Talk:Sparta/Archive 3

message: Yanni" wrote "You all bother so much about the term "superpower", and you still you don't focus on what is the most important inaccuracy in this sentence: that Sparta overpowered Persia" Superpower and overpower are both wrong. Even "classical times" is wrong as it describes a time from 5 BCE to 5 AD, and during most of this time Sparta was a non-entity. My goal is to have all these three removed from the Introduction, especially as the introduction currently stands (without any mention of Spartan defeats). NN 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone block this person for persistent disruption please? NikoSilver 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpower and Overpower

message: :Nice, now that we've resolved this, can we please unprotect the article to insert the following lead:
----
::Sparta (Doric:  Spárta, Attic:  Spártē) is a city in southern Greece. In antiquity it was a Dorian Greek military state, originally centered in Laconia. During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower of the Ancient Greek world,"Realism and International Relations", Jack Donnelly, Cambridge University PressThe Character of Lysander William K. Prentice American Journal of Archaeology and by overpowering both the Athenian Empire and effectively confronting the Persian Empire in various occasions, she regarded herself as the natural protector of Greece.The Macedonian Empire: the era of warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359-323 B.C. - James R. Laconia or Lacedaemon () was the name of the wider city-state centered at the city of Sparta, though the name "Sparta" is now used for both. The Spartan Kings were believed to be the direct descendants of Heracles."The Spartan tradition in European thought", Elizabeth Rawson - p.
----
I think this proposal is great, because:
*Clarifies that Sparta was: a) a military superpower, b) in ancient Greek World,
*It defeated Persia, but it is not clear if it overpowered it.--Yannismarou 17:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have an agreement here to put this lead, and lift the protection?--Yannismarou 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since NN is the only who until now questions this proposal and does not agree with it (since he does not understand that "superpower in the ancient Greek world" is not much different from "hegemon of the ancient Greek world"), I think that I can go forward and implement this proposal. I also lift the protection, but I warn that if and when edit-warring restarts, it will be back.--Yannismarou 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone can clear something up for me. After the Peloponnesian war did the Spartans achieve any significant victories over the Persians? Because Niko's proposal implies after defeating Athens they went on to challenge the Persians. --A.Garnet 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they defeated the Persian army in Lydia and Caria under Agesilaus'leadership.--Yannismarou 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have another suggestion: "During classical times, Sparta had achieved significant victories over its Athenian and Persian rivals, securing its position as the pre-eminent military power of Ancient Greece". --A.Garnet 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just having the above in the introduction without mentioning Spartan defeats is unbalanced. Also Spartan pre-eminence seems short lived (ended with its defeat to Thebes). However as this version removes superpower I will accept it. NN 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! It is just a matter of words Garnet! "Preeminent military power" and "military superpower in the ancient Greek world (there is a limitation of area!)" are almost aexactly the same thing. I don't see why keep playing with words, since the meaning is the same, and in this context "superpower" is a term indeed widely used by academic sources.--Yannismarou 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Yannis, it is stupid. But contemporary terms such as superpower should be avoided when talking about classical Greece. So really, is my suggestion of hegemonic or pre-eminent that bad that it cannot be used as a compromise? --A.Garnet 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Alf, it's not bad. It's just that the "superpower" version is better, and sourced by 300+ academics. We don't need compromises for sourced issues. And we certainly don't need to follow suit because of one disruptive editor. NikoSilver 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicos' great proposal

message: Yannismarou writes that I am the only one objecting to the use of the word superpower to describe Sparta in the Introduction. I repeat other editors including Dejvid, Geda, Mershad and Mardvich have said it is inappropriate to use this word. Just because they haven't posted in the last half hour does NOT mean they have agreed to Sparta being a superpower. NN 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am officially dropping this discussion. NikoSilver 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miskin, you don't discuss with NN, but with me, Nicos, Garnet and others. It is not a disagreement between you two, but an issue with a considerable number of editors involved.--Yannismarou 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, I think the wording proposed previously by Nicos, based on my proposals and Garnet's is accurate, more accurate than the previous wording and I'll go on implementing it, don't caring about NN's disruptive and unconstructive interventions. What matters for me is accuracacy, and I strongly believe that these changes serve accuracy.--Yannismarou 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who disagrees with calling Sparta superpower in the Introduction

message: Garnet has made the following proposal for a compromise: "During classical times, Sparta had achieved significant victories over its Athenian and Persian rivals, securing its position as the pre-eminent military power of Ancient Greece".
I accept the above proposal. I believe that having the above in the introduction without mentioning Spartan defeats is unbalanced. Also Spartan pre-eminence seems short lived (ended with its defeat to Thebes). However as this version removes superpower I will accept it. NN 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are blocked for one hour (for clear violation of WP:POINT) so as the rest of us can discuss here. Then, you are more than welcomed to come back.--Yannismarou 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse this block. To the issue at hand now: After Alf's consideration above, does anybody feel that my text implies any sort of causality? (i.e. Sparta moved on to Persia because it defeated Athens)? I am open for rephrasing. NikoSilver 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Garnet's Proposal for Compromise

message: I protest the blocking of one of the editors for their legitimate (and neutral) edits and the reversion of this article to the fictional version by the above-named administrator.
Why don't we just re-name this article as "300".
While we are at it, let's replace the Theory Of Evolution section Wikipedia with Greek mythology and how Aphrodite created mankind.
Not stopping there of course, we can change the "Darwin" article to "Zeus", and the "Alexander" article to "Hercules".
I hope you all can see my point here -- this article was rewritten because of the upcoming 300 movie just as "Alexander" and related articles suffered the same fate.
Either way:
 
(a) the Spartans never "Overpower the Persian Empire" -- this statement is not even found in any of the Greek legends and indeed the Spartans were subjects of the Persians.  
(b) the word "superpower" used by my Greek friends to describe the Persian Vassal City of Sparta is exteremely silly.
Lets have a list of people who want this article to be set to unprotected for the sake of changing these silly new additions to the Sparta article
Mehrshad123 04:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, Sparta was never a Persian vassal state. On the other hand, calling Sparta a "superpower" would mean applying 20th-century political concepts to ancient history, which is a questionable practice. Iblardi 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes with sources from reliable publishers, including both Cambridge and Oxford University press, therefore your assertion is original research (read WP:ATT). Btw Iblardi I'm going to report you for WP:STALKing, your appearance here leaves no further doubt about it. I'm gonna gather myself a couple of diffs and get rid of your sockpuppeting once and for all. Miskin 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so. You are aware of the fact that it isn't your comment I'm reacting to? By the way, do I have to remind you of your disruptive behaviour at the  Justinian page? Iblardi 14:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. Requesting sources for unsourced statements is what WP:CITE is about, removing sourced statements (as you did in the Roman law) is disruptive editing - there's a huge difference. Read the J. Wales citation, I could have reported those accusations for uncivil behaviour. In any case what you're doing is clear harassment and I have already contacted an admin about it. Ciao professor. Miskin 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Talking about uncivil behaviour... The difference is that I admit my mistakes instead of pushing my POV at any cost, like you obviously do. Iblardi 15:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, the difference is that I use sources for my POV, therefore it is no longer a POV. That, and the fact that I'm not a sockpuppet of a banned user. Miskin 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited your source in the talk page, and then left the article alone. You, on the other hand, kept trying to revert against the editors' consensus. Who is displaying disruptive behaviour here? Iblardi 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... You? In Justinian I never reverted, I only removed an uncited statement to Talk and never touched the article again, go on check the edit history. In R.Law you twice removing sourced content for no given reason. In fact it was most likely the same reason you're here right now, to stalk me down. You actually came here to speak to me about other articles, and I'm supposed to find this normal. We'll see how normal it looks. So are you really a professor? What's all that about? Why are you avoiding the question? Miskin 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from getting personal. Iblardi 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Iblardi/Greier, is there are reason why you are getting so personal (rhetorical question)?--Domitius 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes. I've wondered all along: exactly what is your involvement in the article on Medieval Greek? Iblardi 15:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever it is, it's not troll-stalking Miskin unlike certain other users.--Domitius 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, you do speak English after all. What were you doing there? Iblardi 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A highly sourced questionable practice you mean.--Domitius 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your involvement Greier? Nevermind, say it to me over there. Miskin 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Official Protest 

message: The opening paragraph refers to Sparta in the feminine.  "She and "her" should be changed to "It" and "itself."  --DavidShankBone 14:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are used but I prefere "it" as well. Miskin 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: She vs. It

message: Just wanted to give this a thumbs up for one of the funniest talk pages I have come across in a good while. Some 100kb trying to decide whether Sparta was a superpower or hegemonial, whether it defeated or overpowered persia: That is comedy at its best (or staying with the greek theme, should I say tragic??). I suggest everyone here takes a week-long wiki break before you reach 1Mb. --Xeeron 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Xeeron, having spent the last 20 minuted skipping through all of the above I think your summary is absolutely hilarious and spot on. Good to see some Wikipedia users have a sense of humour Dinosv 16:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thumbs up