Talk:Alexander the Great

Good articleAlexander the Great has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
September 11, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Place of birth specification[edit]

Please add the following in Line 3, so people do not confuse Macedonia with the country "North Macedonia": "...He was born in Pella (Macedonia)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einserschüler (talkcontribs) 14:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Arrian on the physical appearance of Alexander the Great[edit]

Although the article allegedly quotes Arrian, there seems to be no solid evidence to my experience that he actually stated anything about heterochromia. Checking the sources cited, neither give a proper explanation of the location of this quote within Arrian's corpus. I would strongly recommend amending this article unless the actual quote can be found in Arrian's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4601:9E43:CC9B:1650:F70D:6DB1 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Accursed"[edit]

@HistoryofIran:, He is called the Great because he conquered the empire of the people whom call him the Accursed. Stop reverting. Aryzad (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

See my edit summary. If you want to expand about cute pejorative nicknames about him, please do it here [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Look, this is very easy. "The Great" is one side of the story, and "the Accursed" is the other side. Being his nickname in the west, doesn't make "the Great" more important. This is as important as "commonly known as Alexander the Great [in the west]", so the lead is where it should be. Can you explain why "we don't put pejorative nicknames in the lead"? There is no Parthian source about him. Aryzad (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
And that "commonly known as Alexander the Great" should be changed to "commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west" Aryzad (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No, because he is not commonly known as the "the Accursed". He is however, commonly known as "the Great." Him being mentioned as "the Accursed" in some Sasanian-Zoroastrian sources doesn't mean he was known by that by every Iranian/Zoroastrian. He wasn't viewed negatively in Parthian/Eastern Iranian oral story. In fact, overall he is seen more positively in Iranian history than negatively. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with the above. This is an attempt at pushing fringe Sasanian-Zoroastrian POV, which is among the most bizarre things I have ever seen. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both HistoryofIran and Khirurg. Dr. K. 22:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, if we shall put it simple, then when it comes to weighing possible contents of articles to each other then we generally let the article reflect, what is commonly accepted or considered as being important as to the subject in question. This at least applies for the language English, wich is the issue here.
A quick "Google-survey" of some of the topics or expressions debated shows a rather unanimous support for "Alexander the Great" as the commonly accepted expression when it comes to "Alexander of Macedonia":
"commonly known as Alexander the Great": Ca. 35.600 results
"commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west": No results found for "commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west".
"Alexander the Great": Ca. 17.400.000 results
"Alexander of Macedonia": Ca. 107.000 results
"Alexander the Accursed": Ca. 41.600 results
And just for the sake of clarification; it's not merely in "the West", that he is called Alexander the Great in various languages in "the East" (cetral and eastern parts of Asia) he is called something quiet similar as the expression in the "West":
Vietnamese: Alexandros Đại đế = Alexander the Great
Bahasa Indonesia: Aleksander Agung = Alexander the Great
Burmese: မဟာအလက်ဇန္ဒား = Alexander the Great
Nepali: अलेक्जेन्डर द ग्रेट = Alexander the Great
Punjabi: ਸਿਕੰਦਰ ਮਹਾਨ = Alexander the Great
Thai: อเล็กซานเดอร์มหาราช = Alexander the Great
Tagalog: Alejandro ang Dakila = Alexander the Great Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad: King Alexandros III of Makedonia is commonly known in English as "Alexander the Great"; he is virtually never referred to as "Alexander the Accursed"—or at least not in English. Regardless of whether you think he should be called "Alexander the Accursed," the fact remains that he is almost never called this, so we have no justification to call him this in the first paragraph of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for you to right great wrongs. If you think Alexander the Great should be more commonly known as "Alexander the Accursed," you are welcome to write your own book or article advocating in favor of people calling him this. If you can provide citations to reliable, modern, scholarly sources explicitly stating that Alexander the Great is mentioned in Persian sources as "Alexander the Accursed," then you are even welcome to mention the nickname "Alexander the Accursed" in one of the later sections in the body of the article where it makes sense to mention it in context, but we have no justifiable reason to mention an obscure Sassanian nickname for Alexander the Great in the first paragraph of the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: @Khirurg: @Oleryhlolsson: I think you guys don't know what is the point. I've never said he is commonly as "Alexander the Accursed". I've said he is known in the Zoroastrian and ancient Iranian sources as "Alexander the Accursed". The point is that he is known as "the Great" because he conquered an Iranian empire, but this is one side of the story. People of that empire called him "Alexander the Accursed", and this is the other side of the story. And there is no reason that makes his name in the texts of the winner side more important than his name in the texts of the loser side. Aryzad (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Aryzad, here are my concerns on your edit.[2] a)First of all, you do not go straight to the introduction to add sourced material. Nope. The intro should summarize the main body of the article. So, if you would like something to be inserted to the article, just add it to the main body, wait for some period to stabilize and then, if it is important, add a quick comment on the intro. That is a general rule. Have a look at this guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. b)In case you would like to add something in the main body, it has to be sourced and neutral. Have a look here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. c) My final comment is that if you would like to add the view of the persians (or others), I would suggest you look into the Alexander's literature (scholarly articles or books) and find the appropriate material. It would be much more interesting to add some words about it without adjectives having a pivotal role. Cinadon36 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Cinadon36: 1) It is already explained in the article. In Alexander_the_Great#In_ancient_and_modern_culture 2) I used the academic sources, there academic sources in fact. And it is neutral. I didn't said he is an evil man. I said he is known as Alexander the Accursed in some sources. It is definitely more neutral than saying "He is commonly known as Alexander the Great"; While he is known that way only in the west.
Anyway, I don't want to add it to the article anymore, since there are so many people against it. Aryzad (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I explained in my previous comment, it's not merely in "the West" that the expression "the Great" is used. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019[edit]

Under Section Persia - following the sentance "Possible causes include a drunken accident or deliberate revenge for the burning of the Acropolis of Athens during the Second Persian War by Xerxes". Add that "A servant named Thais was the inistigator of buring of Perspolis according to historians Diodorus Siculus ((90-21 BCE)and Quintus Curtius Rufus (41-54 CE)."

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Source: Alexander the Great & the Burning of Perspolis, Joshua J. Mark, Ancient History Encyclopedia, February 2011 Xpen2000 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019[edit]

Edit 1: Repipe "Punjab" to Punjab, not to Punjab region.

Reasons for edit 1: Alexander only held "West Punjab" (Pakistani Punjab), not the whole "Punjab region".

Details of edit 1: Punjab has been presently piped to the Punjab region. The sourced text in the article says his territories where only up to Beas river. Which means Alexander had conquered only less than 20% to 25% of the Punjab region. Punjab region is currently divided into 3 parts, namely West Punjab state in Pakistan, East Punjab state in India, and Haryana state in India. Alexander at max had West Punjab (Pakistani Punjab) with perhaps Pathankot and Amritsar included in it. Please pipe Punjab to Punjab ("Punjab, Pakistan") and not the "Punjab region" namespace.


Edit 2: Please replace the "unsourced" third paragraph of the lede with the following sourced text.

Alexander aimed to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea" and invaded India in 326 BC, winning an important victory over the Pauravas at the Battle of the Hydaspes whom he barely managed to defeat with the help of resources of another native Indian king Amba. Beyond Hydaspes the prospect of facing much larger and more power native Indian kingdoms terrified his army into mutiny, his biographer recorded his general making an excuse of his soldiers being homesick. Faced with the "fiercely violent" mutiny of his troops fearful of the campaigns against the larger Indian kingdoms, he eventually turned back and sustained an injury from the Indians, soon after dying in Babylon in 323 BC, the city that he planned to establish as his capital, without executing a series of planned campaigns that would have begun with an invasion of Arabia. In the years following his death, a series of civil wars tore his empire apart, resulting in the establishment of several states ruled by the Diadochi: Alexander's surviving generals and heirs.[1][2][3]

Reasons for edit 2: remove the western-centric unsourced POV bias from the lede.

Details of edit 2:

2.1. Unsourced lede: This part of the lede is presently not sourced. Rest of the lede is largely sourced. The part which shows "Alexander the Great" was in fact not great but "Alexander the Coward" who turned his back when faced with the real challenge, remains unsourced. Till he turned his back from India, he had been bullying smaller tribes, weakening enemy kingdoms by buying out their key generals/enemies before waging wars (against Iranians), gaining power by buying out smaller kingdoms i.e. he took nothing but gave lot to the native Indian king Ambi so that he can enlist his help against Porus, eventually even buying Porus out because it is one thing to win by hook or crook but it is much harder to hold on to the territory when faced with the hostile natives. His campaigns were touch-and-go visits, not gaining anything in terms of hefty annual tributes, etc. He lost these territories soon after her turned back, including to natives and other Indianised converted/Hindu-Buddhist Indo-Greek hybrid kings who were less Greek and more Indians in terms of culture/religion, religion is the last things people give up in such wars.

2.2. Lede not in tune with the article text: It does not capture the essence of the sourced text inside the article. Please read the relevant Revolt of the army section in this article. The lede must capture the essence of this section.

2.3. Western centric bias and/or fanboy apologist type style of cover up phrasing: Comes across as a fanboy attempt to glorify/covering up his fears of the larger Indian armies across Beas river. Reality is, existing sources in this articles make it clear that his armies were already exhausted by the medium sized armies of native Indian king, Porus, whom they barely defeated with the help of another native Indian king Amba, and Alex's army had no flight left in them to face the several times larger Indian armies of the bigger native Indian kingdoms to the east of Beas river. Lede should make it clear. Tt was cowardice/fear and mutiny of his own fearful army that made him turn back, not just homesickness which as dished out as an excuse by his paid biographer. Give the credit where it is due, in this case, to the Indians including those who were instrumental in enabling his touch-and-go successes (Amba and Porus, they gave him nothing, received lot more from him in return for whatever help Alexander got from them). That is what the existing sourced content seems to say in this article. Please remove the western-centric POV bias from the lede. Thank you. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is largely nationalistic alternative historiography masquerading as a neutral edit request. To the extend that there are any sources at all for the suggestions, they are impossible to verify given the poor state of citing. Please refer to the Core Content Policies and create a separate discussion here where interested editors can reach consensus on the validity of these suggestions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Kosmin 2014, p. 34.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference PA62 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Tripathi 1999, pp. 137–38.