems as though you both have an agenda.  When you resort to calling other editors names and shouting in all-caps in favor of a certain point of view, it suggests a strong attachment to that point of view.  Chill out.
:By the way, try to remember to sign your posts with "~~~~"
:Mr. Billion 18:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Mr. Billion 18:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: Note: Reformatted by Lectiodifficilior, because it wasn't displaying right (no line breaks).
For the biased Moderators who continue to allow pro-Skopjan and pro-homosexual propaganda articles on Alexander the Great
I have tried to correct false accusations (and pressumptions) about Alexander's Greekness and sexuality by giving facts. By facts I mean original ancient sources. But it seems people have a problem with that. I do not want to seem arrogant, but I doubt too many people know so much about Macedonia as I do. Take a look at a web page I write for- www.macedoniagreece.com for instance. It is a page dedicated to the history of modern Macedonia, but we are working on the ancient and Byzantine history as well. We are associated with people who have doctorials in classics. What kind of knowledge does this person have over here? I also tried to present people with a good book to read (Debunking the myth of Homosexuality in ancient Greece- By Adonis Georgiades -who has his doctorial in classics from Athens University) but that was deleted as well. 
I ask for people to provide direct ancient sources about Alexander , but what do they give? Unreliable secondary (if that) sources trying to disgrace one of our national heroes. Of course we will be speaking to our lawyers about these ethnic biases being presented by fanatics.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniagreece (talk • contribs) 18:12, June 14, 2005 (UTC)
There's something strange about someone with a POV username (the Greek Nationalist catchphrase is "Macedonia is Greece") making such edits. How would others respond to "SudetenlandGermany" making edits to pages on the Anschluss or etc.
That website isn't a general one about Greek history, but a specifically nationalist "call." That's fine, but it's not what you said it was, nor is that sort of thing appropriate for Wikipedia. I particularly enmjoy the demand that the ROM drop "Macedonia" from its name unless they accept that they are, in fact, really Greeks who have been "brainwashed." I guess you can have your cake and eat it too!
In any case, what you fail to get is that the entry does not deny the "Greekness" of Alexander or the Macedonians. It avoids the issue. After all, the article is about Alexander the Great, not ancient ethnicity or modern nationalism. As for homosexuality, the current wording does not assert a straightforward "homosexual' identity, but seeks to put Alexander's sexuality within its ancient context. 
The book you tout, Debunking the myth of Homosexuality in ancient Greece, has to my knowledge never been reviewed by a single peer-reviewed journal of Classics, let alone favorably. No doubt this is because professional classicism is a gay conspiracy. It is, however, reviewed on line in the "Greco-Report," a pleasant website that inter alia accuses the Young Turks of being secret Jews, rails against the "vicious, Christianity-hating cabal of Zionist overlords." Lectiodifficilior 20:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've come to search for this book redirected from another online discussion and from what I've saw, this book is not translated in English. In my humble experience, the non-English/French/German book seldom are reviewed in English/French/German journals (I doubt you know whether his book was reviewed in Greek scholarly journals). There is a lot of untranslated scholarly material unavailble in these languages, and consequently unreviewed in these languages. So, leaving aside the sites which promote this book, most of us have no way to judge, simply because it's out of our reach. 85.186.233.58 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Macedoniagreece]]

message: Would anyone object if I took most of this and added it to Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive? I think this put a more "friendly" face on the entry, and encourage new approaches. (It will help those with modems too.) Of course, it will still be fully available. Lectiodifficilior 20:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll
Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. Dstork 02:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've noticed notices like this being posted all over the place and passed around between like-minded Wikipedians. YOU in fact—as evinced by your User Contributons—have been going around on Greek-themed pages pasting this message wherever you can. I find this a gross distortion of the poll process. And you're a hypocrite too for complaining about what you yourself are doing. Lectiodifficilior 06:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Urgent Poll

message: I ve just noticed that I should have placed my comments on the buttom, I wrote them on the corresponding theme. What can we do about it?Matia.gr 11:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 

message: I'm reverting the re-naming of the page to Alexander III of Macedon. Some arguments:
*This page has been continuously edited for years by dozens of editors who were apparently happy with its name. Such a major change should at the very least have been discussed here.
*"Alexander the Great" is what Wikipedia asks for, the most common name (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). How common? Compare Google "Alexander the Great" (788,000 results) with "Alexander III of Macedon" (689 results).
*"Great" is not good. Lots of rulers are termed "Great" without being admirable. Rather, it is an indicator of historical significance or contemporaneous power, neither of which can be disputed for Alexander. 
Lectiodifficilior 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming page? Bad idea.