Jump to content

Talk:Ptolemy I Soter

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

Palestine or Coele-Syria

[edit]

This article mentions Palestine. That is inaccurate, as the area known as by that name came into existence by that name only hundreds of years later by the Romans.

There is no perfect term but Coele-Syria is more usual for this period. From the history it seems that Palestine is used only because it was in the 1911 Britanica article so probably now one would object to it being changed.Dejvid 08:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is incorrect regardless of a person objecting. Perhaps [[1]] is correct in calling it Syria Palaestina to relfect what the Greeks called it. Chacham 16:17, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hunh?? Palestine and Syria Palaestina are different spellings of the same word; and of the two, we should use the English form... Septentrionalis 16:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is the case, the "English form" has political connotations whereas the older spelling does not since it uses the form written at the time. Chacham 18:43, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
with all due respect, why is it important to this article if there might be modern political connotations?
Coele-Syria aka Hollow Syria, and Palestine are not interchangeable words. Coele-Syria is generally reckoned to be a bit further north, think Lebanonish, but also way further inland. But the other thing is that this article is written in modern day English. If you're referring to a geographic location, then it's right to refer to the modern english name of the location. I mean we wouldn't say the Visigoths settled in Terraconensis, Cartaginensis, and Baetica, rather we'd say the Visigoths settled primarily in southern, central, and north-eastern Iberia. Because we speak English, not Latin. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Ptolemies!

[edit]

There are a lot of similarities between the Ptolemy in this article and Ptolemy I Soter. Were they related, or did they serve together, or are aspects of Ptolemy I Soter incorrectly transferred to the other article? Evidently both were Generals who were very close to Alexander the Great, both were married while serving with him, both are about the same age, but the other one died in battle. This is not my forte, and there are about 50 Ptolemies on the disambiguation page. Anyone know if both of these are correct and just confusing coincidences, or if one of them is a little off? Kafziel 20:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion undoubtedly arises because of incorrect additions to the article, made by people confusing the two. Ptolemy son of Seleucus was not the same individual as Ptolemy I Soter.Antialcidas 15:09, 30 July 2006 (EST)
There were undoubtedly a lot more Ptolemies than that. It seems to have been quite a common name in Macedonia and Ancient Greece. The disambiguation/name page at Ptolemy (name) (which I did quite a bit of work on) demonstrates how the name has persisted and spread outside of Greece (mainly due to the Hellenisation following Alexander the Great and his conquest of the known world). It only seems notable to English speakers because it is so obviously not an English name. Listing all the famous people named John doesn't have quite the same impact. I'd be interested to find out one day how common the name Ptolemy is in Macedonia, Greece and Egypt, or even the variants like the Italian Tolomeo. Carcharoth 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't that there are so many, but that there seems to be information that has been jumbled together here. I'm not sure what belongs where. Kafziel 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I realise that. Not sure what is correct myself. Verifying stuff about Ptolemy Soter should be easy enough. Checking the other Ptolemy will be a bit harder. I was just making the point that there will be quite a few minor historical Ptolemies at that time, many only being mentioned in passing in the original historical sources. Carcharoth 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According Seibert there were six or seven Ptolemaioi during the war of Alexander. One of them was Ptolemaios Lagu (=I Soter), who got somatophylax, but was not very important for the war at the beginning. One other was the one, who died in Issos. The name itself seems to be a variant of the Greek word polemaîos, the "warfull" and was expecially often in Macedonia.

Age

[edit]

The article mentions that Ptolemy was only slightly older than Alexander - and yet he was 43 at the Susa marraige festival. Obviously there is something wrong here.

There is a little discussion about the age. The ancient sources tell us that he got 84 years, what does mean, [obscenities removed] than Alexander, if he was a "boyhood friend" of Alexander. But I think the first version is more correct (in 2007 there will come a new book about Ptolemaios I (but in German))

Contradiction

[edit]

Someone who knows the correct answer might like to take a look at Arsinoe_of_Macedonia and sort out the contrary accounts of Ptolemy's birth. This article says Phillip II was her lover while the Arsinoe article says she was his concubine. The Arsinoe article also says that Phillip gave her to Lagus while she was pregnant with Ptolemy and that Ptolemy was regarded by the Macedonians as the son of Philip.

Morgan Leigh 07:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The story with Philipp II seems to be Ptolemaic Propaganda of the time of the Wars of the Diadochoi, because then Ptolemy could aim to be a half brother of Alexander the Great and the son of Alexander's precedor and so a legitimate successor of the Argeades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christian-alexander.caroli (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Changed Ptolemaic dynasty to Ptolemaic Kingdom

[edit]

Not that I object to the name, it's just Ptolemaic Kingdom links to a far better article--Ironzealot (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage

[edit]
Effigy of Ptolemy I on one of his gold coins.

Effigy of Ptolemy I on one of his gold coins. Feel free to insert it into the article. PHG (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

It sure would be nice if the map on the article was in English, unlike the one used here. [2] I think the map below would work better in the article as people who speak English can actually read it. Psychotic Spartan 123 09:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Soter I"?

[edit]

This edit from an IP address back in 2009 went seemingly unnoticed and unchallenged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ptolemy_I_Soter&type=revision&diff=284837544&oldid=280920110

Ptolemy's name was changed from "Ptolemy I Soter" to "Ptolemy I Soter I", but the page itself was not renamed accordingly.

Was this edit correct? It seems very suspect to me. If the edit was correct, then surely the page should be moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiraddje (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ptolemy I Soter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 19:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this over the next day or three. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел:

  • It's a very good article. Very little to do for GA.
  • I have done some light copy editing, could you please check.
  • I have added them.
  • At least one ISBN which is available is missing.
  • The last sentence of "Early career" is not referenced.
  • The last part of the first paragraph of "Successor of Alexander" is not referenced.
  • "However, he did send great assistance to Rhodes when it was besieged by Demetrius (305/304). Pausanias reports that the grateful Rhodians bestowed the name Soter ("saviour") upon him as a result of lifting the siege. This account is generally accepted by modern scholars, although the earliest datable mention of it is from coins issued by Ptolemy II in 263 BC. " is not referenced.
  • In "Lost history of Alexander's campaigns" there are bracketed references to Anabasis; could you replace them with references similar to those used elsewhere.
  • A significant issue: the lead. The first paragraph is fine. The second is not a summary of material covered elsewhere in the article. Can I strongly suggest that you move it to become the first paragraph of the article proper and write a new paragraph, or two, for the lead summarising his life. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Векочел. How are you getting on with the points above? Let me know when you have finished them and I'll have another look at the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: For the siege of Rhodes you need Diodorus. A quick Google gives the last two paragraphs of this. Cyrenaica - not the best source in the world, but try half way down this. This may also be of use. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Векочел: Hi. It has been a month since I posted my first comments. It is usual to allow a week for a response. Could you come back in the next few days with some progress please. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have used the citations that you suggested to add some information to the article. Векочел (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: Good. Thank you. Could you respond to each of the points above. If you have dealt with one, then simply inserting "Done" underneath is fine. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: Good work. Thank you. It is not really the assessor's job to flag up each error in the references, but, references 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are missing ISBNs. 22 is missing an OCLC. 7 sources do not have publisher locations. I use WorldCat to find this sort of information. So if you look here you will see that the 2006 edition of Cleopatra: A Sourcebook was published in Norman and that its ISBN (scroll down) is 978-0806137414.

PS An OCLC is not needed for the Encyclopædia Britannica.. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

the treatment of native Egyptians almost completely missing

[edit]

Both the Greeks and the Romans ruthlessly ran Egypt for their own benefit. The Reliable Sources for this are many - I can't do it from my present locale, but this article needs to address Ptolemy as the first in long line of exploiters along these lines ... 104.169.18.0 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 June 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per snowball clause . (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 12:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The naming of the Ptolemaic dynasty is currently internally inconsistent, at variance with WP:SOVEREIGN, as well as WP:NICKNAME/MOS:FOREIGN, in addition to being at variance with common usage in sources. See below for the full explanation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: The current naming convention inconsistently presents female pharaohs of the Ptolemaic line with just their name and ordinal, and males with name, ordinal, nickname. Per WP:NICKNAME, these nicknames should also not be used in the first place, and here the nicknames are yet worse by being Greek, so needless MOS:FOREIGN terminology. Taking "Ptolemy I Soter" as an example, "Soter" is not a name, but simply means "the Saviour", etc. Most also take the page name further away from WP:COMMONNAME. For example, "Ptolemy I Soter" produces 2,880 hits on Google Scholar, "Ptolemy I"+"Egypt" produces 8,070 hits, and remains at 4,540 hits if you exclude the term "Soter" (with "Ptolemy I"+"Egypt"-"Soter"), i.e.: the majority of the hits remain with the nickname excluded, making it evidently dispensable and clearly far from a common identifier. A similar exercise can be performed with any of the sovereigns in this list, with similar results. Some sources use the nicknames, but many (and often many more) simply do not. They are, at best, a distraction, since the ordinal already adequately disambiguates between all of the members of the Ptolemaic line. This brings us back to WP:SOVEREIGN, where the default nomenclature setup (at 3.) is "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}", e.g. Ptolemy I of Egypt. Using this form is not only convention-abiding, but also resolves all outstanding issues in terms of inconsistency, usage of nicknames (and foreign language ones at that), and the usage of less than common names in the absence of guideline justification. "of Egypt" is specifically necessary, because there are plenty of other Ptolemies including Ptolemy I of Tusculum, Ptolemy II of Tusculum, Ptolemy II of Telmessos, and is also, in any case, useful. It abides by WP:SOVEREIGN, and adds to recognizability and precision by denoting the principal geography involved, unlike the nickname, which just provides a nickname. This is of benefit to any readers not familiar with the Ptolemies. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I've struck Cleopatra from the request, since it may be unique, and it's become a distraction. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly opposed: The epithets are very much part of the WP:COMMON NAMEs of these rulers in contemporary scholarship and one regularly encounters references to them simply by their epithet (e.g. It was the scholiast who picked on love of literature as a defining characteristic of Euergetes. Wrongly, of course; however cultivated Euergetes may have been, love of literature was a defining characteristic of Philadelphus. [3]), so the proposal would make it harder for our readers to follow up on references in their reading for, as far as I can see, absolutely no gain. They were not "nicknames" but part of the kings' titles. The ordinals are inconsistently used and some scholarly sou. "Ptolemy VII" in particular refers to a range of different individuals without the epithet. The convention at WP:SOVEREIGN is not absolute, as examples like Frederick Barbarossa show. The fact that the epithets are not used for the female rulers is a little inconsistent, I admit, but it is an inconsistency that exists in scholarship (largely, I think, because several queens' epithets changed over their lifetimes) and it is not WP's job to WP:RIGHTTINYWRONGS. I would not be totally opposed to tacking "of Egypt" on to the end of these names (although it is a question whether they actually were "of Egypt" specifically). Furius (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Cleopatra" rather than "Cleopatra VII of Egypt" is definitely the common name, has been the subject of discussion here, and is a featured article; I don't think it should be rolled into any kind of mass-move Furius (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the page was moved, Cleopatra would still direct there. In fact, it would furnish readers with more information immediately (i.e.: that Cleopatra was the 7th of her name), while it would invite the hatnote "Cleopatra directs here, for other uses of Cleopatra, see..." So that move would in no way negatively affect any readers; the sole effect would be more information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:COMMONNAME works. It's Elizabeth II not Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Frederick Barbarossa not Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, Louis XIV not Louis XIV of France... Furius (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II is actually another example of guideline neglect, because her common name was clearly Queen Elizabeth, but that's ambiguous - despite this, WP:NCROY has not been followed for reasons unapparent. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "of Egypt", the specific line of WP:NCROY regarding that is: As regards Country: This should be the most common form of the country's name used in current English works of general reference. Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. But more critically, I see no evidence of WP:COMMONNAME. E.g.: "Ptolemy I" alone appears to dominate "Ptolemy I Soter" (and Ptolemy I of Tusculum is unlikely a major factor). I have also shown how numerous sources ditch these names. That one source discussing multiple Ptolemies uses the nicknames for convenience, as exampled, seems by the by. It's useful there, but that indicates no pattern of prevalence. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they are very much nicknames. Philadelphos, i.e. "sibling-lover", was not official. Or see this source: "Ptolemy II—commonly, though quite inaccurately called Ptolemy Philadelphos". Nor was "Auletes", i.e. "flute-player", etc. etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Philadelphos" was official and Tarn is wrong (as often). He or his son founded a town with the name [4], and official Ptolemaic inscriptions refer to him as such [5], his wife was worshipped as Arsinoe Thea Philadelphos. Out of the epithets, only "Auletes" and "Physcon" are non-official; they were adopted because these kings actual epithets were the same as that of predecessors. In terms of common name, two books this year have "Ptolemy Soter" as their title:
The name is also used by the Encyclopedia Britannica article, the New World Encyclopedia article, and Livius. Furius (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Physcon, "potbelly", which is used for Ptolemy VIII Physcon, in place of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II; Lathyros, "chickpea", which is not used for Ptolemy IX Soter (or is it Ptolemy IX Soter II, or Ptolemy Philometor Soter?); and Caesarion, "Little Caeser", which is treated as a standalone name. It is in such examples that the inconsistency becomes apparent. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common use is inconsistent. That's life. I'm not sure that needs to be fixed, but it's certainly not WP's job to fix it. Furius (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only irony here being that the Greeks didn't use ordinals at all, so the "Anglicized name + ordinal + Greek nickname" format, aside from sitting astride two languages, actually hybridizes Western European ordinal-style royal designations of the "Name + ordinal + of country X" variety with Greek nicknames. Ptolemy Soter was just that, Ptolemaîos Sōtḗr; not Ptolemy I Soter, which might be some sort of scholarly convention, but it actually aligns with no style. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible (to infinity and beyond): I'm not sure how the OP came to the wild and unfounded conclusion that the epithets of these rulers are not commonly known or used in scholarship or literature aimed at the general public. This is a needless page move suggestion and worst of all it affects Cleopatra, the seventh and most famous figure in the list. Most people simply know her by that name only. It is a laughable absurdity to suggest otherwise. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, @Iskandar323's proposal seems to be neat and generally well-thought but I think I agree with @T8612 and the other users here; without the epithets, it would be extremely confusing for the average reader to identify aaall these Ptolemies. Judging by my own personal experience, the titles have been indeed very helpful in remembering who is who. Besides, these were the names that the kings and queens themselves used, unlike "of Egypt". However, there seems indeed to be an inconsistency with female monarchs, who have the name+numeral, while some others have name+numeral+of Egypt. Maybe there will need to be an agreement on the names of the female monarchs so that their pages will be consistent (except for Cleopatra VII, who due to her popularity might not need the extra epithets in the title). Piccco (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have never seen these proposed name in academic scholarship; perhaps they exist, but certainly they are not common. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These monarchs are best known and distinguished from each other by their epithets. Walrasiad (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There was no formal "kingdom of Egypt" for them to be called "of Egypt". WP:SOVEREIGN applies only "to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire". WP:NICKNAME and MOS:FOREIGN are not relevant, and the current titles are not "inconsistent". Avilich (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreed with all preceding oppose arguments. This feels like textbook common name. When the average person searches for the only Cleopatra they likely know/think of, do we really want them to click around until they figure out which is the one they're interested in? toobigtokale (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toobigtokale: Cleopatra has already been removed from the proposal. Also, this was never about disambiguating Cleopatra. Your input on the remainder would be welcome, but as it is you've only spoken to the part of the proposal that no longer exists. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This seems pointless, as these names are almost always found thusly in nearly scholarship and reference sources for practical means. Most readers, including many familiar with Egyptian history, may have difficulty remembering and distinguishing the Ptolemies from their numerals alone, so their epithets are helpful.
I also think it important that the nominator recently proposed moving "Ptolemy" (the geographer) to some other name on the grounds that the Ptolemaic kings were equally important to world history/western civilization, and that the name was therefore ambiguous; to which several editors replied that the Ptolemies are nearly always referred to by the same titles given above, with numeral and epithet. This request seems to be intended to buttress the nominator's argument in a different discussion that is not achieving consensus, and as such it does not appear to have a neutral purpose—improving the encyclopedia. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: Bugger off. It doesn't buttress anything, and you can go stick your bad faith. Occam's razor, should you choose to use it, would simply lead you to grasp that I am doing some editing around the Ptolemies at present. Here, WP:NCROY is incredibly clear, and Greeks just a couple of generations earlier, such as Phillip II of Macedon abide by it; WP:NCROY is just being totally ignored here, for reasons unapparent. Sometimes it's hard to account for the fickleness of the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NCROY: "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." That implies that it doesn't apply to the Ptolemies.
The customary names for ancient rulers are pretty chaotic. The worst example may be Roman emperors, who had multiple names with multiple points of overlap (e.g., Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero all had "Claudius Nero" in their names, while a slew of emperors in the second and third centuries had "Marcus Aurelius" in their names). But somewhere along the way, historians settled on one name (or sometimes two) by which to refer to each emperor, in a way that minimized confusion. This custom bears no relation to the conventions for medieval and modern European monarchs, so WP:NCROY doesn't cover it, and WP:COMMONNAME applies instead.
Names for other ancient monarchs may be more similar to the European pattern, but they're not exactly the same, and the Ptolemies are especially exceptional. In a European realm, you might sometimes get a series of kings with the same name, such as Louis XIII through Louis XVI, but you rarely get the tangled sequence of rebellions and depositions that you see late in the Ptolemaic Period, in which multiple men named Ptolemy alternated on the throne. That would make them a real nuisance to keep track of when distinguishing them by numeral alone, which is presumably why the sources lean so heavily on the epithets. A. Parrot (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says it applies to all monarchs after a certain point; it doesn't say it doesn't apply to them before it. And if you want to be more specific, WP:NCGREEK gives Phillip II of Macedon, just a generation removed from Ptolemy, as an example of how to render Greek rulers. I certainly concede that Ptolemaic succession gets a little bit messy though. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philip of Macedon is not mentioned in the guidance in relation to the titles of entries, but as an example of how to transliterate Greek in the first line of the lead... The case of the Ptolemies is different because Philip II of Macedon is almost always referred to in modern scholarship as "Philip of Macedon" (i.e. it is the common name).
"of ####" is clearly not WP's usual practice with Hellenistic figures. There are very many examples where it is not used: Antigonus I Monophthalmus, Cassander, Attalus I, Diodotus I, Mithridates VI Eupator. The exceptions, e.g. Agathocles of Syracuse and Pyrrhus of Epirus are all common names. There is no rule requiring "of ####" for pre-Medieval figures and "it doesn't say it doesn't apply" is a weak argument in theory and clashes with actual practice. Furius (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:CIVIL when replying to other people's posts. You may not see a nexus between the requests, but the fact that this one follows on the heels of another that isn't gaining traction—and that it might, if done, aid the other argument—raises the prospect of a conflict of interest. If you can't see how removing the epithets would render the name more ambiguous and confusing for everyone called "Ptolemy", thereby supporting your other move proposal, then we definitely have a problem. P Aculeius (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing nicknames and adding the country, per WP:NCROY. No shit. Yes. That's the guideline. The only problem I see here is endless aspersion. That's not what conflict of interest means on this platform, and you shouldn't throw that term around misleadingly. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. It's not a term of art when used in Wikipedia discussions. This proposed move could, if successful, be used to undercut the arguments of editors with whom you are engaged in another dispute. That potential conflict is a reason to regard the motives for this proposed move with skepticism. In addition to WP:SNOW, which suggests that this proposal should probably be abandoned.
You do not need to respond to every argument opposing your opinion in every discussion, however tempting it may be. There is a reason that people keep hinting that you are BLUDGEONING your way through one proposed move after another, and it is not casting ASPERSIONS to do so. You are entitled to your opinion, and to keep voicing it, however loudly or repetitively. All that other editors are saying is that it is unproductive, and potentially makes your arguments less persuasive. P Aculeius (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have ceased discussing the topic altogether in favour of pure ad hominem, so not much more to say. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ptolemy_I_Soter&oldid=1228812123"