Talk:Alexander the Great

Template:FAOL Template:WP1.0

Comment

• Right well IMO "King of Macedon" is a more accurate description. He was the King of Macedon, not Greece. --Phoenix-wiki 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He was Greek thats what the consensus and the FActs say.Megistias (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus cannot really deside facts...but the facts say he was Macedonian. Macedonians and Greeks at the time were really all of one race, but they were still divided geographically, and you can't argue that he was king of Greece since Greece had no king.--Phoenix-wiki 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources decide facts and they say Greek and thats what the article was for a year.There is no issue here..Megistias (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue here if 2 editors disagree with the statement that he was the "ancient greek" king. Anyway, as they were practically one race, there is really no point in emphasising he was Greek.--Phoenix-wiki 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no issue if there are two really reliable sources saying so, and if there's no source to the contrary. NikoSilver 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I agree with you. It is a pleonasm. Exactly as you don't need to emphasize that Pericles was Greek. However you will be surprised what some other editors say and what forced the inclusion of Alexander's ancestry in the article.--   Avg    21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't had the good fortune to read aboutFamous Albanians yetXenovatis (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's...ridiculous...I suppose it would be worth mentioning he was Greek right away just to counter things like that...but he Greek in the same way a person of Irish ancestory in England is Irish...he's not of Greek nationality really...--Phoenix-wiki 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed but that is implied in the use of the term "Greek" to refer to anybody prior to 1832 when the first Greek state was created. Previously the term was a cultural, linguistic or ethnic identifier but, by definition, never national.Xenovatis (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is excellent. Aside from the fact that no-one suggested that he was king of Greece and that everyone allready agrees he was king of Macedon the rest was really insightfull. It was also really usefull of you pointing out that "Greece" was divided into city-states at the time and that it had no king.Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He was Ancient Greek.Consensus,1 year stable and sources to that effect.Not an issue here as an editor had started changing it with irrelevant political criteria and mixing slavs into it..Not an issue and beware all as when someone edits like that and he gets his way it gives a bad message to all.07:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is a problem referring to Alexander the Great as "Greek" these nation states did not consider themselves "Greek" or even part of any loose confederation that called themselves "Greek". Spartans were Spartans and Athenians were Athenians, calling them Greeks before there was a Greece would be akin to calling Emperor Caligula an Ancient Italian. I mean we don't call Illyrians ancient Albanians or the Plymouth Pilgrims as ancient United States citizens. As there actually is a Macedonian country working today it would seem odd to refer to their people as Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.158.69 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They considered themselves Greeks and thats what they were as the abundance of sources say.Read related material on the issue like the archives.Megistias (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That was the most purile and uninformed opinion anyone could possibly contribute. Well done anonymous, now this discussion can only improve. What does this meand btw: ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΠΡΟΜΑΧΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΟΙ ΜΑΡΑΘΩΝΙ ΧΡΥΣΟΦΟΡΩΝ ΜΗΔΩΝ ΕΣΤΟΡΕΣΑΝ ΔΥΝΑΜH Don't tell me you don't know. I will be so surprised.Xenovatis (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Iskander was not a Greek king even though he was homosexual because Iskander is an Arabic name and there are many Muslim cities bearing his name, Iskenderyia, Iskederetta and others. Since at the time in Balkanie there was no al-Slavinie then he is can only be either Al' Baniq or Arabic. Since Iskander is not Al'Banian tribe name then the only choice is, by process of elimination, Arabik. So Iskander was ancient Arabik king, either from the tribe of Arapidaioi that mentions Herodot or, like Encarta say from Al'Exandar tribe which also make explain his name and of father Filippo (from Allepo-Allipo). I agree with the primary poster and deliniate to discussing this more further. Respectfully, Peace be Upon You Ibn Waraq (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ale Xan Daar he was of Chinese ancestralty because in China is Province Yunan which is same the word as in Greek. This mean that Greek is Chinese and cum at the starting from teh China. Original Shila it come from the China and conquered teh India and THEN conquered the Greek. NOT other way round like corrupt imperialist westernererns they say. Of course Greek but Greek mean Yunan so Chineses he was. Also Filippo, father Ale Xan Daar was from Island of Filipino close to China and become Chinese FIRST. So agree with the Greek but must make clear Greek is Chinese. SO saying "Ale Xinhua Daar, ancient Greek (i.e. Chinese) king of Macedonis" for examples. But I will watch yto making sure there no violation of NUTRAL PROTOCOL and no western imparialistis violat Chineses.Xinhua Li (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with our excellent scholars (a scholar of Arabic and a sinologist!). Alexander's name is clearly Greek and comes from the words aletho (αληθω; a later form of αλεω 'to grind') and anteron (αντερον; the local Ancient Macedonian form of εντερον 'intestine'). αληθω later, in Medieval times I believe, became αλεθω (if we follow Fomenko's New Chronology, we understand that classical antiquity didn't exist and that Alexander was a medieval Byzantine emperor so it all makes sense), so we have a clear etymology if we consider the Albanian derivation of Ale(-)si-ander: αλεσει (third person, future tense) + αντερ(ον), "he who will grind intestines". So, Alexander just liked his kokoretsi a lot, thus proving that he was definitely a Greek, since they still like to eat it on Easter. I believe this should put the matter to rest.

On a more serious note, can we get the, admittedly funny, comments (some intentionally like the previous two, some not) and various convos that have taken place again and again about the same, meaningless, subject archived (and maybe settle for something, perhaps completely NPOV *hint hint* that will -never- be changed again)? It's getting a bit ridiculous. :) 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only getting ridiculous because Pelasgic Moon just won't take no for an answer, like someone else I know. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Alex Anders was indeed, and never could have been, Greek. As we know from the texts of Herodotus and Plutarch, but also from St. Paul the Apostle's letter to the Galatians the area of the Balkans and Asia Minor was the home of many Celtic tribes. This is further attested when in later years a famous Gael, O'Sman Lee led his warlike people, the O'Thomans, from their hearths to the conquest of the whole Asia Minor and Balkans. In honour of the Gaelic roots they named themselves and their religions Isla-Mic. So if we could please dispense with the silliness and declare Alex Anders the proud Celt he was. Respectfully.Michael O'Rourke (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL. Like you're Irish, mate. But a very funny parody. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Many more versions here:
      • Talk:Macedonia (region)#About the recent reverts and
      • Talk:Macedonia (region)#Real meaning of the word MACEDONIA. NikoSilver 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Portnoy's Complaint

my post was deleted and not possible now to continue my discussion in my post, why prefer the censorship? it's not a good way for wikipedia the censorship also for discussions.

guys, i was tryig to comunicate, and all i received was accusations and without discuting about the real problem i introduced. and please, stop speaking greek language here, not 100% of editors are greek here. PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing was deleted. You will withdraw your accusation immediately and apologize. The page was too long and was archived. If you think there are still discussions open bring them to the main talk page.
• "please, stop speaking greek language here, not 100% of editors are greek here" was in reference to this:ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΠΡΟΜΑΧΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΙ ΜΑΡΑΘΩΝΙ ΧΡΥΣΟΦΟΡΩΝ ΜΗΔΩΝ ΕΣΤΟΡΕΣΑΝ ΔΥΝΑΜΙΝ Priceless. Truly priceless. You are utterly ignorant on this subject and yet you insist on trying to push your POV. Thanks PelasgicMoon, that is just what this article needed. I leave you with this: Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου καί οι Έλληνες πλήν Λακεδαιμονίων από τών βαρβάρων τών τήν Ασίαν κατοικούντων Xenovatis (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't try to push my POV since i am not macedonian, and neither greek (see the argument of my post, nothing related with albanians) So, the only who can be accused to POV pushing are greek editors (...), so thanks you said all yourself, no needed my words.

i will post again the argument of my post. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The references say Greek and the same for the MAcedonians.There is no issue here.Megistias (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, 2 questions for you, and please i prefer if you will not change subject:

1) I found references that says he was a foreigner and had a graecized mode of life, and another that says his family was nothing related with greeks, in my last post that was archivied. If the problem is the number of references, i can find more. What do you think about this 2 referenced&reliable sources?

2) Explain me why in all encyclopedies of the world (britannica, encarta, books, websites) alexander the great is introduced simply as king of macedon, and not "ancient greek king of macedon", maybe because there is not rilevant evidence to write this affermation? wikipedia is the exeption

waiting answer, Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What you write above shows you have not read the archives.There is no such thing as "graecized mode of life".Macedonians were Hellenes and thats what the sources say.Megistias (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked you how do you discuss my 2 sources, did you?

and please answer me why in all encyclopedies alexander is introduced as "king of macedon", and nowhere is introduces as "ancient greek king of macedon"?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"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

PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that they are and that is a book on politics ........Megistias (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Alexander the great" Lewis Vance Cummings is a book on politics? PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The other one is.And Cummings is a cartographer and by no means the expert in Macedon.Whilist."::Quote: "these conclusions to the evidence of archaeology, the following picture emerges. The first Greek-speaking peoples settled in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus after c. 2500, and in these areas they developed different dialects". A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 56,1986Megistias (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)"Megistias (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

- if you want to accuse theese sources to be not reliable prove it.

- why everywhere (britannica encyclopedia online and books editions, encarta, every book, every website) alexander is introduced as king of macedon?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not for general discussions.Take some time to read the archives.Megistias (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

- why everywhere (britannica encyclopedia online and books editions, encarta, every book, every website) alexander is introduced as king of macedon and no-where as "ancient greek king of macedon"?

just this answer, can you answer please? i just need to know the reason, i think i'm not asking too much. PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

brit.Even in Brittanica " from the ancient Greek civilization article" on Macedon.Greeks ok?Megistias (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

here some links could help you as suggestions Megistias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

i can bring here other 100 sources.

find me where is written alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon.

"The rise of Macedon" "from the ancient Greek civilization article" does not mean that automatically alexander was an ancient greek. Else in the encyclopedies of all over the world it was written that alexander wan an ancient greek, but no, nowhere i read that.

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.

PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's enough with this discussion. We are debating this topic for weeks and you, PelasgicMoon, are telling again and again the same things. Ancient Greeks are described as ancient Greeks because that was their ethnicity, we don't talk about an ancient Greek state. Ancient Greece existed through the city-states but in several occasions all these states proclaimed their greekness. As far as the other question you ask is concerned, each encyclopedia is independent. In this encyclopedia and in this article, the fact that Alexander was Greek is cited, so you have nothing else to say about it. Nowadays, the term Macedonian leads the readers to FYROM and its nation, so Alexander (or anyone else) was a Macedonian... results in confusions which cannot exist in a respectable encyclopedia. - Sthenel (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PhoenixWiki, the poster, realizes there is something wrong in this article, and someone else too who agreed with me, the problem exists.

"the fact that Alexander was Greek is cited"

are you sure Sthenel? caution with reinterpretations, check again the sources, this don't mean alexander was greek, i did not read "alexander was ancient greek" (maybe you was meaning ancient greek).

I repeat again, at the end of its life he was then practically at the head of an empire that we could call hellenistic, this don't mean he can be called ancient greek.

"Alexander (or anyone else) was a Macedonian... results in confusions which cannot exist in a respectable encyclopedia"

i think generalizing it's the real confusion...

so, tell me, Sthenel, you mean with this all encyclopedies of the world are confused exept wikipedia? PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since most sources, ancient or modern, agree that Macedonians were Greeks, and the ancestors of Alexander competed in the Olympic Games, yes he was Greek. For your information, the era of what is described as "Ancient Greece" extends to the times that Greece was conquered by the Romans. So, please study history before you take part in such discussions. Cheers! - Sthenel (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

largely unsourced, direct accusations of knowledge.

I maintain the idea of Phoenix-wiki. It's better and more accurate to present him simply as "king of macedon", until when bringed forward rilevant and DIRECT source afferming alexander the great was an "ancient greek king of macedon", without reinterpretations of the editors here. I remember to all that wikipedia is not a research center, so here we don't make researchs, and the world-wide sources presents him as king of macedon, that's it. If you want to avoid the evidence, that's your problem (i am speaking to some greek editors). PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. another source

"his own career hardly allowen him any other process of thinking; the Greeks often denied him the name of "Greek"" ... "yet in the interest of Greek culture he had overtrown the enemies of Greece and won the empire of all the world that mattered."

"The battles that changed history", page 39, By Fletcher Pratt Published 2000, ISBN 048641129X, PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

that's another source more.

Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes." PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right, his mother tongue was not Greek, it was Ancient Macedonian, a language which most scholars believe was closely related to Ancient Greek. Rsazevedo ^msg 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

where did you read that ancient macedonian language is not ancient greek? Are there any evidence? Because I know one or two scholar that formed a theory about it but they do not have any evidence to support it. Theories are nice but without evidence are no different than alien abductions/conspiracy theories. As for PelasgicMoon I have a question: Do you know that in ancient times there was no nationality? Because it seems to me that you deny the Greekness based on nationality. Because it is true that evidence about Macedonians started to come to light only recently but the evidence so far support the Greekness. A.Cython (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is abundance of sources primary and secondary saying they were Greek and that he was Greek.See the archives and stop ignoring other users.Megistias (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tree for Hellenic Hellenic languages and Macedonian Hellenic as well.Megistias (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your link "tree for ellenic" it's largely unrelated, if an english guy go to usa, he become american because they're language is similar?

Megistias, i have sources telling directly that is ridicolus to make him greeek as you saw, and as you see all the non-greek users don't agree in yours points, as you see the behaviour yours and of the other 7 greek users here is ridicolus, all you're trying to do is rebounding arguments, changing topics, accusing me etj etj, i suppose this behaviour is the last resort of some editors who have not nothing more to answer to defend theyr POV pushing.

-I found you 4 sources says it's ridicolus to call him greek and says he was a foreigner (with this there does not exists an argument avoiding this fact).

-Your sources are 0, this was just reinterpreted

-I brought here the letal fact that all encyclopedies of the world don't call him greek, but just some greek (accidentally all greeks) of wikipedia thinks that. For my opinion it's extreme-organized-POV-pushing

now it's just missing alexander in first person to say us something...

PelasgicMoon (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is such a joke. There is no posssible way in which Alexander was not Greek. His Macedonians were a Hellenic people - he spoke Greek, was infused with Greek-superiority ideals by Aristotle, and so on. Sure, the Macedonians were always regarded as rather disreputable Greeks by others, but Greeks all the same. He wasn't Albanian or Chinese or anything else. Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

it's clearly ridiculus to call him greek since he was considered foreigner and several sources inform us he was not greek, he adopted the greek language this don't mean he became greek. that's very simple.

Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes."

more clear than this....

PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i maintain the opinion he sould be introduced as all the rest of encyclopedies, "king of macedon", evidences are infinite.PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

that's another one.

"In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek", page 17, "Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation", By John Shea Published 1997 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786402288 PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

could you please define "ancient Greek", is it Athens or Sparta, because neither liked each other and in the chance they cast doubts about the greekness of other as an insult? in fact Athenians did not recognize almost anyone else as Greeks. If you exclude the Macedonians then you exclude everybody else i.e. noone else left to be greek. Ancient insults are not evidence. A.Cython (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring other users wont work pelasgicmoon.This is a source Tree for Hellenic.And john shea wrote a modern political book that is completely irrelevant as he tries to imagine a assume the modern Slavic nation.Megistias (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

John Shea john shea.

• Research Areas:

Psychological factors that affect health, especially immune functions, allergies and cancer Support groups for cancer patients Personality factors as predictors of hypnotic talent, and the use of hypnosis for bodily change Human sexuality My PhD work at the University of Queensland was in the area of attachment behaviour in children. Following four years as a tutor at the University of Queensland, I went to the University of Papua New Guinea for seven years. Here I studied a variety of issues of concern to such a developing country, in particular questions about cognitive development and the measurement of cognitive skills. I joined the University of Newcastle in 1979 and continued my interests in applied areas of psychology, teaching and researching in the areas of child development, human sexuality, and health. My applied interests were reflected also in my work as a practising psychologist during this period. For more than 25 years now I have worked as a consulting psychologist, and am a fellow and immediate past president of the Australian College of Practising Consulting Psychologists (ACPCP). Ongoing involvement with the practice of psychology includes work with Psychology Private Australia, the peak body of private practising psychologists in Australia.

• Being specialized in 'attachment behaviour in children' makes you a qualified 'historian'? No. Megistias (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You got your arguments from this (rom) propaganda site.rom site.All that you wrote is from Shea the psychologist.Megistias (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, i got my arguments reading books, not searching continuosly in the web....

1) I argumented your 2 sources sayng this was reinterpreted, alexander nowhere is called greek, and remembering wikipedia is not a research center:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) writes:

"you must cite reliable sources that provide information DIRECTLY related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

"direct support", the rules are very clear, so, before sayng what you said i must read alexander was an "ancient greek king of macedon".

2) i found 4-5 sources contraddicting directly many of your affermations. and 1 of these wich go directly contraddicting the affermation of the issue.

i repost-here as i did not read any comment about: Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes."

with this i think it can continued rebounded the argument from greek-stuff, but the rules speaks clearly (and the world-wide evidences too).

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research"

... very clear, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgic Moon is displaying typical POV-pusher behavior. He cherry-picks only those sources that support his POV (which are hacks such as John Shea and Peter Hill taken from fringe-lunatic websites such as this one, ignores all arguments to the contrary, and mindlessly posts and re-posts the same tired old things over and over ad nauseam. I've really had enough of this disruptive editorand this ridiculous argument that seems like it will go on forever because of him. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of he is a psychologist dont you get ?Megistias (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pelasgic Moon is displaying typical POV-pusher behavior" - I'm not greek neither macedonian, and my argument is nothing related with albanians, so the only who can be accused for POV-pushing are greek editors

"ignores all arguments to the contrary" - i discussed the 2 (also not direct) sources.

"taken from fringe-lunatic websites such as this one" -we was not talking about websites here, but about encyclopedies and books.

"I've really had enough of this disruptive editorand this ridiculous argument that seems like it will go on forever because of him." - i am notifying that the first affermation of alexander in wikipedia is not correct, it's a reinterpretation of some editors of wikipedia, it's research, it's ultra-POV-pushing of the greek stuff in wikipedia, not direct source, confused.

i consider your largely unsourced answer as a last resort of someone who don't know how to defend his POV-pushing.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a Psychologist and you took the material from those sites and they took them from his book.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, so encyclopedies also taken material from this website you post here? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

can you do a favour for me? to post me the exact words of the sources sayng alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon? I mean sources supporting directly the affermation as it isPelasgicMoon (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop ignoring us you have been doing it in the whole "discussion".You did not even read the archives nor did you interact with us here on the talk page.Megistias (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's calm a little bit. I think the discussion could continue infinite. I saw the tones became "hot".

I think the best way to solution, is to, open a new post, i argue my points of disappoint, and you argue your points (without beginning long discussions from answer to answer). and then let's call uninvolved editors for judgment, ok? in this way for the ununvolved editors it would be more and more easy to take his own point of view, that is ok for all?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

Seriously just don't. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)