Talk:Sparta/Archive 2

message: Miskin, Please do not remove referenced material (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition) as you did by this edit  NN 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your referenced material on the Battle of Leuctra is mentioned 5 lines below your edit. You can move your reference there if you want. Without changing the intro that is. Miskin 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So did you find out what the use of quotation marks implies? NN 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like you still don't understand what quotation marks mean. NN 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have no inkling as to what I think as I am not the one who referred to the text. I am not criticizing you for not understanding the meaning of the text you quoted, not everybody understands the nuances of English. However you should not persist after your error has been pointed out, it makes you look worse. NN 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your 'answer'. I will have to think 'hard' to come up with something as I am debating with such an 'expert'. NN 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Quotation marks for 'emphasis', that's rich! NN 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps you could tell me who he's quoting or making fun of.--Domitius 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are the one offering this as the reference, shouldn't you be the one to answer that question? I understand you are saying that they are qualifying the use of the word superpower by quotation marks, and the reason for their qualification is that the idea of a superpower at that time was anachronistic. However without further reference this is highly speculative. Basically you are trying to interpret the quotation marks to salvage your use of this reference, even though the standard usage of quotation marks is to disown responsibility for using a word. As per standard usage they are saying that they do not consider Sparta or Athens to be superpowers. They may put the quotation marks to SPECIFICALLY INDICATE that they do not consider Sparta and Athens to be superpowers, even though they are comparing them to superpowers. This is the most standard interpretation of the sentence. NN 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources use the term, ergo so can Wikipedia. Beyond that I have nothing more to say. You can put your personal opinions on your blog or geocities page.--Domitius 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or I could revert just like you did, no? NN 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a reference you yourself provided on this talk page and never withdrew. Also you have been proclaiming how CUP is a reliable source. NN 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is - no one is disputing this. You have no counter sources, so you've come up with this pathetic attempt to claim that the source doesn't say what it says (or appears to say).--Domitius 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Referenced Material

message: Miskin said "What he doesn't know is that his extensively disruptive editing has already caught admin attention." Wonder how it is possible that my activities could have caught "admin attention" without my knowing but with Miskin knowing? Or is it just another fantasy? NN 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin Attention?

message: To stop the perpetual reverts we need a consensus. If that is not possible I will start a RfC. NN 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFCs are a waste of time in my experience, however if you want to start one, feel free. I think it's advisable for you to make a set of offers. Obviously your current version is not consensual material so try adaptations of it (with reasons). I and Miskin are not unreasonable POV pushers (even though you may think that). Should that fail, try RFCs, Cabal Mediations, Formal Mediations, whatever you like.--Domitius 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's advisable for you to make a set of offers" So why exactly is it "advisable" for me rather than you to make the offers? NN 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the odds. This discussion seems to be primarily you against me and Miskin. I cannot make an offer on behalf of Miskin, can I? We do think independently even though we happen to agree that your versions thus far have been unsuitable (reasons specified above).--Domitius 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have already made a major compromise by agreeing to leave the text calling Sparta able to "project power on a worldwide scale" in the article. There are other issues with this text including the meaning of the word "Classical times" (which stretches from 5 BCE to 5 AD) and "overpowering" that I have not yet got into. So I believe that moving the text to within the article is a suitable compromise. NN 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting reasoning you give for your edit to Macedonia, which is "you mention A, you must also mention B (in the same place)" Applying the same standard, don't you think that when the introduction says Sparta "overpowered" Athens and Persia, it should also mention it lost wars/battles to both? NN 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is not quite what Domitius did, his edit put them at the same place instead of one in the introduction and another one in a later section. I think the fact that you are missing is that nationalistic rather than balanced edits end up giving a nation a bad name. I am not from Greece, Persia or other involved nations. My opinion has changed for the worse over the past week. My objective is to have Wiki be balanced and resistance to it conveys a negative message. NN 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin you wrote "bothers me is be taken for an idiot". Be assured that is not my intention and I respect all editors here (even if I sometimes think their energies are misdirected). Life is too short to be wasted in making other people feel bad. NN 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking over your edits to other articles involving Greece, Macedonia etc. It seems that you and Miskin take the same positions. I think quite a few of these articles should be improved to make them more balanced. NN 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all you've said and done (accusations for alleged eurocentiric views - info blanking - rv-warring etc), I feel that you take me for an idiot when you try to convince me that you have absolutely no agenda on subject, or worse, that you care for the welfare of the article. Miskin 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NN, if you want to initiate a RfC you are more than welcomed. I don't see any problem in following the procedures WP provides (such as RfCs), and I do not see why Domitius, Miskin or any other user could have any problem with that. To the contrary! Now, as far as "consensus" is concerned: I think that your interpretation of "consensus" is a bit strange. For a loooooong time there was "consensus" for this specific section of the lead, until you questioned it, and unilaterally started reverting. I think that you are the one who should provide consensus supporting your view, and not the editors who defend the current and established version of the lead. After all, NN, I respect and laud your devotion to consensus, but I'm surprised, because in the lead of another article, you clearly acted against a consensus verified by a poll, and you insinsted on reverting the outcome of this specific consensus. Please, try to be a bit more consistent. Regards!--Yannismarou 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Yannis, I did not say my view was the consensus, I said "we should try to find a consensus". As for "I think that you are the one who should provide consensus supporting your view, and not the editors who defend the current and established version of the lead." it seems you are making up Wiki policy or can you point me to where this can be found? As for your reference to the other article, as a matter of simple English, though a vote has positive qualities it does not equal consensus. NN 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I did anything but "stalk" anyone. Yes, that article did come to my notice when I was reading Domitius' page (for answers to messages left by me). The name FYROM is rather strange, hence my edits. I cannot think of another country being called "former this" or "future that". However, when I saw that the discussion and vote, I stopped editing that article. You see, I am reasonable. Show me objective proof and I am willing to accept the opposing viewpoint. NN 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus or RfC

message: #Sparta and Lakonia - Page 223 by Paul Cartledge...Both Persians had reason to support Sparta against Athens, ... simply be replaced by another Greek superpower with imperial and 'Panhellenic' ambitions. ...
#A State of Love: Homeland Security DJ Farmer - Administrative Theory & Praxis, 2002 - atp.metapress.com... reports how the Athenians made an expedition (38 ships and 3,000 soldiers) against the island of Melos, a colony of Sparta. A relative superpower, Athens was ...
#Cracking the AP World History Exam, 2004-2005 Edition - Page 101 ... Athens became the ancient Greek equivalent of a superpower and dominated the ... In 431 BCE, Pericles pushed Athens into a catastrophic war with Sparta, ...
#On the War for Greek Freedom: Selections from the'histories' S Shirley, JS Romm - 2003 -... Eventually this empire grew so pow- erful and expansive that Sparta, the traditional military superpower of Greece, felt compe lled to check it, and the ...
#The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military ML Cook - 2004 ... Athens did not set out to be the superpower in her world. ... At the conclusion of the Persian War, the alliance was still led by Sparta. ...
#On the War for Greek Freedom: Selections from the 'histories' - Page xvi by Herodotus, Samuel Shirley, James S. Romm - 2003 - 201 pages... this empire grew so powerful and expansive that Sparta, the traditional military superpower of Greece, felt compelled to check it, and the disastrous ...
#The Greek'Third World' S Hornblower - The Classical Review, 1988 - JSTOR... Orte - had tried to turn the spotlight away from the 'superpower' states ... starts from a programmatic desire (witness his exclusion of Athens and Sparta) to avoid ...
#M Lore, JD Fuhrman, NB Webber, LW Davis, DH Gamble … - torch.org... Greek city- states of Athens and Sparta had been at war for nineteen years. Why this war should have dragged on is puzzling. Athens was the superpower of its ...
#Ancient Greek Fortifications 500-300 BC - Page 7 by Nic Fields, Donato Spedaliere - 2006 - 64 pages... Dionysios I captures Rhegion 386-371 BC, DEFEAT OF SPARTA 385 BC ... liberated (Thebes new 'superpower') 378 BC ...
#Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations - Page 92 by M. a. Muqtedar Khan - 2004 - 252 pages...The scenario was clear, Melos was in no position to defend itself and the other superpower, Sparta, was not expected to intervene. ...
Ok, this is becoming boring. There are some 94 books online and some 266 academic papers online which contain both strings ("Sparta" and "superpower"); most of which are explicit and within context. I don't see why there has to be any discussion, or any compromise, or any more FEEDING of this crazy spite initiated by one user who spams pages around trying to find support from uninformed users, against something sourced by 300+ sources. NikoSilver 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supersources