Talk:Philip II of Macedon

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

Disputed tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Greek / Hellenic Kingdom[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Philip the Great[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Poorly cited claim(s)[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_II_of_Macedon&oldid=1220395176"