Talk:Cleophis

Untitled
Bedfore placing non-sensical templates in this article, come and discuss its relevance with reference to this article. This is vandalism.

Sze cavalry01 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied here. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We cordially invite those who still believe in Alexander-Cleophis intrigue to come forward and discuss in this talk page the issue so that one may know reality vs phantasy in the classical accounts.

KLS

Wait, wait, wait... a Republic!?

Article really needs to have the amount of POV reduced
I know nothing about the subject of the article, but I was immediately struck by how non-neutral the article is. Rather than presenting information, this article engages in overt advocacy. Some examples:


 * "...the story rather seems to be baseless and not more than a romantic invention"


 * "Curtius is not more than a romantic story teller who can easily loose track and stray from truth"


 * "We must dismiss from our mind the notion that the statements of classical writers have any special claims to be recognised as true or authentic"


 * "...romantic concotions and indulgences which the weak and careless classical intellectual-pimps like Justin have stamped as if they were authentic" (my emphasis added)


 * Sections like - "Unproven and false allegation"; "Cleophis was innocent"

It's one thing to quote critical sources, but it's another thing to overtly take positions in an article. I don't feel I have enough knowledge in this area to properly edit this article, but the POV really needs to be toned down. The pimp reference is the clearest, so I will remove that. I hope other editors of this article will help clean it up. -Kubigula (ave) 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Buddy,

If you know nothing about the subject, then better not interfere with it. The statements which you call POV are not mine but are taken from very noted experts/scholars on the subject who have shredded the century old myth of cleophis-Alexander conjugal relationship which had either been based on tell-tale/rumor-mongering by low class superstitious people (Dr Buddha Prakash, Dr J. L. Kamboj, K. S. Daradi etc) from whom classical sources may picked up the  juicy stuff or  else it was an intentional creation/concotion,  perhaps by the prururient vulgate source to take liberties with her image and to generate a sensational/lurid material to excite the Roman readers about the decadence of the opulent Orient. Celebrated Scholars like Dr Taran, foremoost authority on the subject and Dr Buddha Prakash, Dr R. C. Majumdar etc have shown that many classical writers including Arrian  have intentionally lied  about Alexener’s compaign in north-west Frontiers/India and have glossed over the shortcomings and barbarism of Alexander and  put a cover-up on the military strengths of  Indian/frontier highlander clans.

These classical writers who are biased and/or exaggerate the achiements of their own masters/heros are not better than intellectual Pimps, to put it mildly. This is not unreasonable if some modern reasearchers think Justin as not more than a mere intellectual pimp.

This also proves that Cleophis was otherwise innocent,  but was delibrately branded as "royal whore" by "Pimps like Justin"--- simply to create a juicy stuff for his Roman writers.

Good day to you.

Sze cavalry01 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cavalry, I don't know Kubigula, but I personally know quite a lot about ancient history, hellenistic in particular. I must admit my ignorance of this Mr. Taran (possibly you mean Tarn?). Also you've pratically ignored all the most reknown scholars (Bosworth, Hammond, Lane Fox) for guys that are mostly unknown in international scholarship. By doing this you have violated WP:NPOV. As for the removed paragraph it's a complete violation of WP:NOR and WP:V.--Aldux 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HI Aldux I have quoted Dr W. W. Tarn (Not Taran..sorry for typo error), Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr Buddha Prakash etc, all are of international fame (sorry if you are ignorant about these famed scholars).

By the way, you may go ahead and put the views of views of Bosworth, Hammond, Lane Fox here to balance the article if you think it's unbalanced.

It is unfair and unreasonable to delete the following section, though Kubigula/or you may edit it to take care of the POV part if you think it's there> But why one may want to remove it entirely?.

Cleophis was innocent ''The foregoing evidences and discussion prove that Cleophis-Alexander intrigue is baseless and Cleophis was indeed innocent. A lurid tale was concocted, perhaps, by the prururient vulgate source to take liberties with her image and to generate a sensational material to excite the Roman readers about the decadence of the opulent Orient. Later, Justin picked up the story and made it still more graphic and lurid to impress his audience. It is notable that both Curtius and Justin who promoted Cleophis-Alexander-intrigue were Roman writers of later times. Cleophis was a great heroine, a mature leader, a valiant warrior and a true patriot who had given a befitting fight possible under the circumstances, to an invader and led her people out of the unprecedented crisis at such a critical juncture of their history. Being from The Fair' Sex, she unfortunately fell a victim to the romantic concotions and indulgences which the weak and careless classical intellectual-pimps like Justin have stamped as if they were authentic.''

Sze cavalry01 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I conceded, I am unfamiliar with Cleophis beyond what is presented in this article. However, I am very familiar with general scholarship and I strongly subscribe to the Wikipedia fundamental principle of neutrality. Sze cavalry - you are obviously very knowledgeable in this area, but you equally obviously have very strong opinions as to the subject.  That's OK, but the result is a very nonneutral and unbalanced presentation.  I don't mean to lecture, but Wikipedia is about presenting good, balanced information, not about original research and arguments.  I can't imagine any circumstance in which it would be necessary or appropriate to describe anyone as an "intellectual pimp", even if you are directly quoting a source.  It seems to me that the use of the term "intellectual pimp" is the same type of unnecessary name calling that you object to when sources called Cleophis a "royal whore".  I strongly encourage you read the Wikipedia policies regarding original research (WP:NOR) and content neutrality (WP:NPOV).  Finally, there is already the section titled "Unproven and false allegation" which makes the same argument as the section that was removed.


 * Please also note that you reverted three separate types of edits. First, I changed the internal linking of classical to Classical antiquity.  I did this because "classical" is a disambiguation page - a page that presents multiple possible articles for the term.  Wikipedia discourages direct linking to disambiguation pages; the internal link should go to the intended target article instead.  In this case, I felt that you probably intended to link to the "classical antiquity" article.  I may be wrong - if you intended a different destination article, please feel free to change that.  Second, I added the NPOV template.  I hope you now agree that this was done in good faith, even if you disagree about the neutrality issue.  Accordingly, please do not remove the template until we have resolved this issue. Finally, there is the deleted paragraph which we are discussing above.--Kubigula (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kubigula

Well that is OK for the time being, but let us hear from Aldux 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC) also and see what Bosworth, Hammond, Lane Fox  have to say on the subject.Aldux also sees this article unbalanced so his views on the subject are awaited on this talk page. It is likely that Bosworth, Hammond, Lane Fox  may have something new to  add to our knlwledge which scholars like Dr Tarn, Prakash, Majumdar etc  may have missed.

Sze cavalry01 04:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder
HI Aldux, Kubigula, once again, please present the counter-views presented by Bosworth, Hammond, Lane Fox to neutralize the views of Dr W. W. Tarn and other scholars, so that the Wikipedia readers may know of the alternative views on Cleophis. Until then, I am going to remove the partiality tag. Sze cavalry01 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

kamboj image
That Image doesnt serve any purpose and is misleading it shows a sikh warrior on horse, the equipment and clothing worn is also not inline. Hence removed the image. Armybrat 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article has been heavily edited by a known POV-pusher of pseudo-history who is fond of piling on citations in order to distract people from their synthesis and other forms of original research. It is par for the course that some of the sources do not even exist. A big clean-up, in particular of any statement concerning the Kamboj/Kamboja, will be needed. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that a significant clean-up is needed. The article is hard to follow and reads like some kind of thesis paper.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewrote Lead
I rewrote the lead because it failed to tell us when Cleophis lived or why she is of interest except that her son was a war leader- since most war leaders have mothers and they don't all get their own pages, something more is needed. Also the bulk of the lead consisted of explaining who her people were and where they lived and, like almost all of this page, was pretty much cut-pasted from http://everything.explained.today/Cleophis/ so I cut most of the background information and tried to write a lead that tells us who she is and why we are reading about her. Hope this meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexander's War With the Assacani
Reworded the first paragraph for brevity and clarity. Don't have time to do more tonight. SereneRain (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Trimming Article
I'm pretty much deleting the whole article because it reads like an anti-Alexandrian attack add, almost all of it is given to a detailed rebuttal of the rumor that Cleophis and Alexander had a child, and it is mostly copy-pasted from http://everything.explained.today/Cleophis/. I'm replacing it with a succinct description of who Cleophis was, what she did and what some later writers said she did. I'm aware that I'm putting my foot in it by erasing a whole article like this- I've never done anything like it before. If what I did is inappropriate in any way I understand and will treat it as a learning experience. SereneRain (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I applaud you for being bold. This article has needed a good cleaning for a long time.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)