Talk:Thucydides

message: Article needs cleaning up a bit: new section for quotes; moving section about war to the actual article on the work; etc. Mat334 14:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup

message: Congratulations to the editors of this article Gnangarra 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Thucydides]] 

message: IMHO, there are some problems with this article.  To begin with, substantial material from the "life" section is not substantied "from Thucydides' History" as it claims to be.  I think it necessary to demarcate clearly between material gleaned from the History and other material.  Secondly, in the very first section, there is a reference to the scientific and detached character of the History.  This seems irrelevant in an article about *Thucydides*.  The opening blurb ought to talk about him.  Will it mention the History? Of course.  Should it go into depth about it? No.  It should probably be formatted as: 1 Sentence identifying Thucyd. 2. Say he wrote the History. 3. Some summarizing sentence about his character, stature etc.  I would have just gone ahead on done this, but the article is GA status and has had a lot of good work put into it, so I figured I'd discuss first!  Have a good day!  Jim 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree strongly with you that all the material in "Life" should be clearly sourced, so that the reader can tell on what passages of Thucydides' work, or on what other sources, the statements are based.  (If help is needed tracking down a text believed to exist in Thucydides, I'd be glad to help; I'm the one who added the book and chapter references for the quotations.)  I'm less persuaded by your second suggestion.  Thucydides is an important topic only because of the huge importance of his single surviving literary work; what makes him notable is what makes it notable.  Surely someone reading through the "Thucydides" article should get, front and center, a clear outline of his work's notable features, even if the reader will have to click over to History of the Peloponnesian War for some more in-depth discussion of some of its significant features.  Now, I'm sure the lead can be improved, and I'm not wedded to the exact way it's currently stated.  But, if I may use it as a model without improving it, would it satisfy your concern if rewritten, "Thucydides is widely considered the first scientific historian because of his efforts in his History to describe the human world as produced by men acting from ordinary motives, without the intervention of the gods."  Any quibbles aside, something like this is surely fundamental enough to the importance of the historical individual Thucydides to go in the lead, in my opinion.  Wareh 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response Wareh!  (P.S. I perused your contribs, nice work)  I will try to work on that "Life" section, sorting out the sourcing.  An example of the kind of thing that needs to go is this sentence: "Thucydides lived between his two homes, in Athens and in Thrace."  While a perfectly reasonable inference from the evidence we have, there is no actual evidence of "two homes" (puts one in mind of summering in Thrace and the like) and no certainty that Thucydides "split time" between the two regions in any meaningful way.  I will avoid radical re-edits, of course.  As for the lead, I agree that mention must be made of the History of the Peloponnesian War and that a sentence characterizing the History should be included.  My gripe now (Sorry!) is that the "human motivation" rubric is slightly idiosyncratic (only slightly).  I largely wrote the lead in the History of the Peloponnesian War article, and I tried there to strike a balance between the "scientific" reading of the text and the more "literary" reading.  How about this as an edit of your edit above: " Thucydides is considered by many to be a scientific historian because of his efforts in his History to describe the human world in terms of cause and effect, his strict standards of gathering evidence, and his neglect of the gods in explaining the events of the past.  But other scholars point to the History's elaborate literary artifices and emotionally charged purple passages in order to characterize Thucydides as less a scientist and more of a literary artist."  Having written this out, it doesn't quite satisfy me even, but I guess you get the idea.  Let me know what you think!! Jim 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it just fine.  My own interest in Thucydides very much stresses that he often uses the language of modern rational inquiry and explanation in the service of, or at least together with, traditional (e.g. tragic, so "literary") views of human successes and failures.  I might suggest your second sentence be tweaked in the following direction: "Other scholars lay greater emphasis on the History's elaborate literary artistry and the powerful rhetoric of its speeches and insist that its author exploited non-"scientific" literary genres no less than newer, rationalistic modes of explanation."  I'll go ahead and put it in like that, and feel free to make any further improvements that you see possible!  (I realize that now the lead raises one strand of analysis of Thucydides' mentality to which the article below does not do justice; but I believe it can and should stand there as at least a reminder of the kind of issues article improvements ought to explore eventually.)  Wareh 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great.  Sounds really good now.Jim 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lot of work needed on this article 

message: I hope long-serving contributors to the Thucydides page won't mind my offering one suggestion.  Neither that page, nor the one on the "History" itself, includes any discussion of Thucydides' distinctive stylistic traits, or much on the literary qualities of his book.  Does anyone already have it in mind to draft something on these topics?  If not, I could offer up something myself in due course for consideration by others - though I'm sure there are people on here much better qualified than I am to do so. John Winterton 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is more important to an understanding of Thucydides the historian and thinker than an account of his style!  I hope you will give us something to build on, at least!  Wareh 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: STYLE/LITERARY QUALITIES

message: Today someone linked sacred or profane in the quotation.  Indeed the standard lexicon has established the view that  together mean "sacred and profane."  But I recall that John Chadwick has questioned this pretty convincingly in his Lexicographica Graeca.  Wareh 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the reference and have changed the translation accordingly.  Wareh 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred and profane (Thuc. 2.52.3) 

message: The word ancient in the first sentence is redundant: modern Greeks were rather thin on the ground in the period 460-395 BC, so there's no risk of confusion. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 00:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Would the quotations section of this article perhaps be best transferred to a separate link on the WikiQuotes site, with a link to it about the bottom of this page? With compliments. DAFMM (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations Section 

message: I removed this quotation from Green, but some editor reverted me, claiming that he didn't trust me:
"The cleverest intellectual move Thucydides made was the severe limiting of what he deemed permissible as elements of historiography, on the grounds that everything else outside this canon was not only irrelevant but unserious. Out went personal anecdotes, most foreign ethnography and domestic or private motivation: out, above all, went anything to do with women. Religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too. The essence of history was war and politics, as conducted by men in authority. His exclusive privileging of the male political association, in its most public form, became accepted, and historians (being political males themselves) were not inclined to argue. His revisionism not only won out at the time, but established the basic principles of historiography for over two millennia.[24]"
Green is admittedly an established scholar, but this paragraph is nothing but speculation without a shred of evidence.  It definitely does not represent Green's best work.  On the Humanities reference desk, I recently asked whether the statement "religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too" had any basis in Thucydides' work.  Neither I nor any ref desk volunteers could find any reference to either religion or women in the History of the Peloponnesian War.  There is no evidence suggesting that Thucydides thought religion was women's business, or that religion really was women's business in ancient Athens, or that the fact it was women's business had anything to do with why Thucydides was atheistic in his treatment of history.  In fact, it seems that Green is saying the only reason people don't believe in gods is because they hate women!
Green makes the extraordinary claim that "out, above all, went anything to do with women", but everything we know about ancient Greece suggests that women played no role in public life, and certainly no role in the military.  Green goes against this firmly established historical fact derived from numerous sources--Athenian laws, contemporary writings, public records, etc--and postulates that Thucydides threw out everything to do with women, all without offering any evidence.
What bothers me the most is that Green tries to discredit 2 millenia of historiography.  That's an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, being based on speculations about Thucydides that no other scholars (as far as I can tell) share.  I therefore conclude that it's the historical equivalent of pseudoscience, and has no place on Wikipedia.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine.  I didn't say that I didn't trust you, but rather an inflammatory and profane edit summary with a dubious claim (i.e., apparently accusing the important scholar Peter Green of "feminist bullshit".)  I agree that the quote is a bit out of place and am fine with removing it, but those kinds of inflammatory edit summaries tend to raise red flags.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious quotation 

message: The photograph I've removed is the same as the one that is identified on the Herodotus page as a "Roman copy of a purported bust of Herodotus."  Since the Thucydides page is linked to the Herodotus page, and there is already another photographic representation of Herodotus on this page, it seems inappropriate to retain this image. Activist (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious representation of Herodotus 

message: The theory that the landings in America by Columbus caused a revival of interest in Herodotus is very far-fetched. I am wondering what it is doing here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1492 

message: "Cicero calls Herodotus the "father of history;" yet the Greek writer Plutarch, in his Moralia (Ethics) denigrated Herodotus, as the "father of lies"."
Plutarch never used this expression, although he criticized some of his lies. It was invented, I believe by Juan Luis Vives, De Disciplinis. Cf. A. Momigliano, Herodotus in the History of Historiography, Secondo contributo, p. 41-42.
Fabrice Ferrer (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From a search of the text, especially section 11 of the part on Herodotus, which the ref appears to mention, it seems you're right. I don't see the phrase "father of lies" or anything like it. — Eru·tuon 09:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herodotus, father of lies 

message: Coming to this article with no knowledge of Thucydides, I am unsure after reading it whether The History of the Peloponnesian War was his only work, or whether he produced other works too. Can it be made explicit, please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.222.112 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Thucydides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090705045732/http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12547 to http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12547
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100610064048/http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Classics/gk701/8crit.htm to http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Classics/gk701/8crit.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061205230746/http://oll.libertyfund.org:80/Intros/Thucydides.php to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Intros/Thucydides.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Notes 63 and 64 cite someone called Peter Green, supporting a less than worshipful view of Thucydides (and his contemporary fans). I'd like to read more by Green on the topic, but both notes merely refer to an "op. cit." that isn't actually cited. (Also, isn't the use of "op. cit." deprecated in Wikipedia notes?) Anyway, I'd be grateful if someone could provide the full reference, and/or provide more in the same vein: anything that undemrines Thucydides' ludicrous reputation for "objectivity" or even "scientific history" (one of the great oxymorons of all time) would be welcome, if only to give a more balanced tone to a mostly far too favourable article. (signed) Herodotus Fan Club Member no. 001  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Missing from Notes / Imbalance of Article 

message: Herodotus is called Thucydides' "predecessor" and even "his immediate predecessor". Predecessor in what sense? Although H. was older, they were contemporaries. Did T. succeed H. in some office? If so, which office? Or did T. in some other sense replace H.? If so, in what sense and how did that happen?  --Lambiam 07:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor? 

message: Dear . Re: the reversion of recent edits to Thucydides by . Whilst your reasoning for doing is fine, I find that language that you used to describe these changes as wholly inapproriate for dealing with edits by a new user. These were first edits by Abachi and your comments in the reversion notice were unsupportive and entirely failed to Assume good faith. I understand from Twitter that this user has just written a blog highlighting this - their first experience of editing - as their last as a result of these comments. Please try to treat new editors with a degree of courtesy in future and for the love of all that may or not be holy Please do not bite the newcomers! Zakhx150 (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I deeply apologize; I did not think my tone was so harsh. Sometimes when I say things they come across much harsher than I intended them. I honestly thought my first edit summary was completely respectful; I did not see it as an insult towards the editor I was reverting, but merely as an explanation of why I was reverting him/her. There are only so many characters allowed in an edit summary and I wanted to make sure my reasoning was clear. My second edit summary was a bit harsher, I will admit, but it was talking about the preexisting section, not the new user's edit. Please note that my problem was not necessarily with the content of the section, but rather its incorporation into this Wikipedia article; I think the material I removed would have a much better home over at WikiQuote. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good, lesson learned hopefully. Why don't we see if we and  can incorporate some of the content, in a prose-based form. The stuff about the influence of Thucydides post-Renaissance seems particularly relevant to this page, as do perhaps one or two of his more famous quote and those incorrectly associated with him - it all sounds like good encyclopedics stuff to me.Zakhx150 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be fine with two or three well-chosen quotations placed in relevant sections of this article. The article Pythagoras used to have a similar problem with large quantities of extended quotations before I started working on it; I cleaned out most of them, but kept a few that I thought were really pertinent. I do not think that any of the misattributed quotes should be included in this article, though. Unless they are more famous than anything he actually said, they are not relevant here and we should devote our limited space instead to authentic quotes rather than false ones. I do think that all of the quotations I removed should definitely be incorporated into the WikiQuote article for Thucydides (including the misattributed ones), if they are not there already. Unfortunately, I am not an editor over there and I do not really know much about how their system works. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions 22 February 2018

message: The infobox currently says he was born "c.  460 BC" and died "c.  400 BC (aged approximately 72)". The math doesn't work between those three numbers. Can anyone resolve this apparent contradiction? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and death