Talk:Antiochus III the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Basileus Megas"[edit]

Was this title associated to him throughout history (i.e. is it in reference history books)? (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be Antiochus III Megas?[edit]

All other pages about Seleucid monarchs use the common Hellenistic names, "Nicator", "Epiphanes", etc., not their English equivalent. Any objections to a page move? Poliocretes (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map of Conquests[edit]

Hello All,

I recently noticed the addition of a map from the swedish wikipedia page, which appears to be of dubious content. Very little is known about the nature of Antiochus' expedition to what was the Kabul valley, and even less is known of the Indian king/governor (Sophagasanus) who was the ruler of that region. Rather than unilaterally delete the map, which does not appear to have a citation, I wanted to check with the other main contributors here first. I will wait a few days before making any edit. Thank you,


Devanampriya (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE[edit]

This article began with most commonly used dating system BC/AD. It continued to be only dating system for almost 9 years without any problems whatsoever. In fact the earliest introduction of BCE/CE that I could find was [1] (maybe I failed to find an earlier introduction?).

IMHO that action went clearly against WP:ERA which states "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article". I checked its history first and then restored its original dating system. User:Jayjg somehow believes that this change was against WP:ERA. So let's debate this. Flamarande (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has used mixed styles (BC/BCE) for four and a half years, since at least 14 June 2007 (note the infobox). It was changed on 11 July 2010 by the sockpuppet of an editor who was notorious for converting BC/AD notation to BCE/CE, using various excuses and sockpuppets to do so. I merely undid that sockpuppet's actions. If you'd like to discuss which notation should be used in this article, I'm happy to, but let's not do so under false pretenses. Jayjg (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm I see, but please notice that you didn't merely undid that sockpuppet's actions 11 July 2010 (which I sincerely hadn't noticed at all - I looked always at the text). You went further than that [2]. Are you in favour in restoring the original dating system which was changed against WP:ERA? Flamarande (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:ERA nowhere states that the earliest use is the one an article must follow forever after - and quite frankly, I have little patience for editors who use any excuse they can find to convert to a specific notation (by the way, those editors almost always insist on converting to BC/AD notation). In addition to sockpuppeting, the specific editor in question would use three strategies to convert to BC/AD:
  1. If the article originally used BC/AD, then he would insist it needed to be BC/AD forever after.
  2. If the article had originally used BCE/CE or mixed, but had a majority of BC/AD usage, then he would insist it needed to go by the majority usage.
  3. If some other condition prevailed, or there was consensus against changing to BC/AD, he would regularly open discussions on the article Talk: page about converting to the BC/AD notation.
These tactics should be familiar, since they are the exact ones you follow. By the way, he also claimed not to be Christian, but an atheist. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to charge me with something, please do so. In the meantime I will repeat my question: "Are you in favour in restoring the original dating system which was changed against WP:ERA?" Flamarande (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop asking loaded questions. Initially there were no arbitrary changes of the era notation in this article; rather, newer information was added using a different notation. If you'd like to discuss what notation should be used going forward, I'm happy to do that, but not based on false assumptions. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then please tell me what dating system you believe this article should use. Give me your honest opinion and remember WP:ERA. Flamarande (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any specific opinion on the topic, but am open to any arguments you might make in favor of one or the other. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Look, I'm favour of the restoration of the original system (whatever it may be) if the change towards the other one was against the rules. Sneaky (unrequested, undebated and not agreed upon) changes shouldn't be rewarded, they should be reverted with extreme prejudice.
I'm also in favour of BC/AD because of a single logical reason: it is the most popular system as far as the English language is concerned. Nothing more, nothing less. I simply don't care about its undeniable religious origins. If we like it or not the English language was influenced by Christianity and some things reflect this influence. I believe that the same religious influence appears in Arab, Hebrew, and probably in some others. Why should we censor these religious influences? Why should we censor English and not the others? Why should we censor at all? For the sake of "neutrality"? Are we going to censor an entire language for the sake of neutrality? What kind of censorship is that?
IF BCE/CE were the most popular dating system I would be all in its favour. But when I read the argumentation that some ppl write in the talkpages: that they are in favour of the BCE/CE because it is neutral I just want to puke. They clearly want to impose a lesser known form at the expense of the most common one because of political reasons. Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The reality of Wikipedia and era notations is not as you've described it. Rather, era notation "changers" generally fall into one of three groups:
  1. People who add material to an article in the notation they usually use, and who don't pay a lot of attention to the notation that's currently being used in an article. Thus, for example, an article which originally had BC/AD notation over time gains material that also uses BCE/CE notation. This is common, is not because of subterfuge or "sneakiness", and is exactly what happened in this article (and most of the others that you describe as "sneaky, unrequested, undebated and not agreed upon").
  2. A small number of individuals (usually IPs or inexperienced editors) take offense to BCE/CE notation, and "sneakily" convert it to BC/AD notation. I've given you several examples of that, and can easily find dozens more.
  3. A very small number of experienced editors take offense to BCE/CE notation, and try to use the guidelines to their advantage to, wherever possible, change it to BC/AD notation. You and (now banned) User:CIS fall into this last group.
Members of group 1 mean well, but are simply not attentive to (or not concerned about) era notation. They do not cause any significant issue: if an article becomes filled with mixed notation, then a consensual decision can be made as to which notation should be used. However, members of groups 2 and 3 are problems. They are not editing to improve Wikipedia, but rather to promote a personal agenda.
Your arguments about why BCE/CE is "not the most popular dating system" and why arguments in its favor make you "want to puke" are not relevant here. WP:ERA is quite clear; either notation is acceptable, and it is only exactly what you are doing (arbitrarily changing one notation to the other) that is disruptive. Using Wikilawyering to try to use the WP:ERA guideline to selectively remove one notation is no less disruptive. And, quite frankly, nothing is being "censored" anywhere on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). People are free to use whatever era notation they prefer, and the fact that you are so invested in this issue that you consider use of BCE/CE notation to be "censorship" that should be "reverted with extreme prejudice" is troubling. I think you need to take a step back here, and re-evaluate what you are doing and why. Please focus on more productive activities. Jayjg (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Why was this ever changed int he first place? It should clearly be normal style. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The article began with BC/AD until someone changed the infobox. Some time after a sockpuppet of a banned restored the original system 11 July 2010. Nearly a year after Jayjg came and made a mistake; believing that the sockpuppet had changed to whole article (which he didn't) Jayjg de facto changed the whole article towards BCE/CE [3]. I'm in favour of restoring the original dating system. Flamarande (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It's silly, I've just looked at the history and I'm struggling to find one date where its been BCE. Anybody defending here BCE is even more pushy as anyone trying to reinstate BC/AD.If it truly doesn't matter to jayjg then my advise is that he leave it alone. But really i think we have two users who have two different systems and both wont their system in place. So unless someone gives in this will never end. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't recognize either as a "normal style", I'm not "defending" any era notation, and your comments aren't relevant to the discussion. If you want to make an argument for one era notation over another for this specific article, please feel free to. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, based on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#Rude BC/AD warrior at Jesus and other pages, it's apparent you fall into group 3 above. Wikipedia doesn't need your ideological battles; please go find something productive to do instead. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No listen, you're the one who has caused this. Why did you change it the BCE in the first place? If you didn't ahve your own ideological battle you wouldn't have even touched this page. Hypocrisy does not win battles here. The article was BCAD forever. Yiu came abnd changed it for no reason. this is insanity. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Your statements are inaccurate. Next time, before you comment, please review the discussion to which you are responding, and the article history. Also, please review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#Rude BC/AD warrior at Jesus and other pages. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Antiochus III marble head in Louvre.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Antiochus III marble head in Louvre.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Antiochus III marble head in Louvre.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations from secondary sources[edit]

This article arrays multiple, perhaps unnecessarily accumulated citations from somewhat out of the way places (biblical studies, Roman history, Indian history) to explain very simple and uncontroversial statements-- Antiochos III was a ruler of the Seleukid dynasty. This could be elucidated with a single fn. to a reference work (RE, new Brill) or a work of Hellenistic history (e.g. the relevant chapters Cambridge Ancient History, or Hatto Schmitt's biography). The quotations and citations make me suspect that it comes from some older dispute or controversy-- probably having to do with the "Greekness" of the dynasty, which is backed up by 6 fnn., even if the text has now changed since the time the first 3 fnn were introduced. I propose to simplify the references to such works. (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

Are the multiple fnn. introduced here ? (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

For instance, why is Sir Baggot Glubb's guidebook to Syria quoted to justify the notion the Antiochos III was a member of the Seleukid dynasty ? "Glubb, Sir John Bagot (1967). Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. Thames & Hudson. p. 34. OCLC 585939. Although the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were perpetual rivals, both dynasties were Greek and ruled by means of Greek officials and Greek soldiers. Both governments made great efforts to attract immigrants from Greece, thereby adding yet another racial element to the population." (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

Ethnicity of Antiochus III[edit]

If the point of the current (May 2015) multiple fnn. is to establish his Greek ethnicity, they should go. That is better discussed in the article on the Seleucids. Antiochos' great great grandmother was pure Iranian, but all his other ancestors are Macedonian aristocrats. The Seleukid dynasty is Greek-speaking, founded by Macedonians (who indisuputably belong to a conquest-state founded in N Greece by a Greek ethnic group, in my view), rests on an ethno-class of Macedonians and Greeks. but also deals with Near-Eastern populations (IRanians and especially Babylonians), in dealings which profoundly influenced the style of Seleukid kingship. JohnTMa (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa