Talk:Personal relationships of Alexander the Great

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal relationships of Alexander the Great article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Classical Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Two tiers

Upon what basis are we creating here a two-tiered structure of information, in which some data is declared certain and other data informed guesses? Haiduc 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need this article?

Many get deleted but we speak about his perosnal relationships...wow, whatever!

Reference: Caratini?

Ref #11 says "Alexandre le Grand", Roger Caratini, p.170. From what I can tell, Roger Caratini never wrote a book called "Alexandre le Grand". He wrote several, but not that one. AB Bosworth, however, did write a book by that title. Also, both authors seem to be French, though the part of the article being sourced is in English. Can someone clarify? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he wrote it, and it is one of the most famous biographies on Alexander for historians in the south of Europe. Just a search on Amazon to confirm it would have sufficed. The fact that it is not translated into English doesn't mean that the book does not exist. Why not searching info. before questioning references? --Bucephala 21:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander was a very handsome man and liked to ejectulate while watching britney spears 'Gimme gimme more video' other thaan that Alexander the Great was a homosexual.

I had seen this line here: "Alexander was a very handsome man and liked to ejectulate while watching britney spears 'Gimme gimme more video' other thaan that Alexander the Great was a homosexual." I don't think it should be included in the article since it talks about someone from the past. I just thought of informing the people that edits this page.Thanks!Valefor1023 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously vandalism, you could have deleted it, as I have done. Greetings --Bucephala 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about that. I don't know how much and how to delete the content in this article since I'm kindda new here. I was reading this article and saw that line. I don't wanna ruin the article. Anyways, thanks for re-editing of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valefor1023 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stateira?

I'm currently reading Valerio Massimos semi-fictional trilogy on Alexander the Great. It seems to put quite a lot of focus on his marriage to Stateira (daughter of Darius III) yet she isn't included in this article. Actually, none of the articles I've found regarding Alexander seem to give much notice to Stateira, and the article about Stateira II is just a stub.

Is her involvment with Alexander not as significant as I thought it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.66.41 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barsine

I haven't edited for awhile, but I came across this and have to point out that Heracles was certainly mentioned shortly after Alexander's death in the succession struggle. Nearchus, Barsine's son-in-law and so brother in law to Heracles put his name forward as a candidate for the kingship, but it was rejected. I'll check back in a few days, with the proper cite. Gingervlad (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy disclaimer

How can you say "Many stories are told by later historians on the subject of Alexander's love affairs, but as the original sources are lost to us, it is difficult to tell fact from fiction", implying, falsely, that somehow the sources on his relationships are less credible than the sources on his entire life?! They are one and the same. Haiduc (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we gotta stop meeting like this. I came here by way of Diogenes, and surprise-surprise here's your sig! Your edit/talk history has "NPOV violation" and "agenda" written all over it.

As a matter of fact, accounts from a person's contemporaries are far more credible than later historians. Honest scholarship will always make an effort to appeal to the original source data.

Quote: "...implying, falsely, that somehow the sources on his relationships are less credible than the sources on his entire life?! They are one and the same." <-- is pretty vague here (I would even say deliberately so), since later historians lacking direct citations from contemporaries of the time would be making a pure argument to authority on their part, correct? Obiwanjacoby (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to acquaint yourself with the sources for Alexander. We don't have any detailed contemporary accounts of his life; everything comes from at least a century afterwards (though the sources we do have had access to accounts written by people who knew Alexander firsthand). The sources we have for Alexander's relationships w/Hephaistion et al. are the same sources we have for the battle of Issus, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, you might want to acquaint yourself with the argument at hand. I am simply arguing that accounts from a person's contemporaries are far more credible than later historians, regardless of which particular historical figure we're discussing.

They are not "one and the same" as Haiduc would have you believe. If we are lacking contemporary accounts for any historical figure, then 100-year-old scholarship after the fact still fails to be an acceptable substitute. This doesn't mean we completely reject these scholars, but nevertheless, it is a simple value judgement being argued here. The line is clearly drawn. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. The sources we have for Alexander's relationships are ancient writers such as Plutarch, Quintus, Arrian, and Diodorus--the same sources that we use to learn about Alexander's military campaigns, etc. They relied on accounts by men who knew Alexander personally--but those accounts are now lost. The sources we've got may or may not be reliable (modern historians argue quite a bit over the accuracy of these writers), but they're what we've got. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. This is progress. Now go back and read the first statement in this thread. Haiduc is trying to level the playing field by literally saying they are one and the same. He is equivocating the value of our sources, where you are simply being honest and fully aware of the limits.

I agree with you. "They're what we got," as you say. However, Haiduc needs to level the playing field in order to shoehorn his own revisionist agenda. Look at his wiki history. He clearly wants a modern non-NPOV scholarship that suits his personal bias. Ask yourself, who are the "sources" on Alexander's relationships that are "one and the same" with the sources on his entire life? This is a deliberate ambiguity meant to get people like Robin Lane Fox in there with equal authority as Plutarch. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is straight-washed.

He was gay. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glendale1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is somewhat aimless. The lead, a summary of the article, is but one sentence. Is that because there is nothing to summerise? I am not inclined enough or knowledgeable enough to make the necessary changes myself. Also, what is 'straight-washed'? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Achilles and Patroclus wikipedia page has this same issue. Very obsessed straight men who can't handle a little gay. But this article does seem a bit aimless, as Roger points out. Unfortunately, we will may see a bit of vandalism because of the right-wing tantrum throwing over the new Netflix doc, something that we delt with other at Ethnicity of Cleopatra. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that Alexander the Great was a homosexual. Everything in the article is conjecture.Easeltine (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Aristotle Section

In the final sentence of the aforementioned section, there is a colon apparently prefacing a missing quotation. Do we know what this quote was supposed to say? Otherwise, I'd suggest deleting the sentence. Mdrewcaffin (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article presents the potential historical basis for Alexander possibly having a romantic relationship with Hephaestion while the opposing side is represented by a "far-right Greek politician", despite this debate having no consensus among historians. It would only be fair to present both sides fairly Man-Man122 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The facts on the matter aren’t difficult to establish without it getting messy like that. I’ll see about clarifying the article. Bagabondo (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]