Talk:History of the Peloponnesian War

message: "... Thucydides aimed to provide an accurate and detailed account, thoroughly citing his sources whenever he could not provide a first-hand account."
This statement is not entirely accurate. While Thucydides did go out of his way to provide accurate and detailed first-hand accounts (unlike historians before him or for a long time after him), he more often than not provided no direct attributions of his sources, instead relying on generic eyewtiness testimonies (usually combined from several witnesses). His use of written documentation is sparse and pretty much never cited, and there has been some contention over his reworking and abridging of the speeches he presents throughout his history.
Of course all this is based on modern standards, and for someone writing a history in the fifth century BCE, his methods were hundreds and hundreds of years beyond his time.
:The article's "thoroughly" leaves a little wiggle room, but is perhaps too strong. Even so, a statement like "more often not provided no direct attributions" should itself have a supporting authority. Also, this article would greatly benefit from references to a couple of the important survey articles on the historiography of the History. Stan 05:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source Thucydides cites for anything is Homer, who gets mentioned several times in book one.  Nothing else gets cited.  Herodotus actually has a better record for sources, since he quotes numerous poets as evidence for events long before his time. I can only assume the people working on this have not actually read Thucydides.68.118.61.219 23:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be insulting. Stan 01:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article was in serious need of organization, so I've added subject headings.  Obviously there needs to be some more organization and certainly expansion/referencing (citation of sources) of these sections, but at least there is something of a framework to work on.  Jim 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: subject headings

message: I have once deleted the link to free will since it is idiosyncratic and not realy essential to understanding the History.  It was returned.  Any objections to removing it again?Jim
:It's significatn, but I'm not sure it merits its own section . . . UnDeadGoat 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Entitled "The Role of Religion"

message: Doesn't this school of thought hold that the reader creates meaning, making the author (essentially) irrelevant? The Connor quotation re: Thucydides seems inappropriate in this context. Any English PhDs out there? Ifnkovhg (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reader-response criticism? 

message: :Image:Greek Hoplite2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Greek Hoplite2.jpg

message: I am not sure that anyone has ever considered the writing to be a chronicle. I see no reason why the designation 'literature' should prevent Thuycdides' history from being as truthful an account as possible (which I take to be the meaning of the obscure term 'objective'(Pamour (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  literature 

message: One of the events in Book 6 is described as "Parties at Syracuse". I didn't find anything that would fit this heading, should it refer to the "pro-Syracusan party" at Catana instead?(6.50-6.51). I also could not find anything in Book 6 that would fit the description "Investment of Syracuse" so I removed it. If anyone disagrees with these changes, revert away. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline Section. Book 6

message: "Thucydides is one of the first western historians to employ a strict standard of chronology, recording events by year, with each year consisting of the summer campaign season and a less active winter season. This method contrasts sharply with Herodotus' earlier work The Histories, which jumps around chronologically and makes frequent and roundabout excursions into seemingly unrelated areas and time periods and has set the standard for historiographical rigor to this day."
This section is ambiguous and confusing. The second sentence needs to make it clear whether "and has set the standard for historiographical rigor to this day" refers to HotPW or Herodotus. I _think_ it refers to HotPW but this is not clear. PateraIncus (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: Could someone please add the approximate date of its publication/finalized creation to the infobox I added to the page? --DawnDusk (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was it published?