Talk:Pericles/Archive 1

message: In the second paragraph, the word demos has been misused. Its general meaning is 'the people', though in the sense used in democracy it refers only to citizens. All adult Athenian males were citizens. Pericles actually changed the rules so that citizens had to be entirely Athenian in origin. opponents of democracy argued that it gave power to the mob, but we should not accept this view as necessarily accurate. Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demos 

message: In the article it states that the Age of Pericles is from 461-379 BC but other source(s) say that it is from 461 BC to 429 BC. So can anyone confirm or give a source for the 461-379 time period? This is one of the sites that gives the 461 to 429 BC time period;  or search 'Age of Pericles lasted from' on Google or see the discussion on the Age of Pericles article. If the source or reason doesn't come up soon I am going to change it to: 'The period from 461 BC to 429 BC is sometimes known as "The Age of Pericles" (Though this terminology can extend to all the way to 379 BC)'  Pseudoanonymous 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Pericles 

message: Why is Pericles' name randomly italicized in some parts of the article, but not others?--128.239.222.142 16:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicization 

message: I feel this is a better photo than the one currently at the article, but I leave a decision on whether to replace it to other editors. Adam 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: thumb|250px This is described as a "contemporary" statue of Pericles. Contemporary with what? I don't think it an ancient statue. If it is a modern statue, it is of very limited relevance to the article, when we already have a number of ancient images of Pericles. Also the caption is very unclear and of dubious relevance. Adam 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This photo

message: I believe the "Skill of oratory" section would benefit a lot from citing Plato. In the Gorgias dialogue (455d and on), Gorgias actually uses Pericles as an example os how powerful oratory can be:
" Gorgias - Well, I will try, Socrates, to reveal to you clearly the whole power of rhetoric: and in fact you have correctly shown the way to it yourself. You know, I suppose, that these great arsenals and walls of Athens, and the construction of your harbors, are due to the advice of Themistocles, and in part to that of Pericles, not to your craftsmen.
Socrates - So we are told, Gorgias, of Themistocles; and as to Pericles, I heard him myself when he was advising us about the middle wall.
Gorgias - So whenever there is an election of such persons as you were referring to, Socrates, you see it is the orators who give the advice and get resolutions carried in these matters.
Socrates - That is just what surprises me, Gorgias, and has made me ask you all this time what in the world the power of rhetoric can be. For, viewed in this light, its greatness comes over me as something supernatural.
Gorgias - Ah yes, if you knew all, Socrates,--how it comprises in itself practically all powers at once! "
A few paragraphs below in the same book is the phrase by Socrates cited on the "Political leadership" section of the article: "As far as I know, Pericles made the Athenians slothfull, garrulous and avaricious, by starting the system of public fees". Well, Socrates didn't like rethoric, yet in the book all agree Pericles was a great orator.
I think all of this can be into the article, maybe the "Skill of oratory" section could say something about it and feature one of those blue boxes with the whole text above.
I'm sorry for any English mistakes, by the way.A.Z. 21:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skill of oratory

message: I love the Greek numbered footnotes but am a bit confused by the use of στ for 6 shouldn't it be stigma (Ϛ) or digamma (Ϝ)? But maybe modern practice id different. Eluchil404 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in modern Greek practice, στ stands for six. In fact, most Greek people nowadays wouldnt recognise stigma or digamma. Druworos 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I have reviewed the article for GA nomination.  And unfortunately I cannot pass it.  Though, in a sort of a paradox, this is one of the most well-written articles, in terms of content coverage and style, I have seen on Wikipedia.  The reason for failing though, is mostly due to the language non-conforming to Wikipedia's NPOV policies, which are of course part of the Good Article Criteria.
There really is only one thing which let this article down for me.  And that's what has been pointed out in the FA nomination - neutral point of view.  GA is not meant to be nearly as strict on the details, but I found some sections unacceptable.
*Political leadership section - this section is very POV.  In fact it is almost nothing except Thucydides's POV.  While it may be acceptable to quote people's descriptions and analysis of Pericles, it is not neutral at all to use one person's POV to characterise the man in an Encyclopedic entry.  You're not putting in your own POV here, very true, but it is not so much different if you present only a one-sided view quoting one-sided POVs.  This section needs to be re-written to be more neutral, and to be less of Thucydides.  In fact when mentioning critics/admirers like this you should be saying something more like: "Thucydides was a great admirer of Pericles, in his writings he has called him... etc"
*Legacy section - same thing.  According to K. Paparrigopoulos, Pericles was "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece".[71] Comparing the virtues of the most prominent Athenian statesmen, the Greek historian concludes that "Cimon was surely a better general; Themistocles might have been a better politician and Demosthenes a better orator, but Pericles was, at the same time a great general, statesman and orator".[71]... First of all who is Paparrigopoulos?  And why is his oppinion on Pericles's legacy the only important one?
*Throughout the article you have your own commentary which is, depending on which way you look at it, either POV or original research.  Both of which are against Wikipedia policy.  Here are some examples:
**If true, this deal constitutes a concession of Pericles that he was not a great strategist...
**It is interesting to point out that...
**His shrewd stance...
**...we must point out that Pericles' thinking was likely more political than military in nature.
**He probably believed that...
**...his strategic genius remains questioned... (you say remains questioned, but you call it genius yourself - prescribing this POV to the reader)
In short - I think this article has too much emphasis on describing Pericles through POVs of individuals who have admired him.
This is not as major as the above problems, but you never mentioned how he died!  You need to have a section about how/when/where he died, and some brief summary of the consequences of his death - who succeeded him, etc  (and as far as I remember Athens was defeated by Sparta soon after).
Also a couple of recommendations (though these would not have stopped you from passing):
*in sections like the Pelopanesian War, I suggest you put in tags like:  which would give:  under the section heading.  This would give interested readers an opportunity to go and read more on the given subject.
*make a See Also section to things like Greek History, and other related topics.  I realise you removed one during your FA nomination because you were echoing the contents of the article.  But it would still be great if you had one for things not linked to in your article specifically.  Some possible examples: ancient greek history, ancient greek art/culture, ancient greek democracy, etc.  (note I haven't checked whether these are articles, but there should be some along these lines)
Please don't take this as a discouragement, you have done a great job so far.  I will look forward to your re-nomination for GA and eventually FA!--Konstable 13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have done a good job really.  But the style that you use is more of a style for a book, rather than for Wikipedia.--Konstable 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: Citations 47 and 66 donot refer paqe. The mere reference of the book without pages is not adequate. Please add a page or I'll think removing them. --Yannismarou 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, sorry, I seemed to have missed the talk page (my watch list is very bloated right now).  I will go back and fill them in when I can, shouldn't be too hard I still have immediate access to all the sources.--Konstable 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I am about to request a peer review.  Let's see what people think of the new version.--Konstable 14:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review