Talk:Kyklos

message: What the heck is that? 
:"a term used by some classical Greek authors to describe what they saw as the political cycle of governments in a society"? 
No, they described the cycle of governments in their society. I'm not sure what your egenda is here Milnea, and not all of your edits are bad ones, but I think WHEELER has good reason to be concerned. Please review Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Sam Spade Arb Com election 14:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, Sam, these authors weren't omniscient gods, you know. Like all other authors, they gave their opinions on a certain issue. I don't see why Wikipedia should endorse their opinions. "What they saw as" is a standard NPOV qualifier. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't want to create a firestorm at all, but I think there is some merit to the "what they saw as" construction.  Sam, in your comment, you note that these classical Greek authors "describe the cycle of governments in their society".  Yet I think, based on my limited familiarity with these authors, that they did not portray their words as mere descriptions of current events.  Many if not most of them believed that the cycle of events was "natural" and that it held true of all governments in general.  I believe it's fair to say that most political scientists and historians hold that the cycle of events has not proven to be universal, and that it in fact is very situationaly applicable (i.e., it was true of ancient Greece, but few other societies).  So while I think you're right, Sam, to say that it was a good description of Greek government at the time, I also think Milnea is right to suggest that the classical Greek authors saw the kyklos as a universal truth (which it does not seem to be, although I expect at least one editor will disagree with me on that point). Jwrosenzweig 22:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't see any vitriol here you need apologize for, Sam. :-)  Perhaps you're the one being too cautious now, as you so often chide me for being. :-)  Anyhow, I don't know Milnea at all, and can't comment.  I would say, though, that the phrase "what they saw" should work for both of us, if I understand you correctly.  It attributes to the classical Greek authors an opinion that I think they clearly held -- i.e., the universal applicability (or near-universal, at least) of this progression of government.  It refrains from criticizing that position, while allowing for the possibility that they were not correct (I think calling the kyklos a Greek description of the political cycle of governments in a society assumes a priori that such a cycle exists, hence my desire to qualify the remark with "what they saw as").  Does this not work for you, Sam?  If not, what construction can you think of which might meet the same end (that is, of clarifying the Greek position without presenting it as truth)? Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Plato and Aristotle both derived their idea about the cycle of governments from observing (ancient Greek) governments. I would argue that it could therefore very well be considered a discription. Discriptions are always normative observations and I do not think that labeling their interpretation of the kyklos a discription implies that it is based on a priori truth. However, if the term description would be used, I think something must also be said about how this description related to the "facts" that were described. Since the article provides no such information, I suggest to go with "what they considered as".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJC15344 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Sam!  I'm not sure of its sufficiency either, but I appreciate the gesture and think it will certainly do until one of us can think of a better phrasing. :-)  And perhaps it is in fact the best.  Either way, happy Thanksgiving and thanks for your edit, Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What they saw as???

message: Sam, when you look into my edits, please actually look into them rather than reverting out of hand. Not only did you revert some of my grammar corrections, but you also reverted my removal of Wheeler's personal opinions.
You see, "The Kyklos" is a term used by the Ancient Greeks, referring to the Ancient World. Therefore, all of Wheeler's comments in this article about "The Kyklos" happening to modern nations (America, Russia, Germany) are purely HIS opinion. His speculations. His POV. As such, they don't belong in Wikipedia and I have removed them. There is not a single good reason for re-adding them.
You will notice that all of Wheeler's articles about the Ancient World follow the same pattern: First he takes an Ancient Greek concept and discusses it (which is perfectly fine), then he goes on to rant about how that concept applies to the modern world and how it shows that his beloved reactionary monarchy is the best, greatest, most wonderful and most holy form of government ever devised. When I come in and cut out this POV part, he starts whining about me "censoring" him. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What grammer corrections? I didn't revert you, I kept all changes which improved the article, as best as I can tell. Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one right next to the Socrates quote, I think, but never mind that. Let's discuss one thing at a time. First, all information on "The Kyklos" which speculates on the application of this ancient concept in the modern world is personal opinion and does not belong here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. But even then, if it's one lone and controversial "expert" (as the ones Wheeler has the habit of citing), it would be more appropriate to put the respective information in that expert's wiki article rather than here (for the same reason that Adolf Hitler's views on Judaism are part of the Hitler article and not of the Judaism article). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation and opinion

message: The article gives reference to the specific chapters of The Republic where Plato discusses Kyklos but does not do the same for Aristotle despite going into more detail about his arguments. Are they from Politics, and if so, which chapter(s)? Or are they from another work?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.40.69 (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Aristotle on Kyklos? 

message: To optimize this page I will put forward several suggestions for improvement of its overall lay-out, structure, and content. For clarity I will divide my suggestions into 4 categories of critique:
* Structure
The page is simply a bulk of text and this is unacceptable. There is no clear structure in the text and authors and their views are described in a haphazard way. I suggest that the article should be divided into different headings. Each heading will go into detail about a specific author. Since Cicero and Machiavelli have a special link to Polybius, they will be featured as subheadings below the Polybius section. Solutions each author proposed to the harmful cycle can be discussed as subsection of each individual writer, or as a stand-alone heading. 
* Content
The content that is featured on this page is scarce on some topics. Cicero and Machiavelli for instance are very briefly referenced, without actually providing any useful information. The same goes for Plato. I will first try to elaborate more on Plato by adding more and new information, since this is part of my own discipline. Also, the article contains implications which are not backed up by any evidence. It states for instance that “Plato only sees five forms of government. Aristotle believes the cycle begins with monarchy and ends in anarchy, but that it does not start anew.” These lines imply that Plato - contrasting Aristotle - thinks the kyklos does start anew, however, I cannot find any sources that support this view. Therefore the implication should be left out. 
* Referencing
The referencing in this page is below any standards and desperately needs to be updated. I suggest that at least the original ancient sources should be referenced correctly. People need be able to find what the ancient authors actually wrote about the kyklos. Also the footnote that is currently in the reference section should be removed, since the article it relates to is a copy of the wikipedia page about the kyklos. I’m currently looking for more articles and pages that can further support the claims made in the article about the kyklos.
* Writing
The writing on this page is somewhat amateuristic. The introduction of this page features book chapters (which are references) and contains information about the anacyclosis that is not featured in the rest of the article. The introduction should be rewritten as a summary of the rest of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJC15344 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: To further optimize this page, a lot of information can be added! The introductory paragraph tells that the ancient Greek auhtors were inspired by the real-life history of the Greek city states, however this information - or an elaboration on it - cannot be found in the rest of the article. Also the part about Aristotle could be looked into a bit more. Aristotle should also be referenced better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJC15344 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further edits