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">— 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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)