Misplaced Pages

Talk:Philip II of Macedon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:14, 3 November 2008 edit98.243.158.123 (talk) Philip II was MACEDONIAN← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:21, 25 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,434,223 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(228 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{1911 talk}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Philip 02 Of Macedon|living=no|1=

{{WikiProject Greece|importance=High}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=Low}}
{{AncientEgyptBanner|class=B |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Egypt|importance=Low}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|importance=Mid|Classical=yes|Biography=yes
{{WikiProject Military history
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|class=B
|B-Class-1=no
|Classical=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|Biography=yes<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-2=no
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
|B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-5=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes |nested=yes}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B|priority=Mid|listas=Macedon, Philip II of |nested=yes}}
{{WPGR|class=B|importance=High |nested=yes}}
{{Classical greece and rome|class=start|importance=high|nested=yes}}
}} }}
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=y}}
{{FAOL|Finnish|fi:Filippos II|lang2=German|link2=de:Philipp II. (Makedonien)}}
{{WikiProject Olympics|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=High}}

}}
==BC/BCE==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
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. ] ] 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K
== Pederastic relationship with Pelopidas? ==
|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 5
Any citations for this statement? ] 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)
== Skeletal remains ==
|archive = Talk:Philip II of Macedon/Archive %(counter)d
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
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ee}}
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."
{{Expand Finnish|Filippos II|fa=yes}}

]

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

==Audio==
hope i didn't break any rules by entering it.] (]) 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 ], decorated with the ], within his stone sarcophagus."

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


== 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 ] (]) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
by the way: did you know funny jesters such as ] allege phillip to have been a ]? ] 09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


:Misplaced Pages follows sources. We do not take the initiative on naming or otherwise. ] (]) 11:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyone want to add in the military reforms that Philip enacted in Macedonia?


== 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
is anybody talking i got a report to do and its hard can some1 help me out


== Add title = ] under Philip's name and ] kingdom of ] just like in ] article ==
== Numbered user protection ==
::Could the page be protected from numbered users? This is pretty tiresome.] (]) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


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? ] (]) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
==Audio==
hope i didn't break any rules by entering it.] (]) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (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. ]] 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
== I like how that he is Greek has a reference ==
::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 ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ]] 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages 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. ]] 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? ] (]) 17:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::See ]. 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. ]] 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? ] (]) 18:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Every claim in a Misplaced Pages 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. ]] 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The ] is to {{tq| 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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 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/Pella_curse_tablet ] (]) 19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a different article. Discuss that article on its talk page, is the first thing I said. ]] 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? ] (]) 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. ]] 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024 ==
quite humorous. What's next, referencing that USA is American? --] (]) 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Philip II was MACEDONIAN == {{edit semi-protected|Philip II of Macedon|answered=yes}}
The sons of ] were also suspected of taking part in the plot as accomplices of Pausanias. ] and ] would be put to death, while ] received pardon. ] (]) 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 ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


== Bibliography ==
"He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" - Britannica. Misplaced Pages has got to be more neutral on its articles. ] (]) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:Yet, another rant on the matter - you could at least not shout (write in caps) --'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 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 , stating "He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" ] (]) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


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 Misplaced Pages's. ] (]) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (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) 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 ]). 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? ] (]) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


:*Wikipedians. ] (]) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I understand your statements for your examples, but for Philip II Britannica SPECIFICALLY states, 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. ] (]) 01:14, 3 November 2008 (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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:21, 25 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip II of Macedon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGreece High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIran Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Egypt Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:
  • Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

  • Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

  • Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

  • Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Misplaced Pages, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

  • Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Misplaced Pages than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / Classical
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)
WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject iconOlympics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Finnish. Click for important translation instructions.
  • View a machine-translated version of the Finnish article.
  • Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Misplaced Pages.
  • Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
  • You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Finnish Misplaced Pages article at ]; see its history for attribution.
  • You may also add the template {{Translated|fi|Filippos II}} to the talk page.
  • For more guidance, see Misplaced Pages:Translation.

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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/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 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 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Misplaced Pages's. Ictinos4 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: