Talk:Alexander the Great

Foreign language equivalent in the lede

@RandomCanadian: That's correct. I was confused with MOS:IDENTITY, but MOS:LEADLANG allows a foreign language equivalent, and in the original ancient Greek (at least in Plutarch's Parallel Lives that i checked) he is referred as Ἀλέξανδρος plainly. By the way, the same issue is observed in a number of other articles that can likewise be corrected. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Alexander The great is not a Muslim according to The Quran. Dhul-Qarnayn is not Alexander The great according to The Quran. Alexander The great is not Dhul-Qarnayn in Islam. 73.150.252.19 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Alexander the Great was an ancient Macedonian ruler and one of history’s greatest military minds who, as King of Macedonia and Persia, established the largest empire the ancient world had ever seen. By turns charismatic and ruthless, brilliant and power hungry, diplomatic and bloodthirsty, Alexander inspired such loyalty in his men they’d follow him anywhere and, if necessary, die in the process. Though Alexander the Great died before realizing his dream of uniting a new realm, his influence on Greek and Asian culture was so profound that it inspired a new historical epoch—the Hellenistic Period.

Where Was Alexander the Great From? Alexander III was born in Pella, Macedonia, in 356 B.C. to King Philip II and Queen Olympias—although legend had it his father was none other than Zeus, the ruler of the Greek gods.

Philip II was an impressive military man in his own right. He turned Macedonia (a region on the northern part of the Greek peninsula) into a force to be reckoned with, and he fantasized about conquering the massive Persian Empire.

Bucephalus At age 12, Alexander showed impressive courage when he tamed the wild horse Bucephalus, an enormous stallion with a furious demeanor. The horse became his battle companion for most of Alexander’s life. 2001:44B8:419B:9600:201D:CF96:787E:BD2E (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (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) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Sleetimetraveller (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Change File:ACMA 1331 Alexander 1.JPG to File:Alexander the Great bust.jpg

 Not done: Potential copyright issues with the proposed picture, and the existing one is better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sleetimetraveller (talk) why is the existing one better, when the proposed one shows Alexander's face and shoulders, and isn't as ruined. If you didn't choose I understand though :)

Maybe it's better because it focuses on the face? Please solve the licensing issue with your image before suggesting adding it to an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the licensing on File:Alexander the Great bust.jpg|Alexander the Great bust but I recommend File:Roman bust of Alexander the Great, excavated from the ruins of Herculaneum, Blenheim Palace Oxfordshire, UK (13977468218).jpg instead Sleetimetraveller (talk)

I changed it, I think this is a better representation of Alexander Sleetimetraveller (talk)

Reverted because, as I said, the shoulders and the rest are not really interesting. If you can provide a cropped version which focuses on the face that would be great. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don’t we use this image it’s much better.and it focuses on the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

I provided a cropped version, and anyway its midnight so im going to bed Sleetimetraveller (talk)

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 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 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 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]

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)

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)