This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Classical This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

An anon reverted my copyedit regarding the correct Greek name forms here ( [1]). Excuse me, you evidently know no Greek. Plural names (ethnonyms) in -os or -o or -ois are not possible in Greek. All these names are of the same, standard pattern:

• Nominative Singular -os
• Nominative Plural -oi (Aspasioi, Astakenoi, etc.)

Other forms may occur in other cases (genitive -ōn, accusative -ous, dative -ois etc.), but not in the quotation forms we'd use in English.

Also, the English convention is when you use a Greek noun that is already a plural in Greek, in -oi, you don't add another English plural -s, so you don't turn "Aspasioi" into "Aspasiois" to make it an English plural.

You can find the correct Greek spellings in this online text of Arrian ( [2]), and doubtless in a lot of other places. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Anon, you first demand that everybody else should discuss their changes here on talk ( [3]), and then when I do just that, you go and blindly revert to your version again without even responding and with a misleading edit summary ( [4])? What the...?! What's your point? What do you want? Can you please come here and state why you insist on those wrong and ahistorical name spellings? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Can anyone have a look at this section, it looks like it was written by a Indian Ultra-Nationalist. I'm going to remove some obvious editor opinions but I can't check it all out. -- 140.141.34.132 16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have gone through it and tried to tidy it up and make it more neutral. Haven't checked the sources - they are all books. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This page is so confusing it's difficult to begin, but it is obviously written from a Indian Ultra-Nationalist (to borrow from previous) or other perspective. The page is just littered with such issues, like the "tragedy" at the end. Additionally, the sources are doubtful (I can't find some of them easily) or misused, the writing is incomprehensible, and the most confusing aspect is the different tribes constituting the Kambojas. I cannot find sources speaking of different tribes within the Kamboja, and http://books.google.com/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&pg=PA359&dq=kamboja&hl=en&ei=ZZUgTZfeIsL58AaHxvDHDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kamboja&f=false calls the different tribes (as written about here) ethnonyms. All in all, we might need an expert or someone who has knowledge of the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qizix ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have tidied up the text of the first section and tried to pull it to NPOV. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Edited Hindu Kush section - slow going! We need some accessible sources to cross check. I suspect the Greek spellings may not be correct. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Tidied up Battle with Ashvakayanas section - condensed and tried to make NPOV Yellowcrocus ( talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Edited Diodorus account - removed last sentence which seemed to be redundant and blatantly not NPOV! Yellowcrocus ( talk) 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Removed a couple of sentences from Plutarch section - one not relevant to section title, the other stating an opinion which is clear in the text anyway. Stating it was taking a particular view - not NPOV. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 21:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Removed a lengthy quotation in the 'Massaga final encounter' section. Didn't seem to serve a useful purpose - appears to have been included at length to vilify Alexander. Summarised in text - though I wonder if it shouldn't be chopped out altogether. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Decided to remove the 'final encounter at Massaga' section which does not seem to serve any useful purpose - moved a couple of quotes to the relevant sections. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 08:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Removed most of the section 'On the credibility of Arrian' - the matter is well discussed in the Wiki article about Arrian so have linked to that. The original was mainly a tirade against Alexander, and as such not a NPOV. Added reference to AB Bosworth - who appears to be one of the greatest authorities on Arrian though no WP entry for him. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Have finished copy editing and hopefully made it NPOV - have removed those tags. Issues with the refs remain. Yellowcrocus ( talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

This article and Cophen Campaign are about the same campaign. Although they both seem to bring a lot to eachother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.62.21 ( talk) 08:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

This article does seem a little biased, that being this article, although it does seem to have a lot of information that the other article is lacking.  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
SteveMooreSmith3 (
talk • 
contribs) 
08:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
reply