text:
Talk:European Rapid Reaction Force

Finland is not apart of Scandinavia
Changed Scandinavian to Fennoscandic as it is more accurate when speaking of, or including Finland with the Scandinavian countries.

Scandinavia is sometimes used when Finland is included, this is an Anglosaxon "problem." Rather change to Nordic. This includes Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Fennoscandic is a rare term, not familiar to most readers.

Actually, it is.

totally disputed tag
I don't have the time right now to clean this up myself but there are problems with both POV and factual accuracy.

1) Instead of focusing on facts (what exactly the ERRF, when was it proposed, for which) it only focuses on the supposed problems and objections, even calling the questions "difficult ones". This needs major cleanup. More on factual elements, less focus on reactions to it.

2) Is it really "only a proposal"? It seems to me that the ERRF has even undertaken limited missions. I may be mistaken in this, in which case remove or change the totallydisputed tag, accordingly.

-- Aris Katsaris 15:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3) The frase 'Must Europe Send Its Poor to Die?' could also be applied to the United States (military service = green card for poor Mexican imigrants) and other military organisations which trick poorer students into serving by paying their education. Perhaps the connotation should be removed.

4) The Franco-German relations are very good at the moment, so a German general wouldn't attract so much attention any more. -- 80.201.203.150 The Sun would cry murder in UK, I dont think all the french would be happy with it either. -- CJWilly

5) The first paragraph is disproved by the existence of NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

 * Surely, no one is suggesting that NATO and the former Warsaw Pact armies were primarily repsonsible to NATO and the Pact rather than their own national commanders. They were armed forces working together as part of an alliance, but were not truly "NATO" or "Warsaw Pact" troops, non-nationally identifiable, which is the idea behind some EREF proposals.
 * As to other concens expressed, here's my take:

I don't think that the EREF has ever advanced beyond the proposal stage. If someone is European or has been to Europe very recently or has done really good research can prove otherwise, please do so. This would be good if it could include facts such as who commands this unit, where it is stationed, etc., which should be easy enough if such a thing really has been formed.
 * Franco-German relations are quite good right now, in large measure because neither country has any armed forces engaged in combat anywhere, either under their own command or each others, or anyone elses. The main source of this agreement with regard to non- and trans-European affairs is an agreement not to be dragged into anything based on the United States' say-so (and from a U.S. viewpoint, not to do anything in Europe in which the U.S. doesn't take the lead – see Bosnia and Kosovo).  See how long this would last if a batallion (or even a company) of largely-French troops under a German commander were decimated, or especially vice versa.
 * With regard to "Must Europe Send Its Poor to Die", yes, U.S. armed forces are almost entirely comprised of poor and lower-middle class persons except for a relatively small cross section of the officer corps. This has been accepted since the end of conscription (1973), and the U.S. press has aquiesced to this for the most part, even  The New York Times and The Washington Post.  No one could reasonably expect deep, reasoned, or thoughful discussion of this matter from much of the U.S. press.  Somehow, I just don't see Le Monde or Die Welt doing so when and if there were large numbers of casualties, nor would the major Spanish papers, especially if a large percentage or large gross numbers of casualties were from Spain.

 * When the EREF was first proposed is problematic in that it is an outgrowth of the desire for Europe to have the ability to react to European crises separately from and without the need of intervention by the United States. As long as the EC was a weak, vouluntary body mostly concerned about trade barriers being lifted, the idea of its having its own armed forces was a nonstarter. What was first proposed was a coalition of national armed forces, whereas the idea now seems to be for that of "European" forces. Now that it resembles a federal state in many important ways, and will do so even more when/if its constitution is ratified, the issue will have to be addressed.

Reexplaining some of my issues with this article
My understanding of the European Rapid Reaction Force goes against what is said in the article. My understanding is that the ERRF is NOT a standing army primarily responsible to the EU, but rather a list of available resources that *can* at short notice (aka "rapid reaction") be made available to the EU if the need arises, but would normally belong to their own national armies.

This is my first concern -- that the article misrepresents the ERRF as a body that would be responsible primarily to the EU rather than a grouping of national forces.

Secondly I believe (but am not sure) that this registry of resources/divisions/army formations has indeed happenned, and therefore the ERRF has indeed been made a reality, atleast to an extent.

That's why I'm "totally" disputing the elements of this article.

Aris Katsaris 13:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey
Yep yep totally see your point (I didn't write the original page) I decided to edit it (well yeah I completely re-wrote it), it is now quite accurate as far as I can see, most of my information is from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), the Guardian (British newspaper admittedly left-wing) and il Corriere della Sera (Italian centrist daily newspaper) as well as the Italian State Television Service (RAI). My suspicions are that this article was originally written by either a British conservative or American republican and was not only not up-to-date but also just plain wrong (no need to point out where, you do a fine job). I'm Italian but I've lived in Britain most of my life so I know a bit about this.

Michele Giorgi

 * I think in some points you confused the European Rapid Reaction Force with the European Union battle groups. These are two different concepts. I don't have time right now, but in the next days I'll try to doublecheck and correct possible mistakes. Aris Katsaris 04:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Now that this thing acutally exists as opposed to being a debated proposal, is the "totally disputed" tag still either deserved or required? I would think not.  The only thing in the article as now constituted that would seem to be POV or disputable is the assertion that it is now universally recongized that European indifference to "ethnic cleansing" in ex-Yugoslavia is reprehensible; while that is certainly recognized by me and, I daresay, by most civilised people, there are certainly "peace at any price" types who would still object to any form of outside intervention, especially if their own country's armed forces were to be involved.  Aside from that, it seems to be a totally factual, largely unbiased article, which is commendable.  Rlquall 20:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been working quite a lot on the UNPROFOR article last week, so I've got a relatively clear picture of the problems related to non-intervention against ethnic cleansing. If someone is interested, we could work on a consensual version here and merge it into the article when it seems OK. I'd like to take the opportunity to mention that this mess what quite complicated, so this part might advantageously link to another page (whose existence I am unsure of :p )We might want to take into consideration : the "zero dead doctrine", its impact on the political cost of the operations and what the soldiers though about it; the fascination for armoured vehicles and air strikes, which had worked extremely well in Kuwait but turned out to be much less effective in Bosnia; the stances of France, the UK, the USA, the Soviet Union and China, both on the ground and at the UN; the stances of the warring parties; the consequences of the Somalia debacle for the USA; the doctrine of the UN at the time; etc. Rama 20:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Every bit of that needs to be hammered out; it's all important. Again, I would agree that I don't know just where all of it belongs, but have no doubt that it all deserves speculation.  Rlquall 21:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You've not understood my issue. Half the article talks about an *ENTIRELY UNRELATED* concept, the EU battle groups. It's the EU Battle groups that were decided on 22 November 2004, it's the EU Battle groups that are divided in groups of 1500 soldiers and will be ready in the coming years. I'm still disputing the factual accuracy of this article. Aris Katsaris 23:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Current status of the article
What do you people think of the current version of the article ? I think it is far less POV than it used to be, though it might still be a little bit imprecise... Do we keep the "factual accuracy" notice ? Rama 14:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to point out
Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will each have their own units, all other EU countries are required to put some troops into other multi-national units. Just to confirm that these units are (not sure of the word I'm looking for here) responsible to their nations, as there is no European command structure (militarily). Dave Lewis

Not the Same
The "European Rapid Reaction Force" is NOT the same as the "European Union rapid reaction mechanism" as the dispute tag suggests. The latter involves rapid financial support (primarily for natural disaster and humanitarian relief efforts) while the latter involves rapidly mobile military forces (primarily for peacekeeping and conflict management). They are definitely not the same thing despite sharing similar terms.
 * Agree, looks like these are two different things. --Edward Sandstig 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

EU Battlegroups
How is this different from the EU Battlegroups? --Edward Sandstig 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I missed the answer to my own question over there: "The battlegroups project is not to be confused with the European Rapid Reaction Force which concerns up to 60,000 soldiers, deployable for at least a year, and take one to two months to deploy. The battlegroups are instead meant for more rapid and shorter deployment in international crises, probably preparing the ground for a larger and more traditional force to replace them in due time." --Edward Sandstig 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement about limited transport assets
I removed the following statement: "'However, large deployments outside europe would be very difficult in any case, as the logistics and transportation cababilites of the armed forces of the EU countries are rather limited.'" Although probably true for the most part, the degree of difficulty indicated is not something that I think many of us on Wikipedia can speculate on. We can probably put back a similar statement at a later time if someone can provide a credible reference. --Edward Sandstig 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the overseas-section is rather missleading, as it gives the impression that the EU has the cabability to show strong force overseas independent of the USA, which is clearly not the case. I think it should be rewritten. -Juhani-four

Britain and France both maintain Blue water navies. Britain currently maintains several overseas operations both in concert and independent of the US. the Royal Navy is second only two the US navy and has supplied and maintained long range wars (the falklands) and peace keeping (Sierra Leone) the RFA is capable of maintain the British Armed Forces around the world independent of the US. JD

The Falklands happened over 20 years ago and it was really a naval and air conflict. The sources of this article say that the logistics are limiting the cababilities of the ERRF, do you have some conflicting sources? Example: http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/p4lindleyfrench.html This is a doctor from the WEU Institute for Security Studies. I find this to be rather credible source, don't you? -Juhani-four

Problems with the ERRF
it might be useful to note the key stumble blocks of the ERRF. such as = the uneasy that it would be possible for an alliance of small european nations to send the big three armed forces to war = more than any other European idea Britain would need to play a key, and the continuing anti european feeling particularly towards anything thats leads to more integrated europe = Britain's divided loyalty between the US and EU = uneasy between the militaries particularly towards combined units Germany disliked the RAF calling its Eurofighters Typhoon after the WW2 era tank buster and there was alarm expressed at the possibility of British Tanks serving in Panzer division. JD

accuracy disputed
The article contains many bold claims which are not backed up by any source. Many are pure speculation, and some are absurd in the current political climate (future EU invasion of Bealrus and Ukraine).Paul111 11:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger
There is actually no organisation called the 'European Rapid Reaction Force'; there's simply the list of forces being gathered for the Helsinki Headline Goal. I believe these two articles need to be merged under the HHG article, which presents a much more accurate picture of where the debate is. Buckshot06 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:European Rapid Reaction Force


text:
Talk:Alexander

Etymology
The word "Alexander" doesn't mean "defender of men" but "defender from men". Ofcource they mean "defender from the enemy men". In Greek wikipedia they have the correct etymology.

In Greek the prefix "alex-" means "the one that repels something/the one that defends from something".

Αλεξίπτωτο (alexiptoto) is the parachute from Alex+ptosi (ptosi=falling). So the word means "defender from falling", and not "defender of the fall".

Αλεξίσφαιρο (alexisfero) means bulletproof (sfera=bullet). So the word means "defender from bullets", and not "defender of the bullet".

Αλεξικέραυνο (Alexikeravno) is the lightning rod, where keravnos=lightning. So the word means "defender from lightnings".

Αλεξιβρόχιο (Alexivrohio) is the umbrella, where vrohi=rain. So the word means "protector from the rain". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.173.212 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheeky and scientists
Word Alexander is an albanian language word. It have no greek meaning. In albanian language it means like this : A (asht, eshte) meaning "to be", LE (le, lind) meaning "to born", KSA (ksaj, kesaj) meaning "this", ANDER (ander, enderr) meaning "dream". And in albanian language of today Alexander means "is born in this dream". This is more strong and more accurate meaning than the greek meaning "aleksos+aner". If it is true the albanian ethimiological meaning then albanians have the right to claim Alexander the Great as a cultural forebear. User:newalbin  —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So modern Albanian populists claim Alexander the Great as a cultural forebear now? Wow! Cheeky, eh! Difficult neighbors everywhere in that part of the world, I figure!User:Wetman

 * The Albanian translation is very unlikely, because the language evolved in the last 2500 years and it should look different from what it was back then. Comparing the name with a reconstructed proto-Albanian expression would be more appropriate. Bogdan | Talk 14:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Scientists why isnt the discoverer of penicillin, Alexander Fleming mentioned here? and also Alexander Graham Bell ?!

changes added a new heading for scientists....

several other "alexanders" missing. i'm gonna attempt to link a few more here. ppl, there are too many..... a little help here?

ok, im giving up... too many "Alexanders"... :) added a couple tho....

"Alexander" redirect
"Alexander" currently redirects to Alexander the Great. In my opinion it would be more reasonable to redirect to this page. Ornilnas 15:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Additionally, I would propose to name this article only Alexander, since it is about the name, and not a simple disambiguation page. Alternatively split it. Ornilnas 15:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lex
If the article can mention Lex as a shortening of the name ('Also in more modern times, Alexander has been shortened to "Lex" (popularized by the Superman villain Lex Luthor)') then why is Alex only mentioned as a Portuguese variant, when it's widely used in English speaking countries too?--Jcvamp 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Al
I assume that Al is a short form of Alexander, but I see no mention of this neither in this article nor on the Al disambiguation page. __meco 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Al is short for Albert usually, sometimes Alfred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Er, I think Al is short for any name starting with "Al", but mainly a male nickname. aLii 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Al is listed as diminutive of Alex. Same time Alex is diminutive of Alexander. I’m wondering if the principle of superposition would work in this case? Berezco (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Alistair
Why does Alistair redirect here? They are completely different names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.207.234 (talk • contribs).
 * Because the article claims it is a variation of Alexander? -- JHunterJ 17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the magician
"Claude Alexander Conlin (1880–1954), stage magician" is listed under monarchs, which seems like an error?

Alexis
Alexis (variants include Aleksis, Alexius, Alexus, Alesio, Aleksei, Alexina, Elek and Alejo) is not a variant of Alexander. The name originates from Aléxeios wich means defender.

Alexander is a romanization of the greek Aléxandros ( formed by two words translating to "defender" and "male" ).

Although they do enjoy a similar meaning and Aléxandros might have been derived from Aléxeios, Alexis and Alexander have been standalone names for thousands of years. Therefore I suggest giving Alexis_(name) an article of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblister (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no word as "aleksis" in the greek language. Also the second part "aner" is far away from the meaning "ander". Word "alexander" does not have a greek meaning nor a roman meaning. Word Alexander is an albanian language word. It have no greek meaning. In albanian language it means like this : A (asht, eshte) meaning "to be", LE (le, lind) meaning "to born", KSA (ksaj, kesaj) meaning "this", ANDER (ander, enderr) meaning "dream". And in albanian language of today Alexander means "is born in this dream". Albanian language explanation seems more accurate than any other explanation for the word Alexander. User:newalbin —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexander made and pushed Qin (state) more stronger?
I agree and believe this viewpoint.it raised chain reflections for eastern Asia. have any one agree? Hans yulun lai 04:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Alexander, but call me Steve for short if you're Somalian"
Probably not. I don't speak Somali, but I'm willing to bet it's 'اسكندر' as in other Semitic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.49.114 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * That's what I was thinking. I was trying to find where it got changed, but I'll just delete if I can't. Better not to have it than to be misinforming people. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was the info about "Alexander" being an "inverse tatpurusha" removed?
Why was the info about "Alexander" being an "inverse tatpurusha" compound removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology explained here is slightly different from that on the Alexandra page. Confused!

There is no word as "aleksis" in the greek language. Also the second part "aner" is far away from the meaning "ander". Word "alexander" does not have a greek meaning nor a roman meaning. Word Alexander is an albanian language word. It have no greek meaning. In albanian language it means like this : A (asht, eshte) meaning "to be", LE (le, lind) meaning "to born", KSA (ksaj, kesaj) meaning "this", ANDER (ander, enderr) meaning "dream". And in albanian language of today Alexander means "is born in this dream". Albanian language explanation seems more accurate than any other explanation for the word Alexander User: newalbin —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the meaning of the name is closer to "to ward off men", in other words closer defeat men than defend them...

 * Yep. Αλέξανδρος literally means "cannot be defeated by men". Plain and simple. Anyone who speaks common Greek can realise this. Compare it to αλεξίσφαιρο, αλεξικέραυνο (bullet-proof vest, lightning rod). The etymology you see everywhere is probably the result of a non-native-Greek speaker who just added words he translated and this is what he came up. I know it's romantic to say defender (i dig it too), but it really means "undefeated by men". According to myth, Alex the Great was considered undefeated in battle and he was thought to can only be defeated by the Gods. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the disambiguation section be broken off into its own article?
This page is an awkward article-disambiguation hybrid. I'm not sure what the best titles would be if my proposal is acceptable to the consensus of others. Perhaps Alexander (name) and Alexander (given name)? Wareh (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Alternatively, there's no great reason not to simply quadruple the size of Alexander (disambiguation) by moving the disambiguation section of this article over there. But I'd like to get some input before I do anything on that scale.  Wareh (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a specific advice (or preference), but, for the record, I support your assessment in that the split of this dab page is long overdue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 20:00 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Lack of consensus to move article. Moving the list of names from here to the dab page or elsewhere can be discussed and carried out separately. Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
Alexander → Alexander (name) — My proposal is that the disambiguation portion of this article be separated from the expository portion on Alexander-the-name (& incorporated into Alexander (disambiguation). I propose the move of this page because the name itself (its origin, etymology, variants) has a weak-to-nonexistent claim to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Alexander."  I suggest that Alexander be the new home of the disambiguation page (or else a redirect to the current disambiguation page). Wareh (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the split, neutral on what the "primary topic" should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2010; 16:30 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I agree that isn't really a primary topic here and would support having the disambiguation page at Alexander. Recury (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For future reference, this is why WP:RM has instructions for moving multiple pages. This discussion involves both Alexander and Alexander (disambiguation) and the multiple-move instructions would have ensured that users watching the latter would be informed of the discussion. Propaniac (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The list of people with the given name Alexander belongs on this page rather than the dab page. There is already a separate article for Alexander (surname). Cjc13 (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with combining the names into Alexander (name) (with separate sections for the first and last names), and having a dab separately? Seems to be a much cleaner solution that what we have now?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 7, 2010; 15:15 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to clarify that this !vote is for the proposal to move Alexander to Alexander (name) and Alexander (disambiguation) to Alexander. The issue being directly addressed here by Cjc13 -- where to put the disambiguands -- is strictly speaking separate.  Sorry for confusing the issue in my proposal, but I thought it fair to indicate that I believe disambiguation should be done on disambiguation pages (which this article is not) where possible.  Moving the Alexanders off of this page could be done at any time, by any editor, without a !vote, though, since there is disagreement I'm glad we have this incidental opportunity to canvass opinions about it.  Wareh (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Wareh (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alexander the Great is often referred to as simply Alexander. While I would not claim this as primary usage it does strengthen the claim for the name to be primary usage. None of the places on the dab page seem well-known and none of the other entries on the dab page seem particularly significant. For these reasons I would consider the given name as primary usage. Cjc13 (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that anyone who types in Alexander needs to be at most one more click, not two, from Alexander the Great. This is one reason why Alexander (disambiguation) makes an exception to its general omission of persons called Alexander to link him prominently, and it would make sense to me to see Alexander the Great, possibly in boldface, at the top before the various sections (whatever else is on that page).  But, this article is not about Alexander the Great, and in my opinion cannot derive a sliver of Alexander the Great's massive notability to support its claim as primary.  Maybe "weak-to-nonexistent" was too blunt in my original statement, but on the other hand it's hard to read this page from beginning to end and believe its topic is the primary referent of "Alexander." In another vein, let me say that, if you are not the only one who resists having Alexander be dab, then it would be by far my second choice to have it redirect to Alexander the Great with a dabhat there. Wareh (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel the given name has been widely used, including Russian emperors, popes, Scottish kings and other rulers, military leaders and scholars, it justifies primary usage. I have reordered the page as I find the list of variants to be of lesser significance. Cjc13 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this gets us back to the point that it is, I believe, quite nonstandard to have a disambiguation section jammed into the middle of an article on a topic. What it seems we both agree on, is that Alexander should point users immediately to a list of all the Alexanders.  Can we go back to your objection to having the list of Alexanders as the most prominent and important part of the Alexander disambiguation page?  Then we could have Alexander quickly tell people, right at the top, Alexander may refer to (1) Alexander the Great, (2) a name with an origin and variants -- on which we've got an article -- held by a lot of other people, (3) the following other people, (4) some people with a surname (separate disambiguation page to hold them, as now), (5) some places and other uses.  Wareh (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare with Nicholas, Julian, and Adrian. What you are suggesting is a rewriting of the dab page and at the moment the dab does not do what you suggest. I still think the given name is clearly primary usage and there is scope for improving the article. Cjc13 (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. This is already a brilliant and refreshing article in a style that is interesting and encyclopedic. Any change to the overall style or naming will diminish Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Persons with Alexander as given name ()
First, I am completely fine with the failure of my move proposal above; please accept this next question afresh, as I really think it is a new issue.

To be brief: up till now, this article listed people who could simply be referred to as "Alexander." These new edits include notable people not known as "Alexander," but with the given name Alexander. Accordingly, I believe that MOS:DABNAME thinks the right thing to do, if anything, is to make a new article Alexander (given name). I believe we've crossed the line from a practice with plenty of precedent (Cjc13 helpfully pointed out to me the examples of Nicholas, Julian, Adrian) to something pretty irregular (IMO for good practical reasons of size and logic).

I would move the new names to a given-name-list myself, but I don't really find that this is normal practice, and I don't want to create an arbitrary, partial, and stubby list. If anyone else wants to populate Alexander (given name), I have no objection (I'm no deletionist). Note, however, that it's not a widespread practice: I don't believe there is any place you can go for a listing of articles on people with the given name "John" or "Michael" (as opposed to those referred to without surname, as we had here for Alexander until recently). Functionally it's kind of covered otherwise by Special:PrefixIndex/Alexander, which is provided at Alexander (disambiguation) and could certainly be linked here too. I note that Category:Lists of people by name has only three "given name" members (maybe I'm missing more examples not in this cat?). List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara is the only truly comparable listing (modern persons with a common given name plus a surname) I can see, and it seems like an example of what to avoid (and what we have in the new additions here so far): a completely arbitrary sampling of a tiny fraction of notable Sara(h)s who have Wikipedia articles. Wareh (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the hesitations above deserve serious consideration: is starting to list all Alexanders (and there is no rationale for listing any set of them other than all notable ones) a practical project? Why have editors refrained with John and Michael and produced a strange poor example for Sara(h)?  Are we trying to do something new and better here?

 * But I also realized it's not as unexampled as I implied, e.g. Adrian, Dmitry. So I'll just make two points:
 * If one wants to list this new category of Alexanders here, I think one must go through Special:PrefixIndex/Alexander, Special:PrefixIndex/Aleksandr, etc., and really come up with something resembling completion. This tiny tiny start on the project has no justification in its present form: it is not a directory of notable Alexanders, so what is it?
 * Aren't these two things fairly different: to be referred to as "Alexander" simpliciter and to be named Alexander Something? I may experiment with separating out the two categories to see how that looks.  Wareh (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments. I think it is appropriate to include some modern examples of the name Alexander to go along with the older uses of the name, particularly if a list of fictional Alexanders is included on the page. I do not think it would be practical to include all those with the name so have tried to produce a list of famous Alexanders from the modern era (in order of date of birth). The criteria I would suggest is that they are famous outside of their own country, preferably on a global scale, such as writers Pushkin, Dumas and Solzhenitsyn. I did the current list on a trial basis so am open to suggestions. Cjc13 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll let things take their course, having given my two cents. But I don't think "examples" makes sense in a list: I'd rather see the list stick to a solider criterion of notability.  If your main concern was that it was ridiculous to have fictional Alexanders but not much-more-notable-real-ones here, I agree 100% and would prescribe the simple solution of deleting the fictional ones.  (Again, there is a good reason why Wikipedia has not attempted to list notable fictional John Somethings anywhere.)  Wareh (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander is a Macedonian name not Greek.
Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.41.100 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like saying that "Leonidas" is a Spartan name, not Greek. A Macedonian (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no word as "aleksis" in the greek language. Also the second part "aner" is far away from the meaning "ander". Word "alexander" does not have a greek meaning nor a roman meaning. Word Alexander is an albanian language word. It have no greek meaning. In albanian language it means like this : A (asht, eshte) meaning "to be", LE (le, lind) meaning "to born", KSA (ksaj, kesaj) meaning "this", ANDER (ander, enderr) meaning "dream". And in albanian language of today Alexander means "is born in this dream". Albanian language explanation seems more accurate than any other explanation for the word Alexander. Leonidha is another albanian language word. LEU (leu lindi) meaning "born", NUDH (ne udhe) meaning "in road". Lenodha is an albanian language wod meaning "born in the road". The same thing happens with word Dhimitri. It is another albanian language word. DHI (dhi) meaning "goat", Mitra (mitra) meaning womb. Word Dhimitri in albanian language means "womb of goat". Macedonia is another albanian language. MATHE (madhe) meaning "big", DONIA is the ending for the land. Macedonia in albanian language means "big country". Illyria is another albanian language word. ILIRIA (yjor) meaning "from stars" and takes it meaning from illyrians that called themselves ILIR meaning "people coming from the stars". All those words are explained in the same way that the pure albanian language words like AFERDITA and BARDHYL are explained. AFER (afer) meaning "near", DITA (dita) meaning "day". Aferdita means "day is near" and this is why the planet Aferdita holds this name because it shows that the sunrise is near. BARDH (bardh) meaning "white", YLL (yll) meaning "star". Bardhyl in albanian language means "white star".Newalbin (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What about Aleksander?
Shouldn't people carrying the name Aleksander with a "k" be reflected here in the disambiguation. If not, a separate Aleksander (disambiguation) page needs to be established. werldwayd (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Protects men / wards off men
I am not entirely convinced with the etymology. Does Alexander protect his men or does he protect his people from other men? I admit that my Ancient Greek is not great, but in modern Greek the only two words with the "alex" particle I can think of, αλεξίπτωτο (parachute – protects from πτώση/fall) and αλεξίσφαιρο (bullet-proof – protects from σφαίρα/bullet) would suggest that the name means "he who wards off men" rather than "he who protects men". Iago 212 11:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Your translation coincides with the explanation given by the German version of this article, which refers to Duden's book on given names. --62.227.96.205 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Iago4096 Every single of the 12 millions Greek speaking persons would agree that it means "protects from men". So does the Greek Wikipedia. But when I tried to correct it in the past, it was reverted because I didn't mention a source. 2A02:85F:F5A3:E5E5:49BB:1416:FD62:55FF (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what is the "O" section for?
Section 2.5 is just labelled "O". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.6.170 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Lang Templates in the "In other languages" section
I could be wrong here, but shouldn't basically every entry in the "In other languages" section be enclosed in a Lang template? Unless I'm wrong I propose each entry be placed in its language-specific Lang template thusly: "Αλέξανδρος", and instead of using the transliteration in those templates we perhaps should instead use, when needed, the "Aléxandros" option which will make things much more regular. Are there any opinions on this? --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This suggestion looks totally appropriate to me. I would support this. Berezco (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Earliest attestation
Would the earliest attested form not be the one referenced in the Hittite treaty as the Mycenaean Greek tablet would presumably date around the time of the fall of Mycenae when most of the tablets would have been buried and preserved, and the name itself be of Hittite/Luwian origin since that Hittite treaty with that Wilusan king is the first most prominent bearer of the name? Interesting anyways, as the Anatolian Hittites and Luwians, and the Mycenaeans were more closely related than thought, as either both peoples didn't diverge that far apart after leaving the Danube valley or the advances of the bronze age brought them closer together again. Akin to the Latin speaking Romans and the Celtic speaking Gauls, whose languages were different enough to need interpreters but close enough that both could fairly readily become bilingual, which is why the Gaulish language and people wound up so readily Romanised.

As an aside; that the form found in the Mycenaean version is "a-re-ka-sa-da-ra-ka" is interesting as the "ka" looks like that old "sun cross" symbol and "ka" is Egyptian for "soul" though ancient Egyptian is admittedly a language isolate. Puts me in mind of the "dingir" symbol in Sumerian cuneiform, itself another language isolate. Who knows, maybe there was an earlier wave of Orientalisation which might explain why all those bronze age kingdoms and empires were so uniform and collapsed at about the same time. 2A00:23C5:E295:D700:406A:C642:B4F8:167B (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversy
I was thinking about the name, Alexander The Great, some people have created a controversy over "The Great" added to his name. Would love to hear your opinion. Englistaan (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Alexander