Jump to content

Talk:Philip II of Macedon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LieutenantKennedy17. Peer reviewers: KlicketyKlack, JumpOffsides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S17d8Forest (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pederastic relationship with Pelopidas?

Any citations for this statement? Haiduc 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Numbered user protection

Could the page be protected from numbered users? This is pretty tiresome.Megistias (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Audio

hope i didn't break any rules by entering it.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

__________________

I removed the following about skeletal remains as it appears at odds with journals and articles at present... "However, interestingly, no body or skeleton were ever found. All that remains of Philip II is ash, contained in a magnificent golden larnax, decorated with the Vergina sun, within his stone sarcophagus.[1]"

If you truly feel it ought to go back in, give a reason here on the talk page and reinsert it.

Furius

by the way: did you know funny jesters such as David Icke allege phillip to have been a reptilian humanoid? Foreigner 09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to add in the military reforms that Philip enacted in Macedonia?


is anybody talking i got a report to do and its hard can some1 help me out

Audio

hope i didn't break any rules by entering it.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BC/BCE

This article was written using "BC". It was changed a few months ago by Neutrality to BCE. This is clearly in violation of policy, and I can think of no reason why it should continue to be reverted to BCE. john k 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 

not everyone uses bc. that is a religious term. using shouldbe a voilation. bce is used by most scholars now days with the same time table.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hostage

Someone better informed than me needs to look into the facts of Philip's youth as a hostage. The current text descibes him as a "prisoner", which suggests a misunderstanding of the ancient practice of hostage giving. Hostages were not generally "taken", they were sent to another court as evidence of good faith. Steve Graham (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Phillips II military reform

The greatest inovation Phillip II did was that he transformed his cavalry into an offenssive weapon borrowing horse tactics from many nations Thessaly and Samataria. he gave the infantry longer spears and ligter armour giving his men more stamina and also used ligt troops like archers and slingers giving him an army that could beat anything sence only a very small elite in the greek citys was proffessional soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.143.132 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One "proof of this so called Greek dialect the ancient Macedonians spoke"

Since you both agree that "There isn't any evidence to prove the language of the ancient macedonians was ancient greek. They cant find anything in macedonia other than artifacts that have attica greek. Clearly the ancient macedonians used attica greek as a second language. There needs to be proof of this so called greek dialect the ancient macedonians spoke": You must read a little more about, or you can simply take a look in the Pella curse tablet in where you maybe see some of the proof you so much need. Although is in Doric Greek which was the people's dialect, any modern Greek can understand it. If you cannot, below is the English translation. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Pella katadesmos
  • In ancient Greek
1. [ΘΕΤΙ]ΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΓΑΜΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΩ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΝ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΠΑΣΑΝ ΓΥ
2. [ΝΑΙΚ]ΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΧΗΡΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΩΝ ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ΔΕ ΘΕΤΙΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΚΑΤΤΙΘΕΜΑΙ ΜΑΚΡΩΝΙ ΚΑΙ
3. [ΤΟΙΣ] ΔΑΙΜΟΣΙ ΚΑΙ ΟΠΟΚΑ ΕΓΟ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΔΙΕΛΕΞΑΙΜΙ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΝΟΙΗΝ ΠΑΛLΙΝ ΑΝΟΡΟΞΑΣΑ
4. [ΤΟΚΑ] ΓΑΜΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΑ ΠΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΜΗ ΜΗ ΓΑΡ ΛΑΒΟΙ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ ΑΛΛ Η ΕΜΕ
5. [ΕΜΕ Δ]Ε ΣΥΝΚΑΤΑΓΗΡΑΣΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΙ ΚΑΙ ΜΗΔΕΜΙΑΝ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΙΚΕΤΙΣ ΥΜΩΝ ΓΙΝΟ
6. [ΜΑΙ ΦΙΛ]ΑΝ ΟΙΚΤΙΡΕΤΕ ΔΑΙΜΟΝΕΣ ΦΙΛ[Ο]Ι ΔΑΓΙΝΑΓΑΡΙΜΕ ΦΙΛΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΡΗΜΑ ΑΛΛΑ
7. [....]Α ΦΥΛΑΣΣΕΤΕ ΕΜΙΝ Ο[Π]ΩΣ ΜΗ ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΤΑ[Υ]ΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΚΑ ΚΑΚΩΣ ΘΕΤΙΜΑ ΑΠΟΛΗΤΑΙ
8. [....]ΑΛ[-].ΥΝΜ .. ΕΣΠΛΗΝ ΕΜΟΣ ΕΜΕ ΔΕ [Ε]Υ[Δ]ΑΙΜΟΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΑΝ ΓΕΝΕΣΤΑΙ
9. [-]ΤΟ[.].[-].[..]..Ε.Ε.Ω[?]Α.[.]Ε..ΜΕΓΕ [-]
  • In English
1. Of [Theti]ma and Dionysophon the ritual wedding and the marriage I bind by a written spell, and of all other
2. wo[men], widows and maidens, but of Thetima in particular, and I entrust upon Makron and
3. [the] daimones. And that only whenever I dig out and unroll and re-read this,
4. [then] may they wed Dionysophon, but not before; and may he never wed any woman but me;
5. and may [I] grow old with Dionysophon, and no one else. I [am] your supplicant:
6. Have pity for [Phil?]a, dear daimones, for I am bereft of all my dear ones and abandoned.
7. But please keep this for my sake so that these events do not happen and wretched Thetima perishes miserably
8. but let me become happy and blessed.


um... OMG... this is just way TOO much info. i didn't use it... NO WAY. just too much. dumb it down people!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.71.144 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


There are ancient greek writings in macedonia and there is proof of ancient greek being spoken by the ancient macedonians. Languages are constantly evolving and changing. Some go extict while others remain alive. If you tried to prove the ethnicity of someone by solely language, it is simplistic by all means. Language is ever so changing and never remains the same. To compare ancient greek language to modern greek, you can see there are differences. Language is only one variable of many that defines a culture. If you want to prove the greekness of the ancient macedonians with ancient greek fragments found in the region, you must be an expert on cultures. Brazillians speak Portuguese, the rest of the majority of South America speaks Spanish. Haiti speaks French. Some countries in Africa speak French or Spanish. Most of Eastern Europe speaks a slavic langueses, even though extict languages once existed there. Even try to prove the greekness of a third generation greek living in Canada, Australia or the USA who now doesnt know the greek langauge but only knows how to speak English and write English. Does that make the person a English by origin because of their langauge? Language alone does not define a ethnicity and King Phillip should not be listed as being Greek when there isn't enough evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.15.203 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Argeads

Argead dynasty, member of which is Phillip II, was an ancient greek royal family from Argos descedants of the temenids. Phillip along with the rest of his family members self determined as greek. Irrispectively of the ultimum descent of ancient macedonians, i.e. whether they were of pure greek origins or hellenized and absorbed in hellenism over the archaic and classical years, their ruling house claimed greek descent from time immemorial. So do not condaminate the article with propaganda material.Melathron (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For instance have a look at the site of the former reigning ducal house of Parma, in Italy. [2]. If you press historia you get to the first page and on the first line you read "LA DINASTIA HISPÁNICA DE BORBON-PARMA", i.e. the spanish dynasty of bourbon parma. They were ruling over italian people in Italy but still retained up to today their spanish identity.Melathron (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The ancient world was full of these kinds of ancestries. The Epirot kings claimed descent from Achilles, the Spartan kings from Herakles, the Romans from the Troyans and so on. Fornadan (t) 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip II was MACEDONIAN

"He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" - Britannica. Wikipedia has got to be more neutral on its articles. Mactruth (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, another rant on the matter - you could at least not shout (write in caps) --Laveol T 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not shouting Laveol, its simply to prove to you that you have a pre-determined view that "Macedonia and everything Macedonian is Greek" and will not accept anything that does not verify that view, including neutral and sources with highly positive reputation like Britannica, stating "He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" Mactruth (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Experts on the field say otherwise. Please, read the sources properly. For example, in Britannica the entry for Pericles says that he is an Athenian (no mention that he is Greek) [3] and Lycurgus was a Spartan (again no mention being Greek). Does the omission negates the fact that they were ancient Greeks? No because before Alexander the Great the ancient Greeks were a loose collection of 230 different tribes speaking 200 dialects scattered in many independent city-states! From archeological evidence so far ancient Macedonians were one of those Greek tribes... who later unified the rest of the tribes not only by force but also culturally (e.g. creation of koine). Besides that assuming that you are correct then could you please explain to me why on the entry of Aristotle it describes him as Greek and yet he was born in Macedonia? A.Cython (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand your statements for your examples, but for Philip II Britannica SPECIFICALLY states, "He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" which is different then saying he is Macedonian and not mentioning "which is a Greek tribe", this specifically distinct Macedonians from Greeks. In the case of Aristotle, Greek tribes were located on the coast of Macedonia. Mactruth (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I ask you again! Have you read the sources properly? Have you read what have I said in my previous post? Britannica explicitly says that Pericles was an Athenian! So what? Athenians were Athenians and Macedonians were Macedonians and Spartans were Spartans! Look at the videos that Britannica provides for the article Ancient Macedonia and explicitly says: Macedonia is not only considered the birthplace of the Greek race but also the twelve Greek Gods... This religion common to all Greeks shows the close relationship between the Macedonians and the other Greek races of southern Greece... [4] (it is the third video)! So now please tell me who is wrong here... either you misunderstanding the not so clarified text in Britannica or Britannica and its videos and the experts whose sources are used in the WP text... Hmmm... Also about your comment that it is not mentioned Macedonians as a Greek tribe... well I guess neither the Athenians or Spartans were Greeks since I do not recall anywhere explicitly and directly state this. Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Nah, you were right on the matter. Britannica was very confusing when it stated that sentence, but i guess it makes sense. Mactruth (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be entirely clear that Philip was a Greek, nor that Macedon was part of Greece. In my copy of "A History of Greece to 322 B.C." by NGL Hammond (OUP, 3rd edition, 1986), Chapter 1 of Book VI is entitled "Macedon wins a place among the Greek powers (359-346)". Ethnographically, it's fuzzy (from page 534): "In antiquity Macedonia contained peoples of various origins. At the end of the Bronze Age a residue of Greek tribes stayed behind in southern Macedonia. Perhaps in the seventh century one of these, the 'Macedones', occupied Aegae and expanded into the coastal plain of Lower Macedonia, which became the kingdom of 'Macedon'; their descendants were the Macedonians proper of the classical period, and they worshipped Greek gods, especially Zeus and Heracles. The other Greek tribes became intermingled in Upper Macedonia with Illyrians, Paeonians, and Thracians, and the Thracians especially had their own orgiastic religions, such as that portrayed in the Bacchae."

However, Hammond also makes the following statements:

"The Macedonian kings attracted Greek culture to their court and encouraged economic development of their country by trading with the Greek states, but their realm remained impervious to the political effects of Greek influence." (page 535)

"The Macedonians themselves had little love for the Greeks who had settled in city-states on their coast and in Chalcidice, nor for the imperialistic powers, Sparta, Thebes, and Athens, which treated Macedonia as a pawn in the game of power politics." (pp 535, 536)

"Thus a great citizen army was being built at a time when the Greek states relied mainly upon mercenaries." (page 540)

Similarly, Chapter 2 of Book VI is called "Macedon Gains Control of the Greek States 346-336." It opens with an description of Isocrates' pamphlet called Philippus, urging Philip to unite the Greek states and lead them against Persia. Part 2 of Chapter 2 is called "The invasion of Greece." Part 3 is called "The settlement of Greece and the assassination of Philip". Chapter 4 is called "Alexander and the Greeks defeat Persia 336-330."

So it seems to me that Hammond repeatedly distinguishes between the Greeks and the Macedonians as two distinct (though obviously closely related) political entities.

Hope this helps. Sorry it's all from a book, rather than a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.235.13 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


Not really; once you get familiar with Hammond's work you will see he doesn't really make a distinction:
"Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the 7th century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the 6th century the Persians described the tribute- paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the ‘yauna takabara’, which meant 'Greeks wearing the hat'. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the 5th century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiodus genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive." (The Macedonian State, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, pp. 12-15)
"It seems now that Alexander wanted from the Greek states a public and universal recognition of his benefactions, and that he wanted it as being himself a Greek of the Temenid family." (The Macedonian State, p.235)
"We must remember too that Philip and Alexander were Greeks, descended from Heracles; they wished to be recognized by the Greeks as benefactors of the Greeks, even as Heracles had been." (Alexander The Great, 1989, p.257)
"Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian...The Macedonians over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member of the Greek-speaking peoples." (Philip of Macedon, Duckworth Publishing, February 1998)
"The Balkan situation was far from secure, with the Odrysians and Scythians only recently defeated and with the Triballi still defiant. Yet Philip was confident of success in the interest of the Greek-speaking world and of Macedonia in particular. (The Genius of Alexander the Great, p.21, Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd, 2004) A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
And there was I thinking that I was familiar with Hammond, having read his books and sat exams on the subject. Oh well, make what you will of the quotations - they speak for themselves. Being neither Greek nor Macedonian (nor both at the same time), I have no axe to grind, nor any reason to respond to your rudeness in kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.235.13 (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
...no comment... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Macedon was viewed as half-Greek or thereabouts. They spoke a language closely related to Greek, but had very different political institutions. What is not useful is the drive to obscure the difference between an ancient Macedonian and modern Macedonian Slavs. Philip was an ancient Macedonian, which may or may not be Greek, but he had no particular connections to the modern nation of Macedonia. john k (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Macedon had been declared to be Greek since the days of Alexander I of Macedon. Alexander_I_of_Macedon 76.232.0.23 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UT

Skeletal remains

The article appears at odds with Science vol288 p511 "", 21 April 2000, which implies that the 1977 tomb did contain a skeleton, but it probably was not Philip II but Philip III. The abstract says "The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina Antonis Bartsiokas The Royal Tomb II was discovered in Vergina, Greece, in 1977. It contained a male skeleton and a rich array of grave goods. Evidence of trauma supposedly in the orbital bones of the skull has been thought to correspond to an eye injury that King Philip II is historically known to have suffered. However, reexamination of the orbital morphology showed no evidence of such pathology. Therefore, the skeleton does not belong to Philip II. New skeletal evidence shows that the skeleton belongs to King Philip III Arrhidaeus. In this case, the tomb may well contain some of the paraphernalia of Alexander the Great."

RockDoctor

There are about three scientific articles about the remains of his body. One in Archeologike Ephemeris 1981, a later one in the Journal of Hellenic Studies by Musgrave et ali. and in the American Journal of Archaeology later on. I'll look for the exact years later on. All are concerned with the remaining bone material from all parts of the skeleton. At least in the last article there was a reconstruction of his face presented. But this reconstruction uses portraits of Philipp. Overall a public relation gimmick imo. -Anon
References updated with modern publications. Philip Arrhidaeus hypothesis is very weak. --Euzen (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

There is not enough evidence to prove the antiquity of the ancient macedonians to be ancient Greek. To claim the ancient Macedonians to be anceint Greek without certainty is not politicaly correct. To claim something by choosing certain parts of history and neglecting others just questions the validility of the page. The first reference in in contridiction to what other scholars say about the ancient Macedonians. The most appropriate way of dealing with the issue is to refer to the macedonians antiquity as complex and needs further examination. An appropriate way of dealing with the issue is to state that the ancient Macedonians ethnicity in unknown rather to claim simply Ancient Greek.

Eugene Borza

"The Temenidae [the Greek origin] in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I. The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures." (Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus)"Why is it that no Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to the others that he and his family were Helenes? But Macedonian kings seem hard put to argue in behalf of their Hellenic ancestry in the fifth century B.C., and that circumstance is telling. Even if one were to accept that all the Herodotian stories about Alexander were true, why did the Greeks, who normally were knowledgeable about matters of ethnic kinship, not already know that the Macedonian monarchy was Greek? But--following Herodotus--the stade- race competitors at Olympia thought the Macedonian was a foreigner (Hdt. 5.22: barbaros) Second, for his effort on behalf of the Greek cause against the Persians Alexander is known as "Philhellene". Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a "friend of the Greeks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksander1978 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Do not delete consensus material supported by references! There is little toleration in WP for such actions.

2) Please read the achieves! This discussion with the same/similar arguments has been repeated way too many times both in this article and in Alexander the Great.

3) Note that ancient Greek does not mean modern Greek. Hence, it is politically correct to say that were ancient Greek since they were speaking a doric dialect (one out of Greek dialects), worship the same Gods (Olympus ), having the same burial customs even in the 8th century BC, participate in (only-Greek) Olympic games, etc, etc

4) Yes the ancient Macedonians were different from ancient Athenians or Spartans i.e. different dialect, strong aristocracy/monarchy, strong cavalry, drinking wine without water, not showing the same appreciation for the concept of polis as the rest of Greece showed etc... But such kind of differences you can find them between Athenians and Spartans, so were does this leave you? Were the Athenians more Greek than Spartans (the Athenian propaganda insulted everyone as barbarians and more frequently their antagonists such the Spartans or Corinthians) or were the Macedonians more Greek than anyone else since they unified the Greeks in terms of culture and language?

5) Anyhow please read the quotes within the context that are in the books. The current scholar position is that ancient Macedonians were part of the proto-Greek group but due to their geographic isolation from the rest of Greece and exposure to barbaric north they developed some different customs. A.Cython (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes the royalty of the ancient Macedonians spoke probably Attica Greek for administration purposes which they learnt to communicate with the rest of the world. But where is your proof that the native language spoken for the ancient Macedonians was Doric, for both the royalty of Macedonians and common people. There isn’t enough archaeological findings to conclude that their native language was a Greek dialect. One can only assume as a theory, but that’s all it is. Until there is enough proof of the common peoples language then don’t claim it. What your saying has no physical truth to back it up. The most correct way of dealing with the situation of the native language of the Ancient Macedonians is to call it “Ancient Macedonian” with its origins to be unknown.


1) I have no intention to debate. Hammond is one of the leading scholars suggesting that Macedonian language is a Greek dialect. For more look here: Ancient_Macedonian_language.

2) There are more evidence to support that ancient Macedonian was a Greek dialect rather the opposite. So until the evidence are accumulated to prove otherwise we will stick with what we have. That is the only truth we can have!A.Cython (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


There isnt any evidence to prove the language of the ancient macedonians was ancient greek. They cant find anything in macedonia other than artifacts that have attica greek. Clearly the ancient macedonians used attica greek as a second language. There needs to be proof of this so called greek dialect the ancient macedonians spoke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.116.73 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i agree i don't understand why the Wikipedia articles for Alexander the Great and his father Philip II seem biased. There are so many others that request these pages to have alterations but they are just ignored. How can such information be publicized on such a well known site when there are so many questioning the authenticity of the articles? Philip II was king of Macedon, he was a Macedonian not a Greek. The Greeks called the Macedonians barbarians just like what they called all others who did not speak greek. You do not consider a group of people who speaks the same language and who are of the same ethnicity of you as barbaric. So by the Greeks labeling the Macedonians as barbarians shows right there that they were not greek and did not speak greek or at least like the last poster suggests only spoke it as a second language as to communicate with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy38 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Macedon had been declared Greek since the days of Alexander I Alexander_I_of_Macedon. Just because political rivals say otherwise doesn't make Philip any less Greek, since he became the ruler of Greece and was prone to being called a barbarian by his rivals. Philip also participated and won in the Olympics an honor reserved only to Greeks.76.197.4.77 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Philip described himself as a Greek King

I understand that despite EU, NATO and UN designation to the name FYROM, FYROM is allowed to label it self Macedonia on this encyclopedia because a collective of powerful editors from that nation maintain what a country refers to itself, despite everything..is what is shall be named on wiki. Fair enough. Both Alexander the Great and his father Philip and most of their ancestors from Aegead Royal house constantly referred to themselves as Greeks. There for should we not put back the fact that they were Greek kings, something that was removed last year by certain Editors?

Tomb II

The article currently presents Musgrave as conclusively proving that Philip II was buried in Tomb II. It would be nice to have some independent sources confirming that the issue is now considered settled by the scientific community, and in particular that the proponents of the Arridhaeus theory now accept that they were wrong. Otherwise the article text should probably be moderated somewhat. Fornadan (t) 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


The proponents of the Arridhaeus theory will never accept that they were wrong. Especially the Greek ones of them, belong to that category of leftist nation-haters who would argue against everything that exalts the national pride of the Greeks. Read Prof. Hatzopoulos who ridicules them. The case has been settled. Musgrave's study (2010) smashed the pseudo-scientists, and since then I'm not aware of any study disputing Phil. II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.31.21 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

vs. rome

did phillip ever i fight rome? ithought i read somewhere he did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Macedon's conflict with Rome came much later after Alexander had died and the "successors" were becoming aggressive in Macedon and Seleucia. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Philip II was a greek king

Philip the Macedonian and his son Alexander were greek kings honoring greek gods and bond with the greek culture. All the historical sources prooves it. The claim of modern FYRM "scholars" are redicolous and me and most of my country mates are ashamed from the act of recoqnising the name of modern FYRM as "Macedonia". We do not agree with our politicians that voted in favor of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

The original notation of the article was BC/AD. At some later point, someone changed it to BCE/CE without prior discussion. I undid this move per WP:ERA which says Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. I restored the status quo ante. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on the information you provided, an IP changed the date format without discussion in 2012, 10 years after the article had been stable using the BC/AD format. This should not have been done without discussion. Therefore, I support your change. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I like how that he is Greek has a reference

quite humorous. What's next, referencing that USA is American? --Leladax (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I am afraid that Philip is Macedonian not Greek king He is Alexander's father The biggest king ever Both Macedonian not Greek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.14.11 (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia has been declared Greek since Alexander I Alexander_I_of_Macedon 76.232.0.23 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The majority of scholars seem to concur that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkiiraGhioni (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Name clutter

Dear audio file creator: thanks for your time and effort but kindly learn about the actual subjects you are cluttering with these things. The period pronunciation of the man's name was a breathy ancient Greek P, not a rolling Spanish F. That doesn't change whether you place the file on the translit or the Greek: the translit is the Greek. That's why it's there. Similarly, he didn't speak Latin.

Similarly, apart from Online Etymology Dictionary being a self-published non-RS, the etymology of this particular man's name has absolutely no place in this article let alone its lead. It goes at Philip (given name). — LlywelynII 12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on both points. Actually, I'd consider taking the numeral "B'" out of the Greek too, because (unless I'm mistaken) it's only part of modern Greek usage (whereas the "Φίλλιπος ὁ Μακεδῶν" phrase appears to be ancient.) Or in fact even leave out "ὁ Μακεδῶν" too, because it was only an occasional by-name, and listing it has the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing the misunderstanding that Greek "Μακεδῶν" and English "Macedon" are translation equivalents, which they are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add controversies about Philip's origin at the lead

There has been edit-warring by a new editor to add controversies about Philip's origin at the lead. The edit uses weasel words (some historians) and starts with the conjunction "Despite" indicating synthesis. This material does not belong at the lead per WP:UNDUE. If it belongs anywhere, it is at the main body of the article and after discussion to determine how it is to be phrased. Dr. K. 16:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Sources assuming Philippos' Greek origin does exist too, and the edit looks like a sort of cherry picking to me. I am also concerned about the claim that no statue depicting him are survived. Should it means that every known statue of him are post-mortem ideal depictions? If so, such a claim should IMO be confirmed in some other way. Khruner (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
When theories about ethnicity belong to the lead and when not? There are some examples for the usage of controversial ethnic theories at the lead throughout Wikipedia. The theory for the Greek origin of Cyril and Methodius is the claim of the leading sentence of their article here, but there are some sources indicating their Slavic origin. I suggest phrasing the sentence for Philip II that way "according to some historians he is not purely Greek" or "his precise origins are unknown", or "some historians doubt his Greek origin".Judist (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no controversy about Philip strong enough to warrant mention at the lead. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to do so at the lead. Your phraseology is also heavily POV: some historians consider Philip II not truly or purely Greek. Who is "truly" and "purely" anything? Everyone is mixed to some extent. This is not the criterion for Philips's origin. It looks as if you are after WP:TRUTH and want to advertise it at the lead. As far as the Cyril article WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dr. K. 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Dr.K. We are deep in WP:UNDUE here. It is also quite evident we are dealing with a very obvious attempt at POV-pushing. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless these three Cambridge University sources are credible to dispute his origins. This is not simply "other stuff" or POV. The ethnic origins are usually mentioned at biographies without being regarded as undue and they should be mentioned here at one of the sections at least. Could you suggest any phrasing?Judist (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think his origins are disputed at all. The phrasing of the sources simply indicates that Philips's blood may have been mixed to some extent, which is obviously true about almost anyone. I don't think this type of phraseology or sourcing is adequate for inclusion. It's just opinion too generic, too generalist and too lacking in detail as to be useless. Dr. K. 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned who Philip's parents are in the article. Reader's who are interested in Philip's ancestry can click on their names. POV-worded generaliztions using cherry-picked sources in the lede are useless. Athenean (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The one saying that he was "not of pure Greek race" certainly means that he was partially not Greek and that is what probably means the one saying he was not "true Greek". The other source simply claims "he was not Greek" which can not refer to partial descent. These are theories by excellent sources.Judist (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem new here (let's assume) so therefore, please read (and understand) WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY. There are even more excellent sources that state the opposite of what you are claiming. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim or defend any position. I can't guess what are the precise origins of Philip II and I don't know if he was totally or partly Greek. I try to add more suggestions. Do as you say, find and add other sources claiming that he is totally Greek, or probably something else, I have nothing against. The more, the better, but should be good sources at least.Judist (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are trying to push a particular POV. This "racial purity" business needs to stop, and it has no place in an article about an ancient figure. Readers interested in Philip's ancestry can click on the links for the articles on his parents. Your crude POV-pushing is not going to pass. Athenean (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Athenean, your accusations for POV pushing are completely unjustified. You are trying to excuse the exclusion of what you do not like with ridicilious justifications. It is not about his parents and is not their article in which this would be due weight or about racial purity, a WP:BESTSOURCES simply claims he was not Greek, whether you like Philip or not. If it is a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for you, then simply find other sources to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. It is not about who I like for my case, I personally don't like Philip, he's nothing more than an ancient savage, but there are significant viewpoints missing for him that I want to include. Please, don't be ridicilious and find some reliable publications about Philip's origin so we can publish them all. If you want to prevent all my additions from passing, you are required to prove that at least the opposite of mine additions is the majority view and then to call it "undue weight", you can't just excuse with the unjustified accusations for "POV pushing". I have found three Cambridge University sources so far, what have you?Judist (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems you care a great deal about Philip, and the notion of racial purity. Please try to understand that other people do not share your obsession with racial purity. There are countless sources that state the Argeads were of Greek origin. If you are so deeply ignorant of this subject so as to not be aware of this, then maybe you should not edit this article. Athenean (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep following WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is a disruptive behaviour.Judist (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And I would say that you are deep in WP:TEND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory, judging by the intensity with which you disrupt multiple articles. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philip II of Macedon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is not well structured, could use more subdivisions. Some important material is missing, like his military buildup, the silver mines and the siege train. references aren't clear. Wandalstouring 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ptolemy

There should be some mention in the article of the possibility that Philip fathered an illegitimate son, Ptolemy I Soter, companion of Alexander the Great and later ruler of Egypt. There is plenty of primary and secondary evidence suggesting that this was a distinct possibility. Urselius (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Philip II of Macedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Lock this atricle!

In my opinion, this article must be locked and the not authorized members must not be able to change any of the info. We have all ready many arguments about this article. Phillip was a Macedonian King from northern Greece. That's a common seance. Some people are trying to prove that the Macedonians were just Macedonians and not Greeks. That madness has to stop. Also, I wrote in the infobox that he was strategos autokrator of Greece. Some members are trying to prove that he was not. But the ancient Greek text is quite clear: Ελλήνων ελομένων αυτὸν """στρατηγὸν αυτοκράτορα της Ελλάδος""" μεγάλας παρασκευὰς εποιετο πρὸς τὴν επὶ τοὺς Πέρσας στρατείαν... Please give any advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B41F:6800:8891:C792:BCA6:5F26 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please check your text for typos. "common seance". A séance is "an attempt to communicate with spirits.". Dimadick (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Humorous side comment: Phillip was a Macedonian King from northern Greece. That's a common seance. This sounds a bit like it could be an amusing suggestion for an original research project; we will all just hold a séance together (in "common") with the ghost of King Philip himself to find out if he really was "a Macedonian King from northern Greece." That ought to settle the Macedonia naming dispute! (Pardon my reduction ad absurdum. I just had to say something; the opportunity was too good.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, wise spirit of Philip, second of his name, King of Macedon, reveal to us thy noble Argive lineage and rightful place in Hellas! Speak to us, great king, from beyond thy grave! Yada, yada. Lol. I just made a few small changes to the lead section, notably removing the duplicate link for League of Corinth (literally linked twice in the same sentence, smh). I also explained and placed "Greece" and "Greek" where it was appropriate but not in the first sentence where it is more controversial due to the ongoing debate about whether the Macedonians were considered true Greeks by other Greeks...just like their firebrand enemies tell us, namely Demosthenes! As explained in another article, the "Greekness" of Macedonians is unquestionable after the reign of Alexander and certainly by the end of the Hellenistic period and beginning of the Roman era. The problem here is certain Greek city-states to the south considering the Macedonians and Epirotes to be backwards cousins influenced by neighboring Thracian/Illyrian barbarians and belonging to a bygone Homeric age of absolute monarchism. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

NINJA IS MY MOM LOL 24.12.60.191 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: no edit request DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no formal "Greece" in the ancient world

There was no country or empire known as "Greece" during the life of Philip II. Therefore, his country of birth was Macedon. It was culturally a mix of Greek and non-Greek elements, but there was no political entity known as "Greece". Therefore, "Greece" should not appear in the infobox as if there were such a political entity. On every page where ancient Macedonia has been discussed (Macedonia (ancient kingdom), for example), the Talk Page consensus has always been to leave the issue of how Greek ancient Macedonia was indeterminate by leaving the word "Greek" out of the description of what ancient Macedonia was. It was a "kingdom", not a "Greek kingdom". Refer to This discussion to see that the result of much discussion was to leave the words "Greek" out of the description of Philip's kingdom. Thus, adding the word "Greece" to the infobox after the word "Macedon" is both anachronistic (there was no country called "Greece" at the time) and against general consensus on articles related to ancient Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pages that use the WP:CONSENSUS wording that doesn't overtly and unambiguously label ancient Macedonia as "Greek": Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonians, History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). There are others, but these are the ones I specifically remember. All of these have sections on their Talk Pages where a consensus was reached that there would be no overt labeling of Ancient Macedonia(ns) as "Greek", but that the article would make clear the complex and intimate relationship between the culture of the Greek city-states and the Macedonian kingdom. --Taivo (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

He did not crush the Athenians in 359 !

"The Paionians and the Thracians had sacked and invaded the eastern regions of the country,"

This is very speculative!

It is not sure whether the Thracians sacked or invaded in that year (359). Kg. Cotys I. had previously died and the three sons, Cerebleptes, Amadocus and Berisades, were struggling for hegemony, thus it is not very likely that they presented a direct threat to Philip.

All that is proven is that the Philip bribed the Paionians or made them promises. Diod. 16.... And he attcked only when Kg. Agis had died.


"while the Athenians had landed at Methone on the coast, a contingent under a Macedonian pretender called Argaeus. Using diplomacy, Philip pushed back Paionians and Thracians promising tributes, and crushed the 3,000 Athenian hoplites (359)."

It is correct that the Athenians landed at Methone and the number of the contingent led by Mantias is correct also, however, what is 'false', if one can at all use this word here, is that the Athenians engaged in any battle, let alone be crushed.

Philip pulled out of Amphipolis, as he was in need or reinforcements (for the 4000 who died alongside Perdikkas III. against Bardylis), and declared it autonomous, although it factually had that status from 427 onwards.

Athens, whose main goal it was to regain power over Amphipolis, perceived this withdrawal of Philip as a sign of goodwill.

Argaios, however, went to Aigai (the former capital, till 400/399) in order to rally people to his cause. He was unsuccessful and on returning to Methone he was intercepted by Philip and most probably executed.

Cf. Worthington, Ian. Philip II of Macedonia. New Haven/London: Yale UP, 2008. 6-25.

... et. al. Explain what about this is unclear. I am assuming that what historians know as far as basic biographical information about Philip of Macedon is correct. So I suppose his "sacking" could have occurred, but it it not clear if the Thracians sacked or invaded. Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forponia (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

He was a Greek King of a Greek Kingdom

Seems strange the word 'Greek' is absent from his description. Macedonia was a Greek Kingdom - speaking a Greek language, allowed to compete in the Olympic games - like other Greek states and worshipped the Greek Gods. Finding non-Greek aspects about Philip is very difficult. Seems bizarre his son - Alexander - is called a Greek in his respective article, but Philip is not.. Reaper7 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a WP:CONSENSUS wording in the first sentence that has been carefully maintained. If you actually read the article you can clearly see an accurate depiction of the complex relationship between the Greek city-states and the Macedonian kingdom both culturally and politically. Simply calling Philip and his kingdom "Greek" is simplistic and inaccurate. --Taivo (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
If you actually bother to go back to how the consensus was created, I was there. If you actually read the lead, you will see it is garbled and does not reflect the reality of the situation at the time - rather - it tends to aplogise for modern geopolitics. The consensus has been carefully maintained indeed - by you. The consensus needs to be looked at again. Wiki is an evolving project, it does not stop dead because you need or want it to. You stating that the kingdom was a mix of Greek and non Greek elements does not hold. The elements that were Greek - language, religion and indeed ancestry - outweigh - the non Greek elements, whatever you believe they may be (please state). The kingdom was Greek. The leaders stated they were Hellenes - the people spoke a Greek dialect and both worshiped Greek Gods and partook in the Olympic games. This needs to be addressed. Stating the kingdom was not 'Greek' and on the outside of the Greek world misleads the reader. Reaper7 (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You are still being simplistic in your worldview--"the Greek Empire from Crimea to Sicily". Even Greek authors disagreed over whether the Macedonians up to Philip's reign were Greek or barbarian. Such complexity doesn't fit well with your agenda to add the word "Greek" before anything that contemporary Greek nationalism wants to be Greek. --Taivo (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

He was obviously Greek and this so called “consensus” is a fraud maintained by you. QuaestorGaius (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Can this matter be resolved by instead using the more generic term "Hellenic"? Obviously in antiquity many tribes/nations were Hellenic and I realise there is a need to be specific here with the Macedonian polity in question. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a cluster of articles here that QuaestorGaius ignores every time he shows up at one to push this same argument before being consensus-ed out and moving on to another of the articles. That cluster includes this article, History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Ancient Macedonians, etc. where the WP:CONSENSUS has evolved to leave the adjectives "Greek" and "Hellenic" out of the first sentence of the lead as a primary descriptor of "Macedonia". The articles are clear about the complex relationship between the ancient Greek city states and the Macedonian kingdom, but it has been consistently maintained that labeling the ancient kingdom "Greek" is simplistic and ignores the evolving history of the relationship over time. QuaestorGaius shows up at these articles one at a time, pretends that he is ignorant of the history of discussion at each of these other articles, fails to get his way, and then moves on. There is no need to humor him further. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I added a disputed tag. Here is my edit summary:

"Lots of chunks of text are not given any citations. The citations that are there for other statements do not seem to support the uncited statements. I have added several citation needed tags. And I have also added a factual accuracy disputed tag to the top because this article has several strong statements that are uncited." -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you disputing something on the page or just saying the page needs more citations? The cn tags are useful, but it doesn't look like the disputed tag is adding anything to the two other tags at the top of the the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@TrynaMakeADollar: Could you please list a few examples of "strong statements that are uncited" in this article that you find particularly troubling? —Katolophyromai (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The disputed tag from the top of the article has been removed and that's fine. But a disputed tag has been added to the "Assassination" section. That section is horrible. Worst of all the sections. Lacks cites. Has one single primary source. All of the statements seem to be dubious and will be seen as unreliable as long as the section is lacking in sources. The section makes strong claims without any point of reference. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
TrynaMakeADollar, are you disputing something in the section or do you just think it needs more citations? There is a tag for "citations needed" that would be more appropriate in that case. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really an expert on Philip II so I wouldn't know which statements are feasible or not, but as a WP user when I come upon that and see that the section is totally devoid of references, I have no idea which statements to believe or not. Being an expert on the subject is not a prereq for editing it's article. For all I know the entire section could be total BS. There is zero point of reference for me to me consider which statements are possibly factually correct or not. So if you're asking me what I am disputing in that section, then I would say that (considering its near zero referencing) I am disputing the factual accuracy of the entire section. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are not disputing any specific information, then a "citations needed" tag is the appropriate tag, and that is already covered in the page tags at the top of the article (along with additional inline tags that are largely unnecessary). I am going to remove the disputed tag for now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I am disputing specific information. I am disputing the factual accuracy of the info in the section. The tag very clearly states "This section's factual accuracy is disputed." Which is totally in line with my reasoning because I am disputing the factual accuracy of the section not any specific text in the section. The tag does not say "This specific info in the section is in dispute". Also, the tag is not at all redundant. The tags at the top of the page are totally different from the factual accuracy dispute tag in the "Assassination" section. The top tags are about the article's insufficient inline citations, tone, and lack of cites. Those are completely different from the factual accuracy dispute tag. WP editors don't just random tag articles with any tags just to inform the user that there is something wrong with the article. We are supposed to use tags that specifically convey to the user what exactly is wrong with that article or section. None of the tags are redundant or unnecessary. You may need to learn more about tagging and the differences between the tags. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
What specific statements are you disputing? The point of the tag is the "disputed" statements, which is supposed to be a dispute between people. Tags are not meant to be "badges of shame", and so if you have a problem with certain unsourced statements, then just remove them. If someone restores them, then there would be a dispute, which they can then resolve by adding sources if they think it is important to restore the information. Otherwise, using the disputed tag puts into an unnecessary category because there is no actual dispute. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
If you read the disputed tag's template page then you would see that you're wrong. There is nothing on that page that says anything about there being a dispute between two people. The fact is that the info in the "Assassination" section has existed in this article for a long time, and the vast majority of it is uncited. If I were to remove all the uncited statements then I would have to remove the entire section. That would not be helpful. The tag is correctly placed and I followed the protocol for adding the tag. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
If your problem is uncited material, then the "Disputed" tag is the wrong one to use. There are better tags to use that ask for citations. "Disputed" is rather a backdoor way to say, "I don't like this" or "I don't agree with this". If you are neutral about the content, then use another tag. If you have a POV about the content, then get your own citations and edit the paragraph. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Greek / Hellenic Kingdom

@Bryan Saxon: The question about calling Macedon a 'Greek kingdom', a 'Hellenic kingdom' or just a 'kingdom' has been discussed ad nauseam in a number of talk pages, including this one, see above. One of the difficulties is that the 'Greekness' of Macedon developed gradually during the period the kingdom existed, so that it is difficult, if not impossible, to define the kingdom with just one modifier. The main discussion about this terminology was a WP:RFC back in 2017 in the talk page of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), now archived here. The rather strong consensus of that discussion was to avoid describing the kingdom as 'Greek' or 'Hellenic' in the lede sentence. The question is, of course, discussed thoroughly further down in that article, which is the right place for it. In my book, the obvious corollary is that this article, which is not even about the kingdom, but about one of its kings, should also avoid using any of the modifiers about the kingdom in its lede sentence. I will strongly advice you to self revert, read the archived discussion (at least the conclusion of it) and then take part in the discussion here in order to determine the consensus. --T*U (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling that this Bryan Saxon is a sockpuppet account. We shouldn't try to reason with sockpuppets, but to ban them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_II_of_Macedon/Archive_1&oldid=1246038698"