Talk:Philip II of Macedon

Philip the Great

I would like to propose changing the main heading to ‘Philip the Great.’ It already redirects from this name, and we have been adding ‘Great’ to the deserving in recent years, such as for Constantine and Louis XIV. I think most who study Philip would agree he was a genius, both militarily and diplomatically; he united the Greeks; he conducted himself tactfully, benevolently, and clemently; he was shrewd; and is one of the transformative figures of antiquity. I know Demosthenes would disagree(XD), but I invite other historians to the debate of if we should give him the ‘Great’ title. -Alexander 141.126.243.47 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows sources. We do not take the initiative on naming or otherwise. NebY (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Poorly cited claim(s)

The article claims that "many modern historians agree" on the plot to murder Philip not being instagated by Alexander or his mother. We only get five pages from one book written by a greek national cited for these claims. To claim that this is some sort of consensus based on that and the logic provided in the article is not sufficient evidence for such a strong claim according to my own standards of source criticism and I think the wording should be changed to something along the lines of "some modern historians" or that more citations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.158.190 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Add title = Basileus under Philip's name and ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon just like in Alexander the Great article

Why there's these discrepancies between these articles, they're father and son so it would be logical for the articles to be homogenous and look almost similar, so why in Alexander's article there's something and in Philip there isn't? Lonapak (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. The only thing that would matter is if Phillip is called Basileus in reliable sources. Articles generally attempt internal consistency first, consistency between articles matters much less and is almost never justified in the context of ancient history. Remsense诉 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well there's already the title basileus in the first sentence of Philip's article, so wouldn't it be better to just put it under his name like in Alexander's article? And basileus literally means king, which he was from 359 BC to 336 BC Lonapak (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

And also why in Alexander's article it's specified ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon but in Philip's it's just ancient kingdom of Macedon? All of this makes no sense or logic to me Lonapak (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We reflect what the sources say. If you want to improve the article, do so while consulting sources. Nothing else to it. Remsense诉 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. An editor putting something in one place is not itself a reason for putting it another place. Consult the relevant reliable sources for a change. Remsense诉 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok so who says which is which and who decides what to add and what to remove etc? Who and why decided that my contribution to be removed and why is that person "over" me? Lonapak (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise, I've already explained how we write articles and I don't think repeating myself will help. Anyone can contest any unsourced content in an article, and it may not be readded unless a source is provided, generally. Remsense诉 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with sources as I am not adding anything new, the words "basileus" and "ancient Greek/Greece" are already present in the articles, but in Alexander's which is his son it's more detailed than in Philip's and it looks better like that, so how can I petition to add these in the article like they already are in Alexander's article? Lonapak (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable in a reliable source. All you need to do is cite a reliable source that shows Philip had the title of Basileus. Shouldn't be that hard. I don't feel like repeating myself. Remsense诉 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Even if it's verifiable that "Basileus" was Philip's main and normal title in ancient Greek (though presumably not in ancient Macedonian), would that be a key fact which readers can identify and comprehend at a glance?

As for who decides, see WP:CONSENSUS. NebY (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I still didn't receive the answer on why on Alexander's article it's written ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia and on Philip's it's only ancient kingdom of Macedonia, anyways, Ancient Macedonian was a (Northwest) Greek dialect(Doric most likely) or a separate Hellenic language, but it's clear they used the Greek alphbabet and it was almost identic to Greek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet Lonapak (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a different article. Discuss that article on its talk page, is the first thing I said. Remsense诉 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well there's no need to discuss it on that page as this page needs those words added, so why discuss it on there? Lonapak (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other articles say, the content of every article is decided according to its own body of reliable sources. Remsense诉 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

The sons of Aeropus of Lyncestis were also suspected of taking part in the plot as accomplices of Pausanias. Arrhabaeus and Heromenes would be put to death, while Alexander of Lyncestis received pardon. Xandru4 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 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. Charliehdb (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

I added a bibliographical source (Adrian Goldsworthy's new book on Philip II) and a user deleted it with the comment that I added a bibliographical source that is not cited in the article. I would like to point out that I added it 1) because it is a bibliographical source and appropriate for further reading whether or not it is cited in the article and 2) because I randomly checked other books listed in the bibliography (eg I don't think Edward Anson's article is referenced in the article, but it is listed in the bibliography). I leave this up to more experienced Wikipedia's. Ictinos4 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedians. Ictinos4 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's what a Further reading section would be for. If a source is included in a Bibliography section, the implication is that it is part of the bibliography. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)