Talk:Alexander Sarcophagus

message: I removed the following section from the article because I believe it does not add anything useful to the article:
===Recent events===
- On 22 April 2009, Turkish and Macedonian archaeologists met in Istanbul and the Turkish authorities allowed the Republic of Macedonia to make a copy of the Alexander Sarcophagus that afterwards will be displayed in a Macedonian museum.Idividi web portal Dnevnik newspaper \ 
The fact that there are plans to make a modern copy of the sarcophagus by two countries is completely irrelevant to the history of the sarcophagus itself. It is also covered under WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. This is an encyclopedia article. Not a news service about would-be copies of the sarcophagus. I would like opinions on this matter from other editors. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As currently written, I agree, it's recentism, but it could be rephrased so that the historic significance of the event becomes clear. It's certainly relevant to the history of an artefact if at some stage it becomes a pawn in an ongoing international dispute (viz. the efforts by the Republic of Macedonia to appropriate the cultural legacy of Alexander, of which the Macedonia naming dispute is another manifestation). Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree as long as we can find reliable sources that call it a significant event and the sources also have to put it in the context of the dispute, otherwise it would be WP:OR on our part just putting it in and asserting it without corroboration from WP:RS. Dr.K. logos 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: A sentence noting that a replica is on display will suffice, when it is in fact on display. In small American museums there are many non-notable copies of paintings. Plaster casts of famous antique sculptures also abound.--Wetman (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am absolutely with you on this. This is actually the gist of one of my recent edit summaries. The only qualification I would add is that an external wp:rs calls it a significant copy. Dr.K. logos 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: - On 22 April 2009, Turkish and Macedonian archaeologists met in Istanbul and the Turkish authorities allowed the Republic of Macedonia to make a copy of the Alexander Sarcophagus that afterwards will be displayed in a Macedonian museum.Idividi web portal Dnevnik newspaper \ 
The fact that there are plans to make a modern copy of the sarcophagus by two countries is completely irrelevant to the history of the sarcophagus itself. It is also covered under WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. This is an encyclopedia article. Not a news service about would-be copies of the sarcophagus. I would like opinions on this matter from other editors. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As currently written, I agree, it's recentism, but it could be rephrased so that the historic significance of the event becomes clear. It's certainly relevant to the history of an artefact if at some stage it becomes a pawn in an ongoing international dispute (viz. the efforts by the Republic of Macedonia to appropriate the cultural legacy of Alexander, of which the Macedonia naming dispute is another manifestation). Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree as long as we can find reliable sources that call it a significant event and the sources also have to put it in the context of the dispute, otherwise it would be WP:OR on our part just putting it in and asserting it without corroboration from WP:RS. Dr.K. logos 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: A sentence noting that a replica is on display will suffice, when it is in fact on display. In small American museums there are many non-notable copies of paintings. Plaster casts of famous antique sculptures also abound.--Wetman (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am absolutely with you on this. This is actually the gist of one of my recent edit summaries. The only qualification I would add is that an external wp:rs calls it a significant copy. Dr.K. logos 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent events

message: Could someone please clarify in the article if any remains were found inside the sarcophagus or if it is thought that Alexander remains were ever in there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:104E:13:61A0:C8C:6C83:724D:6487 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside the sarcophagus