Talk:Gates of Alexander

Untitled
Under the section "Literary Background" the contention that it was a fictional story before Qur'an was "written" is a bit misleading as the Qur'an was written many years after it was "revealed". Please clarify. uXuf (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Should Procopius be mentioned as ancient source?
Procopius writes about the gates in his History of Wars (published 545 AD), here is direct quote:

''The Taurus mountain range of Cilicia passes first Cappadocia and Armenia and the land of the so-called Persarmenians, then also Albania and Iberia and all the other countries in this region, both independent and subject to Persia. For it extends to a great distance, and as one proceeds along this range, it always spreads out to an extraordinary breadth and rises to an imposing height. And as one passes beyond the boundary of Iberia there is a sort of path in a very narrow passage, extending for a distance of fifty stades. This path terminates in a place cut off by cliffs and, as it seems, absolutely impossible to pass through. For from there no way out appears, except indeed a small gate set there by nature, just as if it had been made by the hand of man, which has been called from of old the Caspian Gates. From there on there are plains suitable for riding and extremely well watered, and extensive tracts used as pasture land for horses, and level besides. Here almost all the nations of the Huns are settled, extending as far as the Maeotic lake. Now if these Huns go through the gate which I have just mentioned into the land of the Persians and the Romans, they come with their horses fresh and without making any detour or encountering any precipitous places, except in those fifty stades over which, as has been said, they pass to the boundary of Iberia. If, however, they go by any other passes, they reach their destination with great difficulty, and can no longer use the same horses. For the detours which they are forced to make are many and steep besides. When this was observed by Alexander, the son of Philip, he constructed gates in the aforesaid place and established a fortress there. And this was held by many men in turn as time went on, and finally by Ambazouces, a Hun by birth, but a friend of the Romans and the Emperor Anastasius. Now when this Ambazouces had reached an advanced age and was near to death, he sent to Anastasius asking that money be given him, on condition that he hand over the fortress and the Caspian Gates to the Romans. But the Emperor Anastasius was incapable of doing anything without careful investigation, nor was it his custom to act thus: reasoning, therefore, that it was impossible for him to support soldiers in a place which was destitute of all good things, and which had nowhere in the neighbourhood a nation subject to the Romans, he expressed deep gratitude to the man for his good-will toward him, but by no means accepted this proposition. So Ambazouces died of disease not long afterwards, and Cabades [Sassanid King] overpowered his sons and took possession of the Gates.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.103.245 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Un-Wikipedian reversion of a significant and carefully constructed rewrite of much of this article
In the spirit of the Wikipedian exhortation, Be Bold, I was bold, and made a very significant and carefully constructed rewrite of much of the article which can be accessed through either: Gates of Alexander or Caspian Gates.

My very recent rewrite was totally reverted some 13 hours later by User:Dougweller, with the comment:

"Besides the fact that we wouldn't start a lead with "although" or discuss the fact it's a redirect, this is original research."

followed by this message to my Talk page.

I would ask knowledgeable editors, and those knowledgeable in the subject, to review my contribution to decide whether it was a net improvement to the article in question, which, although it may not have attended to all the requirements of Wikipedian 'perfection', merited, in the true spirit of Wikipedia, adjustments and improvement, rather than reversion.

Nothing in my version of the article is any more original research, whatever that might mean in the context of Wikipedia, than the thousands of other pages which supply us with detailed new (indeed almost instantly updated) information about, for example: individual tornadoes and hurricanes. My article is nothing more than a collation, and rewriting, of information about the article subject scattered (in an extremely confused form) in various articles throughout Wikipedia. If I delved into Google to confirm a reference I was doing nothing more than that which a good editor should do: providing references.

Anyone who edits a Wikipedia article, by the very action of writing new text which does not exist anywhere else, could be accused of original research. Indeed the very concept of 'original research' is rather meaningless in the context of Wikipedia, as everything in Wikipedia, by virtue of being new text, and consequently a new way of expressing information about an article's subject is, itself, every bit as much original research as any 19th century historical compilation, or for that matter, to keep close to the subject of the article in question, any of the ancient texts comprising the body of mythology, interspersed with uncertain truths, which is known as Alexander romance.

If carefully rewriting confused or incomplete text and confirming references can be thoughtlessly reverted in 13 hours, with the accusations of 'original research', and supposedly poor use of 'although', then Wikipedia is lost and those obsessed with Userboxes have won.

I ask you to decide whether User:Dougweller's reversion should, itself, be reverted.

For my part I will do nothing more. Dougweller's reversion of my rewrite is Wikipedia's loss. At least I managed to get the first version of the rewrite (the second version was trumped by Dougweller) past the censor, so that is now saved for posterity (and on my HD!). The many and varied subjects which fall under the titles 'Gates of Alexander/Caspian Gates' are now less confusing for me, but they will continue to be so for the poor unsuspecting readers of Wikipedia!

Like all empires, Wikipedia will be destroyed from within. Sad.

Regards,

Cricobr (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'although' and discussion of the redirect were relatively minor although they would have been reverted sooner or later. You mentioned "two overlapping notions" in the article - the problem was that your sources didn't discuss two overlapping notions, you used your sources to build an argument about two overlapping notions. Great for a book or a journal article, but against our policy at WP:NOR. Attacking me is pointless and a bit sad, as your grievance isn't or shouldn't be with me but with our policy (which I support). The place to argue your case isn't here but at WP:NORN, the board where we discuss whether edits are or or not a violation of our policy. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Notion 1: there are a number of real places which over the centuries have been called 'Caspian Gates' or 'Gates of Alexander', by historians, authors, mapmakers, probably military communiqués, etc. These places have real topographical and geographical natures, and for most of the history of mankind (until the plane) had decisive military defensive and trading significance. It never mattered what they were called, they existed.

Notion 2: there are a number of associations which have been made over the same centuries, by some of the same people, between the name of Alexander the Great and one or more of these places. Some of these are fictional, if not deliberately distortive. Some of the others are speculative, others yet, such as: 'Alexander passed through gate X', are probably true as Alexander, if he passed near to a certain gate, was almost inevitably constrained, by the real facts of Notion 1, to pass through the gate (especially with a whole army in tow!). History is not science. We do not have all the facts; no amount of research will give us them; and many of the 'histories' on which we depend have all the infallibilities, and probably considerably more, of Wikipedia articles.

If we have two sets which contain common elements we have an overlap. The common elements are the names. The two 'notions' (perhaps I should have used the word 'sets' itself; it might have been judged more Wikipedian) are so obviously real, distinct and overlapping that I fail to understand why you have difficulty with this. They would appear to be, as a famous constitution apparently said, 'self evident'!

I do not have a case, as you put it. I was just trying to do what I thought was improve an article which I felt was (and now, continues to be) extremely confused, distortive, and incomplete. The collective Wikipedia decided my work was not appropriate.

My objection was quite simply that Wikipedia (as represented, unfortunately, by you) gave no time for my edit to be digested by the community, and hopefully edited by others in those details in which it failed to attend to Wikipedia policy. I thought that was how Wikipedia was meant to work. The arbitrations forums to which you refer were not for you. You simply took a unilateral decision to discard significant, and correct, improvements to an article, which, though they may not have been 'Wikipedianly' perfect (hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles are also not perfect, but their inadequate texts are not deleted), were capable of being adjusted in future edits, possibly by others, to be more so.

The difference between the way my edit was treated, and the way vandalism might be treated, is not clear to me. Effectively, a constructive and useful edit was treated as vandalism. That should not have happened.

I wonder how many other valuable contributions you have deleted with your hastiness.

Regards,

Cricobr (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Now at WP:NORN. IMHO your quarrel should be with our policies, not with me. It would be more constructive if you could find sources discussing both, rather than attack me personally. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You left yourself open for 'attack' (your word; I would never have thought of using such a militaristic term; this is not a war!; I would have chosen 'opposition' or 'rebuttal') when you personally, not Wikipedia, chose to treat an honest edit, by a genuine editor, in the same way as vandalism is treated, instead of talking. There are various things you could have done instead of hastily reverting: you could have improved my text yourself; you could have suggested a number of improvements that I could have made; you could have sent my edit to WP:NORN immediately.

Regards,

Cricobr (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's there now and you don't seem to have responded. As for the word attack, that's the word we use -- see WP:No personal attacks - it never occurred to me that anyone would see it as militaristic in this context, but then I don't think that way. I still maintain that your edit is, in our terms, original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for new ideas. Please show me where I've misinterpreted WP:NOR. Reversion of original research is pretty routine. It was an honest edit, it was good work, it was just not appropriate here. Wikiversity would be a good place for it. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"It's there now and you don't seem to have responded." I have nothing further to add.

'Attack' really does seem to be a very strange word to use in the context of a cooperative enterprise, given the word's associations since the beginning of time. Have a look at attack, definition 1. If 'attack' is the preferred word at Wikipedia for an objection to an over-hasty reversion, then I suggest Wikipedia thinks a bit about whether this is a good choice. Remember, when new editors join Wikipedia they are not yet tutored in the ways of the Wikipediahood. They come from the real world where 'attack' for most people means, well, 'attack', as defined above. Its on the news every night: the man was attacked at knife point; the rebels attacked the government forces; you get the idea. Really sets a very poor tone for discussions.

'Challenge' might be a better choice; has a more sportingly competitive ring!

Regards,

Cricobr (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Saw this a few days ago on the noticeboard but haven't had a chance to add a note until now. The simple answer is that a good portion of that edit wasn't appropriate. Reverting it was the right thing to do but that's not the end of the conversation, though accusations of "Un-Wikipedian" are unlikely to facilitate productive discussion. Had you wanted to propose a significant re-write, you probably would have been better off raising the issue here first, getting agreement for your changes and then going ahead with your edit or some version of it.
 * Part of the problem is that the "new" lead was very essay-like and addressed the readers with an almost conversational style related to the function of the article itself. That's obviously contrary to WP:LEAD and WP:MOS more broadly. It also made a number of claims that strongly suggested original research, more so given it included no references. If you have proper references and can use them to reference your claims, feel free to propose your change here. WP:BOLD is one thing, but even that guideline makes clear (in ironically bold text), Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted.. Your bold edit got deleted because it contained a number of style and substance errors. Don't get disheartened, just talk it through here. Stalwart 111  13:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Iron Gates
Shouldn't the name Iron Gates be mentioned among others in the introduction?--Adûnâi (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

He possessed with two horns
In some depictions of Alexander he is shown with two horns. RichardBond (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * On some coins, he is shown with one horn (see Horns of Ammon)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)