Talk:Aristagoras

Cambridge Ancient History

This is a tough reference to make. The current does not do it. There's no volume number and title. The date, 1970, is of Edition 2 Volume I. Edwards is not editor of Volume IV, which this is. I just happen to have a pdf of Volume IV, 2nd edition, which is dated 1988. The important thing is, the page numbers match these references. So, I am switching us to the real Volume IV, which was released in 1988. There are some questionable bookhouses in India that have concocted something for a Volume IV in 1970. I wouldn't trust them. I wish I could give you a url for the right volume but in general you have to pay for the second edition, which is not cheap. Maybe you can find a pdf floating around somewhere. Edition 1, of course, is for free almost everywhere, but the page numbers are not the same as our editor has used. A lot of the volume has not changed, so you can obtain parallel texts by searching. We don't have to do that here so you can do it on your own if you like. By the way, I do not think there is any such thing as a low-importance article.Botteville (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I found a diff, which I think is a bad ref. The bribes story is not in Edition 2 at all, probably because in Edition 1 the CAH editor calls it "silly." Bribery, however, was at least as common in the ancient world as it is today; i.e., quite common. The story, however, is based on a specific passage in Herodotus. I got two choices, list Edition 1 as well as 2, or go over to Herodotus. I think we ahould dump the silly idea and get back to Herodotus, who seems to be more objective. People do offer bribes in important matters.Botteville (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course! The ref is to Selincourt's translation, not to CAH! The editor was in too much of a hurry.Botteville (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Check for copyright infringement

This looked too good to be true so I checked a few 5-word phrases for copyright infringement. I found some word-for-word copying or near it in the background and Naxos section between our article and Robert D Morritt, Echoes of the Greek Bronze Age. Morritt published his in 2010. I found essentially the same wording in ours of mid-to-late 2009; furthermore, there were some intermediate degrees of development in our article. I think Morritt paid us a visit and published some material of ours under his name, a common occurrence. I didn't find any other serious candidates for plagiarism. There is a certain similarity of some of the article's text to translations of Herodotus. I discount that, as Herodotus is a major source. So far I think the article passes. It has come a long way up.Botteville (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The section on Manville is highly opinionated.

The section titled "Manville’s theory of a power struggle between Aristagoras and Histiaeus" is a negative review of a historian's work. Although it contains interesting information, it's hardly encyclopedic.

I'm not familiar with the page or it's topic, or I might take a shot at correcting this. Suggestions? --Jesdisciple (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

One has to distinguish between Manville's theory of a power struggle and your theories of Manville. We don't give a rat's tail about your theories, only Manville's. You aren't allowed to clean up Manville according to your ideas, only to present him, and you must do it accurately and objectively with references. With that is mind and Manville on your screen, what's the big deal? Refer all you want; you could even quote Manville.Botteville (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Need a consensus -call for volunteers

Chewings72, a senior editor, brought to my attention that the section on thalassocracy pushes the limits of relevance. So I read it again, and remembered my share of the contribution. It seems as though Chewings might be right, not that the material is Irrelevant by any means, but that it would be perhaps more relevant to another article specifically on that. Going further, I discovered that the material on the validity of Herodotus is exactly the same case. Therefore I mention chewing's proposal on my talk page that the entire section on Myre's theory be worked into the Thalassocracy article and mention of it in this article be minimalized. I further add a proposal to treat the material on Herodotus as a source to the article on Herodotus the same way. Then we can see where we stand on Aristagoras and decide perhaps if Aristagoras should be treated separately from the Ionian revolt. I will not pull any punches, these articles and this proposal are not small tasks. It will involve a rewrite of the thalassocracy and Herodotus articles. Also, we're not going to wait forever for your views. Just me and Chewings can be interpreted as a consensus. Chewings, I'm giving you first shot. If you want to do it go ahead. I will put it on my list if I see you are declining. Also, the public should know, anyone who agrees with us can undertake it. Vote now.Botteville (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

OPTION: Leave as is.

OPTION: Move thalassocracy.

OPTION: Move Herodotus.

There has been no feedback for two weeks on Botteville's suggestion for a vote, so I have stuck my neck out and made some major changes to the text of this article. I have transferred material covered academic thoughts on the causes of the Ionian Revolt to the Ionian Revolt article and I have transferred material covered academic thoughts on the topic of thalassocracy to the Thalassocracy article. I will leave it to the Wikipedia community to respond to my changes. Chewings72 (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Notification noted, busy right now.Botteville (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stormchaser909 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Coolbutterfly, Lemurcat111.

— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)