Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Lead image dispute

@Deedman22: Let's discuss. As I said, the shadows on the picture aren't really great, and concerns of "historical accuracy" seem misplaced since all the busts are rather similar. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: You made multiple statements (odd with shadows on the bust, etc.). that are subjective, which would lead me to believe that your priority is to present an image of Alexander that conforms to your personal taste/liking, which I believe to be inappropriate. with that we are moving away from realism, and in any case i have removed the shadows. Deedman22 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, my only concern is image focus and clarity - both hampered by the image being too broad (covering too much more than the head) and the shadows (which provide an unhelpful distraction) - see MOS:IMAGES. "Historical records" is a though question, and one which you'll need to provide sources to convince me, since we don't quite have a skeleton or something like that to compare to, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed we do not have a skeleton, but there are records that state that Alexander preferred Lysippus' portrayal of himself, and the image I am attempting to present is the herm of Alexander at the Louvre that has an inscription beneath it clearly attributed to the artist Lysippus. Deedman22 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sleetimetraveller (talk) why was the depiction changed. I think the before one was a better representation of Alexander, even if it depicts him as a pretty boy. — Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The best option would be for someone to take a picture of the Alexander at the Louvre, with care taken not to end up with significant shadows and stuff. Proper lightning is an important factor in making a clear image. The differences between the Lysippus portrayal and the one in the article are not that significant, and most readers won't really focus on it too much. For now I think the version in the article is OK (the mosaic that was there before is fine too, me thinks). What is not okay is getting in a WP:LAME edit-war over it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The proposed image is clear enough. Also, you stated that "The differences between the Lysippus portrayal and [the new proposal] are not that significant" and my counter is that it would be best to present the most historically accurate depiction of Alexander as the lead.

Above is depicted:

Herm of Alexander at the Louvre (direct copy of statue that Lysippus made)

Edited, proposed version for lead-image use

Roman portrayal of Alexander, not historically accurate

Deedman22 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's best to use the second image due to the statement by Plutarch:

"The outward appearance of Alexander is best represented by the statues of him which Lysippus made, and it was by this artist alone that Alexander himself thought it fit that he should be modelled."

Quoting MOS:IMAGEQUALITY: "Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary." and MOS:PERTINENCE: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." Plutarch is writing centuries after Alexander's death, and is probably best treated with caution as a WP:PRIMARY source. I can't seem to find any scholarly source on the matter quickly (mostly because, I think, academics have more important things to bicker about than what Alexander looked like). Of the three images above (and 4, the one currently in the article, for a total of four): 1 is showing the subject too small (would need some cropping) and is from a side-on angle, exposing shadows (dark); 2 was heavily edited to remove worries about darkness but looks for the worse because of it; 3. is good in terms of image quality (it focuses on the face, isn't blurry, is of sufficiently high resolution, lightning and angle are adequate to showcase its subject properly); 4 (in the article) is okay quality wise but the nose is a bit damaged, fwiw. Concerns about historical accuracy, unless we can find something a bit less dated than Plutarch, seem to be exaggerated: the differences in style are very minor and aren't reason, IMHO, to fuss over it. NatGeo uses a similar bust to what is in no. 3. If you really don't like it we can use an extract from the Alexander Mosaic. The point isn't to be "historically accurate", mostly because, given the two millenia of time elapsed, that is mostly a moot point - it's to put a high-quality image which is illustrative and which readers will recognise. At the resolution of an infobox, minor stylistic details will mostly go unnoticed. Jarring, edited backgrounds, won't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: The comments were literally written by Plutarch (an ancient historian that is deemed favorably, and also has credibility) only a few centuries after Alexander's death. It is also the only reference written closest to Alexander's lifetime. The model by Lysippus is clearly not trying to glamourize Alexander (if Plutarch had wanted to be biased, don't you think it would suit him best in favor of a more romantacized-looking depiction of Alexander? He was Greek, and furthermore was not especially malignant in his prose regarding the King). It is the only relevant written document stating that "it is how Alexander would want to be modeled"— how can you argue that it should be rendered flatly irrelevant because of its age? Unless you can find a source that discredits Plutarch I don't think your argument will hold up.

The way Alexander is depicted is important & it's also important to come close to accuracy. You are trying to undermine the importance of an accurate portrayal as well as an historic source and again, I ask, do you think that you have some kind of personal sentiment toward the latter image (the one on the far right) because it seems like you are still making subjective statements ["heavily edited to remove worries about darkness but looks for the worse because of it"]. If you can get people to back these statements up, I don't think these comments will hold up. We are trying to depict and portray the truth whereas you are more worried about an overly-glamorous depiction.

Regards, Deedman22 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"We are trying to depict and portray the truth whereas you are more worried about an overly-glamorous depiction." Stop misrepresenting my statements. I don't care at all whether the depiction is glamorous or not. As I said, I think that concerns of historical accuracy are misguided (Plutarch might be credible, but that doesn't change anything about how dated he is and how we shouldn't be basing our article here on what he writes) and ultimately it doesn't really matter (the differences are very minor, anyway: it won't matter for most readders). We should seek to have a high quality image which most readers will recognise. Heavily-edited images are not really "high quality". If you can propose a bust by Lysippus for which we have a quality picture then sure. Otherwise we're better off staying with existing content. Alternatively, if you can't find a bust by Lysippus and you really don't like the other ones, we can always take the relevant part from the Alexander Mosaic, which was there previously IIRC, as I was suggesting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes, locked the page, and warned both editors involved to stop edit-warring over the image. If the warring resumes after the page protection expires, blocks will be applied. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 May 2021

On line 704 (I think), change this:

Funeral Games|[[Funeral Games (novel)]]

to this:

[[Funeral Games (novel)|Funeral Games]]

Thanks. Coolperson177 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 May 2021

"[...] was a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon[a]." Please place the punctuation before the note per MOS:CITEPUNCT. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Wretchskull (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Article no longer protected. Heart ^(talk) 18:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I don't know which article you were looking it but this one is well and truly protected as far as I can see. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, oops, my bad lol. I was looking at expiration dates. Heart ^(talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 May 2021

We need to have some sort of moratorium on editing the introductory paragraphs of this page because it gets worse with each iteration. We had a very fluent and polished introduction just a few years ago but all these haphazard edits by committee are making it an ugly mess of tenses and subordinate clauses.

Here is a rough approximation of how it used to read as best as I can remember. I don't understand why we allow perfectly good paragraphs to be reworded and reworked when there's no actual change of information taking place, or why such a large group of editors appears to be working from such a limited vocabulary.

All the citations are the same. I am a Wikipedia novice and I don't know how to transfer hyperlinks. Hopefully someone who knows what they're doing can help.

And that title image is dreadful. Either put the mosaic back or find a different photo. The mosaic itself should be in the public domain.

108.45.71.200 (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Funeral Games

Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος, Aléxandros; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), commonly known as Alexander the Great, was a king (Basileus) of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia[a] and member of the Argead dynasty. Born in Pella in 356 BC, he replaced his father Philip II as King of Macedon at age twenty, spending most of his reign on an unprecedented military campaign through Western Asia and Northeastern Africa. By the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[1][2] He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered one of history's most successful military commanders.[3]

Alexander was tutored by Aristotle until the age of sixteen at his father’s behest. After Philip was assassinated in 336 BC, Alexander assumed control of throne of Macedon. He quickly initiated an expedition through the Balkans to subdue neighboring states that had revolted against Macedon, culminating in the sack of Thebes; thereafter the League of Corinth voted to affirm Alexander’s generalship of Greece. He then used this platform to launch his father's project of pan-Hellenic conquest, uniting Greece in a war against Persia [4][5] and its allies.

In 334 BC Alexander invaded the Achaemenid Empire (Persian Empire) and began a series of campaigns that lasted ten years. Following his conquest of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), Alexander broke the power of Persia in a pair of decisive battles at Issus and Arbela. He subsequently overthrew King Darius III and subdued the Achaemenid Empire in its entirety.[b] At that point, his empire stretched from the Adriatic Sea to the Indus River. Endeavoring to reach the "ends of the earth and the Great Encircling Ocean", he invaded India in 326 BC, achieving an important military victory over King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes, but was forced to turn back near the Beas River at the request of his homesick troops. In 323BC, Alexander died of unknown causes in Babylon, the city he intended to make the capital of his empire. His sudden death precluded a set 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 nascent empire apart.

Alexander's legacy includes the cultural diffusion and syncretism which his conquests engendered, such as Greco-Buddhism and Hellenistic Judaism. He founded more than seventy cities that bore his name,[6] most notably Alexandria in Egypt. Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and the ensuing spread of Greek culture gave rise to Hellenistic civilization, which along with the Roman Empire helped form the basis of modern Western culture. Koine Greek became the lingua franca of the region and was the predominant language of the Byzantine Empire before its decline in the mid-15th century AD. Greek speakers were still present in central and eastern Anatolia until the Greek genocide and resultant population exchange during the 1920s. Driven by the "desire for everlasting fame", Alexander became legendary as a classical hero in the mold of Achilles, featuring prominently in the histories and mythic traditions of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His numerous achievements (including many personal exploits) and unrivaled success in all forms of warfare made him the measure against which ancient generals compared themselves, and [c] military academies throughout the world still teach his tactics today.[7] He is often ranked among the most influential people in human history.[8][9]

Introduction circa 2016, which is much more concise and better written:

Alexander III of Macedon (20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), commonly known as Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégas [a.lék.san.dros ho mé.gas] ), was a King (Basileus) of the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon[a] and a member of the Argead dynasty. Born in Pella in 356 BC, Alexander succeeded his father, Philip II, to the throne at the age of twenty. He spent most of his ruling years on an unprecedented military campaign through Asia and northeast Africa, and by the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world, stretching from Greece to Egypt into northwest India and modern-day Pakistan.[1] He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered one of history's most successful military commanders.[2]

During his youth, Alexander was tutored by the philosopher Aristotle until the age of 16. After Philip's assassination in 336 BC, Alexander succeeded his father to the throne and inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Alexander was awarded the generalship of Greece and used this authority to launch his father's Panhellenic project to lead the Greeks in the conquest of Persia.[3][4] In 334 BC, he invaded the Achaemenid Empire, ruled Asia Minor, and began a series of campaigns that lasted ten years. Alexander broke the power of Persia in a series of decisive battles, most notably the battles of Issus and Gaugamela. He subsequently overthrew the Persian King Darius III and conquered the Achaemenid Empire in its entirety.[b] At that point, his empire stretched from the Adriatic Sea to the Indus River.

Seeking to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea", he invaded India in 326 BC, but was eventually forced to turn back at the demand of his troops. Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC, the city 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 several states ruled by the Diadochi, Alexander's surviving generals and heirs.

Alexander's legacy includes the cultural diffusion his conquests engendered, such as Greco-Buddhism. He founded some twenty cities that bore his name, most notably Alexandria in Egypt. Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and the resulting spread of Greek culture in the east resulted in a new Hellenistic civilization, aspects of which were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire in the mid-15th century and the presence of Greek speakers in central and far eastern Anatolia until the 1920s. Alexander became legendary as a classical hero in the mold of Achilles, and he features prominently in the history and mythic traditions of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. He became the measure against which military leaders compared themselves, and military academies throughout the world still teach his tactics.[5][c] He is often ranked among the most influential people in human history, along with his teacher Aristotle.[6]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

"However, Alexander met with resistance at Gaza" should read "However, Alexander was met with resistance at Gaza" Sonofafitz (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Too positive, important viewpoints missing from this article

There are historians who view Alexander as a dictator and a mass-murderer, for atrocities like destroying Thebes and murdering Parmenion and others. This article fails to represent that viewpoint. It has an overall too-sunny and positive tone. Looks like it was written by a fan. Flounder ceo (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We follow what WP:RS say and we give them WP:DUE weight. If "there are historians", then you must cite their publications (from reputable publishers or in reputable journals) for this. (talk / contribs) 19:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: @Flounder ceo: is making an absolutely valid point. I don't understand the dismissiveness of your response. the article should not biased in any way, and if there are areas I hope Flounder ceo would point them out. Deedman22 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Deedman22: Making vague waves, without proposing any substantial changes, or actually giving any sources (see WP:VNT) is not helpful. If there are historians, then there are sources, and such sources should be provided here or boldly added on the article to substantiate the claims being made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no "if" about it - many historians consider Alexander to have been a psychopath, and observing his career, small wonder. A cursory search of the material on him will provide many supporting scholarly writings to this effect. 50.111.6.31 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: A psychopath by definition is "a person who exhibits amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc". Even a cursory examination of Alexander's life emphatically refutes this slander. Alexander had many deeply personal relationships, including his boyhood friendships (Hephaestion, Ptolemy, Perdiccas), the bonds he shared with several women (his wives Stateria and Roxanne, and his adoptive mother Sisygambis) and the connection with his soldiers which is well documented. Extreme egocentricity was instilled in him by his mother, but his willingness to share the dangers and tribulations of his men demonstrates a well-developed sense of empathy. He had few failures in life to learn anything from; mostly he learned from the errors of others, like his teacher Aristotle, who tried (unsuccessfully) to prejudice him against Persian culture. As for "amoral, antisocial behavior", you appear to be engaging in anachronistic moralizing, the surest sign of a shallow-pate. The editors are right to keep your defamation off Wikipedeia. Try reddit.com or somesuch other intellectual swamp.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

"Alexander on a mosaic from Pompeii, an alleged imitation of a Philoxenus of Eretria or Apelles' painting, 4th century BC." Shouldn't it be "Alexander on a mosaic from Pompeii, an alleged reproduction of a Philoxenus of Eretria or Apelles' painting, 4th century BC."?

An imitation is aping the style of someone, but a reproduction of an artwork such as a small version of Michaelangelo's David, or a Mona Lisa postcard, isn't. So could you please change it?Notwisconsin (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just dramatically simplified the caption - all of the details are given at Alexander Mosaic, if the reader is interested, and they would be out of scope here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Image dispute, v2

@RandomCanadian: Sure, let's discuss. Please explain why you believe " A foreign copy, showing Alexander's reputation, seems more pertinent " rather than a frontal-view depiction of the bust portrayed as the title image. And please explain what you mean by "showing Alexander's reputation"? What does that even mean? Thank you. Also, you managed to revert a link to Alexander's bodyguard. Deedman22 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"frontal-view depiction of the bust portrayed as the title image" - so it is a duplicate of the image already in the infobox? Even more reason to remove it - images should not be needlessly present (WP:NOTGALLERY), and having a duplicate is not helpful. An image showing a Roman copy indicates to the reader that Alexander had some reputation outside of his own empire (you wouldn't keep a statue of some unimportant foreign person). As for the link, that appears to have been collateral, since I didn't really notice it in the diff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:it is clearly and evidently and obviously not a "duplicate" image. (if you use your eyes) you will see clearly that it is not a duplicate. also, contemporary images are preferred, the bust in the title (as well as Lysippos depiction) are both contemporary (and thus are very likely to be more accurate portrayals), and are preferable to be used. if we are going to keep the Romans' portrayal of Alexander, it should be noted in some way that it is very likely fictitious. Also, I am sure the reader is aware that Alexander the Great has a lasting reputation, considering he still holds esteem to this day.

You said it is "a frontal-view depiction of the bust portrayed as the title image". So it is a picture of the same bust. So a duplicate, because it is depicting something already shown to the reader. As for your concerns of correcting history, that's already been addressed in the previous thread. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: It is a picture of the same bust at a different angle, not a duplicate image. You are misusing the word. Contemporary images are preferred, therefore it would be more appropriate to replace the Roman depiction with either the Lysippos bust or Leochares' depiction. It would be most appropriate to use the Lysippos depiction as the lead image (due to Plutarch's statements) and then show Leochares' depiction (contemporary) farther down in the article, thus avoiding showing any potentially romanticized Roman copies, such as the one you are trying to defend.

"Romanticised" depictions are a different style, and we shouldn't be censoring them because they're supposedly inaccurate. We can and should show both styles to our readers (for the same reasons, as a musician, that I would consider that both the "romantic" and the "historically-informed" versions of Baroque music are interesting and have independent merit. Of course one of them is "wrong" if you care for "historical accuracy", but that's not the point). A picture of the same bust at a different angle is still the same bust, so it isn't a different one, so for all intents and purposes it is a duplicate. Again, we're not a gallery and we're not here to correct history. Given the dearth of modern academic scholarship on the subject (you have not presented any source to support your opinion on this being something important), I must conclude that this is just a minor stylistic issue and not something particularly important. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:Okay, let's keep discussing. You said "this is just a minor stylistic issue and not something particularly important." So, if it is, in your own words, "not something particularly important", why do you keep reverting my edits? why are you so keen of fictitious, romanticized depictions of Alexander the Great, rather than more contemporary , historically accurate busts, that are backed by ancient sources? clearly you have a predilection to a romantic-looking Alexander the Great, and you would very much like readers to see a more effeminate, fictitious version of him. you reverted a contemporary depiction of Alexander the Great that has historical backing from Plutarch stating it's how Alexander would want to be depicted, in order to show a Roman copy that has absolutely no tenability.Deedman22 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You're obviously not hearing what I'm telling you, so no point repeating it to you. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, particularly "Strive for variety" and "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.". Having two pictures of the same bust is not "variety" and it adds very little if any value at all. A "romanticised" depiction shows an interesting variety in how artists have depicted this important person. Additionally, "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." The differences in all cases are rather minimal, so you edit warring over it on these grounds is particularly silly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: The Lysippos depiction is an entirely different contemporary bust? Therefore, variety? And you went ahead and reverted that too, then reported me? (lol). Also, how could I "hear" you? We aren't physically speaking to each other. Deedman22 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason why the Lysippos depiction was reverted is already described in enough detail in the Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Lead_image_dispute section (which isn't even archived, so I have no clue why you're ignoring it), and I'm not going to repeat myself. "Variety" also means "variety in style" - one bust in your favoured "historically accurate" version and one "romanticised" bust seem to eloquently show this variety - whatever the historical accuracy of the different busts, it is a fact that such different versions exist and we should most certainly not be engaging in revisionism by erasing all varieties of one type - we're an encyclopedia, not a site to right great wrongs. As for "hear", don't get stuck on the literal meaning of the word. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Nobody is ignoring Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Lead_image_dispute, and your statement "The reason why the Lysippos depiction was reverted is already described in enough detail in the Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Lead_image_dispute is completely false. my reasoning (the comments about Plutarch) stand and, furthermore, you (or anyone for that matter) have not countered my logic in any way with a reasonable argument other than, what seems to be, "it doesn't really matter". you are hell-bent on the display of a romanticized-looking depiction of Alexander the Great. Deedman22 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You've only shown that you're not willing to listen to my arguments and your attitude is basically "I'm right, you're wrong", and you don't seem interested in compromise. In the spirit of avoiding pointless drama, I'm going to stop responding here. If you want to change the images in the article, and you consider this important enough that you're willing to waste everyone's time on it, start an RfC. Also, don't ping me. Ever. Again. Bye, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I'm right because my reasoning is right, you're wrong because you have failed to provide a reasonable counter argument? it's really as simple as that? Maybe you should ask yourself if you're the one who has the attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong"? If you don't provide a reason as to why the Lysippos portrayal should not be displayed (other than, seemingly, "it doesn't really matter") ((but clearly it does matter to you, since you absolutely love the sexy, romanticized versions for some reason, wink wink) you are wrong (by default).Deedman22 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've provided a reason, you're refusing to listen to it. See WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT. Again, if you feel so strongly about this, start an RfC and leave me alone. I've muted future pings from you, FYI, so don't expect an answer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: And here is your reasoning, which yes, i refuse to listen to because it's ridiculous and stupid. [ultimately it doesn't really matter (the differences are very minor, anyway: it won't matter for most readders).] Also, sorry if your feelings are hurt! clearly you are strongly affected by this haha. Deedman22 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deedman22, you are like the living embodiment of WP:IDHT. "haha" does not make you seem any more reasonable. Just a word to the wise. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:I love how you are trying to defend him, but you have not really contributed in any way to try and counter my logic? He has reverted to muting me and does not want to engage in any more discourse, so would you like to try? Deedman22 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My intent is not to defend anyone. And I am not sure this is worth even attempting, since you don't seem to be engaging in good faith, but, the issue is simple: there is already an exemplar in the article of the type and style you wish to add. Some people find it redundant. If you feel so strongly, I suggest you take RandomCanadian's advice and begin the RfC process. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: [there is an exemplar in the article of the type and style you wish to add] is an inaccurate statement. and why would the concept of historical accuracy be considered redundant? Deedman22 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deedman22, have a nice day. And if you can convince enough editors to form a consensus or are successful in an RFC, then by all means, make your change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an excellent reason to go to use the portrait in the Alexander Mosaic, which is a reproduction of a famous painting, which was in turn based on now-lost portraits based on life. I've noticed that for all pre-photographic portraits, they're all paintings. The Mosaic would count as one for our purposes. Notwisconsin (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"His father Philip was assassinated in 336 BC at Alexander's sister's wedding, and Alexander assumed the throne to the Kingdom of Macedon"

She has a name, Cleopatra of Macedon. Why then refer to her merely as 'Alexander's sister'?

PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, no reason not to name her, though I think the relationship indicator is useful as well. I'll do that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, since I currently can't edit the article: "His father Philip was assassinated in 336 BC at the wedding of his sister Cleopatra" would probably be more apt phrasing, since as his sister and the daughter of Phillip of Macedon, it would be implied she would be of the Macedonian Dynasty.

PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexander the great in girjakh city/sub continent

‎ Book's story is about the time of alexander in sub continent and other's Warriors and the other clan who migrated and lived there and this book have also addressed the real map of girjakh.this book is writen in 1983 and awarded by the government of america as well .The book writer belongs to a village of district Jhelum Jalal pur sharif.His name is Qazi ghulam nabi Hassan Qazi k (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please revert Macedonia to Macedon in the infobox please. İt was done without concensus. 212.108.141.171 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Both names seem valid, in that they are referring to the ancient kingdom, which seems to go by both names (and in this case, both names are close enough that there's not much confusion or misidentification possible anyway). No change required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted titles

Why were "King of the World" and "The Liberator" removed from the titles section by this edition (@RandomCanadian) as "honorifics", even though they are mentioned in articles such as Cyrus II, Darius I, Sargon the Great, Nabonidus, etc.? The first one is given to Alexander in the Babylonian inscriptions and the second one by the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Egyptians. Aay1373 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the sources you cited are not WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How can Babylonian inscriptions be unreliable? What is reliable after that? Aay1373 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I generally defer to Dougweller (apologies for the ping) and would do so again here: while Britannica leaves much to be desired, livius is generally okay, especially for a claim like this that doesn't strike me as particularly odd or abstruse. There was a discussion here:[1] Just one person's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The usage of those titles are pretty big claims, and if they were indeed used, surely other WP:RS sources would mention such notable titles? This article is about Alexander the Great, surely we have better sources at our disposal than something which is 'generally okay'? Moreover, I've never seen an academic source actually cite Lendering. I could be wrong, but he seems like an amateur historian at best. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I used the wrong link above. Here is the one I intended:[2] Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets check the recent batch of sources that were added by Aay1373, one by one:

• "King of the World":

1. Livius.org, not the best, nor the worst source. Basically a WP:SPS by Jona Lendering. It cites a primary source that mentions "king of the world [Alexander]"[3]
2. Sachs & Hunger 1988a / Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (pp. 176-179 and pl. 29) -- essentially the same primary source text, does mention him having said title

• "Liberator":

1. Britannica, not really a good source,[4] doesn't mention that he bore the title "liberator". Thus fails WP:VER.[5]
2. Worldhistory.com,[6] not WP:RS (writer is a philosophy professor and writing instructor[7]), mentions "Alexander founded many cities bearing his name during this time to further his public image not only as a "liberator" but as a god and adopted the title Shahanshah (King of Kings) used by the rulers of the First Persian Empire." Furthering your own image as a liberator doesn't mean that you bear the title liberator. Thus fails WP:VER in addition to WP:RS.
3. Once again Livius.org[8] Doesn't mention Alexander bearing the title liberator. Thus fails WP:VER.
4. penelope.uchicago.edu.[9] Doesn't mention that he bore the title "liberator". Another violation of WP:VER
5. University of Canterbury.[10] Doesn't mention that he nore the title "liberator" Thus fails WP:VER.
6. Oxford Handbooks.[11] Idem, NO mention of Alexander bearing the title "liberator". Thus fails WP:VER.
7. Russiancouncil.ru.[12] Idem, no mention of Alexander bearing the title "liberator". Thus fails WP:VER.
8. Christopher Brooks.[13] Idem, no mention of Alexander bearing the title "liberator". Thus fails WP:VER.

Although user "Aay1373" has presented us numerous violations of WP:TENDENTIOUS (i.e. WP:WAR, WP:VER, WP:RS, etc.), we have yet to see a strong case for the inclusion of the supposed title "Liberator". Inclusion of the title "King of the World" could be argued for I guess, although I'd still recommend finding better sources than Livius, etcetera. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to be 100% clear, I am not sure either title is particularly appropriate for the article; I just think that keeping them out based on livius' purported unreliability is an unavailing argument. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the case against "liberator" is fairly clear. "King of the World" should be included. I think Sachs & Hunger Astronomical Diaries is sufficient, whether they count as a primary source or as a secondary source interpreting a primary source. But it's widely referred to in scholarship on Alexander the Great, even making it short overviews like H. Bowden, Alexander the Great: A Very Short Introduction (2014) p. 70. Furius (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is Alexander called "the Great" and who gave that title?

The article does not articulate well why Alexander was called as "the Great". Is it his middle/last name? If it is not his name, who gave that title? What are the reasons for giving that title? If those reasons are good for other kings of the world, do those kings are also called "the Great"? Without these details, the history is lob sided towards opinion. This wikipedia article should be better. It should be based on facts and documentary/verifiable proof. Please remove "the Great", or add qualifier saying that "the Great" is just used for fun with no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.46.85 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly what proof would you require that Alexander was, himself, "Great"? I mean, I find his exploits fairly worthy of the title. As to other rulers, both Catherine and Peter of Russia come to mind, as does Alfred of England (well, Wessex at least) and Ashoka of India. Do give them a look and tell us if they deserve the moniker. Until then, I think it's safe to go with this guy's far and away most common title. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Any archeological information need to have traceable proof to some writings during that person time or any interpretation from other writings or books. Other evidences like stone encryption, metal plates, coinage or other things. I guess there is nothing available to show "the Great", like how it start appearing, who gave that title, since when Alexander was started to be called as "the Great" and why. The problem with using the "the Great" is with that word meaning - someone achieved distinction and honour in some field. If we attribute this "the Great" to Alexander then the article need to articulate those details. Alexander is Great because for the following reasons etc. Details on why 'the Great" is used for Alexander should be added to the article. Without that it just becomes a bombastic word conveying wrong precedence. If no evidence can be found the article can state "the Great" was just used colloquially amongst those early history writers with no reason or cause. For your reference look at the article on Mahatma Gandhi. It articulates that "Mahatma" is an honorific title and it started appearing around 1914. The article provides evidence from a book on how this word came to be used. Without any such reference, it makes no sense to record Alexander as "the Great". He was just another king who wanted to expand his kingdom, which is nothing but a want or wish of Alexander. J

The appellation certainly goes back to at least Quintus Curtius Rufus, so you've got about two millennia there (depending upon your dating preferences). But even beyond the antiquity of the title, you have a problem with your request because of the more mundane concern of WP:COMMONNAME. "Alexander the Great" has tremendous name recognition in the English speaking world; "Alexander III of Macedon" much less so. I mean this with no disrespect, but this is really going nowhere. Your efforts would be better spent elsewhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe on Cyrus the Great?Pipsally (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Holy heavens! How did he not come to mind when I was thinking of "Greats"? Aging does terrible things to the brain! Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The first known person to call Alexander "the Great" was a Roman playwright named Plautus (254 – 184 BC) in a play named Mostellaria. Diptyajit (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Quote from Aelian

Greetings, Aelian described Alexander's hair color with the word "xanthen", which can also mean brown or auburn or tawny [1]. "Although the Alexander Mosaic depicts him with brown hair..." this phrase does not make sense, Aelian did not contradict the mosaic. Becarefulbro (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

Please allow me to edit it, because i am adding the deatiled death of Phillip 2 RAGMAIL (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Additionally, you can edit it with three days and ten edits worth of experience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Change "was a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.[a] A member of the Argead dynasty, he was born in Pella—a city in Ancient Greece" and much more stating that he was a Greek king as it's even stated in the name of the country that he ruled over that he was a MACEDONIAN KING. 95.180.194.33 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

BC/AD

This article uses the Christian designations BC and AD to number years rather than BCE and CE as most other Wikipedia articles do. Would anyone object to making this change? Billfalls (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would support it, but I think you’ll find the idea is not uncontroversial. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I support the change also, for the following reasons:

1. The majority of the world's population is not Christian.

2. The BCE/CE naming system was created by Christians as an alternative to BC/AD (and was later taken up by non-Christians and tolerant Christians) long before the 20th century, as may be read here: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/12/05/a-history-of-the-common-era-bce-ce-dating-system/ .

3. Jesus Christ was not born in 1 BC or 1 AD, but around 4 BC, meaning that the calendar is not accurate relative to his birth.

174.95.75.38 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform controlled by any Christian missionary. It must be safe and unobjectionable to everyone. So I would suggest using BCE/CE in place of BC/AD. Vimaljadoun (talk) 3:41PM IST, 02 December 2021.

• MOS:ERA raises that either BC/AD or CE/BCE are applicable so long as the use is consistent within the article. The majority of sources for Alexander use BCE/CE, so I would support this case; however, for Julius Caesar and other Roman articles, for example, the common practice is to use BC/AD, so that is most applicable there. It is a very case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I support the change. Dimadick (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose the change. Most regular people still use BC/AD. CE/BCE is dated the same way, so the three reasons given by the anon above seem to be poor arguments Nate Hooper (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'd say this is pedantry at its finest and absolutely no change is required. The "two" systems are one and the same, and which abbreviation is used has little to no impact anyway - people will understand what is being talked about, anyway. As with most things which can be done in different valid ways, there is no need for change so long the article is self-consistent. In this case it appears to be, so this whole section seems more to be virtue signalling than any request for a meaningful change to encyclopedic content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• I support the change, as the former system is explicitly religious in nature and explicitly based on misdating. Also, as a virtue-signaling pedant, I suppose it is just my way. Cheers, all, and pray for peace. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Both systems are based on the same misdating, and removing the reference to religion is really more of a bowdlerism than anything else - of course, appearances are something, but fact is, the world didn't change overnight between -1 and 1, and the only difference between the "two" systems (which are, as I said, one and the same) is that one of them makes it explicit what (fictional, misdated, legendary, or however one pleases to describe) event it is referring to while the other hides it behind a bland abbreviation (which could also be taken to stand for "Christian era", if one was particularly obsessive about it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Still, what would the other virtue-signaling pedants think of me if I were to recant now? I suppose I'll just have to maintain my stance nonetheless. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per NateHopper and RandomCanadian. Labeling it 'common' doesn't make Wikipedia less of a 'Christian missionary' platform since it is essentially the same convention; and calling a thing what it actually is is an inherently good principle. Avilich (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Bust of Alexander, again

Deedman22, I think it would help all involved if you would enunciate your reasoning for your change here rather than in edit summaries. You might even find people who agree with you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@DumuzidYes, this is an encyclopedia, not instagram. In that we are trying to be as accurate as possible with the representation of Alexander's appearance, not here to achieve aesthetic appeal. The best way to achieve accuracy is to use as bust that was created during/close to his lifetime. Two busts were created during his lifetime: the Leochares bust (previous) and the Lysippos portrayal. Both busts have historical context and are relevant i.e. are likely to be accurate in their depiction. The one you are proposing has no historical relevance whatsoever, so please explain why it should be used. Cheers. Deedman22 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Deedman, by my lights, Alexander's cultural and literary legacy form an important part of the article, and for that reason, I think it is entirely appropriate to have a piece of art representing him that comes from this tradition. I would politely ask that you stop edit warring for your preferred version. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid Okay, great, and both busts fit that mold. though one happens to have been made closer to his lifetime and is likely to be a more accurate portrayal. Which would also make it more appropriate as the lead image. Any other busts can be put further down in the article. Cheers. Deedman22 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

On this we will have to agree to disagree, but if you achieve consensus, then so be it. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: if the cultural significance argument is favoured, the most natural portrait of Alexander is that of the Alexander Mosaic. I suggest we change for this picture, which is also a featured picture on Commons. T8612 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

T8612, assuming you mean the detail of Alexander's face, and not the whole work, for me that is largely a wash with the current picture. I would be just fine with it, but I don't know that I'd say it's an improvement. Something of a lateral move. Still, I understand and appreciate your reasoning. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, we've had this discussion already. The arguments against changing to the "contemporary bust" are that A) there's already a depiction of such a bust lower in the article B) the image is definitively a worse image than the existing one C) whether the bust if contemporary or not does not have such a drastic effect on the "accuracy" of the portrayal (and in fact, for the lead, we're better using an image which is more recognisable, even if there are slight differences from what the most accurate depiction could be). On that last point, MOS:PERTINENCE says quite clearly that Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. - I reckon that both images look like Alexander, due to the differences being only minor, and due to the fact that knowing how exactly Alexander looked is not possible. The second concern is MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and on that one the existing image wins hands down. I wouldn't be opposed to the mosaic, on the same grounds: it depicts the right subject, and image quality is satisfactory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

In the table for Battle Record, the 8th column stating modern day country is missing an opening parentheses. Theilenman (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done – thank-you for pointing this out, Theilenman. Wham2001 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Place of death

I dont believe it was known as the Hellenic Empire when he passed away. The Hellenistic Empire began in 280BC 70.49.57.99 (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I also have my doubts about the term, its reliability, and whether it is being anachronistically applied. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Place of death 2

Parallel with the listed birthplace, a more accurate way to list his place of death would be: Babylon, Babylonia, Ancient Mesopotamia 70.49.57.99 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Or just Babylon, Persian Empire Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Achaemenid Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A simple solution is just to remove the final bit (in both cases). Listing and linking "Ancient Greece" doesn't add anything; and well the other page doesn't even mention Alexander... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

BC and AD are not the correct terms

Everytime BC appears it should be B.C.E. and AD should appear as C.E. 216.227.90.17 (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per WP:BCE, either can be used, as long as that usage is consistant within the article, which it is in this case. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

There is no proof that Alexander the Great was greek, and until we will be able to found proof.We and you cannot say anything about his ethnicity . History is made on proofs and you don't have, so this don't give you(wikipedia) the rights to write somthing like that.Greeks claims that he is greek, but aswell we Albanian claim that he is ILYRIAN. So for the sake of history, I am 100% sure that a page like Wikipedia it's not allowed to make such a mistake. "SO UNLESS WE FIND PROOF ABOUT HIS ETHNICITY,I THINK IS BETTER TO SAY THAT IS UNKNOWN." Just for note, I live in Macedonia and here we have Albanian and Sllavs but no greek. 46.217.29.3 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see the extensive past discussions organized under the page header. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As Dumuzid explained, see above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Name

For the Greek section, why not put the extended ancient version of the name, as modern Greek Wikipedia does:

Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μέγας 148.75.61.226 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The epithet is not contemporary and reign numbering is a modern convention. Furius (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello, all. Does anyone else think that the infobox of this article looks messy? The image is much too small and short length-wise (especially since better full-length images exist) and there are an excessive amount of titles, some of which are repeated as successions right underneath the image. I hope we can all agree on a way to improve it. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: Yeah the image is terrible, there should be a contemporary Hellenist depiction instead, not a much later Roman one.★Trekker (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It's there because it's by far the most famous image of Alexander, it shows him in his element, and it's in colour, so more lively than a bleached bust. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; just popping in to say of all the images I have seen tried in the infobox, in my humble opinion, this one is the best. If someone has a better suggestion, however, I would certainly consider it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also a copy of a late fourth century original (see, Stewart Faces of Power (1993) p. 131-132), so has about as much claim to "authenticity" as the statues of Alexander which are nearly all Roman copies too. Agreed that a better picture of it would be nice and that the titles need a cull. I don't think there's any evidence that he was ever "King of Kings of Persia" and "Strategos Autokrator" and "Hegemon" were functionally the same position. Furius (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

On what basis is it the most famous depiction of Alexander? Whenever I know of him I think of his gaze and neck posture looking into the distance. And something in 3d is almost always prefered over 2d. The mosaic also seems very stalized and almost (excuse me for using this word) cartoony.★Trekker (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources: "Perhaps the most famous depiction of Alexander the Great that survives, shown in the Alexander Mosaic from Pompeii.", "In fact, the most famous depiction of Alexander the Great in battle is a mosaic from a house in Pompeii.", "The best-known depiction of Alexander the Great, the 20-sq-metre mosaic". I don't know where the claim that 3d is preferred over 2d comes from (perhaps because 2d images of ancient figures tend not to be preserved?). Portraits are extremely common in article infoboxes (e.g. Catherine the Great). Furius (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Alexander mosaic is iconic, and is, by far, the best image for the article. Paul August ☎ 23:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but an better image of the mosaic, a close-up of Alexander himself, would be more preferable than what we have currently. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. The images available on commons are collected here. There are a number of close-ups which are profile rather than landscape and might be more appropriate for the infobox. Furius (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I think [14] or [15] would be better than the current image, although each image I've provided does have its own issues. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it to the second one and cut some of the titles as outlined above. Feel free to respond boldly :) Furius (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead image. Again.

@Dumuzid @Paul August @Furius @StarTrekker @Iskandar323, I'm starting to question the use of the mosaic in this article. Since the last discussion, I've taken a long, hard look at the picture, and he looks... a lot different here compared to near-contemporary busts and coins. I apologize for saying this so flatly, but the Alexander mosaic is ugly. Very visually unappealing. I much prefer this, this, or this all of which have the plus sides of being near-contemporary, somewhat Hellenic in origin, and having that iconic "Alexander staring ambiguously into the distance" look. Let me know what you all think. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It remains, as before, the most famous depiction of him and is probably modelled (per Stewart, Faces of Power) on a contemporary painting. The aesthetic judgment is totally subjective. I could just as easily claim that the breakage and wear of the sculptures makes them ugly and unappealing. Separately, it is an issue that the dates of those sculptures are uncited. Furius (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am with Furius here. I am certainly open to considering a different image, but I would need to see some reliable sources to back up the argument. They may very well exist! Cheers and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate. Dumuzid (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you, as well! Responding to those points, take the first two images I've provided for instance. The British Museum describes the bust as Hellenistic and dates it to 300 BC - 150 BC, meaning at the very least, it predates the Roman mosaic by half a century. The French and Russian Wikipedias, in which Alexander the Great is a featured article, use busts as their lead images. However, I do conceded that an image's aesthetic is purely subjective. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I still remain unconvinced that the mosaic is really how most people imagine Alexander, just because its the best known individual work depicting him it doesn't mean its more representative of the man overall. I still think a contemporary portrait should be used for the infobox.★Trekker (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. This is kind of a bad example, but a good amount people only know Taylor Swift from songs like "Blank Space" or "Shake it Off", but to say that those two songs are representative of her entire career is simply absurd, seeing as she has ventured into country, pop, folk, alternative, etc. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop back in briefly to say that absolute chronology is certainly a valid data point, but I have my qualms about leaning on it so heavily in an era when contemporaneous information is not only somewhat rare, but may not always have strict fidelity to reality. Similarly, I think how well-known an image is can be used as another (though also non-dispositive) data point. For me, the ideal sourcing would be an academic source or subject matter expert saying "this is the most authentic image, because...." or even, "this is the most well-known image, because...." Of course, should a consensus form that differs from my thoughts, no worries. Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Alexander the great

He had influences from 320s BC and 1973 AD. 2.30.125.59 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, but do you actually have a suggestion for the article? Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Authoritative Sources?

Does anyone know of any authoritative and academic sources on Alexander? I'm thinking of something similar to the Yale English Monarchs series, probably the best sources on English/British monarchs. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Bosworth 1988 (in the bibliography) is the go to work. Furius (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Alexander The Great was defeated by King Porus

Alexander the Great was defeated by an Indian Ancient King Porus in Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC. There are many facts behind this fact about the defeated battle that if the Alexander invaded India then why he returned back without fighting for other Indian regions, moreover India was ruled by many kings in their respective regions. Alexander wrote a letter to her mother about Indian that every soldier is like iron pillar in front of us and every Indian mother gave birth to Alexander who can never be defeated. Alexander also took help from other Indian King like to stop the war and talk, but each time Porus denied for it and continuously defeated Alexander's army and demoralized them for victory over India. Alexander returned to his homeland after this unbelievable defeat from King Porus and his dream of conquering worlds was incomplete. Sudskhokhar (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Britannica: The fight on the banks of the Hydaspes River in India was the closest Alexander the Great came to defeat. His feared Companion cavalry was unable to subdue fully the courageous King Porus. Hydaspes marked the limit of Alexander’s career of conquest; he died before he could launch another campaign. He still won that battle, however. See Battle of the Hydaspes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Important: died at 32

Can we put this in the lead section, after “at the age of 32….” This is significant enough to justify lead section imo. Anyone agree?? 79.67.170.255 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Eh. It's already in the infobox, isn't it? Furius (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Major Exhibitions?

Under the 'ancient and modern culture' heading section, is it appropriate to include major exhibitions on Alexander the Great? Politis (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Or in "historiography"? This doesn't currently discuss modern historiography, but it could. Furius (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

"Alexander of Macedonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alexander of Macedonia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Alexander of Macedonia until a consensus is reached. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 21:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

A recent publication in renaissance studies on the reception of Alexander in 16th century China is interesting https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rest.12863 AlexanderJSS (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia Recording Underway

I am working on a Spoken Wikipedia recording of this article as of 2023-04-23. ZNQriGo0GUGMAibZXgBV (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I am recording this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_the_Great&oldid=1151838269 ZNQriGo0GUGMAibZXgBV (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Main Photo Change Request

I was wondering whether you guys think it's a good idea for us to change the main photo? Wanted to see the general consensus on this first. The current photo is a bit too drab, and mosaics generally don't have the same realism found in paintings - which is a shame because there's bust sculptures and paintings of Alexander that are better-looking on Wikicommons, maybe it's just me. What do you guys think?

UPDATE: Here's some photos I thought would be decent for the change. Granted, they'd be cropped to center around Alexander, but what do you guys think?

Alexander cuts the Gordian Knot

Alexander_the_Great_Founding_Alexandria

ballads^one 04:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Support: though I don't think it counts much, given it's me - but support imo. ballads^one 04:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We've been through this a number of times, but I am open to the idea. It would be helpful if you proposed a specific alternate image, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Right! the "Change X to Y" format - I forgot, I'll try get a new image. ballads^one 05:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to replacing an iconic ancient artwork, which is very widely used and is based on a contemporary painting, with baroque fantasy depictions. Furius (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

what about a sculpture bust, as is used with Aristotle and Socrates ? ballads^one 23:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As discussed in archive 23, several busts of Alexander, including the one at the British Museum, were made closer to Alexander's lifetime. To quote StarTrekker, "I still remain unconvinced that the mosaic is really how most people imagine Alexander, just because its the best known individual work depicting him it doesn't mean its more representative of the man overall." If you do a Google search, the mosaic is not the "most common" depiction of Alexander; it is pretty evenly split between that, Hellenistic busts, and Baroque paintings. I am in favor of a Hellenistic bust (instead of a poorly constructed Roman mosaic) as the image, as other Wikipedias use, but it seems like Wikipedians will always advocate for the mosaic. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As this is brought up once again I once again reiterate that I remain unimpressed with arguments for the mosaic. Renaissance paintings are beautiful and impressive in every way, but they do not reflect the historical Alexander like a Hellenistic bust could.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking this into mind, I will support an image change, albeit definitely not to a painting. A Hellenistic bust is the way to go, methinks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: More or less exactly what furious said. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Alexander Mosaic is the most famous depiction of Alexander, and it's a featured picture. There are more fancy pictures of him, but on Wikipedia we don't pick a lede image because it's pretty. T8612 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• I like to think I have an open mind (and I think I do!), but none of the arguments to me really make a compelling case for replacing the mosaic. To my mind, it's the best of a bunch of mediocre choices. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Remove a Portal:War see a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:War 112.208.225.247 (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Callmemirela 🍁 11:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

era request

please change the notations AD/BC to CE/BCE. The latter is the accepted form in the scientific and archaeological society. Sticking to AD/BC is not secular and does not fit the global use of this article. Megaking13 (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:ERA, you will need a very specific reason and full consensus on this page, to change it from BC to BCE. Canterbury Tail talk 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

I would like to add, after the mentioning of Alexander being undefeated in battle and regarded as one of the most successful military commanders, that he was one of the most influential figures in human history. 207.144.25.208 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Callmemirela 🍁 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

SOMEBODY SHOULD FIX THE OBVIOUS MISTAKE - Callisthenes was not Aristotle's GRAND-UNCLE, but his GRAND-NEPHEW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.75.101 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done NebY (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Alexander lost

He lost with Porus(Puru) at India entry and goes back and due to wound, he lost his life. 103.71.194.223 (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

He didn't lose against Porus. He won, only in Indian history they present the battle as a victory for Porus. Nowhere else on the planet Nickolas VL (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Greek

I just add the word Greek before King. Stop removing it please. Alexander the Great was a Greek king of the ancinet Greek Kingdom of Macedonia. I am not adding something wrong Nickolas VL (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2023

I wish for you to remove the part where he was Greek due to the fact that is not a fact and he could be from FYROM. 37.25.85.83 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It already states he was born in Macedon, which was an ancient Greek polity. Tollens (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of ancient sources

I was thinking about the recently added sources and what would be the best way to use them in this article. Considering that this one is a quality article, I think it would be better to differentiate between ancient primary sources and modern academic sources and use them separately. The ancient sources added by @Unkownsolidier are very interesting and give an insignt on what ancient authors thought about Alexander and the Argeads but without further academic analysis from scholars they might not be of the same quality as the rest of the sources; e.g. they reflect ancient opinions but some of them don't differentiate between reality and myth. The fact that ancient Macedonians were essentially a greek people is already supported by a plethora of academic sources in the lead.

I was thinking about moving them to a separate note, either in the lead or the 'early life' section, in which we could describe how ancient authors and the Argeads traced their lineage back to mythical heroes and claimed descend from Argos etc. I think this would be a more appropriate way to use them in his article. Piccco (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: In regard to the claimed mythical origin of the family, except for the primary sources, I added Errington and Hornblower for further reference. Piccco (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of lineage belongs in the article on the Argead dynasty. Primary sources should be cited only in conjunction with secondary sources. On this issue the secondary sources are very numerous. Furius (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Furius, So what do you think is the best way to use them? Were they better before in the lead or in the 'early life' section, and what should we write in the note? Piccco (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"in which we could describe how ancient authors and the Argeads traced their lineage back to mythical heroes" The Argeads specifically claimed descent from the Heracleidae. So did several other Greek dynasties. Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I know, that's what I meant. Temenus was thought to be one of the Heracleidae. Piccco (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

The following line should be edited for accuracy and completeness.

"Along the way his army conquered the Malhi (in modern-day Multan) and other Indian tribes and Alexander sustained an injury during the siege.[134]"

In the campaign against the Malloi (specifically the seige of their citadel) Alexander sustained a near fatal wound that likely truncated his remaining lifespan. All ancient sources relate that Alexander leapt down into the citadel after climbing the rampart alone. While fighting there an arrow pierced his corset, causing a massive hemorrhage. Alexander was carried off, and the entire population of the citadel was slaughtered in retaliation.

I would change the line to this:

"Along the way his army conquered the Malhi (in modern-day Multan) and other Indian tribes; while besieging the Mallian citadel, Alexander suffered a near-fatal injury." [134]

For a citation I recommend the following:

Theodore Dodge (1890). Alexander. New York: Da Capo Press. pp. 605 71.191.76.42 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done: verified in the provided citation and changed to: Along the way his army conquered the Malhi (in modern-day Multan) and other Indian tribes; while besieging the Mallian citadel, Alexander suffered a near-fatal injury when an arrow penetrated his armor and entered his lung. Xan747 (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

hello good sir/madame there is some incorrect information about my family i would like to correct please Ha ck er 1123456789 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC

please not my family but it is were he is buried and his life story as i am a enthusiastic historian )

please advise what information needs changing, and supply a source please. Moons of Io (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Half Persian

In Shahnameh there is chapter entitled Eskandarnameh, where the King of Macedon loses a war against Iran. Peace is made by offering his daughter. She becomes pregnant with Alexander. She becomes ill and is cured by Sekander herb, that is where he gets his name. But she is sent back to her home. Her father then brings up Alexander as his own.

Anyway I has posted details on my Facebook group with links to translation of Shahnameh and its translation.

https://www.facebook.com/100031869506260/posts/pfbid035GmL1XEMh6EppRV8p9q46Sg49j3V9kSeYpAqfEbSMZiiXjhj8k8wA77XssEeRCzfl/ Alimostofi (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Alexander - Emperor or King?

Hello, I have noticed that in this article Alexander is not called an ‘emperor’ even in the main body or the starting part. He is referred to as King of Macedon etc. Shouldn’t he be referred to as Emperor as he had an empire? I think he should be referred to as Emperor, what are your thoughts? ᗟ𝖗ᗟ𝓊𝑘𝘦💀 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally think "monarch" would be the most appropriate. His actual title was basileus, which has no perfect translation, but simply meant any monarchic ruler. So a king was a basileus, but so was an emperor, e.g. in the Byzantine Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So shouldn’t we refer to him as Basileus rather than king as it can be both emperor and king, I’d like to hear the opinions of others too. It would be good if we can reach a consensus. ᗟ𝖗ᗟ𝓊𝑘𝘦💀 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's king. And it's irrelevant what you would like in place of that. 85.165.160.51 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Heterochromia myth

No legitimate ancient source is provided on this page for Alexander's supposed heterochromia. The Arrian citation is not only fabricated - there is no reference to any heterochromia in Arrian - it does not even follow any accepted referencing style.

While there are scholars who have supposed that Alexander was heterochromatic, as cited, this should be mentioned as being unsupported by the ancient sources. There is only one ancient source that mentions Alexander as being heterochromatic: the Alexander Romance, which is well known as being mostly fictional and fantastical. There is no heterochromia otherwise mentioned in any of Alexander's ancient biographers or historians 81.106.58.249 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

""@Unkownsolidier: your edits added the claim that the Anabasis of Alexander quoted Arrian as saying "he had one eye dark as the night, and one blue as the sky", which is perplexing as the Anabasis was written by Arrian; did he quote himself? I and the editor above have been unable to find any such statement in Arrian's Anabasis; the reference you provided for that quotation has "loc =86–160", which is a wide range whether pages or sections so can you be more precise? You referenced Fragments of Neurological History but heterochromia is not a neurological condition, and The Death of Alexander the Great–a Spinal Twist of Fate but that is about congenital scoliotic syndrome. Does The Classical Tradition make the claim that "Many scholars and historians attribute heterochromia to" Alexander? NebY (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, that edit is old–when I just started learning about Wikipedia edits. And yes, I apologize because I couldn't pinpoint the exact page where Arrian clarifies this and yet I also made a grammatical mistake by claiming that "Arrian is quote as saying". But it is know that Arrian spread this theory that Alexander had heterochromia. As for the latter part, I didn't add that, the sources were already there. Unkownsolidier (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You've now changed the article to "In Anabasis Xenophon, Arrian notes". Arrian does not note anything in Xenophon's Anabasis; Xenophon wrote his Anabasis before Alexander was born and about 450 years before Arrian was. So to what work does "loc=86–160" apply, and what does it mean?

Do you have a source for "it is know that Arrian spread this theory"?

You added Fragments of Neurological History, The Death of Alexander the Great–a Spinal Twist of Fate and The Classical Tradition with this edit, with the edit summary "Added reliable sources from historians and scholars supporting this claim"; that's why I'm asking you. NebY (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide the exact reference in Arrian to Alexander's heterochromia? Book, chapter, section? 81.106.58.249 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The quote really does not sound like Arrian, for what it's worth. Furius (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please date correct birthday & death day 2A00:1851:8005:7C73:7593:47EB:A9F1:45B8 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

Alexander the Great was Macedonian not greek 95.91.233.108 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

look at Shahnameh chapter called the book of Alexander. Alimostofi (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: If you're talking about whether he belongs to modern Macedonia or modern Greece, the answer is neither. The article's lead says it quite clearly: he was king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon. Liu1126 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am saying is that in the Persian famous book called Shahnameh there is a chapter called Eskandar Nameh. In it, it states that his father was not Philip. His mother was called Nahid or Lydia, who was the daughter of Philip of Macedon. She was forced to leave the Imperial Court of Persia and had to return to Philip pregnant. She did not tell her husband Darab the Emperor of Persia, but told her father Philip. Later when she was dying she told Alexander. So Alexander was half Persian. There is a lot more to this. Alimostofi (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Shahnameh is a literary treasure, but is not generally considered to be a reliable historical source, especially for Alexander and times before. It might be part of an overall argument about something in the article, but alone it does not outweigh the consensus of historians. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Hello, @Dumuzid, I noticed that you reverted an edit I made yesterday restoring the mosaic image. While I don't really think the topic is too important, I would at least appreciate an edit summary, instead of a bold revert, so that I'd know your thinking. I am aware of the significance of the mosaic itself; I just restored the bust because it appeared to me more reminiscent of Hellenistic art and more impressive as lead image. Note that the image wasn't added by me in the first place, but I just defended it because I liked the outcome. Cheers. Piccco (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus has been to use the Alexander Mosaic instead of a bust. T8612 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies Piccco, and you are quite right that you deserve an explanation. I did that on my phone meaning to get to my computer to open up a topic, but was called away and forgot, so I really have no excuse. As T8612 has said, this has actually been litigated on this talk page quite a bit! Thus far, the mosaic has certainly had consensus, but as we all know, consensus can change. So to that end, while I am not married to any particular image, I do think it is incumbent upon those who favor something other than the mosaic to demonstrate at least a provisional consensus before making the change. With that, I will wish you a good week! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

All well said. @Piccco, you might be interested in some of the information about the standing and dating of these portrayals in the six(!) discussions I've found in the last talkpage archive alone (Lead image dispute; Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021; Picture of Bust of Alexander, again; Infobox; Lead image. Again.; Main Photo Change Request). NebY (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, I appreciate you taking time to reply. I only remembered the relatively recent discussion where a user proposed some Barock paintings for the lead, which were rejected for obvious reasons. While I don't see how the mosaic could be preferred over the bust, I recognize that it is eventually not so big of a deal and, to a certain degree, subjective preferences. I wish a good week to you and everyone who spent time to reply. Piccco (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Consensus" isn't what I would call it personally, it's a constant dispute.★Trekker (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024

Suggest wikilinking "[...] cultural diffusion and syncretism [...]" at the top of the final lede paragraph. Neither needs piping, I believe. :) 2A02:560:5939:AB00:CCCD:F34C:3CF2:C5FC (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 15:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)