This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
He never studied history at university. he writes novels about vampires and of the genre. when you go down to the references section you only see herodotus and this guy. what noob made this page? his version of events isn't even accepted by most historians!!!! plz different BETTER sources!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I second. Tom Holland is NOT a reliable source. There are countless academic works on the subject, and far better. Domusaurea (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Holland isn't reliable source, neither is Britannica. Herodotus is primary source, so considering 90% of sources are Holland or Herodotus this article represents 19th-century view on Greco-Persian Wars. I can't believe that article has GA status. There are tons of free-acess academic sources related to subject so it's possible to improve it. --HistorNE (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved: withdrawn by requester after clarification of relevant guideline — kwami (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose There's no reqmove on Talk:Greco-Persian Wars as there should be, so I'm posting this here. ENDASH #says specifically, in its last bullet "An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade)." Added bold for emphasis.Skookum1 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Ah, I think I understand your point now. Because 'Greco' is not a valid word by itself it should be hyphenated and not en dashed. For all the other examples I gave this was not the case. My bad! –CWenger (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I"m not familiar with the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War, but if it was a war between the Teutonic Knights and Poland-Lithuania and not a tripartite war between the Knights, Poland and Lithuania as mutual enemies, use of the dash betweeen "Polish" and "Lithuania" is not acceptable as they are not "lexically independent" and are derived from the term Poland-Lithuania, on the talkpage of which, and now at MOSTALK, there is a discussion about. If it's Poland-Lithuania that was at war with the Teutonic Knights, then Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War is the mandated result; clumsy and unsightly perhaps, but then from my perspective so is the rule mandating the dash in so many places it's not found in ordinary English. My feedback is I think the EMDASH "typographic style" concoctions were come up with by those not aware of the many complications their style guide was going to cause, nor aware of a lot of the history and of the names they were going to be affecting; thanks for understanding (unlike others who refuse to see) that MOSDASH doesn't call for the eradication of the hyphen, which is how it's being treated by too many people who actually know little about the subjects whose titles they are affecting/changing.Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Support – this is a clear case of a connection of two names, not one compound names (unlike the less clear Poland-Lithuania); it's wars between the Greek and Persian empires. Some sources do clearly prefer the en dash in such contexts (like this dictionary), indicating that this interpretation is not unprecedented in works that choose hyphen or en dash depending on the relationship of the connected terms. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose; the prefix "Greco-" is not lexically independent and so this compound takes a hyphen, just like "Sino-Japanese", the example given in WP:ENDASH. I expect this opposition will come as a surprise to Skookum1. PowersT 13:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Just to be clear I originally proposed this move but oppose it now. –CWenger (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Throughout much of the article, the alliance of Greek city-states is referred to as the "Allies". I find this rather odd, as it is reminiscent of World War 2 terminology, and moreover, the alliance of Greek city-states is not referred to as the "Allies" in the literature. Terms such as "Greek city-states", "Greeks", or "allied Greek city-states" are used, but I have never seen a source that refers to them simply as the "Allies" with a capital A. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)................
I made the exact same comment for the Battle of Artemisium article, which is replete with references to "the Allies"--is that a Tom Holland term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"Greco-Persian Wars" as the title of this page is blatantly eurocentric and incorrectly implies that these were the first or most significant wars fought between the Achaemenid Empire and the Greeks. The page should be renamed "Greek Reconquest of Macedon, Thrace and Ionia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This is further strengthened by the statement that appears at the beginning of the article (and Google search results which include this page): "Greeks are awesome." Someone has included a template or some such that includes this text automatically since it is not part of the editable text of this article. Pfrowe (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I had always heard these conflicts referred to as the Persian Wars, and indeed that already redirects here. So I was going to go ahead and put in an WP:RM. The main obstacle I could see to that was the potential confusion for other Persian Wars, especially the Roman–Persian Wars. But if that's seen as a major problem, perhaps Persian Wars should be a dab. As such, I think the status quo WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is quite correct. Some of the searches below for "Persian Wars" do refer to the Roman wars, but the majority do not. The current form is somewhat more common in a general Google search, but much less in more focused searches:
"persian wars" -wikipedia
"greco-persian wars" -wikipedia
That said, it's logical that the shorter form would return more hits since it's included within the longer one—which is why the general Google hits are especially confusing. While I still suspect "Persian Wars" is the WP:COMMONNAME, factors like this give me enough pause to not formally request a move at this point. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)