Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Alexander the Great. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Third title to Alexander's name.

Besides Alexander III and Alexander the Great, Alexander the Accursed (which was a very common term that many of the citizens of his Persian and Indian empires used to refer to him)should be added to the main topic. Though you only hear Alexander the Great, Alexander the Condemned was all to common and not including it as one of his key "nick names" is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on "Alexander the Condemned" returns nothing. But if you can find a good source for this, please do put it in. Mlouns (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably means Alexander the Cursed or Alexander the Accursed and this is how the Zoroastrians used to call him. Some nationalist Iranians still do so today. -- Avg 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Accursed is what I was looking for, I interpreted "condemned" from the same word. Considering Persia made up the largest portion of his Empire, you can imagine how common the word was. The invasion was one thing, but the burning of Persepolis didn't go over too well with the citizens either. BTW in terms of current use of the word, he's not just referred to as "Alexander the Accursed" by very nationalist citizens, he's also referred to by that name (or as just "Alexander") in History classes and other areas of debate regarding the topic in Iran. --Xeraxes

Iran demonizes Alexander as the evil westerner....Modern Politics ad nationalism more than objective history.The burning of Athens and the utter annihilation of Eretria among many other instances of butchery didn't go well with the Greeks as well...But today we don't adopt views such as those the Iranians do.Megistias (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Iran for most of my life I would disagree with the demonizing comment. Alexander is still considered an amazing tactition there, but the burning of Persepolis was an unforgivable attack, considering the sheer grandeur of the city. And we're not here to take sides, the fact remains that "Alexander the Accursed" was a very common name for him as well, and it would still be biased if it wasn't considered one of his main "nick names". It's not a matter of taking the Iranians' sides, it's a matter of giving an unbiased view of this amazing leader's life. --Xeraxes

I know it just annoyed me!Pardon my rantMegistias (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So are we in agreement on this? --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned, however not in the intro paragraph since it is not a name he's worldwide known for, but in the Fall or Persian empire paragraph.-- Avg 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But he's known as Alexander the Great NOW, and in Europe and the Americas, it was a completely different story during his time, what he is known for NOW shouldn't be used to ignore what he was known for so commonly during his time. --Xeraxes

Oh yea, and about the fall of the Persian Empire Paragraph, the name should be changed. Persian history consisted of multiple eras, Alexander's invasion only marks the end of the Achaemenid period (even though he declared himself an Achaemenid King). The Persian empire continued on after that. And "Alexander the Great" is what he is most known as NOW and in Europe and the Americas. --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Alexander was not necessarily known as "the Great" during his lifetime, but that title ("Megas") was commonly affixed to his name throughout the world shortly thereafter. By contrast, I would like to see the earliest usage of "accursed"--and even then, I would point that it was in no way as widespread as "the great". Phoebus Americanos (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) ... It's so psychotic that "Persians" can hate Alexander the Great when Arabs who came later raped and destroyed anything and everything that was Persian and civilized in the land of the Persians. The saddest of all is that today Persians live under Arabic Islamic Laws [i don't say it, persians do] they have their supreme leader to be of Arab ancestry... their women are oppressed, raped and killed everyday, they BULLDOZE their ancient findings as "pagan" history... the true Persians say they will fight for their freedom while the arab persian iranians are greatly satisfied with the glory of islam in Iran... go figure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefendEurope (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I used to live in Iran and have to say you've got the wrong idea. Though the government is corrupt and very messed up, it doesn't at all represent the public. People do know that the Arabs took a big dump on the Persian empire and dragged its economy to the ground with their idiotic Kings (that's why Persians don't really like Arabs). People are very much dissatisfied with Government and the younger generation has a very different attitude (Very western). People also take great pride in the glory of the Persian empire (but the government doesn't really care).

Also, your comment about the oppression of Woman is generally over-done. The woman are oppressed, but the oppression you described is more like Saudi Arabia then in Iran. In fact, compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran looks like the center of Woman's emancipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious sentence

I removed this sentence: "Alexander passed through Judea and was deterred from destroying Jerusalem by a Jewish priest who showed him a 200 year old Biblical prophecy from Daniel 8:3-8 & 8:20-22. Alexander was so amazed by it that he decided to leave Jerusalem alone, and not do anything to it." The Book of Daniel is currently dated to 167-164 BC, so Alexander could not have seen it. Makerowner (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't:

"Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC." That's from the Book of Daniel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.213.206 (talk • contribs)

The third paragraph of Book of Daniel states: "The traditional view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BC, whereas most modern Biblical scholars maintain that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred." --Akhilleus (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed semi-protection template

The well-named DumbBOT has removed the semi-protection template from this article, publically announcing in the edit summary "removing a protection template from a non-protected page." In other words, "let the vandalism begin!" Check the page history following December 14 to see whether I was right or not. --Wetman (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexander's ethnicity, cont.

(unconstructive thread removed) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fall of the Persian Empire?

The "Fall of the Persian Empire" paragraph name should be changed. Persian history consisted of multiple eras, Alexander's invasion only marks the end of the Achaemenid period (even though he declared himself an Achaemenid King). The Persian empire continued on after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason it shouldn't be changed? Because it was reverted back to it's old name again. --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So can I change it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont get it.Is it so important to state Achaemenid or not?What do we do for Rome or the Chinese empire?Megistias (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Source? _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the name "Fall of the Persian Empire" makes it sound like his invasion marks the end of the entire Empire... But it clearly doesn't, the empire goes on for a long while after.

And what do you mean "source?", just look up Achaemenid Empire. --Xeraxes

Are we good? --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Renamed it Fall of the Achaemenid Persian Empire _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

religion?

what is his religion?--65.9.153.52 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Olympian godsMegistias (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

is there any acual prof, i am just qustining it because it would contradict higly with platos belife in a monotheistic god and alexander was a student of aristodal .--65.9.153.52 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was standard beliefs and philosophical beliefs would go with them.We ll never know his thoughts but he took part in all and any pagan rituals.He would have certainly had his teachers views in his mind.And it is Aristotle in English and Aristotelis in Greek.Megistias (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexander's Date of Birth

Alexander the Great lived from 356-323 BCE. Someone should correct this (I don't know how to use this thing). The current dates suggest that he conquered the world before dying at age 13! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvankaam (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexander as Aristotle's pupil?

I think that the claim that Aristotle was Alexander's teacher is pure legend. The actual historical evidence is mighty slim. I suggest including something to that effect. For discussion on this see Ingemar During, _Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, 1957, 284-8, and W. W. Tarn, _Alexander the Great_, vol. II, 1948, 399-449. When Aristotle went to Mieza, he was pretty much an unknown except for his father's occupational connection to Philip. Moreover, Aristotle never mentions Alexander anywhere, and Philip only once. And Alexander's supposed letters to Aristotle are all fakes.Garbopash (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming number of references attesting the opposite, even online, simply search for Alexander and Aristotle together in google scholar.-- Avg 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. You're right; there are an overwhelming number of "references" to the contrary. And that is precisely why I think it is important to change the wiki page (i.e. because they're all wrong). Many of those "references" are made on spurious historical grounds, and the rest of them are made on no grounds at all.Garbopash (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"When Aristotle went to Mieza, he was pretty much an unknown except for his father's occupational connection to Philip".He may have tutored them before acquiring fame.Megistias (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle mentions the name Alexander 2 times in Epistulae,1 at De Mundo,3 times at Oeconomica,9 times at Rhetorica,52 times in Fragmenta varia and 3 times in Testimonia.From TLG Aristoteles et corpus Aristotelicum.Megistias (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fact that Aristotle's position as Alexander's tutor is historically dubious. Please see my comment at Talk:Aristotle#Relationship_with_Alexander, which specifically addresses the views contained in the secondary works cited by Garbopash. Wareh (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek spelling

Alexander's name in Greek in the intro is missing the breathing marks, and the initial alpha in the second form is mistakenly written as ASCII 'A'. As a Classical Greek name, it should be:

Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος

It may also be worth mentioning that the name Ἀλέξανδρος means "defending men". [Liddell and Scott, A Lexicon - Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, 1976]

72.83.107.199 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia, be bold.-- Avg 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say Alexander is an ancient Greek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was a Macedonian!!!!!!!

Please take some time to acquaint yourself with Wiki rules and read the archives of this article.Megistias (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia,at that time, was part of greater greece so therefor it was greece. anybody from macedonia in that period would be considered greek...dont mean to burst ur bubble if ur macedonian n ur lookin for a hero! sorry

Statue pic: POV-pushing by insinuation

User:Cukiger keeps inserting a picture of a statue of Alexander the Great from Prilep, fYROM. What is the point of this insertion? There are statues of Alexander all over the world, not to mention dozens in Greece. Are we to include every single one? The sole purpose of inserting an image in an article is to enhance the article's quality. Not only is this not the case here, but the image is entirely irrelevant. So what if there is a modern-day statue in some provincial town of a country that did not exist back then? It seems this image is deliberately inserted to imply a "connection" between fYROM and Alexander the Great. This is POV-pushing by insinuation. It does not enhance the article in any way and is unacceptable. Incidentally, I am now observing a pattern of users from fYROM inserting irrelevant images of artifacts and statues from fYROM into many articles related to the Ancient Macedonians (e.g. Vergina Sun, Philip of Macedon), for the very same reason. As they do not have any reliable sources to back up their fictitious "claim" (as their own historian Tseprekanov said), they try to do so by inserting these pointless images. I am removing the image and ask that it not be reinserted without a discussion. --Tsourkpk (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture AlexanderPrilepMacedonia.jpg

Why there should not be an image from a statue of Alexander the Great from his country Macedonia, but from a neighbouring country ((Greece))? It's absurd. By the way, Prilep is not a provincial town.Cukiger (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyrom has little to do with being his "country".It was mostly thracian soil of the Paeonians meaning Paeonian country a thracian people.A tiny part of Fyrom belonged to the extended Macedonian kingdom.The statue also is all wrong .The greaves are imaginary and belong in a fantasy game the shield is wrong and Alexander wasn't a sarissophoros.Also that shield and Sarissa never went together.He was Ancient Greek not Thracian and certainly not Slavic.These are Resolved issues for 100's of pages here.Modern Fyrom has nothing to do with Alexander or ancient Macedonians other than the above mentioned elements.Megistias (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It has much to do, by being the successor state of his (ancient) Macedonia. If the region of Macedonia whould not have partitioned by its neighbouring countries Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1913, FYROM whould not own just a tiny part by the ancient Macedonian kingdom, but the whole region of Macedonia whould have become a country. Plus, it doesn't matter how much of today's Macedonia is part of the ancient Macedonian kingdom, but where the Ethnic Macedonians lived and were a majority. And they were in Aegaen, Vardar and in the Pirin part of Macedonia. So, if the neighbours had not partitioned Macedonia in 1913 they whould have establish a country not only owning the part of Macedonia belonging to the ancient kingdom, but also today's Vardar part or Republic of Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukiger (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Start reading previous archives.Your nationalist fringe theories keep to yourself.Macedonians were Greeks not Slavs and have nothing to do with you or your language or anything related.Megistias (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Start reading history by non-Greek historians. I am not nationalist, I have nothing but hatred for these people. I am only defending Macedonian history. Macedonians have not been Greek nor Slavic peoples, but simply Macedonians (although they have strong Slavic elements since the Slavic tribes settled in the most part of the Balkan Peninsula and mixed up with the ancient Macedonians and speak a mix of Ancient Macedonian and a Slavic language, they still call themeselves Macedonians). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukiger (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was/is no such thing.Please read the archives.Also Ancient Macedonian was Hellenic Linguisticsand read some ancient texts as well.MIT Megistias (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Before the 20th century, so-called ethnic Macedonians identified as Bulgarians. This is why the "Macedonoan" language is identical to Bulgarian (with minor dialectical differences). The "Macedonian" ethnicity was literally invented in the late 19th-early 20th centuries, and the Macedonian name was merely misappropriated. The notion that fYROM is the "successor state" to ancient Macedon and Alexander's "country" is truly laughable. And I suppose Prilep is some global metropolis of some kind? You also did not provide a concrete argument as to why the statue pic deserves to be inserted. "Why not" is not an answer. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Prilep picture is inappropriate, for the reasons given by Tsourkpk. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate not because it comes from the Republic, but because it's ugly and irrelevant. The same goes for the equestrian statue in Thessaloniki, used currently in the "character" section. Same kind of aesthetic abomination. We have enough beautiful ancient depictions, we don't need modern nationalist pseudo-art, from whatever locality. Otherwise, make a section with its own gallery on "modern nationalist hero-worship", and then put them all in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To make this perhaps clearer, I find the whole premise of this discussion, on both sides of it, that images should be evaluated on the criterion of which ethnic group is more entitled to make them, pretty unbearably silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all having a statue at fYRoM depicting Alexander (as long as it has an artistic merit). It would be kind of them to pay their respects to a famous Greek hero. Having seen it though, I must say I prefer (purely aesthetically) the Thessaloniki one, which also doesn't appear to have historical inconsistencies.-- Avg 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Macedonians did not meant to pay respect to a Greek hero, but for a Macedonian hero, which they regard as being one of their kind. Cukiger (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

About the destruction of Persepolis

I think that some details/citations are needed to explain as to why Alexander destroyed Persepolis.

The following paper by Eugene N. Borza, offers a scientific approach of what Alexander did during his stay in the city and and the conditions under which Alexander decided to destroy the city. Eugene N. Borza is his paper is proposing is a third "Machiavellian" reasoning as to why Persepolis needed to be looted and destroyed. -- A.Cython (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Double References

I am not very familiar with the rules of wikipedia about citation, but I noticed that references 31 and 37 are the same i.e. "Top Ten- Lives of the Greatest Monarchs of History" by Mohsin Ashraf

Is possible someone with the appropriate privileges merge these two references? -- A.Cython (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if refs 31 and 37 are citing the same page, then yes they can be joined, but if they are citing two different pages, then it's better to leave them as is. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok... I assume we do not change anything even in the case that one of the references refers to a page and the other does not, right? Anyway thanks for the clarification! A.Cython (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection status

What is the current reason for Alexander the Great's protected status? 68.229.184.37 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not fully protected, it is semi-protected and I think the General considerations apply.--Avg (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Before Christ and Anno Domini is ignorant to other religions

In several articles about ancient rulers I have seen B.C. and A.D. instead of B.C.E. and C.E. Not everyone is a Christian so I think we should stop using B.C. and A.D. in this article and all articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.95.236 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Using CE and BCE don't seem to change anything in terms of date. Also, BCE and CE are often set to mean "Before (the) Christian Era" and "Christian Era," it seems superfluous to change it. AD and BC seems the way to go.69.245.80.218 (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

About his death

I have read that he could have also died of syphilis. Does anyone have any references around? 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee?

This article is in [[Category:Adoptees]], but the section on Early Life sure doesn't make him sound like an adoptee... unless you are saying Phillip adopted him from Zeus?!? What am I missing? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That it has nothing to do with his early life. He was adopted by Ada of Caria c. 334 BC in order to become her heir. Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert war

I hope we can soon put that revert-war initiated by User:Karabinier to rest. Karabinier seems to have acted on a mistaken assumption that the view that sees Alexander primarily as a (non-Greek) Ancient Macedonian and the view that claims him for the Macedonians (ethnic group) are somehow equivalent, which they certainly are not. While the former is a serious position, the latter is clearly an unscholarly fringe view and subject to WP:UNDUE. Describing him as a Macedonian in the first sentence (linking to the dab page!) is hardly a good solution.

However, I'll register my own opinion at this point that having him described unambiguously as "a Greek king" is hardly NPOV either. As long as Borza and Badian are the state of the art in the field, that statement is very much a problematic one and doesn't really belong in the lead. I'd personaly much prefer simply "a king of ancient Macedon" and leave the question of the ethnic identification where it belongs: elsewhere, far far away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The response given here covers me. In any case, if anyone feels that it's too POV, we might as well go with the solution offered above and finally put this matter to its well-earned rest. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as Alexander the Fabulous is not linked to the Macedonian ethnic group or the RoM I won't really bother anymore with this. I will however point out that according to Britannica his language was most likely Greek.

Britannica, ancient Greek civilization, The rise of Macedon, 2008, O.Ed.

In 1983 investigators discovered, again at Verghina, an inscription in extremely beautiful Greek lettering recording a dedication by Philip's mother,“Eurydice daughter of Sirras,” which is further proof of the Hellenism of Macedon in this period.

Modern belief in the Greekness of the Macedonian language was strengthened by the publication in 1994 of an important curse tablet from Pella which appears provisionally to indicate that the Macedonian language was a form of northwest Greek. Macedonian religion looks Greek; there are local variations, but that is equally true of incontestably Greek places in, for instance, the Peloponnese. Many Macedonian personal names resemble Greek ones, and it has recently been suggested that such onomastic evidence indicates that the Macedonian settlers originally migrated from northern Thessalian Perrhaibia and the region around Mt. Olympus—as already suggested by a poem ascribed to the Archaic poet Hesiod.

Cultural Hellenization, however, was compatible with a social and military structure that was alien to Greek tradition, resembling instead the feudalism of later societies.

Xenovatis (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in Alexander the Greats time been greek didn't mean you were a Greek National, it meant you lived the Culture of Greeks and did thinks how Greeks did stuff and behaved like Grreks. There were many Greeks back then who were born it Egypt not Greece, but were still classed as "Greeks", hence the city of "Alexandria" in northern Egypt. But not national. Alexander the Great was born in the area which is now the Republic of Macedonia. Also one more thing "Britannica" is not reliable, valid or useful for references according to Wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor correction: Alexander was born in Pella, which is very much in the territory of Greek Macedonia. In any case, Future's point wasn't that of 'nationality' (which would be an anachronism anyway, no?). 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your point. Where did I say that being a Greek national and being a Greek are the same thing? English does not have a word for it but in Greek there is a distinction between Hellenes (Greeks) and Helladites (citizens of Greece). You are bringing owls to Athens.Xenovatis (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said or suggested that being a Greek national and being a Greek are the same thing. I was just giving my opinion on the recent revert war. Sorry if i confused you. Alexander was Macedon national. not Greek or Macedonian. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he was a Macedon national, whatever concept of nationality applied in those times as per 3dAlcove's caveat. There was not a greek nation state for him to be a national of in any case so his hellenism would have a different significance to him than it does to Greeks today as it would be a cultural identity, like say Westerner or European, which for most people of the time would more likely be subordinate to national identity, like say British or German. BTW if it is not too much trouble I do remember reading some guideline about using other encyclopedias as sources which pretty much said what you remarked above but can't seem to find now, would you happen to have a link handy? Thakns.Xenovatis (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian meant Ancient Greek.Anyways consensus exists and the revert war was due to an editor's unorthodox views on mixing political issues and historical issues. Megistias (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander was a member of the Argead dynasty. And the Argeads did make it very clear that they were Greeks. It is quite logical to see in this article that he was an ancient Greek. I don’t know if Badian has ever suggested that Alexander was not Greek. But for Borza we are certain that his views are different now. It is true that he was skeptic at his first books (he was very careful and he had never excluded the Greek origin of ancient Macedonians) but his views have changed.

The following quote is really important to understand what he thinks exactly about the origin of the ancient Macedonians.

Eugene N. Borza, ‘Makedonika’ Regina Books, Claremont CA

"Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "HIGHLANDERS" or "MAKEDONES" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia ARE DERIVED FROM NORTHWEST GREEK STOCK; THEY WERE AKIN BOTH TO THOSE WHO AT AN EARLIER TIME MAY HAVE MIGRATED SOUTH TO BECOME THE HISTORICAL "DORIANS", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that NORTHWEST GREECE PROVIDED A POOL OF INDO-EUROPEAN SPEAKERS OF PROTO-GREEK from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country."

And an other quote which is also very important because here Borza agrees with Nicholas Hammond.

"First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion (though not the details of his arguments)that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age, is acceptable."

So in fact the only historians who actually seem to be skeptic about the Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians were only the ones who haven’t seen the post 70’s archaeological discoveries and the politically motivated extreme Slav-Macedonian historiography.

Seleukosa (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Further more since BBC was used as a link suggesting that Alexander was not Greek I believe that BBC is very clear: BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/alexander_the_great.shtml

“Alexander was born in the northern Greek kingdom of Macedonia in July 356 BC.”

Seleukosa (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop spamming? We're aware of all that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

perhaps remove this revert talk this has been repeated many times. Megistias (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not understand what you consider spaming?? The BBC article or Borza views? Seleukosa (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seleukosa, you are misreading Borza. There is nothing in your quote from Makedonika that indicates Borza changed his mind. What he says in his first (Shadow of Olympus) book is entirely consistent with that other quote: He accepts that Macedonians were probably descended from what he calls "a common pool" of "Proto-Greeks", hence spoke a language closely related to Greek proper – but his point has been and apparently still is, together with Badian, that at the time of classical antiquity Macedonians were culturally and in terms of their own self-perception very much not Greeks. As for the Argead descent story, all the reliable historians I've seen take it for what it very obviously was: an entirely politically motivated story invented by Alexander I. I mean, come on, every child can see that. And the BBC link is irrelevant; in a scholarly debate like this only the leading authors who participate in the debate at the same level of explicitness count. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Although somewhat late, this is too good to miss. Fut. Perf. in his usual patronizing style says: "As for the Argead descent story, all the reliable historians I've seen take it for what it very obviously was: an entirely politically motivated story invented by Alexander I." Now why don't we all change "Argead descent" with "Macedonian descent" and "Alexander I" with "Tito". I mean, come on, every child can see that.-- Avg 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing? Stop the coal! NO MORE COAL!! Xenovatis (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That was funny.Megistias (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(LOL thank you xenovatis for that but I have to reply!)

On the contrary! Borza's views are very clear. The quote is also very clear and I am surprised you consider it as "misread".

Borza clearly speaks about a population that “derived from northwest Greek stock”

And further more “akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical ‘Dorians”.

Either way Borza can not be used as an historian that argues against the Greek origin of the Macedonians.

And since you mention about “On the Shadows of Olympus” there is a very interesting quote about the Argead Dynasty.

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) page 80

Quote:

“There is NO reason to deny the Macedonians’ own tradition about their early kings and the migrations of the Makedones.”

And

(E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) Page 84)

quote

“The basic story as provided by Herodotus and Thucydides minus the interpolation of the Temenid connection, UNDOUBTEDLY reflects the Macedonians’ own traditions about their early history “

I mean, come on, even a child can see that (politically motivated or not) the Argeads consider their tradition very much real!

And please give me some time to find a quote from Andronikos about some archaeological discoveries that support the same think.

As for the BBC link of course it is irelevant!I used it only to condratict a similar link! Not as a proof(!)(give me some credit! I am not that stupid!)

Seleukosa (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just found it. From the book of Manolis Andronikos “Vergina, the royal Tombs” Ekdotiki Athinon. The palace of Agai page 38. Inscreption found in the Tholo of the palace .

“ Η επιγραφή αυτή είναι : «ΗΡΑΚΛΗΙ ΠΑΤΡΩΙΩΙ», που σημαίνει στον «Πατρώο Ηρακλή», στον Ηρακλή δηλαδή που ήταν γενάρχης της βασιλικής οικογένειας των Μακεδόνων.” {“ the inscription is “ΗΡΑΚΛΗΙ ΠΑΤΡΩΙΩΙ” which means “ father (more properly ancestor) Hercules” dedicated to Hercules who was the ancestor of the Royal family of the Macedonians”}.

Mythology? Ofcourse. Politicaly motivated? Probably. Never the less a strong tradition so deeply rooted in the Argead dynasty that the dedicate an inscription in the palace for their ancestor! Seleukosa (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are turning Borza upside down. I have his book here in front of me, and haven't got the time to write out all the quotes that show you fail to understand him. I maintain my position, you are totally, utterly, completely, willfully misreading him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments about Andronikos? It took me some time to find this quote!

(of course I disagree with your view about Borza. The least we can say is that he was skeptic but he is moving closer to the Greek origin)

Seleukosa (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, from what I've read so far there is absolutely no sign that Borza has shifted position. If people are too stupid to understand the complexity of his position, there's not much we can do about that, can we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Eugene N. Borza wanna take it here or contribute to this article?Megistias (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you future for your nice comment. Bravo.

Seleukosa (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just explain your position FuturePerfect, saying "If people are too stupid to" is not much of one.Borza says they were Greeks the quotes say that and he may retain something for more verification.Megistias (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we move this to Borza and put something in his article on his views too.Megistias (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sory Megistias but Future ment it to insult me. I can hardly beleive what he said.

At list lets use Andronikos quote in the Argead Dynasty article.

Seleukosa (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between reading for understanding, and reading for quote-mining. I will have to watch very carefully if you guys sprinkle such quotes all over the place into yet more articles. I've caught people misquoting authors too often recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your opinion. hardly the truth.

As for my self I probably can not understand what I'm reading

Seleukosa (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The key concept is self-identification, which is indisputably Greek for many generations before Alexander (regardless of any later hypotheses about the reasons behind this). Another reason was the abundance of third-party secondary sources that call him "Greek" (starting from as early as Strabo and until today) vs only one or two recent ones that cast a little doubt (as a hypothesis). A third reason is his religion. A fourth reason is his participation in the Olympics. A fifth reason is his famous tutor, the Athenian philosopher Aristotle. A sixth reason is that he spread Hellenism to Asia. A seventh reason is that also his successors were all Greek, hence we speak about the Hellenistic civilization. An eighth reason is that all Ancient Macedonians, along with their language/dialect, had been assimilated by the (rest of the) Greeks by the 3d century AD, which wouldn't have happened if they were of different stock (hell, it hardly happened among other Greeks before him). A ninth reason, at a lesser extent of course, is all the primary sources we have. A tenth reason, is the equation "Macedonians≠Macedonians" (mouse over), which seems like a logical mistake (but isn't -FP pointed this out in his introductory comment too). Niko Silver 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle was a proud Stagirite; you Athenians claim everyone as one of your own, sooo what if he spend some time over there! Some of your arguments are good but others are a bit iffy ("which wouldn't have happened if they were of different stock" etc.). I actually support future's wording (simply "king of Macedon") if it's going to stop the (N+1)th (ie the next) thread on this subject. No one will have room to complain then. ;)3rdAlcove (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Try the non-iffy ones. Niko Silver 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The (n+1)th threads on this subject appear only from people who confuse ancient Macedonians with modern (Slav)Macedonians.

Seleukosa (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing the nationality of ancient people, which will make it confusing for the reader to understand what someone was apart from his/her status seems logical? Removing info to reduce the number of reverting wars is what wikipedia should be? Removing cited info to avoid nationalistic edits is now called neutrality? I don't think so. Since the terms Macedonian and Macedonia have a different meaning now worldwide, is it really neutral and sufficient to put "Alexander was a Macedonian" or "king of Macedonia"? - Sthenel (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is actually an issue? The Macedonians (ethnic group) page should in no way be mentioned in this article. Chaldean (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern day Macedonians are a slavic group. The Slavs did not invade this region until the 6th century AD - 1000 Years after Alexander the Great. Therefore Alexander the Great was not a Macedonian in the modern day-slavic sense. Case closed, or is simple logic too complex?Tourskin (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously mean "Modern day ethnic Macedonians are a slavic group"... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death and undeath.The archives are there for a reason.He was Greek and they were Greek.The (rom) people and land is unrelated and modern politics are unrelated as well.Megistias (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

obviously. Tourskin (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pure Athenian propaganda. User:Karabinier comes on here and makes a constructive edit and all out hell breaks loose. There are many sources that show that Macedonians were distinct from Greeks!!! Realtycoon (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All this stuff about ethnicity is irrelevant. Ethnicity is a modern concept. Alexander was certainly "Greek" in the cultural sense, which is the only sense that matters. That is what is meant in the intro by an "ancient Greek king of Macedon". It's that simple, really. Nothing controversial, and no nonsense about "ethnicity" "nationality" and "descent". The same is also done for many individuals from antiquity of disputed/unknown ancestry but of Greek culture. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources say ancient Greek ,the consensus was Ancient Greek and that is what is what is going in.A year and more of talk is not gonna get blown away by some fellow and his political views.Megistias (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good... after all this discussion somehow at this moment in the text it says "was an ancient king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC)" can we change it to the original i.e. "was an Ancient Greek king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC)" but with the references? Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he didn't invade India, why say that he invaded India?

People seem to have an obsession with using the term "India". Despite there being a map this time, why even use the term? To keep it simple, use the Ancient name of the region or the Modern name of the region.
i.e Either Alexander invaded Ghandara and Sindh, or he invaded Pakistan. He just didnt get anyway near India.
Just my 2 cents. --Xinjao (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there two reasons i guess:

There was no Pakistan at that time
If you look carefully at the map ancient here and here, you will see that Alexander traveled along the Indus river which is mainly in Pakistan but also in modern India. A.Cython (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case is used as a shorthand for the geographic term "Indian Subcontinent" as opposed to the modern state of India. Similarly Alexander is said to have unified Greece or invaded Persia wheh in fact neither of these states (Greece or Persia/Iran) existed as such at the time. In that case as well it is understood to refer to the geographic regions by the same name as opposed to the later states. Hope that helps.Xenovatis (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The heading 2.2 Invasion of India should be 'Invasion of modern day Pakistan'

Alexander the Great did not advance beyond modern day Pakistan and most people think that his invasion of 'India' means that he conquered all of India. This is obviously not true. Only the north-western part of India was invaded. Hence, modern-day Pakistan.

Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)noorkhanuk85Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true, it is believed that he not only reached the territory of modern-day India, but he also allied himself with Indian kings. Rsazevedo ^msg 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

India, like China, Persia etc are internationally accepted shorthands for the historic areas influenced by the corresponding cultures. Use of the terms in this context is widespread and hence acceptable by WP.Xenovatis (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander didnt invade modern day India. If you want to be politically correct you can say he invaded the Indus Valley. i.e modern Pakistan. Xinjao (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The ancient term is Indica (Arrian) when describing the region.So in antiquity he invaded the region the ancients regarded as the indian peninsula or region in general.The ancient term could be clarified to avoid confusion.Indus River,Megistias (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And the WP guideline which stipulates "You must be politically correct" with a clause adding "according to Xinjao" is where exactly?Xenovatis (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The maps provided by Cython should be enough to settle this ludicrous debate. Rsazevedo ^msg 03:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article subject seems to attract this sort of discussions like a magnet at a Hell's Angels face stud convention. Next I propose we discuss if LGBT should be included in the lead and how prominently: e.g. Alexander the Great was a gay and/or bisexual king of ancient Macedon. In that case should the article's title be changed to "Alexander the Fabulous" or should we just use a redirect? Please discuss.Xenovatis (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On my opinion this goes too far. With the same logic do we know precisely know where Alexander set foot, I mean literally set foot so that we can use a GPS and claim with confidence where he went? We know he reached India; and yes, he did not made a walk in the whole area but still at some small parts at the North West region. I do not thing that this need to changed, since from the maps (see above) you can see that Alexander reached Modern India. A.Cython (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be annoyed about this. If you dont like this debate, dont respond. And you simply failed to give any valid reason for why you are not using the Ancient names of the Region. They were called Ghandara and Sindh Baluchistan was part of the Persian empire, just according to the maps posted. India as you are pointing it out didnt exist as one state until the arrival of the British. You cant use it in this context. I know a single name looks good on paper, but you are adding a modern political POV to an ancient place. Pakistan did not exist, but the region did, and it had a name too.
As Cython lamely points out that we dont have GPS readings for his route, but it sure doesnt mean we simply give a whole subcontinent when we in fact know Alexander never went past the Chenab river, which is in Pakistan. You are deriving "India" from the Indus river. Dont assume this, simply call it the Indus Valley, Punjab, or Pakistan. There is no India involved. Xinjao (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think anyone is annoyed, I just do not see why you are annoyed about this technical detail. So... since my english are so bad I will re-write my points to make them clear.

If we use modern terms to describe the areas he conquered i.e. Pakistan, then it fails because there was no Pakistan at that time, and confuses the readers
If we you ancient terms in more detail i.e. "Ghandara and Sindh" we will leave the readers scratching their heads as to what these things are. Maybe worth mentioning later in with other details.
The above regions (Ghandara and Sindh) you mentioned are subregions of a greater area called India, please have a look here and here for definitions (i.e. greater India includes Pakistan)
About the GPS, I said reached India not conquered the whole India.
The river there was not named Indus (Greek: Ινδός) just for fun you know but rather it was a great river where indians (Greek: Ινδοί) lived i.e. people of India (Greek: Ινδία). In other words India is the region beyond the Indus river! see here for more details
As you can see India is deeply involved! A.Cython (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great, an ancient greek king of macedon?

Are we sure we want to put as a sure fact that alexander was an "ancient Greek king of Macedon"?

I searched in other encyclopedies to find any similarities, but no-where i read he was an ancient greek king of macedon, here i post some links how other big encyclopedies presents him, and everywhere i read only he was introduced as "king of macedonia"

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564408/Alexander_the_Great.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106078/Alexander-the-Great

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354954

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/alexander/p/alexanderthegre.htm

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html

He had to conquer greece several times before the greeks accepted him as their own, this don't mean he can be called greek.

just 2 links i had here at the moment.

"If the Molossi and other Epirotic groups were not really of Greek ethnicity, then Alexander's mother, a Molossian, was probably not greek ancestry. Thus, neither Alexander's mother nor his father was greek."

"Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation" page 53 By John Shea Published 1997 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786402288

"These reactionary die-hards. were prepared to appeal to popular prejudice against alexander's acceptance of the new foreign ideas, his Graecized mode of life...." "Alexander the Great" page 85 By Lewis Vance Cummings Published 2004 ISBN 0802141498

Alexander the great, technically, to the dead of the father Filippo II became king of Macedonia, because Greece had been yes conquered but a reign did not exist in Greece but much Poleis. However Alexander passed to the history like Alexander the great the macedonian. At the end of its life he was then practically at the head of an empire that we could call hellenistic. From therefore this point it can be derived the accidental confusion between Macedonia and Greece.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the archives, the specific points you raised have been answered and a consensus has been reached. And to answer to your next point no, his name does not come from the Albanian folk etymology "born like a dream" either. Please see the archives. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry but you're changing subject, who is talking about albania? can i have an answer or the standard-answer when someone wants to rebound the argument "read the subjects above"? PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is Filippo?Xenovatis (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Look we all know where this is going so let's get right to it shall we?

Famous Albanians

Initially there is the question of where and to what people Alexander belonged to. It is known that Alexander the Great, was really Alexander of Macedon, and the current flag of Macedonia is the ancient sun flag of Alexander's army. This seems reasonable, but what really were the "Macedon" people. As stated in the Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, "the Slavs, occupied much of the area [Balkans] by the 6th century AD", so it cannot be possible for the now largely Slavic Macedonia to be a descendant from Alexander the Great. Slavic tribes did not come into the region of Northern Greece until well after Alexander's death, which leaves only two people left, the Albanians and the Greeks. It is important tot note that the history books have not labeled Alexander Greek, and therefore he can only be Albanian. Albanian tribes are the earliest known to occupy northern Greece, and that allows Alexander only one nationality. Alexander did not have Albanian blood, he was an Albanian. To Albanians this fact seems very clear, for we have named our currency lek, after Leka I Madh.

Please read the whole thing people. It's priceless.Xenovatis (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis this is the 2nd time i am sayng to you, nobody is talking here about what you said, i'm waiting the answer of Fut.Perf, i am curios to know what he have to say. My post is very clear, should we really introduce alexander as an "ancient greek king of macedon"? Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Old discussions from the archives

see here

and see here A.Cython (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can we use the (more NPOV) "(simply) king of Macedon" solution? While it's not wrong as it stands now, it might be, rightly, considered POV by some users (and we'll also keep getting users like PelasgicMoon with an axe to grind). Changing it to the aforementioned solution will enable us to avoid all concerns, even serious ones. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

why this is more NPOV "(simply) king of Macedon", for me it is very POV? On the contrary, i think "Ancient Greek king of Macedon" (please note ancient not modern Greek) is NPOV and very accurate. A.Cython (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it "very POV" since it mentions an indisputable fact without delving into specifics? 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you haven't reading the news about constant disputes between FYROM and Greece over the issue! The nationalists from either side want Alexander as hero of their culture. Specifically, people from FYROM they drop "Greek" so it is plain Macedonian while the Greeks constantly place "Greek" back. So at the end dropping Greek you have POV from one side, keep Greek you have POV from the other side. Nobody cares about the facts, which show ancient Macedonians were "ancient greeks" (please note: not modern Greeks but ancient, finally please read the archives, for the sources)! A.Cython (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is a misleading ambiguity considering the name of modern Macedonians, I will object to the removal of the factual information that he was Greek. My reasons are stated above, and I will help fight whichever other nationalist troll pays us a visit. "Avoiding all concerns" is not my concern. Niko Silver 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just found another Famous Albanian. Columbia doesn't explicitly mention that Pericles was Greek. It is important tot note that the history books have not labeled Pericles Greek, and therefore he can only be Albanian.. QED.Xenovatis (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one. Leonidas too it seems was Albanian. Must be, Columbia doesn't say he was Greek ergo he was AlbanianXenovatis (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This reply was intended to A.Cython but I was too slow (twice, even!). It covers it all, in any case, I believe:

"There we go again. Yes, I know about the "news" since I'm a Greek living in Greece but current political matters don't concern us here. Certainly there will be POV-pushing from both sides (even from others, see PelasgicMoon representing the nationalist (fringy) Albanian "Alexander was Albanian" opinion). Scholarship is divided on the question (or rather takes a more subtle approach than the binary "Greek" "Non-Greek", self-identification, ethnicity etc. are more complex; btw no, no one believes that they were Slavic, forget about modern political matters again) so no side should be represented unequivocally, though there are good arguments regarding the royal house's -Alexander III's here- "Greekness" that wouldn't apply to the other Macedonians." 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the doubts of (Ancient)-Greekness of the royal family, because to my best of my knowledge this has been established as ancient greek. There are doubts about the people living in Macedonia i.e. were they part of the same family of tribes that occupied Greece, but so far (and again to my best of my knowledge) the position is that were ancient greeks, please look at the works of E.N. Borza A.Cython (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So if I get it right, we reduce the facts in the encyclopedia to the absolute minimum so as not to cause any distress to POV pushers. But the truth is, some facts are going to annoy people who have their agendas. However if they are facts, this meaning that they can be 100% verified, they should be included no matter who objects to them. -- Avg 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This guideline is relevant to the issue. The rationale that stating Alex was Greeks will offend some people hence it should not be state is flawed and contrary to NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Things_to_avoid

Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself.

Xenovatis (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

that's a good point Xenovatis, but as I mentioned earlier either way (keep Greek or delete Greek) you will offend someone, no escape. So the only solution is what Avg, NikoSilver said: stick to the facts in order to avoid ambiguities! A.Cython (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, like I said above, my (main) concern isn't what POV-pushers think. Read the latter part of the paragraph. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But if, as you say, "there are good arguments regarding the royal house's -Alexander III's here- "Greekness" that wouldn't apply to the other Macedonians", why not include it? I don't understand your reasons for wanting to omit it, save to not offend some nationalists from neighboring countries. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I've reverted for the last time and I won't push it if you go back to the previous version. My intention was just not to take a heavy-handed approach. Obviously, I'm not trying "not to offend" people like PelasgicMoon. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "heavy-handed". That seems like a matter of opinion to me. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There will always be someone who will bring this issue back again and again but we should not stick on it. Hiding info which offend people because of their personal, POV and nationalistic knowledge on the topic is not a solution and the majority of historical sources agree on the ethnic origin of Alexander and his ancestors. 3rdAlcove maybe it's very easy for you to pretend the fair-minded (maybe you are) but it is advisable not to work to protect any single POV-pusher in such a sensitive issue. - Sthenel (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

someone is continly deleting my text:

Guys, please, read before speaking. i have been accused here to "(even from others, see PelasgicMoon representing the nationalist (fringy) Albanian "Alexander was Albanian" opinion)" support theoryes never said by me, why do you put in my mouth words i never said? read again my post, i was clear, i said it will be wrong for my opinion to introduce alexander as a greek king, and i brought my material, never said alexander was albanian. I just said he should be simply considered as king of macedon (like the all famous encyclopedies, this one is the exception)

still nobody had discussed my argument here. PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

for my opinion this is extreme-POV pushing, why when in all the encyclopedie of the world (with all i mean all) alexander is introduced as king of macedon , and here in the free wikipedia i read he was a greek king? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References say Greek and MAcedonians were Greek as well.Thats it.Megistias (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the Columbia Encyclopedia article on Pericles and Leonidas. They are not labelled as Greek either. Please consider notifyint the good people at AlbanianAntiquity.com that there are more candidates for the Famous Albanians list. You should also consider bringing this up in the WP articles on Pericles and Leonidas. They need to be NPOV-ed as well.Xenovatis (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

that's interesting, i never spoken about albania, and editors like Xenovatis still continue theyr own discussions about points i never said.

Just a short search, let's take a short look at the talk page of all editors discussing here:

Sthenel: greek

Tsourkpk: greek

A.Cython: greek

Avg : greek

Xenovatis: greek

Megistias: greek

3rdAlcove: greek

NikoSilver: greek

Alexander the Great: Greek, See no coincidence at all.Xenovatis (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Epsilon Team strikes again! --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

doesn't matter, it's a coincidence...

ehm.... someone accused me to POV pushing?

maybe it should not be considered where editor comes from, so, please don't accuse me to Pov-pushing or avoiding... ;)

I don't agree in points presented as answer, so i feel necessary to begin the steps for a dispute resolution. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus of over a year and references say Greek that is Macedonian.You followed the same tactic on other articles to no effect.Megistias (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a comment here: It is true that I am Greek, but I think I am not nationalist or having a hidden agenda. In fact from my surname I have probably german roots, so why do I have the opinions stated above you may ask? Because I like/love history and I do not want to see it being used in the wrong way. If the evidence and facts support that Alexander the Great was Ancient Greek then so be it, if not then he is not. History is not poetry but facts and evidence. A.Cython (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgicmoon had suggested in another article a writer that claimed ..."Giuseppe catapano "Thot parlava albanese".He wrote that Thot the Egyptian spoke Albanian",iilire.Right here and with even more weird claims and authors.a talk....Megistias (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

megistias, sorry, but you're changing subject. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He was Greek thats what the consensus and the FActs say.