Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Political agendas and hatred

"Greek-speaking communities in central Anatolia and in far-eastern Anatolia survived until the Greek genocide and Greek–Turkish population exchanges of the early 20th century AD. " what does this controversial topic do in this history page related to Alexander the Great? Blinded by nationalism? 2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The principle problem is that the material was off-topic and hugely undue for the lead, in addition to being an oddly modern political intrusion into this summary of content (MOS:LEAD) on an ancient figure. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

Please add the following template:

2601:249:9301:D570:C8F3:FCDB:9310:2406 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done NasssaNser_talk 06:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"Tight Man-to-man Friendship"?

It feels like this is one of those old euphemisms to avoid sugggesting that a historical figure might not have been straight in the modern post-victorian sense. Perhaps these should not be perpetuated. 2.103.197.47 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)